CBS reporting on Canadas HUGE oil reserves

[Puglover]

in the form of "oil sand" Sand that is saturated in oil. Uh oh....I wonder if Idiot Prince and Crashcart will be declaring Canada a terrorist state soon.

[AX10]

1. No. Just right wingers from America screwing around with..

Canada's electoral process will bring about a right wing (facsist) government.

[Telly Savalas]

13. Why do so many people here like to fantasize about unlikely worst

case scenarios? There's a consensus among the pundits that we'll be looking at a Conservative minority government. In other words, more than half of the seats in the House will be occupied by fiercely anti-fascist MP's. A Con minority government would suck on a lot of fronts, but only dystopia-fetishists would argue that it could exercise enough power to be anything remotely fascist.

[dsc]

20. Oh really?

The Bloc cares about one thing and one thing only. While the majority of that party has turned out to be quite liberal, I am sure that some of them can be split on issues. Certainly gay marriage will be gone, and you are deluded if you think that they won't get their way on things like defense spending and foreign policy.

[Telly Savalas]

33. Same sex marriage isn't going anywhere

Defense spending might go up because many folks on both the Left and Right believe that it would enhance Canada's ability to engage in peacekeeping missions. (Something that most Canadians take pride in--so it's not like this is a Rightwing issue. We're not saddled with a bloated defense budget.)

The Cons can only go so far bribing the Bloc, because if they get carried away doing that, they'll get their asses handed to them in all the other provinces in the next election. Without bribing the Bloc, though, the Cons will be unable to get them to rubber-stamp any agenda that smells of Rightwing foolishness.

[AX10]

26. How many seats will the Cons win?

The fewer the better.

[Telly Savalas]

34. Whoops. Didn't get to this before the election.

The 124 seats the Cons won is about in the ballpark of where I thought it would be. Although I thought they'd be making more gains in Ontario and much fewer in Quebec.

I was wearing rose coloured glasses and held hope until the last minute that the Liberals might eke out another minority government. Not so much for fear of Bush North, but rather because of issues like the child care program and transit funding.

[firefox]

2. They put money behind Paul Martin for a bloodless conquest nt

[CatholicEdHead]

4. Would it really be a "Anchluss" with Canada?

[ryan_cats]

12. Who happens to be the Canadian Chalabi?

Who happens to be the Canadian Chalabi?

Are there rape rooms and WMDs? Did we sell Canada nerve gas, too?

[Telly Savalas]

19. Michael Ignatieff

A (big-L only)Liberal candidate that the more right wing elements view as the future of their party. In the same way that Chalabi hadn't set foot in Iraq for years before the invasion, Ignatieff has spent the last couple of decades living in the U.S., lecturing at Harvard.

He supported Bush's war, and I wouldn't be surprised if he had a Christopher Hitchensesque "nuanced" argument for the United States invasion of Canada.

No rape rooms or WMD's, but the Leafs and Habs have both been playing like shit lately if that counts for anything.

[stevedeshazer]

3. The Conquest of Canada will not be over oil.

Water.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[acmavm]

6. You're oh so very right about that one. I always wonder why people

don't pay more attention to the problems that are emerging because of lack of water, or water rights, or diversion of streams, or anything else to do with water.

Water is the bottom line most necessary totally irreplacable resource.

[jimshoes]

7. Look out you hosers

We need your oil eh.

[TX-RAT]

27. self deleted

[xultar]

8. Well for fuck sake. When do we attack?

[sweetheart]

18. a new procounsel is being appointed tomorrow "harper"

With the appointment, canada will then become a territory of the USA
with US corporations getting superior rights over mere canadians.

[TX-RAT]

28. We're ready.

I'll grab a handful of West Tx. good old boys, our plan is to head into Manitoba and take over the Crown Royal Distillery. We'll hold up there until further orders.

[Ilsa]

9. Isn't the harvesting of oil sands like scraping the bottom of the barrel?

I thought oil sands were supposed to be a last resort. It would seem that we are there.

[Canuckistanian]

14. Yup, it is

The process for removing the sand has been around for a while and they've actually been producing for a while now.

But it's expensive.

Now, the high oil prices have made it possible to go into high production.
Now, you'd think Americans would be in on the ground floor with this.

But it's being quietly bought up by.... China.

[Strelnikov_]

21. Pretty Much What T. Boone Said Peak Oil

Admitted Peak Oil in a roundabout way.

Bob, If you take a tablet and you put on it where is supply gonna come from, that we don't know about today, and you put down all the optimistic points, that tablet will be basically blank.

[ryan_cats]

10. I can see it now...

I can see it now...

A terrorist attack from across the Canadian border and us having to invade them to protect their people.

Isn't Canada's vote tomorrow? I sure hope they don't have the diabolical Diebold machines.

[sharp_stick]

23. Nope, no Diebold

All Canadian elections are done with paper and pen, unless it's changed over the last decade. Mark an X and leave the booth.

It's a little easier to do this up there because they don't usually have 36 positions to vote for and a dozen or so propositions.

Nice and simple, just the way an election should be.

[Democrats_win]

11. Canada has been processing it for years. Another report indicated that

it's becoming a problem. I can't remember if it's that it takes too much energy to process or if it's creating too many environmental problems.

[upi402]

15. Time to blame Canada

Sheila: Times have changed
Our kids are getting worse
They won't obey their parents
They just want to fart and curse!
Sharon: Should we blame the government?
Liane: Or blame society?
Dads: Or should we blame the images on TV?
Sheila: No, blame Canada
Everyone: Blame Canada
Sheila: With all their beady little eyes
And flappin' heads so full of lies
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Sheila: We need to form a full assault
Everyone: It's Canada's fault!
Sharon: Don't blame me
For my son Stan
He saw the darn cartoon
And now he's off to join the Klan!
Liane: And my boy Eric once
Had my picture on his shelf
But now when I see him he tells me to fuck myself!
Sheila: Well, blame Canada
Everyone: Blame Canada
Sheila: It seems that everything's gone wrong
Since Canada came along
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Copy Guy: They're not even a real country anyway
Ms. McCormick: My son could've been a doctor or a lawyer rich and true,
Instead he burned up like a piggy on the barbecue
Everyone: Should we blame the matches?
Should we blame the fire?
Or the doctors who allowed him to expire?
Sheila: Heck no!
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Sheila: With all their hockey hullabaloo
Liane: And that bitch Anne Murray too
Everyone: Blame Canada
Shame on Canada
For...
The smut we must stop
The trash we must bash
The Laughter and fun
Must all be undone
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before somebody thinks of blaming uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus

[Harry S Truman]

16. What a total piss-poor report

No mention of Canadian politics. No map showing where they're talking about.
No mention Canada is ALREADY our No. 1 oil importer.
No sufficient environmental angle.
Just Bob Simon getting wet over a really big truck.
Typical 60 Minutes "TV for 5-year-olds" simplicity.
"Ack"

[Strelnikov_]

24. And Only A Single Sentence Addressing The Miserable EROEI

The epitaph of the first half of the 21st Century will read "They made the mistake of applying the laws of Economics to a Thermodynamic problem".

[JohnyCanuck]

31. The impact of EROEI on oil production

When an energy source that has an EROEI ratio of 4:1 is replaced with another, alternative, energy source which has an EROEI ratio of 2:1, twice as much gross energy has to be produced in order to reap the same net quantity of resulting usable energy.

This can be worse than it looks. Consider that I inherited one barrel of oil, and the EROEI was 4:1. I could use my one barrel and end up with four barrels. Now consider that the EROEI was 2:1, and I still wanted four barrels. Well, I can use my one barrel to extract two barrels, then I have to use those two barrels to extract the four barrels that I want. Thus with an EROEI of 2:1, it has cost me three barrels to gain four; whereas with an EROEI of 4:1, it only cost me one barrel.

This means that when a society moves to using energy sources that have lower EROEIs, the actual amount of energy available to use (for manufacturing, transport, heating etc.) inevitably will diminish.

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp#eroei

The general consensus seems to be that the EROEI for tar sands oil runs around 1.5:1. That is, for every 2 barrels' worth of energy into the tar sands extraction process, you get 3 barrels of tar sands oil out the other end. In contrast, for the EROEI of oil from traditional oil based land wells I've seen figures ranging from from 30:1 up to as much as 100:1 for an old time Texas or Saudi type gusher.

In other words, in the old days you could get between 30 to 100 barrels worth of oil energy back by investing just one barrel's worth of oil energy in exploration, development of oil wells etc. Now the situation is so tight that they are willing to invest 1 barrel's worth of energy to get back only 1.5 barrels of oil from the tar sands. If, as the non-peak oilers and the abiotic theorists believe, there were still plentiful supplies of oil available for EROEIs of 30:1, it would be strange for the high stakes players in the energy industry to be spending so much effort and money developing the expensive tar sands oil for a measly energy profit of only half a barrel for every barrel expended, whereas presumably they would still have the option to go elsewhere and get back 30 barrels for every barrel expended.

[raccoon]

29. thank you, Harry S. nt

[SPKrazy]

17. Oil Sand, Oil Shale, all take a lot of energy to process

I would think that aiming at Venezuela is more likely for this cabal

20 years from now if RWers are still in charge (God help us) and they haven't destroyed the world, then they may go after Canada.

[stevedeshazer]

22. Crashcart has already been ogling the Alberta Tar Sands. Big Time.

Cheney joins the oil sands pilgrimage

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050817.wxrcheney17/BNStory/Business

[Godai Kyoko]

25. old news

Canada has lots of oil in lots of different places Oil shale and oil sands exist here in the States too.

The trouble is getting it out of the ground. I made the mistake back in the 80's of investing in a canadian oil shale developing company. I started out with 100 shares, and after several reverse splits I have one, worth about 1.50.

The last time I bothered to reat the annual report, they were hopeful that they could get the production cost down to $55 per barrell sometime soon.

I no longer invest in alternitive energy. I can loose just as much money on the lottery, but since the state gets 65 cents of every dollar I spend on that, I am being a good ciitizen and supporting local school math programs. And there is still the one in 35,000,000 I might win. Which is better than I have done with alterntive energy.

[dtotire]

30. Cost of Oil From Oil Sands

I heard that it costs $20/barrel to produce oil from oil sands. Another source would be to manufacture oil from coal, using the process the Nazis used, and that is being considered by Pennsylvania and Montana. This would be more expensive, around $30/barrel.

[Strelnikov_]

32. The Only Reason Tar Sands Are Currently Cost Effective

is access to relatively cheap natural gas. When this source drys up, so will the 'profit'.

Coal and nuclear have been bandied about as a source of process energy, which I question.

Why burn coal to create process energy to produce a liquid fuel with a EROEI of 1 or 2 when you can make a liquid fuel from the coal directly with an EROEI of 5-6, all for double (or more) the global warming gas generation and terrestrial environmental costs?

Why crash atoms to create process energy to produce a liquid fuel with a EROEI of 1 or 2 when you can use the nuclear energy generated as process energy in ethanol production to make a liquid fuel with a similar EROEI, with nearly neutral global warming impact?

I have yet to see a compelling reason to consider tar sands or pre-oil shale as an energy source. Maybe as petrochemical feedstock source, but not an energy source.

In the energy starved world of 10 years from now, the thought of throwing away an energy source with an EROEI of 5-6 to produce an energy source with an EROEI of 1-2 will be laughable.