# Americans suck at math **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 16, 2003, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410 "2003-02-16T07:03:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/61 "2003-02-16T14:35:29Z")
If you’re gonna call me a yankee, you’d better put a damn in front of that. ---
**Author:** ![BadDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BadDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BadDog)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/62 "2003-02-16T14:38:57Z")
I wonder if Space Cadet was not actually Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, blowing off some steam after a bad phone call from GWB? [http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id={E5798FF3-0208-4887-8C98-D4D2D9DF448B}](http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=%7BE5798FF3-0208-4887-8C98-D4D2D9DF448B%7D) > [@](#): > > Mr. Chrétien’s speech, if not exactly a lecture, was a pious sort of a thing. It even included an offensive and not-so-veiled reference to “root causes” as an explanation for Sept. 11. > > He began detailing for his audience at considerable length the booming Canadian economy, managing – just – to avoid direct comparisons with the sagging U.S. one. **He reminded his listeners of Canada’s substantial value to the United States – unsubtlely, I thought, by rhyming off our oil reserves (more than Saudi Arabia, did you know?), our vast untapped potential in hydro power and our importance as America’s leading supplier of crude and refined oil products (including Saudi Arabia; did he mention that?).** ---
**Author:** ![BadDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BadDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BadDog)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/63 "2003-02-16T14:42:12Z")
[[http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id={E5798FF3-0208-4887-8C98-D4D2D9DF448B}](http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=%7BE5798FF3-0208-4887-8C98-D4D2D9DF448B%7D)](REAL Working LINK) ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/64 "2003-02-16T14:48:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*While calls of bloodthirsty imperialism are sweet music to my ears, I have a feeling that US occupation forces would fuck up _Hockey Night in Canada_. That alone would drive Michigan and the other True Hockey Fan States to secede. Chaos ensues. \*\* See! Not only are you dependant on them for oil, but they’ve got you over a barrel for Hockey too. If I were you I’d give up quickly, and throw yourself at the mercy of your new overlords. ---
**Author:** ![Legomancer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/779978/32.png) [@Legomancer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Legomancer)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/65 "2003-02-16T15:33:54Z")
Well shit. Here I was, all ready to talk about why Americans suck at math. Carry on, gentlemen, I’ll show myself out. ---
**Author:** ![MrO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@MrO](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrO)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/66 "2003-02-16T15:57:05Z")
Though I’m not Canadian, I’m embarrassed on behalf of Canada for people like **Space Cadet**. I’ve always thought that Canada was a more intelligently governed country than my own home country, the USA. Sad to see that that intelligence doesn’t extend to all of Canada’s citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/67 "2003-02-16T16:06:06Z")
Space Cadet, perhaps you are unaware of this, but the energy intensity of recovering oil from the sands is about a 0.7 to a 0.85 ratio, depending on where they try to recover it and what level of overburden there is. Also, differences in the volatile levels in the tar sands at different sites make converting much of the hydrocarbons more difficult in terms of gasoline produciton. My friends at Syncrude Canada are going to get a big laugh out of your post when I mail it to them on Monday… Let me put this in numbers for you: at the energy recovery levels above, the tar sands deposits quickly reduce from the mythical 1.7 trillion barrels number (total possible amount, and the best estimates are actually 1.1 trillion, not 1.7) down to about 280-330 billion barrels (economically recoverable - agrees with later numbers you quote), but at a ratio of 0.7 to 0.85, this reduces to an actual reserves of 99 billion (high) to 42 billion (low). You must mine about 1800-2300 kg of sands to produce 1 barrel of oil, and a large amount of the sands are under a huge overburden of rock, glacial tills, etc - sometimes hundreds of feet thick. Plus, the coking processes they use to refine the oil require a bit of energy as well. Thus, there are many different things that make the deposits interesting, but far from a cure-all. In other words - it takes a lot of energy to mine the sands and process the oil. See Venezuela and its bitumen deposits for other examples of “huge amounts of low-yield energy”. Of course, there is Orimulsion, but you cannot use the same process to make Orimulsion on the tar sands. Of course, this completely ignores the devastating impact that the tar sands recovery has on the environment. I would have thought that you would have admitted that, since you are all about that whole honesty thing in your OP, but I guess you forgot that strip-mining enormous amounts of land, and disposing of all that toxic overburden (yes, the tailings are filled with loads of bitumen, oil, nickel, vanadium, and all sorts of things that Canadian wildlife doesn’t need to be munching on or drinking)…in other words, it’s like coal strip-mining, but worse. Oh, the small-scale operations are clean enough, relatively speaking. But scaling them up to any appreciable level is not going to yield the same result. In other words, to use your vernacular - you don’t know what you’re talking about. You seem to have no actual scientific knowledge, nor math knowledge, but you know how to use Google. I’m guessing you are a journalism student who just got pumped full of piss and vinegar from a campus “walkout” protest, and wanted to act like a big man on an Internet message board. Maybe you should be the one taking night classes, because since you seem to have run away, I guess I won’t be educating you any further. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Space Cadet \* > \*\*Hello Yankees, can you not do simple math? Canada is the world’s single largest source of oil; the Athabasca tar sands alone contain more oil than all of Saudi Arabia, (we are talking like 1.5+ **Trillion** barrels) plus you have our Arctic reserves, our offshore reserves, and lets not even get started on Natural Gas or Hydroelectricity… > > Canada supplies the US with something like 25+% of its _total_ energy needs, virtually all of its Natural Gas, close to if not more oil than we export to the rest of the world combined, and yet you endlessly repeat this line about “Iraq having the second largest reserves…” > > Your war on Iraq has only to do with oil as “spoils” or profits from war. The war is about power, strategic dominance, etc., in short taking over the world. > > Do your math - shit, take night courses if you have to - and stop with the lies\*. > > And BTW, think twice, then again three more times, about going to war for our Canadian oil. We have more friends than you do. > > \*And I’m not just talking about oil lies here, but that is for another thread. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/68 "2003-02-16T16:07:46Z")
Shades of the new poster crop of December, '02 - is there some sort of school holiday in Canada in mid-February? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/69 "2003-02-16T16:10:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Anthracite \* > **Space Cadet, perhaps you are unaware of this, but the energy intensity of recovering oil from the sands is about a 0.7 to a 0.85 ratio, depending on where they try to recover it and what level of overburden there is. Also, differences in the volatile levels in the tar sands at different sites make converting much of the hydrocarbons more difficult in terms of gasoline produciton. My friends at Syncrude Canada are going to get a big laugh out of your post when I mail it to them on Monday…** As informative as ever Anth. I really look forward to Cadet trying to reply to this. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/70 "2003-02-16T16:32:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Space Cadet \* > **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Covering 77,000 square kilometers in Alberta, Canada and larger even than the Saudi Arabian oil reserves, the Athabasca oil sands consist of sand, mineral rich clays, water and bitumen, a thick, viscous, crude oil > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------** Irrelevant. We know what it is. You quoted an advertising/investor relations piece as a source? > [@](#): > > \*\*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Canada’s oil sands are thought to be the world’s largest known hydrocarbon resource. The oil sands are a mix of sand and bitumen, which is a thick crude oil. The bitumen can be processed into high quality, light synthetic oil that is in demand for upgrading to gasoline and jet fuels and other refined products. > > Canada’s oil sands are estimated to make up more than one quarter of the world’s conventional oil reserves. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\*\* This link also says that by 2005, oil from the sands will make up “half of Alberta’s crude oil production”. However, the Canadian Energy people say that in 2000, Alberta only produced about 1.5 million barrels per day, and the graphs I’ve seen shows this total rate being flat, with tar sands increasing their percentage contribution from 607,000 bbl per day to maybe 800,000 bbl to day. (Note that in 2000, the entirety of Canada produced about 2,763,000 bbl per day). 800,000 bbl per day. Sounds like a lot? Nope. [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/tableg2.html](http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/tableg2.html) See this table. The US produces 9,058,000 bbl per day in 2000. In total, the World Crude Oil, NGPL, Other Liquids, and Refinery Processing Gain in 2000 was 76,640,000 bbl per day. 800,000 bbl per day / 76,640,000 bbl per day = squat So what was that about math again? > [@](#): > > ## \*\*quote: > > Q: How much oil does Alberta’s oil sands contain? > > A: The four major oil sands deposits in Alberta contain more than 1.7 trillion barrels of bitumen. Using current technology this could potentially be turned into over 1 trillion barrels of synthetic crude oil, although much of the bitumen probably cannot be recovered at a reasonable cost (with current technology only 300 billion barrels are recoverable). The Athabasca Oil Sands is the largest of these oil sands deposits. It contains over one trillion barrels of bitumen on its own, although only about 300 billion barrels of bitumen can be recovered using current methods of mining. There are other large oil sands deposits in Canada as well, most notably a large deposit on Melville Island in the Canadian Arctic. It is Canada’s next largest oil sands deposit after the Athabasca Oil Sands. It has the potential to produce about 500 million barrels of crude oil. > > ## By comparison, Alberta’s conventional oil reserves are currently estimated at about 4.5 billion barrels of oil. Put another way, the Athabasca Oil Sands contain more oil than all the known reserves in Saudi Arabia. Clearly Alberta’s oil sands hold the key to the long term production of oil and oil products in Alberta, and as time goes by more and more of Canada’s oil needs will have to be met by Alberta’s oil sands deposits. > > \*\* A lengthy quote which is also irrelevant. The numbers look big, but don’t tell the whole story - or even half of it. You know, I hate it when people do this. Part of my job shifted in the last year to encouraging people to look at low-grade or “niche” energy sources (Orimulsion, coalbed methane, biomass, refinery waste, TDF, RDF, MDF, etc.). I want to encourage people to consider and look for ways to utilize sources like the tar sands. But openly misleading or lying by omission about the level of resources is something I won’t stand for either. And your OP, and subsequent posts, read like the typical “Investor Opportunity” crap that comes across my desk each day. I’ll quote what a friend at Exxon told me: “Una, if there was anything worth a damn up there from an economic standpoint, we would have gone up and bought the whole fucking province.” > [@](#): > > **I can go on… Do you need me to?** Go ahead. Tell old aunt Una a story about energy… ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/71 "2003-02-16T16:39:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*There are three kinds of American: Those who suck at math and those who are good at math. 🙂 \*\* That actually made me laugh out loud. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/72 "2003-02-16T16:55:28Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Cerowyn \* \*\*Folks, do us all a favour and don’t be as fucking stupid as **Space Cadet** with the intolerance, okay? **chula** et. al., you’re demonstrating that you’re just as prejudiced as SD, rather than exhibiting any shred of wit. And I’m sure that’s not what you intend. At the risk of introducing [some facts](http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm):[ul][li]U.S. / Canada energy trade is $38 billion a year[_]Canada is the U.S.'s largest oil supplier[_]Canada is the world’s fifth largest energy producer[_]Canada provides about 16% of U.S. oil imports[_]Canada provides about 14% of U.S. natural gas imports[/ul](I trust that the U.S State Department is a believable source for this sort of information.) \*\*[/li][/QUOTE] Lets talk some other facts - from the US EIA: - Canada is the principal export market for United States coal. - Canada imported 496 TBtu of coal in 1999, compared to their annual consumption of 1,478 TBtu of coal, this makes up 33.6% of their consumption. Of course, they exported 969 TBtu worth, so it’s more fair to compare imports with production (1,907 TBtu) - in that case, US coal exports to Canada make up 26% of consumption. However, since Canada’s coal exports are primarily for metallurgical purposes (coking coals - Anthracite and semi-Anthracite), there is not really much overlap at all. So the 33.6% number may be much more accurate when talking energy use. I wonder what **Space Cadet** will say about that level of coal imports? I wonder if he’ll even return? [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/northamerica/enginfr3.htm](http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/northamerica/enginfr3.htm) [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table55.html](http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table55.html) [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html](http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html) (To be factual and honest - the EIA disagrees with my numbers of 1.1 trillion bbl for total deposits of oil in tar sands. My number came from SynCrude sources, and is obviously on a different basis. The EIA actually gives a possibility of 2.5 trillion bbl. But the basic facts of mining, energy use in mining, production, waste and tailing, contamination, destruction of the environment, and extremely low production rates on any scale measured are still completely valid.) ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/73 "2003-02-16T17:13:36Z")
I [heart] **Anthracite**. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Scruloose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@Scruloose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scruloose)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/74 "2003-02-16T17:14:39Z")
> [@](#): > > I wonder what Space Cadet will say about that level of coal imports? I wonder if he’ll even return? Somehow, after your last few postings, I get the feeling we’ll never see the lad again. What’s that saying about entering a battle of wits…? **december** , that was goddamn funny! LOL! ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/75 "2003-02-16T19:31:04Z")
Damn it, Space Cadet, it should be “Americans suck at **maths**.” Aside from that, your stupidity and recalcitrance in this thread has been quite delicious. And you’re not doing your fellow Canadians any favors by trumpeting your location. Morons rarely make the best spokespersons for a country (no dubya jokes, please 😃 ) ---
**Author:** ![samarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4da419/32.png) [@samarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samarm)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/76 "2003-02-16T19:43:27Z")
I think Space Cadet was confusing oil with Maple Syrup. Yep, that’s got to be it. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/77 "2003-02-16T23:49:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Q.E.D. \* > \*\*I’m quite comfortable with the metric system, in fact. \*\* You must be a drug dealer…_d’oh!_ ---
**Author:** ![samarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4da419/32.png) [@samarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samarm)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/78 "2003-02-17T00:04:11Z")
I sometimes have to deal with parakeet seed, and I use the metric system for that… (the above is an _extremely_ obscure reference to a certain comic… if anyone gets it they have my admiration) ---
**Author:** ![LolaCocaCola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7cd45c/32.png) [@LolaCocaCola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LolaCocaCola)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/79 "2003-02-17T00:09:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by samarm \* > **I sometimes have to deal with parakeet seed** :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410/80 "2003-02-17T00:29:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat \* > \*\*See! Not only are you dependant on them for oil, but they’ve got you over a barrel for Hockey too. > > If I were you I’d give up quickly, and throw yourself at the mercy of your new overlords. \*\* Very well then: **I gladly welcome our Canadian Overlords. May their reign be merciful.** Well, I’m going to move to Montreal now. See you all around. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-suck-at-math/155410.md?page=5)