billp37

Tar Sands: How Much Is Out There and Can Nuclear Help?

I read on Intenet

"I discussed EROI in an article on Peak Oil, published Nov. 8, 2006. In general, EROI for tar sands exploitation is extremely low, on the order of 5-10%, as efficient relative-to-traditiona... oil recovery of conventional petroleum. Is it worth it to make such massive investments to recover bitumen that yields such a low “energy profit”? Obviously, the development is occurring. But it is still certainly worth it to ask the question. Where is all of this going? What are the long-term costs and trade-offs? By investing in one form of development with low EROI, is the North American energy industry failing to invest in any better alternatives?

Here's his answer: Right now, the oilsands produce a little more than a million barrels a day for a global market with an 84-million-barrel-per-... addiction. In the sands, the big berries — just 20% of the resource — consist of a few large open-pit mines, while most of the small berries consist of in situ or steam-the-oil-out-of-t... projects. Aleklett and two colleagues concluded that Canadians could shovel and steam a full 3.6 million barrels per day by 2018, but not without self-inducing some bad migraines.

The first headache is natural gas. It takes 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas to produce one barrel of bitumen; the oilsands now consume 4% of the nation's gas supply. Under a crash program, that tally jumps to 16% by 2018, and that would max out the gas market: "The supply of natural gas in North America is not adequate to support a future Canadian oilsands industry with today's dependence on natural gas." If Canada doesn't build nuclear power plants for in situ projects, the place will simply run out of affordable fuel, says Aleklett. "