Comments on: In bituminous tar sands we trust http://rhinocrisy.org/2005/09/in-bituminous-tar-sands-we-trust/ Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:07:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Arpit http://rhinocrisy.org/2005/09/in-bituminous-tar-sands-we-trust/comment-page-1/#comment-2731 Arpit Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:24:13 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=431#comment-2731 hi.. quite a late response.. eh!! well i'd like to know the source for the tar sands issue.. m doing a research project on the same n wud seek ur help on the same... thanks... hi.. quite a late
response.. eh!! well i’d like to know the source for the tar sands issue.. m doing a research project on the same n wud seek ur help on the same…

thanks…

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2005/09/in-bituminous-tar-sands-we-trust/comment-page-1/#comment-212 Anonymous Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:11:42 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=431#comment-212 There's <a HREF="http://www.acr-alberta.com/Projects/Oil_Sands_Technology_Roadmap/OSTR_report.pdf" REL="nofollow">this</a> , page 43 (51 of PDF). Note that better than half of that gas usage comes from actual in-situ production (i.e. for heating water for steam injection, etc.), so even if you don't do any upgrading you're still incurring a substantial, unavoidable gas cost. You're correct in that this is way, way more inefficient than conventional crude, which takes about .05 barrels of oil equivalent to make a single barrel. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="rednblack at alum dot mit dot edu">saurabh</a> There’s this , page 43 (51 of PDF). Note that better than half of that gas usage comes from actual in-situ production (i.e. for heating water for steam injection, etc.), so even if you don’t do any upgrading you’re still incurring a substantial, unavoidable gas cost. You’re correct in that this is way, way more inefficient than conventional crude, which takes about .05 barrels of oil equivalent to make a single barrel. 

Posted by saurabh

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2005/09/in-bituminous-tar-sands-we-trust/comment-page-1/#comment-211 Anonymous Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:18:19 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=431#comment-211 Holy Crap, that's inefficient. Links? <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://ssrdatta.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="sahelidatta at hotmail dot com">Saheli</a> Holy Crap, that’s inefficient. Links? 

Posted by Saheli

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2005/09/in-bituminous-tar-sands-we-trust/comment-page-1/#comment-210 Anonymous Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:10:28 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=431#comment-210 Err... sorry, that's inputs per barrel of oil produced. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="rednblack at alum dot mit dot edu">saurabh</a> Err… sorry, that’s inputs per barrel of oil produced. 

Posted by saurabh

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2005/09/in-bituminous-tar-sands-we-trust/comment-page-1/#comment-209 Anonymous Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:46:27 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=431#comment-209 Saurabh, I'm confused about this:<br/><br/><i>We're still stuck with the problem of natural gas. In order to get bitumen up to snuff, it's necessary to add hydrogen, to get the higher grade of fuel needed for jets, automobiles, etc. This requires gas inputs (as do other parts of the process e.g. heating water for steam injection). Right now, gas inputs for hydrogen upgrading alone amount to 400 cubic feet; some day, in order to produce high quality fuel this may reach as high as 1700 cubic feet. 5487 cubic feet of gas is considered to be one barrel of oil equivalent. That's a significant energy input, merely to upgrade bitumen to the standard necessary for high quality fuels.</i> <br/><br/>Inputs per what? How many barrels of oil does one get out of the tar sand for the expenditure of 400-1700 cubic feet of natural gas? <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://ssrdatta.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="sahelidatta at hotmail dot com">Saheli</a> Saurabh, I’m confused about this:

We’re still stuck with the problem of natural gas. In order to get bitumen up to snuff, it’s necessary to add hydrogen, to get the higher grade of fuel needed for jets, automobiles, etc. This requires gas inputs (as do other parts of the process e.g. heating water for steam injection). Right now, gas inputs for hydrogen upgrading alone amount to 400 cubic feet; some day, in order to produce high quality fuel this may reach as high as 1700 cubic feet. 5487 cubic feet of gas is considered to be one barrel of oil equivalent. That’s a significant energy input, merely to upgrade bitumen to the standard necessary for high quality fuels. 

Inputs per what? How many barrels of oil does one get out of the tar sand for the expenditure of 400-1700 cubic feet of natural gas? 

Posted by Saheli

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2005/09/in-bituminous-tar-sands-we-trust/comment-page-1/#comment-208 Anonymous Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:00:41 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=431#comment-208 The great thing about Canadian tar sands is we get to watch the market assign relative prices to oil and water. <br/><br/>You know if we use all of Canada's fresh water and natural gas mining oil, that's ok, because burning oil and gas creates water. We can drink that. So can the salmon. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="rhinocrisy.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">hedgehog</a> The great thing about Canadian tar sands is we get to watch the market assign relative prices to oil and water.

You know if we use all of Canada’s fresh water and natural gas mining oil, that’s ok, because burning oil and gas creates water. We can drink that. So can the salmon. 

Posted by hedgehog

]]>