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

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:59:35 -0800 the ET form known as Eric 
Gisin<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent a radio signal across the vast 
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.

> "Meteorite Debris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Nonsense. There is plenty of easily extracted oil in tar sands.

EROEI (energy returned on energy invested)

> > 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.

We have not seen the gas drama play out in North America yet. Gas, as 
the source of energy to develop tar sands, is facing a cliff like 
future as we speak. See <http://www.dieoff.org/page230.pdf>.

At present tar sand are estimated to have an EROEI of 1.5. A table of 
EROEI can be found at <http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-
economics.asp>. About 3 barrels of oil are produced for every 2 
barrels in equivalent energy. What does this mean? For every 900,000 
barrels of syn oil 600,000 of that are needed (or an equivalent) are 
needed to go back into the production. Presently the USA consumes 
about 20 million barrels of oil a day with over 60% being imported. 
That is a shortfall of 12 million. To get 12 million barrels a day 
from tar sands you would have to produce 36 million barrels a day (24 
million being the cost and 12 million the profit). To pay for the 
production of 36 million barrels you need to recover costs from 12 
million barrels. That is why eyes are looking at the Alberta natural 
gas fields but gas is an issue itself. 
 
There are economic consequences from extracting energy from sources 
with low EROEI.

> > 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.

Insults are instead of reasonable arguments. Your use of them means 
your arguments can not be too strong. If you have good arguments make 
them. If you have good references cite them. If you have good maths 
show it.

Now about your trees. I do not have figures for recoverable oil from 
trees per acre. Do you? How acres per day? And can you allow for say 
2% growth in consumption from the trees. Can the same acreage 50 years 
later yield 3 times as much as it did 50 years previously? Can you 
produce 9 times as much after 100 years? I am sure you can boost yield 
but at a cost of energy and that is a fly in the  ointment. What is 
the EROEI for this, with and without yield enhancement? I have not 
read about this but I assume you have all the facts since you made the 
assertion.

It is known that another bio-fuel ethanol has an EROEI of less than 1. 
It produces less energy than was used to grow it. This problem 
highlights a reality of our age. Once we sourced our energy needs from 
the biosphere, including that needed to grow food. Now we use fossil 
fuels products to turn land into food. We have added to the total 
energy by dipping deeply into the ground and can not now live on ONLY 
what is on the ground. Our collective footprint is too large. It is no 
coincidence that population has increased from 1 billion to 6 billion 
since the industrial revolution, and along with that per capita 
consumption in many countries. 
 
> 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.

These have been studied by other people in detail. So list them.
 
> Spell out your stupid 5 letter acronym next time.

EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) For the best oil it can be 
up to 50. For shale oil and tar sands it can be low to marginal or 
negative. I had assumed you had read the original post where the 
acronym EROEI was defined since you replied to the post, and so I did 
not define it again.

An excellent book on the subject is Richard Heinberg "The Party is 
Over"
 

-- 
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417, 
Chief EAC prophet - 
Evil Atheist Conspiracy 
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/

Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov

Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA  72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302  AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943