Posts tagged “oil”
U.S. Energy Information Administration:
The world’s consumption of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, heating oil, and other petroleum products reached a record high of 88.9 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2012, as declining consumption in North America and Europe was more than outpaced by growth in Asia and other regions (see animated map). A previous article examined regional trends in petroleum consumption between 1980 and 2010; today’s article extends that analysis through 2012.
Some other specific points of interest:
Between 2008 and 2012, Asia’s consumption increased by 4.4 million bbl/d. The rapidly industrializing economies of China and India fueled much of Asia’s demand increase, growing 2.8 million bbl/d and 800,000 bbl/d, respectively. If China’s use of petroleum continues to grow as projected, it is expected to replace the United States as the world’s largest net oil importer this fall.
Petroleum use in Europe has declined in every year since 2006. Part of this decline was related to a reduction in overall energy intensity and government policies that encourage energy efficiency. Europe’s weak economic performance has also affected its petroleum use, with declines of 780,000 bbl/d in 2009 and 570,000 bbl/d in 2012 occurring at a time of slow growth and/or recessions in many European countries.
Nice, keen catch from Dr. Drang:
Look north and slightly east of Denver. See that big, somewhat diffuse patch of light? Here’s a zoomed-in view of that area with a few cities labeled to help you get your bearings.
Even if you didn’t know that this lit-up patch was in a generally empty area, covering western North Dakota and parts of eastern Montana and southern Saskatchewan, you could guess that it’s not a population center; despite its size, there’s no bright center to it.
The lights are from the oil shale fields spread out over the Williston Basin. It’s one thing to read about the boom in oil shale, it’s quite another to see such graphic evidence.
As a point of reference, here’s EIA map of 2011 oil shale plays in N. America.
NPR’s got some great coverage of Tar Sands (and energy issues in general). In particular, there is a great, recent interview with a Texan whose land the Keystone XL pipeline will be traversing.
What Daniel wants most from TransCanada is answers. He actually drew up a list of 54 questions.
“One of my many questions was: If there’s a spill and we have to leave, are you going to take care of us?” Daniel says.
He also wanted to know things like: What kind of damage could a spill cause? And what chemicals would flow in the pipeline?
TransCanada told Daniel in writing that questions about spills were hypothetical because their pipeline would be designed not to spill. But in a document for the State Department, TransCanada predicted two spills every 10 years over the entire length of its Keystone XL pipeline, from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Some scientists argue that the company underestimates that risk. Another pipeline it put into service two years ago has had 14 spills in the United States, although most were small, according to TransCanada.
2 spills every ten years doesn’t seem like great numbers - or numbers that should be permissible at all. And the ease at which the spills are cleaned up, according to the article - and unsurprisingly - is oversold. In Michigan,
Early on, the EPA gave the company a couple of months. Two years and $800 million later, the cleanup is still going on. The cost eclipses every other onshore oil cleanup in U.S. history.
… Cleanup crews didn’t know what they were dealing with. They expected it to act like oil usually does and float on water. So they focused on vacuuming oil and skimming it from the surface.
But about a month into the cleanup, some fish researchers got a surprise. One of them jumped from a boat into the river. With each step he took, little globs of black oil popped up.
That kicked off a search for sunken oil.
“And everywhere they looked, they found it,” Hamilton recalls.
And, finally, perhaps the most rational appeal people who oppose Keystone XL and tar sands writ large can make:
“For me, as a father, I have a duty and responsibility to protect my family. What I know about this project is they can break laws and put my family at risk. I’m not OK with any of that. If that means I’ll have to stand in front of a bulldozer, I’ll stand in front of a bulldozer.”
Nice, simplified infographic from NPR about the production of Tar Sands.
The oil product extracted from Canada’s tar sands isn’t like conventional crude. Known as bitumen, it’s sticky and so thick, it can’t flow down a pipeline without extensive processing. There are two methods for getting bitumen out of the ground and turning it into usable products. Both are complex, energy-intensive and expensive processes - but high oil prices are finally making tar sands profitable.
Business Insider: Tar Sands: A View from Above →
Another look at the Athabascan tar sands operation, this time from above. The scale of the undertaking — both logistically and literally — is mind-bogglingly immense. From the air, the trucks look like micro-machines playing in the mud. Micro-machines, though, don’t have tires 17 ft tall; they don’t claim to be able to roll over full-sized Ford and Chevy trucks with little effort; they aren’t bucketwheels, the “largest crawling machine in existence”; they don’t cost 40-6000 USD each. They don’t obliterate their surroundings so completely that you can see the whole blighted region on Google Maps (embedded below - zoom in, scroll around).
Two things stand out. First, the whole thing is on the scale of a hellish scene from a Michael Bay Transformers movie — the machines; the muted colors, occasionally splotched with a frightening vibrance; the flames; the mud-spattered faces; the destruction. A disaster, in every possible sense of the word.
Second, and more seriously, the impact here is tremendous. There’s the immediate environmental impact, which is severe. Then there’s the fact that the tar sands contain two times the carbon dioxide emitted by humanity’s cumulative fossil fuel use. The long-term implications of accessing and using this resource, while continuing to exploit our current stores of coal, natural gas, and oil, is nothing short of apocalyptic.
James Hansen, the pre-eminent climate scientist, put it nicely in a recent NYT Editorial.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth’s history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control.
Classes started today. Began my return to academia in what I'm told was true doctoral student fashion -- I missed my first class because I was on a conference call about a potential project :). It was completely worth it. Its fun to glean and interact [even minimally, at this point] with brilliant, engaged folks.
I made it to the second class, in a big theater filled to the brim with an eclectic smattering of students - undergrads, masters, doctoral, the works, from every discipline across the board. The class is out of the Energy & Resources Group and is titled "Energy and Society." Its going to be awesome and cover a breadth of topics pretty quickly.
We concluded today's lecture with a brief discussion of fossil fuel stores, much of which was enlightening to me. I knew about some of the general environmental issues surrounding tar sands and the rampant destruction producing crude from tar sands entails; I had little clue about the complete energy inefficiency of the process. The prof noted that if we include shale and oil/tar sands in our peak oil calculations, the notion that we've hit 50% capacity becomes moot -- we've hit something like 2.5% capacity. That said, he mentioned that if we assume sweet crude to require environmental/energy inputs equal to 1, tar sands is 30 or 40% higher. The process for refining tar sands [which i'll revisit as I learn more] goes something like the following:
Dig a deep-ass pit. Around 100m down, you'll hit tar sands, or as the Canadians like to call it, oil sands. Mix with water and separate the oil. There's a lot of sulfur in tar sands, and we don't like sulfur. So we take CH4, strip the carbon off, and bubble this hydrogen through the tar sand slurry. This'll form H2S. Precipitate the elemental sulfur in an ice bath, release the hydrogen into the atmosphere. You waste natural gas, you throw hydrogen away, and you get all of this goodness:
Apparently there's a glut of sulfur in the market, so that just sits there in all its inimitable yellowness. Piles upon piles of sulfur cakes.
This process above is over-simplified, but that doesn't change the fact that its completely f-ing insane. The size of the Athabascan tar sands hellhole is equivalent to Saudi Arabia's oil field before it was pilfered. The government of Alberta thinks it can push production beyond 3 million barrels per day. Hard to imagine a world in which we're not reliant on oil when we keep finding ways to extract it.