Re: The Anazari experience: (was: Re: Ten trillion tonnes of methane hydrates in the oceans)

"Meteorite Debris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Nonsense. There is plenty of easily extracted oil in tar sands.
>
> EROEI. Reread the piece and pay attention to the oil shale part which,
> like tar sands, has a low or marginal EROEI.
>
There are no subsidies yet they make money in Alberta. Therefore it IS
practical and economical.

> For more on Canadian tar sands read
> <http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Ivanhoe_02-4.pdf>. This newsletter from
> the Hubbert School of Mines states the dilemma facing the tar sands
> production. To use Alberta natural gas to develop the tar sands and
> deny US and Canadian customers these resource which is now being draw
> down quickly and destroy demand so that syn oil can be produced or
> deny the opportunity to produce syn oil so that chem industries and
> power stations can have enough supply of natural gas.
>
> > There are billions of tons of trees on the west coast that just burn up.
> > There was once a huge wood distillation industry that can be revived.
>
> Once again EROEI. Agriculture (from which you can source SUSTAINABLE
> bio inputs for bio-fuel) is fossil fuel intensive. Grown bio-fuels are
> then EROEI negative. Wild harvesting of virgin forest (which would
> avoid the fossil fuel inputs problem) is not a long term sustainable
> source. With your example you have a choice for energy sources -
> mining forests or fossil fuels.
>
Retard. You cut down all the trees, hire some hippies to replant, and there
are more trees in 50 years. Repeat until the sun goes nova.

If the forests burn every 10-20 years but still thrives, we can obviously
harvest it instead.

> > Just two examples, there are plenty more.
>
> Like ?

You have plenty of time. Just look.

Spell out your stupid 5 letter acronym next time.