NavList:

Well.....I suppose. But you have to get it out first.

I can't verify this for sure but there has been talk of setting up a nuclear
power plant to generate the steam required to remove the oil from the sands.

But when all is said and done, the enormous rate of oil consumption
throughout the world does not bode well for a civilization that intends to
rely upon it for the long term. Time to start thinking and working towards
other energy sources.

As long as I have a few drops of  lubricant for my sextant  and a few
gallons for my stinkboat (getting back on topic).

Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: <FrankReedCT@aol.com>
To: <NavList@fer3.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 7:20 PM
Subject: [NavList 607] Re: Sea level rise (off-topic)


>
> Robert Eno writes:
> "I support the effort to cut CO2 emissions but for  indirect reasons: we
> should do all we can to conserve petroleum resources  whilst we find
> alternative energy sources. Eventually, we are going to run  out and then
> we'll really be hooped."
>
> There's some serious Canadian  cash involved here! At $70 a barrel, the
> enormous oil sand reserves of Canada  suddenly become economically viable.
> It's
> estimated that there is the equivalent  of 1.7(10^12), yes 1.7 trillion,
> barrels
> of oil in Canada, mostly in Alberta,  and now it's worth a fortune.
>
> From wikipedia on tar sands:
> "However, with the development of new in-situ production techniques such
> as
> steam assisted gravity drainage and the Oil price increases of 2004-2006,
> there  are now several dozen companies planning nearly 100 oil sands mines
> and
> in-situ  projects in Canada, totaling nearly $100 billion in capital
> investment."
>
> -FER
> 42.0N 87.7W, or 41.4N  72.1W.
> www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars
>
>
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---