Keystone Pipeline

The Sticky Problems With Tar Sands

http://blogs.discovery.com/.a/6a00d8341bf67c53ef015391401b1c970b-800wi

I don't understand why the world would invest so much money into an infrastructure that produces so little instead of looking to the future of energy. Oh wait, yes I do, the oil industry has powerful lobbyists and money.

Still, this just seems insane to me, especially when you read the facts of how this process works.


http://news.discovery.com/earth/what-ar ... gn=rssnws1

It's simple. Western civilization runs on oil. If we do not get it China or someone else will.

Barring some breakthrough, you cannot feed the world on the future of energy.

Like NC says, that pipeline could go to the Pacific Ocean and fuel China and Asia instead of us.

Angela, what future energy is there that can replace HC derived energy? It's not wind or solar, nor is it hydrogen, a fuel that requires an even larger investment in infrastructure and energy to produce it.

There are a few spins in the Discovery news story. First of all if the tar sands were at depth, they would be mobile (or liquid hydrocarbons) that could be produced the conventional way through a well bore. It is no different than the parafin (log chained HC being produced from the Green River shale in Wyoming. That oil needs to be transported in special trucks that keep it heated as otherwise it would solidify at surface temperature and pressure. Another issue with the article are the numbers. Tar sands are unconsolidated sand. There is very little water present in them and the volume of sand, clay and water is NOT 90 percent but between 60 and 70 percent. Very little water if any is present in tar sand as the sand particles are oil wet instead of water wet. The sand is no different than that which you find on a beach today and the closest stacking of sand grains possible without filling up the holes between the grains with cement equates to a solid volume between 60 and 70 percent. Locally clay may be present to reduce the pore volume below 30 percent. Also, long-chain hydrocarbons require more refining to get gasoline, but they also yield a ton of other products like long-chained HC waxes that are not present in most crude oil. So the Discovery article simplifies the story by focusing only on gasoline production from the tar sands and it completely misrepresents the volume of solid HC that is present in tar sands. If there were no profit in refining tar sand, a company would not be doing it. Detection and evaluation of Hydrocarbons, and Estimation of porosity and permeability are courses I teach for the oil industry.

The oil industry has money because you and I are the ones that give it to them by buying products. For those who want to invest in alternative energy or keep oil companies from making a profit, you can start by not using hydrocarbon-derived products. No plastic, no fuel, no jet plane rides, eliminate some pharmaceuticals, etc. etc. You would be astounded by how much you would have to change your life style to eliminate the use of HC. It's not just gasoline or diesel fuel. Even your electric cars use plastics in their car bodies and engines. Who is fooling who?

I do understand what a petroleum based society the world is, that is what worries me so much. The world is running out of this resource and we are not planning for it. I do agree that everyone is "fooled" by thinking that driving an "electric" car is better - where do they get the electricity for it? most don't think that broadly. that worries me, a lot actually.

You'd think mankind would be so much further ahead by now. I do think China will the leader in technologies of all kinds in the future. They have been able to leap frog over many of the original technologies when they came on line.

As mentioned by SC in another thread, look at how Brazil is making ethanol from sugar cane. We could grow this in several of our states and it is much more economical than with corn. We have synthetic oils so synthetic fuels may be on the horizon.

HEARTLESS wrote: As mentioned by SC in another thread, look at how Brazil is making ethanol from sugar cane. We could grow this in several of our states and it is much more economical than with corn. We have synthetic oils so synthetic fuels may be on the horizon.

That may well be, but it is not new technology. What it does do is shift food production to oil production while leaving us in the same energy quandry. If it were possible to harvest hydrogen from space or our solar system, we may be able to move to a hydrogen based energy system. I doubt it is viable. Currently the only viable massive energy production we know of is nuclear. Perhaps what we need is not new energy technology as much as new technology for making nuclear energy perfectly safe. Force field containment, etc.

Is someone trying to educate a rock on this thread? We invested billions in solar energy over the past two years with chief knucklehead Obama....and we are investing billions for railroads that have zero ROI......but no outcry from the Wily Rock.

HEARTLESS wrote: As mentioned by SC in another thread, look at how Brazil is making ethanol from sugar cane. We could grow this in several of our states and it is much more economical than with corn. We have synthetic oils so synthetic fuels may be on the horizon.

GM’d Algae

residenttroll wrote: Is someone trying to educate a rock on this thread? We invested billions in solar energy over the past two years with chief knucklehead Obama....and we are investing billions for railroads that have zero ROI......but no outcry from the Wily Rock.

Agree on the first part because frankly, American companies cant compete with China. Lots of implications. Then, as far as railroads go, it will be a booming industry in the next ten years. MARK MY WORDS. More sophisticated technology and infrastructure and more demand for shipping of materials, whether assembled or raw.

Edit: Remember railroads BUILT this nation, they will be here till the end. :thumbsup: