Sustainability

BB

What are your thoughts on the the tar sands, particularly the 173 billion barrels of proven reserves contained in the Athabasca Oil Sands?

Cheers
Jim

Sustainability is about far more than "proven" oil (or gas) reserves, or even fossil fuel resources, interesting those these figures are.

I presume Jim's tables indicate something in the region of one point three million billion barrels of "proven" reserves of oil. ie reserves that are considered economically recoverable with current technology. Depending on your level of optimism, this might include Canada's Athabasca Sand oils, which appear to account for about 15% of global reserves.

Other possible reserves not included in Jim's tables include the north pole area, which with global warming, might prove accessible and the south atlantic (Falkland Islands).

Its worth remembering that the Middle East oil is easily recoverable (technically) both on land and offshore, but it didn't take much to find that North Sea oil became attractive in the early 1970's when only a few years previously it was considered unecconomic. Things change quickly sometimes. My understanding is that the athabasca oil sands are already looking very attractive, as are the Yukon diamonds and uraniaum. Perhaps I had better move from Vernon BC to Ft McMurray or Yellowknife before Alberta or the Yukon opt for separation.

cheers

Don

The capitalist system is one part of the problem, but one which would require enormous effort to reform. The power of the present vested interests is enormous and it is their greed and short-term thinking which will place obstacles in the way of reform. Maybe the only way forward is a command economy.
The poulation issue could at least be eased by a massive birth control programme. This of course will face opposition from those of certain religious persuasions and so will probably not even get started.
So we're doomed. I won't bother too much for myself. Being in my seventies, I haven't that much longer to go. But still I rage at the spineless politicians, the fat cats who own them and the religious leaders who malignantly influence them. They know the problems but short term self-interest takes precedence. I despair.
Ken

The EIA chart only shows proven reserves. It says nothing about production flow rates which is the only thing relevent to this conversation.

A good example is the Alberta tar sands. The proven reserves are 178 billion barrels of oil equivilent. The current production flow rate is 1 million barrels per day (bpd). Ghawar on the other hand, had 83 billion barrels initially in place, but has been producing at a rate of 5 million bpd. See the difference? Production flow rates indicate the amount of product made available to the market in a given time period. That's what really matters here.

The Alberta tar sands are a bit of a mixed blessing. They are large reserves that are very difficult and expensive to bring to market at a significant rate. For every barrel of oil equivilent that is produced, it takes 2 tons of tar sand, 250 gallons of water, and 1400 cubic feet of natural gas. As a result, the ratio of energy returned on energy invested is only 2:1. The environmental damage incurred is so severe, that if the tar sands were located in the US, they would not be developed with current technology because they would violate EPA regulations. And I've saved the best for last. Under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, the US is pressuring Canada to increase tar sands production from it's current level of 1 million bpd to 5 million bpd. Wow.

If you prefer the EIA data, so be it. Just know that there are many analysts who don't. These individuals use past production trends and other field data to project future trends. They look at EIA projections and produce well researched papers that challenge EIA assertions. Matthew Simmons is highly regarded in this group, but he is only one of many who are involved. I have read countless papers and articles by analysts from a variety of disciplines. You would be doing yourself a favor if you read a wide range of opinions before you come to any conclusions. If you want to really know what's going on in the oil and gas industry, you must dig much deeper than the EIA.

Best,
BB

Informative response, BB. I'll dig deeper as suggested.

Cheers
Jim

Jim,
A good place to start is to read Colin J. Campbell's article "The End of Cheap Oil" which was published in Scientific American in March 1998. It will explain what I am going on about. Use Google for that one. The next place to check out is www.peakoil.net and then try www.energybulletin.net for more information.

The price of brent Crude hit $135 a barrel yesterday.

Hazel Blears (that font of all useless knowledge and a mouth that spews it out like a machine gun but in no particular order)stated that the only way forward is for the world to make OPEC open up the taps and sell oil more cheaply.

Sustainability is going to hit the west a lot sooner than most people realise.

And our polititians haven't got a strategy - well, other than Hazel's..........

Cheers

Don

Dear Don,

There is the real possibility, painful though it certainly will be, that the very sharp rise in oil prices will lead to less consumption, and such nonsenses as the Chelsea tractor will soon become unfashionable.

As fossil fuels become so much more expensive, then sustainable alternatives become much more economically acceptable, and the grip of the oil industry on our lives will be reduced. Where that leaves civil aviation is another thing. That will be painful for certain, but I suspect that once the pain is faced off, the results will be more rational and closer to being sustainable.

I have my car off the road currently, and have the plan to put it back on the road temporarily [till the MOT runs out in the Autumn] before scrapping it. I have struggled with the notion of doing without a motor for the last three years, and have done without for periods before that. In reality the difference is only a question of planning ahead, rather than travelling on whim. The only reason I shall restore the car to action is commitments already made to collect people from Airports at uncivilised hours, when there is no possibility of using a public transport connection. That aspect will have to improve as well, but would if the demand existed, which it increasingly will as people accept the running of motor vehicles is prohibitively expensive as well as unsustainable with the current technologies to motivate them.

George

Fred

Oil is used for much more than fuelling civil aviation and Chelsea Tractors. However, we need to look at reducing our dependence thereon - it is a finite resource and could rapidly lead to tensions around the globe. We don't have a global strategy for dealing with this problem. hell, we don't even have a UK strategy for dealing with this problem.

IMHO, in the UK we should build nuclear power stations (as they have done in France) to provide most of our current electricty needs and more. eg to provide for future battery powered cars and more electric powered trains and widespread use in industry. We should invest in new research and development for alternative fuels to use in cars/trucks, aeroplanes and ships. meanwhile, our diplomats and top business men need to ensure we maintain good relationships with our current suppliers and ensure we produce the luxury goods they actually want eg Bentleys(with Naim), Mercs, mobile phones, Typhoons, FPBs with Exocets, etc etc - all with back-handers.

Cheers

Don

quote:

IMHO, in the UK we should build nuclear power stations............... We should invest in new research and development for alternative fuels.........

I should have mentioned that the former is a short-term solutions. In addition to alternative fuels (and energy in general) we also need to figure out ways of producing water, food, shelter and transport without the need to use energy to generate high temperatures or pressures - for example as we do at present in the production of steel/aluminium.

Channel 4 had a programme this evening, "The 11th Hour", which I only caught the end of, that showed others giving serious thought and some initial research into sustainability in a just world and how to generate the political global will to implement necessary change.

One of the most encouraging snippets of a programme I have seen in ages.

Cheers

Don

Don

quote:

Fred

You must be fixated with Fred.....ahem.....that was George you were replying too.....granted he used to be Fredrik but he is definitely George now.

Just thought I'd help clear up any confusion.

Jim

Jim,

George used to be called Fredrik, as you mischievously are aware...........

cheers

Don

l am! George Frdrik! I used to value the semi-alias, but I saw no reason to continue it. especially as I sometimes forgot to sing off as Fred at the end of posts!

ATB from George Fredrik [FJ]

quote:

Channel 4 had a programme this evening, "The 11th Hour", which I only caught the end of, that showed others giving serious thought and some initial research into sustainability in a just world and how to generate the political global will to implement necessary change.

DVD due to be released on 2nd June.

DeCaprio stars as presenter in this documentary with input from a wide range of respected people.

From the short bits that I saw on TV the documentary hangs together reasonably well. It sets out what the contributers think will happen to mankind if we do nothing and continue along our merry path of western gluttony. It recognises that the will to change won't come about by blackmail or "shock-tactics" - it will only happen because change is desirable and achievable. It sets out contributers ideas of the sort of things that need to be done and how they could be made desirable enough to be achievable on a globally sustainable basis. Covers a far broader subject matter than "An Inconveinet Truth". I was impressed with the bits I saw, but no doubt it will contain be the usual bits of dubious facts, pessimistic forecasts and over-optimistic solutions.

Probably not as entertaining as Indiana Jones, but certainly more thought-provoking than the US Presidential election.

Cheers

Don

A better review than I could have written (understatement)

I watched this film in the cinema and was the only one there in a pretty sizable auditorium. Nice to have the choice of seats, but it was actually disturbing; this film should be compulsory viewing. Here's why:

1.) It's populated by the leading bigwigs and cognoscenti of science and environmentalism: David Suzuki, Stephen Hawking, Wangari Maathai...people from all over the world. Professors, journalists, politicians... Okay, not everyone, but many big names! Too many to ignore, which is partly the point.

2.) Yes, it's depressing in places, but not chronically so. The film doesn't pull its punches. You'll be told exactly where we are and exactly where we're going, and it's not reassuring (come on, you didn't really expect it to be!). Sometimes we get just the hard facts, other times it's deeply moving pieces from Native American wisdom on harmonious living. This film won't let you get away with shrugging off the issues. But there is light at the end of the tunnel and substantial attention is devoted to the possibility of avoiding a humongous, gluttonous armageddon.

3.) It has Titanic heartthrob Leonardo di Caprio in it! Al Gore was a keen and perceptive presenter in 'An Inconvenient Truth' (2006), for sure, but he lacks the Hollywood glamour of this lad about town. Now I'm no fan of di Caprio, but celebrity endorsement has massive pulling power. That can only be a good thing.

4.) The format and structure mirror the film's message. We are told that all aspects of the environment overlap and interrelate, and it is equally so with the presenters and their perspectives. The editing has been done well enough to create excellent transitions between points.

Or this

I recently gave up smoking. When I started in my mid teens I didn't think I would be commiting myself to a life long persuit which was ultimatley ruining my body and shortening my life. Its an addiction which gives nothing and ultimatly takes everything. I woke up one day coughing away realising that now in my early thirties that I had adjusted to having a permi-cough, lack of breath and accepted that I was in complete denial of the fact this past-time was pointless and killing me and I had to do something about it. In someways that addiction is much like how our society is functioning right now, we're addicted to a life style which will ultimatly kill us, yet we're all scared to give it up.

I had tried to give up before several times and I gave up this year instantly and haven't smoked again. This time I gave up easily, because I had a key distinction which was choosing not to smoke, choosing health and choosing to respect my body and live as long as I could. Ttrying to give something up is sacrifice, which is a delusion in the case of smoking as there is nothing of value to loose. I wonder if we are all a bit like smokers in the way we consume and polute the planet right now. As if saving our environment is something that is likely to involve scarifcing quality of life, which is a much bigger delusion and one which we cannot afford to indulge any longer.

This films is very much in line with my view that we need to make the solutions to these problems workable and more importantly desirable. We in the west are conditioned to consume, something we have all been exposed to since children, telling people off about their life styles and consumption is very likely to have a negative affect, pointing the figure and blackmailing people into change via guilt trips is not the way to go, and yet seemingly often the approach passionate people take on this issue. Showing them scary pictures about the predicted outcomes is also in my view likely to have a negative affect, the goverment try scare tactics with under age sex and we have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe.

What this also film does is focus on the future we want! Making the solutions easy, desirable and affordable is the key to getting large scale adoption of an alternative way of living. Focusing on doing what we do now sustainably seems to me the sensible approach for everyone to do.
5.) You'll probably find yourself wanting to watch this film again just to reinforce the message. The information load is heavy and that can be intimidating, but if you approach television as an information medium as well as an entertainment portal then it shouldn't be any problem whatsoever. This film speaks to everyone, for everyone and, above all, about everyone. Some messages will mean more to you than others, but I can't see how anyone can disagree with the film 100%. Sooner or later, you'll find yourself paying heed to what's being said, I guarantee it.

If 'The 11th Hour' has any weaknesses, they're unavoidable side effects of its strengths. You will have to pay attention throughout. No daydreaming, pondering or woolgathering! The facts are crystal clear, frighteningly so, and you don't need every brain cell functioning to get them. But you do need to keep up the pace and stay attentive. This is a challenge, but anyone can do it. Finally, it is clearly intended for an American audience foremost. But if you've got this far, you'll know that the messages are universal and forgive them this. I personally think every thinking person should watch this at least once, and every nonthinking person at least thrice, the better to comprehend the gravity of its realisations. Place yourself in the appropriate category and act accordingly.


Looks like you need to actually watch the film to get to know what the issues are and what solutions others have in mind
Cheers

Don

Don,

I haven't got the time to read through the whole thread, just to say that:

I completely agree that sustainability is the big issue that we are demonstrably failing to face up to;
That for this to be effectively tackled it would need concerted action by the main world economies - and I don't believe this will happen.

I have been in a state of disbelief since the age of eleven (1971) at peoples ability not to face issues until it is too late.

Personally I have decided not to have more than one car, and to use public transport whenever possible.

I agree and support any of the smaller actions that people can directly support, such as not using supermarket plastic bags & recycling. But I do not believe these will be sufficient.

With the death of every species on the planet our own demise comes one step closer.

The food riots in Haiti, the banning of rice exports by Thailand, and the 'Just in time' food chain that exists in the UK all leave me feeling distictly uncomfortable - food riots in the UK, not as unthinkable as it once was.

M

quote:

I completely agree that sustainability is the big issue that we are demonstrably failing to face up to;
That for this to be effectively tackled it would need concerted action by the main world economies - and I don't believe this will happen.

As you say, the main world economies have to take a lead. The lack of any strategy for sustainability in the manifestos of the three front-runners for US president is disappointing. Hopefully, the winner will pick up on the issue in a meaningful way. I don't see any UK politcian with enough charisma or substance to take an effective lead within Europe or the Commonwealth of Nations - which is also disappointing.

However, the little bit of the film that I saw talked about global technical solutions and mobilising global political will and consumer demand for affordable, sustainable and just (as in equitable) solutions to human sustainability. It wasn't all doom and gloom.

Cheers

Don

I've just had a quick read through this - yes, George is right: the REAL problem is of course the size, and growth rate, of the human population. For reasons that are beyond me, politicians and public alike are rather keen to focus attention on every aspect of the debate except for the root cause - i.e., people's unwillingness to control their fecundity.

It a simple issue really: the population size the planet can support sustainably is finite; last time I made any effort to look into it, it was estimated at about 2.4 billion. The population at present is about 6.6 billion, and at the current growth rate will rise over the next couple of decades to around 10 billion.

At the beginning of the hollocene, at the end of the last ice age, the world human population was probably around 10 million. By 1950 it was about 2.4 billion - and that wasn't very long ago. Since then, in less than a human life time, it has more than doubled! Anyone who doesn't see that that kind of population growth is unsustainable is very stupid or very ignorant. And, obviously, the larger the population, the greater the number of breeding pairs, the faster it grows...

We recently had the comical spectacle of Tony Blair and David Cameron - both of whom have demonstrated their inability or unwillingness to control their fecundity - trying to convince us they're concerned about the environment. The solution to the problems of pollution, resource depletion, habitat destruction, and mass extinction we're currently witnessing lies in people's realising they can't do what that stupid pair of twits have done: breed excessively.

Unfortunately, REAL sustainable strategies would require people to put other considerations before their own immediate personal happiness and base desires; my guess would be, therefore, that we're fucked. Nonetheless, we might stand some kind of a chance if people were simply educated about the folly of unnecessary reproduction. As it is, our rulers want to carry on selling us the notion (policy?!) that these issues can be tackled via punitive taxation and cycling to work of a morning.

Think again.

EW

EW

Its good to see that some people (eg you and Fred and a few others here) are aware of mankind's global vulnerability.

Reducing the global population seems dead easy. i'm sure there are short-term practical problems such as age imbalance but the real problem is will-power. The trivial US view (described elsewhere on this forum) that the one-child-per-family policy in China would never be considered by the US so long as China remained communist, shows the real problem facing mankind - and i only use this as an example of the nature of the problem, not as a swipe at the US.

Other solutions mentioned in The 11th Hour included an order of magnitude improvement in energy efficiency and production of the common materials such as steel and aluminium in use today.

There are glimmers of hope for meaningful change.

cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Other solutions mentioned in The 11th Hour included an order of magnitude improvement in energy efficiency and production of the common materials such as steel and aluminium in use today.

Not really a solution though - as EO Wilson has pointed out, Homo sapiens - like all species - have a reproductive capacity way in excess of that required to simply replace the population; so, an organism with no natural predator will simply expand in numbers until it exhausts the carrying capacity of any niche. Improvements in efficiency are just short term fixes - the ONLY real solution to the sustainability problem is population control.

Unless and until our rulers - and various other prats - acknowledge and accept this, and act on it, we're stuffed. And stuffed rather imminently too, as anyone who understands population growth kinetics will know.

EW

EW, this is what I wrote on the 19th March

"IMHO over-population is the biggest single issue this planet faces. For a (potential) future US President not to have a well-documented policy on how to tackle this problem would be disappointing. However, as we both seem to agree, such matters of global well-being don't seem to bother the average American voter. So it looks like the average American presidential candidate doesn't see a need to address the issue. Typical shallow politics.

Hopefully, someone will point us (both) to the Obama/Clinton/McCain/Democratic/Republican policy re global population sustainability."

I think we are agreed on what the main problem is, and also the improbability of any rapid, effective action, but The 11th Hour did seem to begin a broad approach to finding solutions and acceptable ways of implementing them.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
EW, this is what I wrote on the 19th March

"IMHO over-population is the biggest single issue this planet faces.

Indeed.

We'll see, but I think at least a part of the problem in the UK is that our rulers - especially Blair and Cameron - would seem awfully hypocritical if they told us to control our reproductive capacities!; I think Richard Dawkins too has stayed largely silent on the issue for the same reason.

Another reason is that I suspect, somewhere in government advisory circles where people aren't quite as stupid as the politicians, scientists and demographers take the view it's probably too late now anyway. Why rock the boat and risk offending sectors of the electorate who reproduce in a completely reckless and irresponsible manner as a cultural norm if we're stuffed anyway?

EW

Or perhaps it is something to do with the fact that the population would be decreasing anyway without imigration, and we actually need a large population, in work and paying tax to pay the pensions of the baby boomers.

Yep,

Global will-power is the first stumbling block to over-population. And petty political wrangling and gluttony is another.

But I don't think its too late. And certainly The 11th Hour didn't consider is was too late to act.

They also made it abundantly clear that taxation/blackmail and the usual harranging by ecco warriers won't work. People will only do things because its desirable to them.

Cheers

Don