On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 07:31:01 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

On Feb 8, 9:20*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I just read about this last week, and suggest that you read a bit more
about it. That "cleans the environment" is a load of banana gas, sir.
_Green_ it _ain't_.

Maybe that was copy written by the same crew that writes about 'clean
coal'?

That and 'dehydrated water'.


There seems to be no way we can harvest oil without damaging the
environment. So we switch to the 'lesser-of-evils' mode.
That fracking process of which you speak, has nothing to do with the
tarsands. Totally different processes.

Yeah, I realize that. I made an unsignaled segue into shale oil.
So solly.


Tell us about the massive quantities of natural gas needed to cook the
oil out of the shale, the water use, aquifer abuse. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...e_oil_shale_in...

I wasn't talking about fracking. That process is far more likely to
devastate the environment than what we're doing at the tar sands.

True, but the oil sand has to be cooked, and that takes natural gas.
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm


If they want to frack the land to get natural gas out, start screaming
now. *It's environmentally worse than anything we've seen in many
decades.

We have lots of natural gas without fracking. Sufficient in fact to
sell a LOT to the US AND to use to separate the oil from the sand.

Wonderful!


Two processes being discussed here (3, if you include banana gas):
a) The separation of oil from sand
b) Fracking.

They are NOT interchangeable.
Also, the oil we extract from the sand is already being processed to a
more readily acceptable product so that any refinery can use it.

We take 'dirty' sand, take out the oil, and put the clean sand back.
When I called that a 'clean' process, I should have changed fonts to
Sarcastica.

I see.

--
Energy and persistence alter all things.
--Benjamin Franklin