(Alberta) Oil sands worth $1.4 trillion, study finds

[Newsjock]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050929.wceri0929/BNStory/Business

By DAVE EBNER
Thursday, September 29, 2005 Posted at 9:37 PM EDT
From Friday's Globe and Mail

The oil sands are a $1.4-trillion bonanza, according to a study that forecasts the economic impact generated by the world's second-largest deposit of crude in the 2000-2020 period.

And that conclusion is based on prices of just $40 (U.S.) a barrel of synthetic crude, the type pumped out of northern Alberta, roughly the same quality as West Texas intermediate, which traded at almost $67 Thursday.

... The study, released Thursday, is the result of work conducted by the Calgary-based Canadian Energy Research Institute, a 30-year-old group that was formed to analyze energy economics and that describes itself as independent and non-profit.

more

[StrafingMoose]

1. Extracting oil from these sands is extremely devastating and poluting...

from what I heard. And in the global picture, this won't change much -- we're out of cheap good crude.

[Gnostic]

24. It's just a very expensive process

But much cleaner actually than the operation of wells.

[jpak]

32. Absolute nonsense

Tar sands must be open pit mined and the overburden (vegetation and soils) removed.

The tar sand itself is then heated in retorts to extract the "oil" (which is not really "oil").

The retorts are significant sources of air pollution and prodigious consumers and polluters of water.

The solid retort wastes must also be transported and disposed of "somewhere".

Large-scale tar sand extraction will create the Canadian equivalent of Nixon's "national sacrifice zones".

It is one of the most environmentally unfriendly forms of fossil fuel on the planet.

[TrogL]

40. The overburden is already removed

Have you been to Fort McMurray? It looks like the pits of hell.

[NJCher]

46. yes

I recently attended a lecture by this expert on peak oil, Dr. Kenneth Deffeyes.

http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/

His description of what it takes to extract that oil made it sound like an undesirable option.




Cher

[Canadian Socialist]

2. Omigod! Now you've done it.

Now WE'RE going to be invaded. So they can bring WMD er... freedom! No, that can't be right. I'll get back to you.

[nine23]

12. Seriously. "They hate us for our freedoms".

I just LOVE saying that these days. As fucking dumb and simple that statement was in the first place, it looks like we OWN IT now, and I ain't talking in reference to the Middle East or religious extremists.

I even had a bumper sticker made up with those words and a Canadian flag. I designed it just to see if Americans would "get it" while driving in the states; however, it'll have to wait. I've boycotted all travel there until further notice...

[CatholicEdHead]

14. Blame Canada, Blame Canada.........

/tries to stop from breaking into South Park song.

[raccoon]

28. Betcha you're hiding WMDs in wheatfields or igloos up there. nt

[Dark]

30. Well, move to Quebec. Bush doesn't want anything to do with those

frenchies.

[Coventina]

38. OUR oil is in your sand! Prepare for liberation!!!!

Soon you will enjoy democracy and freedom, just like the Iraqis!

Don't forget to greet us with flowers!

[Booster]

44. LOL. I was thinking the same thing. Better hide whatever oil you

have up there cause Bush/Cheney think ALL oil is their oil.

[stepnw1f]

3. Burning Out

The dumb rightwinger way!

[whistle]

4. Yes, but they will need $100 a barrel to make it feasible to extract

...useable oil from tar sands and what a mess it will make to the environment. Those tar sands need to be left for another several millions years for mother earth to do her natural processes and magic of turning the tar into deep underground deposits of sweet crude.

[tuvor]

9. Huh?

That sounds extremely high, given that Chinese investments in Alberta are at least at the serious-talks stage from what I understand.

They've been working on extraction for decades, and I'm sure I've heard on Canadian talk radio that it's pretty much cost-effective right now.

Where do you get your figure?

[applegrove]

10. I think some corporations have access to tons of natural gas nearby.

So for them extraction is not so expensive or bad for the environment. For all the others though.. I imagine it will take lots of oil, coal, or imported Natural gas to cook the sands and extract the oil.

[4dsc]

26. Its not so bad

do you know that your contradicted yourself here.. You made it sound like some corporations, because they a supply of NG, don't polute as much while processing tar sands.. Give us a break..

[applegrove]

33. Natural Gas is cleaner than using oil to cook tar sands. It is. It isn't

great. But it is cleaner. I think we were talking about price. And that comes into it.

[TrogL]

42. There's been talk of using nuclear-generated steam for extraction

It's still going to take tonnes of water.

At current prices, it's about break-even without going nuclear.

[CHIMO]

13. Don't Let The Oil Companies

Know or we will loose our subsidized oil then. Always thought that the Alberta government was subsidizing Washington!

Oil Sands

In 2003 Alberta's oil sands were the source of about 52.7 per cent of the province's total crude oil and equivalent production and about 34.8 per cent of all crude oil and equivalent produced in Canada. Over the last three fiscal years, from 2001/2002 to 2003/2004, oil sands development returned $565 million to Albertans in the form of royalties paid to the provincial government.

Annual oil sands production is growing steadily as the industry matures. Output of marketable oil sands production increased to 858,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2003, up from 741,000 bbl/d the year before. It is anticipated that in 2005, Alberta's oil sands production may account for one-half of Canada's total crude output and 10 per cent of North American production. It is also predicted that the oil sands will create a total of 102,000 new jobs across Canada by 2012.

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp

[niallmac]

18. Good idea. By that time Detroit

will be producing cars that get 45 miles to the gallon!
Ah Oil! Glorious Oil! Planet smudge pot need not fear.

[lovuian]

5. Ok this is a smoke screen!!! Yes it is there but it takes more

energy to get it out of the tar sand than it creates so add to that 1.4 trillion double that to get it out so its not worth what is written there!!!

Its interesting to see how they want people to think we have tons of alternative fuels out there!!!

[StrafingMoose]

31. My thoughts, exactly.

[sonicx]

6. No wonder Cheney loves Alberta...

[AspenRose]

45. Calgary is practically Houston North....

eom

[stevedeshazer]

7. And Dick Cheney was to be there last month sizing it up.

They said he canceled because of Hurricane Katrina.

Watch out, Canada. Our government is going after your oil. Your fresh water will be next.

http://www.ems.org/nws/2005/08/26/accessing_canada

[nine23]

8. Yeah. And guess who's willing to use "shock and awe" and bad trade deals..

...in order to get 90% of it? (Not that "trade deals", which usually imply acting in good faith, really mean anything to our neighbours to the south...)

Oil is only PART of the reason Canada must trash NAFTA and re-purpose our trade relationship with the US NOW, as in YESTERDAY.

[Maple]

11. Oh it's there

and Shell assured me 30 years ago they'd found a way to get it out cheaply.

They keep making that announcement every 5 years.

It just never happens.

Oil is plentiful...cheap oil is not.

[Hardrada]

15. It'll be like burning cognac in your car

or something equally dear.

[hatrack]

16. Yup - turning cheap in situ natural gas in very expensive synthetic oil

And when the natural gas on site runs out . . . uh . . . :eyes:

[shadowknows69]

17. So we're just going to rape the earth until its all gone

Still not seeing any stories on that breakthrough in alternative energy george. Brothers and sisters in Canada. Be afraid be very afraid. Your country now has a price tag.

[eridani]

19. Can we have some basic energy calculations here please?

How many kilocalories of energy does it take to get 1 kilocalorie's worth of energy from the sands? The first number had better be lower than the second, or the sands are an energy sink, not an energy source. If the first number is higher, the sands aren't an energy supply at all, just another mineral like iron or copper ore.

Nature does not deal in dollars, Euros or yen, but in kilocalories. And nature bats last.

[Strelnikov_]

23. OK. 730 scf Nat Gas Reqd. Per bbl Tar Sand Syncrude

Nat Gas - 730 scf @ 1,031 BTU/scf = 752.6 kBTU Nat Gas/bbl syncrude
Crude - 5,800 kBTU/bbl

Therefore, EPR = 5,800/752.6 = 7.7

Of course, this only considers the natural gas input. My bet is a full process EPR of < 3 when you consider all the steps in the production process.

Also, at todays NYMEX price of $14.11 MMBTU, $10.60/bbl of syncrude cost is attributable to natural gas.

[eridani]

25. OK, that makes it doable, but we probably would rather not--

--unless we've run into a wall with other options. The water usage is a serious problem also.

[davekriss]

37. EPR for crude was as high as 80 some 50 years ago...

..., now sits at around 23 to 1, and for new discoveries is around 8 to 1. Tar sands, yes, look to have an EPR (Energy Profit Ratio) of less than 3 to 1 (some say as low as 0.7, which means as mentioned it is an energy sink, not a source of net energy).

While the anti-peak contingent will say that, look, the oil is there -- there is as much oil coating the grains of Alberta sands as has been consumed by the world to date, therefore declining supply is not something that we have to deal with today. However, that thinking is flawed on a number of counts.

First, it's all about EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested). If the current economic mix of winners and losers has been built upon a foundation of 23-to-80 EPR, and even at that level a large portion of the planet lived destitute, mired in misery outside the oil slickened mainstream, then what is the plight of the many when net available energy declines? Will entrenched elites engage in self-benefiting imperial wars to capture unimpeded access to future supplies without having to diminish profit to themselves? On whom will they displace the added costs? Letting the planet plutocrats decide for us what our future course shall be is like the hen asking the fox for directions to the hen-house feeder.

Second, global warming. The collective sigh of relief that one sees in discussions of things like tar sands means the audience forgets that continued carbon-based energy consumption is unsustainable regardless of supply. It runs into the brick wall of global warming. But that's another thread.

[Strelnikov_]

39. That Is Why My Mantra Is "It's The Thermodynamics"

(and, of course geology)

Of course, about that time eyes glaze over and they start chanting Yerginite psalms about high prices spurring increase in supply.

My belief is that estimates of whether this or that process is 'cost effective' is based on transitory energy costs for the input energy sources. For example, tar sands probably looked pretty good at $3.00/ MMBTU for Nat Gas. I wonder how the economics look at $20/MMBTU?

And how about all those electric utilities that jumped on the natural gas bandwagon, because the 'economics were favorable'.

Basically, energy in general is a fungible commodity, and increased costs for one source will eventually bleed over to all other sources as substitutions are made.

[wellstone_democrat]

20. uh oh...we are going to have to invade you!

We can't help ourselves. God wants us to have your oil because,you see, its really *our* oil.

You should NEVER have told! What were you people thinking?

[Psephos]

21. Haw. That's chickenfeed next to the oil in Wyoming and Colorado shale

Something like $5 trillion at $40/bbl there.

Rest easy, maple friends.

Peace.

[humus]

22. unLeadBelly

Alberta let your black oil,flow
Alberta let your black oil,flow,
I'll give you more gold than your apron can hold
If you'll just let your black oil,flow

Alberta what's on you mind
Alberta what's on you mind
You keep me worried, you keep me bothered all the time
Alberta what's on you mind

Alberta don't treat me unkind
Alberta don't treat me unkind
My heart feels sad 'cause I want you so bad
Alberta don't treat me unkind

Alberta let your black oil,flow,
Alberta let your black oil,flow,
I'll give you more gold than your apron can hold
If you'll just let your black oil,flow

[all.of.me]

27. are we going to invade alberta now?!

[raccoon]

29. Reckon so. If they can just hold out till winter, they can freeze

us out.

Think Stalingrad when the Germans invaded. Or Napoleon.

[Zynx]

34. Nah, we have plenty of people used to that weather.

My state puts a half-million armed men in the woods every late November, after all.

[TrogL]

43. Or Hitler running too many fronts at the same time

Also remember that Canada has made a LOT of friends over the years including her new friend China.

[Chicago Democrat]

35. BULL! THE PLANET CANNOT AFFORD THIS "OIL"

which needs to be cooked and cooked and burned and FILLS THE SKY WITH BLACK TAR SMOKE AND KILLS BIRDS AND ANIMALS AND CHILDREN AND GRASS!

[anotherdrew]

36. that would fund the US military for 4 or 5 years, big money...

not.

I'm surprised it's not more

[Solon]

41. And it'll cost 2.4 to 3 trillion to extract it...

GREAT WAY TO SPEND MONEY AND TIME!!!!!

:sarcasm:

[lakeguy]

47. nowhere in that figure is the cost to the ENVIRONMENT!

everything is cheap if you ignore the damage caused to the only friggen home we have. coal is cheap, oil is cheap, and so on.

i wonder if we will ever reach a point where the REAL cost associated with our actions will be included.