Big Oil

I'm honestly wondering what everyones problem with big oil right now? I work in the Alberta oil fields that are dubbed "dirty oil" because of how it is removed from the ground. But do people realize that oil from Alberta, Canada is domestically more secure than from a corrupt government in the middle east? Or do I have to listen to an environmentalist bitch about how bad it is to get oil from Alberta before they realize that its just as bad if not worse to have it come over to the US by ocean bound tanker? You have no idea how stringent the environmental standards are on the job site I am on, we spend 30 minutes trying to find oil pans to put under vehicles so no fluids leak. We recycle everything... EVERYTHING... wood, plastic, metals.... This a wiki on the site I am on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam-assisted_gravity_drainage ... the environmental foot print is way less than conventional mining and less land area is used. At least oil companies are trying to develop better ways of removing it from the ground. And what about the source? What about developing better technology on consumption of oil?

Can someone please enlighten me as to why Alberta oils is any different or how "bad" it may really be.... or have I become brainwashed....

 

Two big issues for Alberta oil that I know of off the top of my head:

1) Sour gas. Leaks occur and the industry has tried to cover it up. Not cool.
2) The Oil Sands. Sure there is a lot of oil there but to get it, the land isn't drilled, it's strip mined. Then, to extract the oil from the bitumen, it requires a lot of energy and water. Environmentally, not all that sound.

I am sure the more informed can come up with longer lists.

All of that said, yes, it's better politically to source oil from North American than it is from the Middle East, for obvious reasons. When environmentalists have an issue with Alberta oil, their issue isn't that Middle Eastern oil is better, it's that ALL petroleum is having a negative impact on the planet's health.

Given their choice, environmentalists would like to see alternative forms of energy developed and the reduction, if not cessation, of all petroleum harvesting.

 

i'm fine with it. the more oil the better at the moment. we are in an economic crisis and the last thing we need is for oil to hit $200+ a barrel. oil prices hit the lower and middle class the hardest just like everything.

 

The attitudes like the above are my problem with it. We could cut our oil use by 50% in two years if we wanted to. Yet, the lazy, addicted, and greedy people don't want to change, and they don't care about any consequences.

 

50% in 2 years? that sounds like a death sentence to the economy and our way of life in america. how exactly is it possible? there's no alternative energy on the horizon that i know of that could reach our current demand. we are addicted to oil, and cutting it off almost cold turkey doesn't sound like an effective environmental, national security, or economic plan.

our entire country relies on oil and using a lot of it. to cut it in half would mean a ton of lost jobs and a lot of hungry mouths. i dont buy into the global warming reasons to cut oil, but that's another debate.

 

I'll get back to the Alberta tar sands in the next post...

The death sentence to our economy is sending $1 billion dollars a day to foreign countries (yes Canada and Mexico are part of that, but the US dollar used to buy more in Canada...). $1 billion dollars circulating in our economy would do a lot.

The main users of oil:

(real numbers)
47% gasoline for use in automobiles
23% heating oil and diesel fuel
18% other products, which includes petrochemical feedstock—products derived from petroleum principally for the manufacturing of chemicals, synthetic rubber and plastics
10% jet fuel
4% propane
3% asphalt
(/real numbers)

So, to eliminate 50%, we could make automobiles much more efficient, creating jobs in auto factories and new designs. Existing technology like start-stop, bio fuels, and turbos could help. Electric commuter cars that should cost under $10k would be a big part of it. It might take a few years, but could move a lot faster than the rate things are going. Synthetic oil, fewer oil changes, recycling oil, fixing oil leaks, making sure tires are inflated, or using graphite or lithium as a lubricant... Even the concept of walking or bicycling to different places should be considered. I am saving a lot of money because of that. Carpooling works too. (For some reason the couple I work with drive two separate cars 20 miles each way...) (25% of the 50% would come from this)

To reduce diesel fuel, you need to modernize rail transport for cargo and passengers. Trains should be hauling loads cross country, but it isn't setup for that right now. (5% cut of our total usage)

Heating oil use can be reduced by better insulating homes, adding geothermal or solar thermal heat, natural gas furnaces, or switching to something else. (another 5% cut of our total usage)

There are other fertilizers and pesticides that could be used instead of the petroleum based ones. (2% cut to not change much)

Jet fuel could be cut a little by using modern and bigger planes to carry more passengers in fewer flights. If we had a high speed electric train network between airports within 1 hour, that would cut down on the number of short hop flights. (2%)

And boats need to change. Big cruise ships getting 8 gallons per mile, idling away at port, and cargo ships... Even sailboats are using their diesel motor way more than should be needed. People are just in a rush everywhere because of schedules, but that is another debate. (5% cut of our total)

So that is 44% that probably could be done pretty easily without much impact after the initial switch to modern or more efficient technology.

The other 6% savings would come from not having to mine, drill, ship, refine, transport, and pump all of that oil everywhere.

I made up the percentages obviously, but it still is possible without much sacrifice. It would have made more sense in 2003 to do this instead of invade Iraq to secure oil for China to reduce global demand and worry about oil not being traded in USD...

 

properly inflating tires and fixing oil leaks aren't going to do anything to fix the problem.
everyone uses gasoline, to think we can switch over to electric cars that cost 10k within 2 years isn't realistic. current electrical cars cost $40k or so from what i've seen. 50% of our oil consumption comes from everyday use in automobiles. nothing you have said can get us away from that.

you have a lot of great ideas to get us off oil, but there's nothing there based in reality of what could happen within 2 year or even longer. switching over will cost a ton of money and who's going to pay for it? insulating a house isn't cheap, buying an electric car isn't cheap, rail isn't cheap because our nation isnt set up to do it like other countries.

i'm ok with using different energies but there's nothing you presented that is in the realm of possibilities.

 

The big problem in with the big oil companies. It is very hard to do anything to change what they want to do, or to make them lose money... And a business that can not lose money, and has billions of dollars in profits to buy media, politicians, and scientists off are the big problems. And the oil companies and their executives aren't shy about pushing their political agenda.

You have the 20-30% of people who complain and scream that oil should be a right in the constitution if we prevent new oil exploration for 6 months in the Gulf of Mexico after a huge spill that wasn't adequately prepared for... If demand for oil goes down, and the price goes down, they will just start to use more and more of it. And heaven forbid we don't subsidize this type of exploration to 'keep gas prices low'...

The next part is how oil became an 'investment'. Since an investor can now hold onto oil and not sell it until it gets to a certain price, and this price sets the new base price for stations to sell it at, you can get a lot of big money (401ks, pensions) in this, since we know that people are still going to buy oil for the next few years, it is a pretty safe bet that oil won't go down. This causes the price of a barrel to go above the price where it makes these new mining techniques profitable. Even if there isn't a consumer demand, there was a investor demand in the 2007-2008 time frame to flee the housing crash. I'm not even sure if there are any regulations preventing a big oil company to use their profits to 'buy' oil to prop up the price.

As for the Alberta Tar Sands. The big problems there was the strip mining at first, what kind of 'solvents' and water useage does the SAGD process inject, what does that do to the water table and runoff into streams? Alberta was becoming a 'company' town outside of Calgary when I was there. You had two groups of people, those who worked for the oil companies, and those that didn't. They were causing home prices to soar, and the home construction people liked it. But, you soon had one group that have financial motivations starting to vote in large numbers for candidates favorable to their viewpoints on environmental regulations and the like.

Now they want to build a pipeline like they have in Alaska. How can doing that be more cost effective than some of my suggestions in the post above?
--- merged: Nov 9, 2011 5:45 AM ---

It doesn't have to be 'cheap'. We are hemorrhaging money that is leaving the country and not coming back. And we can do things quickly if we wanted to. It doesn't take that much effort to caulk drafty windows, instal a programmable thermostat to lower the temperature at night and when at work, hire someone to blow in more insulation in an attic (or do it yourself), upgrade to newer windows or doors.

You can always reduce the speed limit to 55mph again or ration gas...let's see how well that goes over.

Doing nothing isn't really an option, since it is causing problems that people don't have to live with because it's not in their backyard.

 

Love this discussion.....

Getting to the oil pipelines, upgrades are needed on older lines, building new ones is the most cost effective way. The SAGD drilling from what I've seen on the engineered drawings is that 90% of the water is recycled to be used again, it doesn't have any mining portion to it other than the drill site to get the pipe into the ground, comparatively if you see some of the mining sites here from a satellite standpoint, you can physically see that SAGD drilling is a much more viable alternative, its relatively new and has been tested successfully, which is my viewpoint that it is a viable option in the short term.

Cutting 50% in two years is definitely not viable, I would say 10 years would be stretching it but that would require a huge realignment of the economy to push towards better usage of technology to change and consumers asking for it, and right now with the state of both (Canada and US) our economies are not ready for that switch. I'm not against alternative options, I'm against people bitching and complaining about how its so terrible yet to go protest, they use oil to get there, their signs whether paper or not, use oil to manufacture those signs.... its a huge circle and dependancy upon oil....

 

The goal isn't to eliminate oil (well not everyone's goal is). So paper manufacturing and diesel/electric trains are ok. We just want people to use it smarter and realize that there will be a time in the future when we will not have these high levels of oil. It shouldn't have to be done like Europe does and tax it to $7-8 gallon, people should take steps to reduce their oil use anyway. And there are political and environmental problems from our addiction to oil.

The protestors might have taken the metro to the protest...