36 comments on The Status of Canadian Oil Production
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
36 comments on The Status of Canadian Oil Production
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I was told by the person who sent me the links that this is a one year test. According to him, the test is underway and going well. These are some more recent items:
http://www.petrobank.com/webdocs/news_2007/PBG_2007_06_18_WHITESANDS_P3_...
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=759473
http://www.oilsandsreview.com/articles.asp?ID=449
Gail, the figures I've read say they are producing 6 bbls a day of water for each barrel of syncrude, so the volume of waste has to be at least twice that of the volume of syncrude produced, as the water is mainly used to make a slurry for transportation.
IMHO, 80% doesn't cut it. We stopped using open pits for disposal in Texas about 40 years ago, but not before the seepage trashed huge amounts of shallow sands and surface water. The tar in the tar sands is a coating on the grains of sand and clay, so the amount of waste starts with the volume of waste at least equal to the volume of sand that is processed. It sure would be nice if they handled an environmental disaster before it became the biggest environmental disaster on the North American Continent. The Exxon Valdez is insignificant compared to this.
Bob Ebersole
In the press release they stated a more than 50% oil cut from their first two well pairs, they injected very little water in the process.
Exactly rain song, from the reports gail posted very little water is needed in the new process AND they are getting a higher amount of oil and a higher grade out. Here here for technology.
Where's the beef?!
new process ? air injection, fireflood, insitu combustion, call it what you like (one guy i know called it farflood...... far = texan for fire). this has been tried since at least the 1950's.
some of the problems( as related to insitu combustion in an "oil" reservoir)
1) the combustion process tends to sweep only the upper portion of the oil zone.
2)much of the heat generated is wasted. everything is heated including the rock above and below the oil zone.
3) mobility. the combustion gases have a much lower viscosity than the "displaced" oil.
4) capital requirements although this is most likely a fraction of the capital requirments for tar pit mining.
but much greater than "conventional" oil production (of course the capital requirments for drilling for oil at the north pole are much greater than for "conventional" oil production also.
5) operational problems corrosion, scale deposition, polution, sand production, carbon and wax or tar deposits
hazardous gases (such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulphide) and tubing and casing failure due to excessive temperatures.
maybe these problems can be overcome but not in time to save us from peak oil. go ahead and park the suv.