Good News From Alberta and Newfoundland...

Seems Alberta Oilsands production could triple within the decade to 3 million barrels per day says the National Energy Board. And in other good news Newfoundland's reserves have been revised upward significantly in an announcement by the CBC and I found support docs in PDF format at the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. A small but welcome bit of news on my part... will energy prices go down in a meaningful way?... likely not in any of our lifetimes.

Victor K.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by V Kaminski]

Well this is good news for North American Oil Security, it will ahve very little impact on prices. If the price goes down too much these projects will no longer be profitable, thus they will be put on hold. At current price levels these projects are just over the break even point, since oil sands are much harder to extract and refine then conventional crude.

However this is great news for Alberta, as long as the Eastern Canadians don't put forth another NEP.

Our local paper said recently that Canada's Oil Sands has 1.3 trillion barrels which puts it right up at the top of the list. Then you have to consider the discovery in Colorado and Utah that also totals in the trillions (US estimates vary from 2.0 to 2.5 trillion) of barrels making the US and Canada the worlds largest oil reserves in the world.

As for the cost to produce it, I think it is only a matter of time before they tweak current methods which will make them more cost effective and then it might possibly lower the price some, just how much no one really knows.

Sometimes I wonder if the US will wait until the worlds supplies get real low and then one day announce that "look here we have trillions in oil reserves". Now you will have to buy from us. It wouldn't surprise me.

Originally posted by shots
As for the cost to produce it, I think it is only a matter of time before they tweak current methods which will make them more cost effective and then it might possibly lower the price some, just how much no one really knows.

Good point shots! I was thinking along the same lines. When the push comes to shove, with enough R&D the current methods can be perfected to achieve much better effiency and lower costs. Thing is, right now it's not in the interest of big oil. And sure as hell, they won't pass the savings on to the people....

There may be a fly in the ointment when it comes to oilsands exploitation using current technology... water use, humgo-water use. I don't have anyway of assessing the implications but some folks do find it a pressing concern. Those who may wish to resd a little more on this please try the following CBC link.

Thanx,

Victor K.

Originally posted by V Kaminski
Those who may wish to resd a little more on this please try the following CBC link.

I have been following this for some time and what do you expect from an environmental think-tank? Of course they are going to try and throw some kind of opposition in the way of development. According to them we have a shortage of owls, in the SW, oh wait that was proven to be a lie. According to them rare snakes have been seen on certain lands where developments are scheduled to go up, Oh wait those too have been proven too be lies The list goes on and on, I do not care if it is tree hungers, animal rights or those against drilling for oil all have been known to lie.

[edit on 6/6/2006 by shots]

Originally posted by steve99
Sometimes I wonder if the US will wait until the worlds supplies get real low and then one day announce that "look here we have trillions in oil reserves". Now you will have to buy from us. It wouldn't surprise me.

I've thought this for some time too. The US refuses to drill in ANWR, and off it's coasts, just sitting on it's oil reserves, and buying/using up everyone else's.

Originally posted by V Kaminski
There may be a fly in the ointment when it comes to oilsands exploitation using current technology... water use, humgo-water use.

You do have to use a lot of water for in-situ recovery. With the possibility of water shortages in the future, it is a bit of a concern. I think that can be fairly easily overcome through the use of non-potable water instead of fresh. You just need to convince the energy companies to switch and good luck on that.

Another problem is heating the water to turn it into steam. The water is normally heated with natural gas, a pollutant and also a fossil fuel. You end up trading one resource to get at the other.

The easy solution to the water heating problem is go nuclear. Not a popular idea at all.

I figure if you line up the environmentalists on one side and the oil companies on the other side, somewhere in the middle will be a decent solution that everyone can live with.

After all, a good compromise is when neither side gets everything they want.

No, a good compromise is when both sides come away feeling like they won.

shots, the point about Fresh water consumption is a valid criticism. Canadian's are rather lucky to have the worlds largest Fresh water reserves in the world though.

Another thing, most environmentalists are not against "development." We are against irresponsible development. There is just as much money, if not more money, in green, renewable technologies and regardless of how much oil we have, we still do need to look into switching soon, within the next 10 to 20 years.

I think Duzey may be right. I was pokin' around looking for more data and there is some new technology on the way that may promise better efficiency and reduced water use... I gather the process is called "frothing". I found a Link at Natural Resources Canada. Sounds interesting.

Thanx,

Victor K.

[edit on 6-6-2006 by V Kaminski]

Originally posted by sardion2000
Another thing, most environmentalists are not against "development." We are against irresponsible development. There is just as much money, if not more money, in green, renewable technologies and regardless of how much oil we have, we still do need to look into switching soon, within the next 10 to 20 years.

Well said. It's not a question of how much oil is sitting in the ground we must look at cleaner alternatives for our energy needs. Depending on oil is a one way ticket to nowhere.

brill

Originally posted by sardion2000
No, a good compromise is when both sides come away feeling like they won.

Even if neither side got everything they wanted.

There's no time like the present to look around for better alternatives to oil. Yes, we have the oilsands to get more crude from, but when you have to expend an equal amount (if not twice over) of energy to extract it, while spewing pollutants in the air, it's not a good long-term solution.

After all, Sardion has enough problems breathing already.


PS. I had only heard of frothing being used to recover minerals from the tailings. I'll have to look into that more. Thanks for the link Victor.


[edit on 6-6-2006 by Duzey]

Originally posted by DSO
Well this is good news for North American Oil Security, it will ahve very little impact on prices.

Mostly because oil prices have very little to do with supply and demand to start with. There is a overwhelming amount of oil on this planet but since it is not in the interest of any government to give it's citizens freedom of movement were stuck where we are.

If the price goes down too much these projects will no longer be profitable, thus they will be put on hold. At current price levels these projects are just over the break even point, since oil sands are much harder to extract and refine then conventional crude.

Which is what they want you to believe but also completely unrelated to the truth. With proper government support ( the US government spends more money on middle east insecurity- 50 billion USD-,to drive prices up, than the cheaper oil it gets from there is worth) Us oil sources could be exploited rather cheaply and all without being dependent on foreign sources.

The heavy syrup is either drawn out with heat or mined with machinery and then heated to transform it into usable oil. The production cost per barrel, $10 to $20, makes it competitive with conventional oil in the United States.

The oil sands didn't yield their treasure overnight. Suncor Energy of Calgary, the first company to begin such operations, in 1967, embarked on a major expansion in 1998, when the worldwide price of oil had plummeted to around $10 per barrel and the cost of producing from oil sands was still well over $20 per barrel. "It did take a lot of nerve," Chief Executive Officer Rick George recalls. The company continues to absorb risks. Early last year, a major fire cut Suncor's daily output for 2005 by 22 percent. Even so--in a measure of just how profitable this business is--Suncor saw a 14 percent increase in net income.

www.usnews.com...

So somehow it could be afforded in Canada but not the 'great' US of A? Fact is governments make choices not based on economic possibilities , or even realities, but on what suits their freedom stealing ends best.

Anyways!

Stellar