Alberta is about to get wildly rich and powerful (ENOUGH OIL 4US 4 50 YRS)

[theearthisround]

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/business/article.jsp?content=20050613_107308_107308

Energy has become a central obsession of international politics in recent years, as exploding economic growth in Asia and America's ongoing love affair with gas-guzzling vehicles have accelerated the drain on world petroleum reserves. Terrorism, trade, the war in Iraq, nuclear diplomacy -- all of it, on some level, is related to the international preoccupation with energy, and access to affordable oil. So if Canada is to play a more significant global role in the years ahead, experts agree it will be due to the reeking, doughy black soil in northern Alberta, and the rest of the world's keen desire to share it. "The oil sands give Canada one of the single greatest advantages of any state in the Western world," says Paul Chastko, a University of Calgary historian who recently published a book called Developing Alberta's Oil Sands. "It gives Canada the ability to supply all of North America for the next 50 years without touching a drop of imported oil." It is, in short, an economic engine and political lever that any nation would desperately love to have.

---------
And this, clearly, is just the beginning. The region's population is projected to grow by about 43 per cent in the next five years, all because of the oil sands. The National Energy Board estimates there are approximately 1.6 trillion barrels of crude bitumen saturating the ground in northern Alberta. Bitumen -- a form of heavy, thick oil laden with sulphur and deficient in hydrogen -- can be refined into synthetic crude oil to make everything from gasoline to plastics. It is the lifeblood of every industrialized economy. According to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, about 178 billion barrels of bitumen are economically recoverable using existing technology -- enough to produce more than 150 billion barrels of crude.

If these estimates are accurate, Canada's oil reserves rank second behind only Saudi Arabia's 260 billion barrels. And there are many who believe the current oil sands assessments understate the true potential here. The AEUB has projected that rising prices and improved technology could ultimately push the oil sands yield close to 300 billion barrels, which would make it the richest petroleum field in the world. By 2015, the oil sands are expected to be producing roughly three million barrels of petroleum a day. Assuming prices will average US$40 a barrel (well below where they are today), that suggests annual revenues of close to US$43 billion.

(more)
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/business/article.jsp?content=20050613_107308_107308

[jsamuel]

1. maybe now the US will stop being asses about the wood thing

[Maple]

2. I'd be all excited

except they said the same thing back in the early 70s.

Then the price of oil crashed.

[theearthisround]

9. Thats because the Monopoly Oil cartel created artificial scarcity for $$$

As they have done multiple times before and are doing today.

"Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it"


Heres a book about the Oil Monopoly, for free.

The Energy Non-Crisis by Lindsey Williams
http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

(excerpt)
There is no true energy crisis. There never has been an energy crisis... except as it has been produced by the Federal government for the purpose of controlling the American people. That's a rather dramatic statement. to make, isn't it? But you see, at one time I too thought there was an energy crisis. After all, that was what I had been told by the news media and by the Federal government. I thought we were running out of crude oil and natural gas. Then I heard, I saw, and I experienced what I am about to write. I soon came to realize that there is no energy crisis. There is no need for America to go cold or for gas to be rationed. We shall verify these statements as we provide the facts for you. You might be surprised to find that we will also show why the price of gas will remain high, and in fact will go higher than it is now.

[Maple]

12. LOL ah yet another conspiracy

Hey, there is lots of oil...there's just no more cheap oil.

And society will do what it always has when a commodity becomes too expensive. Switch to something cheaper.

[theearthisround]

17. From 3$ to 6$ a barrel is cheap with oil at 60$ a barrel!

I agree though, we should switch to alternatives!

[Maple]

20. Oil won't be 60$ a barrel

It isn't now.

And as the price of oil goes up...so do the production costs.

And in any case, customers will promptly switch.

[theearthisround]

23. true

[Blue_Tires]

28. edit

n/m

[loudsue]

30. That is so much bullshit!! The good baptist reverend is trying to

say the U.S. government is being taken over by socialists, and trying to nationalize the Alaskan oil fields.

In some respects, what he's saying is true! But he's got the "spin" altogether wrong.

The truth is, the oil companies ARE the government, and they are controlling the flow of oil to create the crisis du juor. It's not socialism that's doing it (that favorite of all right-wing bogey men), it's corporatism: the taking over of the government by corporations.

Republicans, the DLC, and actually both political parties have been slowly buying into the corporatizing of America... i.e., fascism.

:kick:

[Systematic Chaos]

3. What kind of bullshit hype IS this??

Haven't I heard several times that the EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) is something like 3:1 from these oil sands, as opposed to 10 or more to 1 from most oil fields? That alone, plus the more difficult refining processes, means that even if there were that much available oil it would cost out the wazoo.

Anything to keep the sheep fat and complacent, eh?

[Petrodollar Warfare]

50. EROEI for tar sands is 1.5 ...(not 3)

(some exerts from my book, just and fyi re this subject...)

The Paradigm Shift: Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI)

One of the crucial concepts required to understand the importance of Peak Oil relates to a phenomenon in physics commonly described as Energy Return on Energy Invested, or EROEI. Unlike the traditional financial metric, Return on Investment (ROI), EROEI refers to the amount of energy spent compared to the amount of energy extracted. EROEI is the ratio between energy expended to extract a barrel of oil, versus the energy provided by that barrel of oil.

Fifty years ago when some of the super-giant oil fields were still being discovered, one of these could produce an EROEI of 200, that is, energy production 200 hundred times greater than the energy actually expended to extract the oil. In contrast, oil wells in deep water currently achieve an EROEI of less than 5. Oil removed from the tar sands, as found in Canada, have a very low EROEI of 1.5, along with a slow extraction process.

Once global Peak Oil is reached and exceeded, a critical point is attained on the downward side of Hubbert’s curve, when it requires more energy to extract a given unit of oil than what it will produce if extracted. Of the remaining oil in the ground or at the bottom of the ocean, a positive EROEI is required if that oil is to be used as transportation fuel. To reiterate, when the energy required to extract very low-grade or geographically undesirable oil is equal to or greater than the energy that would be provided by that new barrel of oil, it will no longer be logical to expend the energy to extract the oil. In such a scenario, the EROEI for that oil field becomes an energy sink, and the oil will simply remain in the ground.

It is for these reasons that the world will never technically run out of oil; rather, it will ultimately become simply too energy-intensive to extract low-quality or geographically inaccessible oil. Unlike ROI calculations, the amount of money invested in a mature oil field is completely irrelevant if the energy required to extract the oil is greater than the energy that would be derived from recovering the oil.

Despite the historic social, economic, and geopolitical implications of global Peak Oil, many governments still appear reluctant to publish this information — even though the facts regarding global oil discovery and production are perfectly apparent to the rational observer. Instead, the global society has acquired an unfounded belief that more oil will be discovered as needed in order to further economic growth, but this is a false construct.

...so, here's my take on Canada's tar sands...

While it is true that Canada does have billions of barrels of oil trapped in sand, separating the sand from this heavy oil/bitumen requires huge amounts of energy, mainly tremendous volumes of high-pressure water that must be heated, usually by natural gas. This process also produces an enormous amount of wastewater that is environmentally dangerous and reportedly carcinogenic. Unfortunately, considering the fresh-water requirements, environmental damage, and a low Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI), oil extraction from Canada’s immense deposits of tar sands will never be a panacea for either Canadian or US energy needs.

[Extend a Hand]

4. I hope it works out that way, but I don't know...

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj05cavallo

<snip>
However, as with all advertisements, it's best to read the fine print. ExxonMobil's world oil production forecast shows no contribution from "oil shale" even by 2030. Only about 4 million barrels of oil per day from Canadian "oil sands" are projected by 2030, accounting for a mere 3.3 percent of the predicted total world demand of 120 million barrels per day. What explains this striking disconnection between the magnitude of the frontier resources and the minimal amount of projected oil production from them? Canadian "oil sands" are actually deposits of bitumen (tar), which are the result of conventional oil degradation by water and air. Tar sands are of a completely different character than conventional oil deposits; making tar sands usable is a capital-intensive venture that requires special procedures such as heating to separate the tar from the sand, mixing the tar with a diluting agent for pipeline transport, and constructing specially equipped refineries for processing.
<snip>

[Minstrel Boy]

5. Recovering oil from bitumen expends a LOT of energy,

needs a LOT of natural gas, and wastes a LOT of fresh water. It's not a magic bullet.

[theearthisround]

14. True, but its a difference of 3$ per barrel to about 6$ a barrel

At 60$ a barrel thats 54$ profit for butimen opposed to 57$ currently.

[Maple]

15. Saudi oil costs

about a dollar a barrel to produce.

Alberta oil costs $18 a barrel to produce.

[theearthisround]

18. Oils over 60$ a barrel my friend! 18$ is still absurdly profitable!

[Maple]

19. Not to the consumer

who will promptly switch to something else.

Bye bye profit.

[theearthisround]

22. True, alternatives will certainly become more economical!

[IChing]

6. My understanding is that the Chinese will benifit from this if

it happens or pans out on energy cost, because of their recent investments in Canada.

[applegrove]

7. There is alot of oil down there. But they do tend to hype it more when

the price of oil starts to rise. They keep bringing up Alberta every time Americans are about to panic. "Don't worry..Alberta...has more oil than the Saudis ever did..". And you are right it is hard to get at and will be really hard to refine and very costly.

[applegrove]

8. Double Post

[notadmblnd]

10. I had read somewhere here on DU that the big Dick was visiting

Alberta last week.

[turbo_satan]

11. I guess that means we'll have to invade and rid them of WMD now. n/t

[Buns_of_Fire]

42. Hey, if you can't f**k over your friends, who can you f**k over?

And since the US has damned few friends left in the world, and England and Australia are so far away (takes lotsa gas to get there, y'know), and boosh* is already getting pissy about the wood thing, and we sent one of our sorriest ambassadors to Canada, and he already covets y'all's press secretaries up there (IIRC, he thought he was better looking than Scotty)... :shrug:

[raccoon]

45. Yes, they are probably hiding WMD in haystacks

and igloos in northern Alberta (if there are any igloos, but that won't matter anyway, just like it doesn't matter that there were no WMD in Iraq).

Wait till winter comes around--it'll be Stalingrad all over again.

[applegrove]

13. And then the Oil exports will skew our dollar so much that all other

exports will be hurt. So Canada will be the first country in the history of the world to excommunicate its oil producing region. We will sell it to the US. for lots of money. Thus saving industry in the rest of the country. Many Albertans want to join the US anyway.

Just kidding.

By 30 years from now..only the emergency services and the army will have access to oil anyway.

[FloridaPat]

16. Well, if Canada is #2 instead of Iraq, that would push you to the top of t

the invasion list!

[Maple]

21. Doesn't require an invasion

The US owns most of the oil companies in Alberta anyway.

[Booster]

24. Oh, shit. Does this mean that bush will attack Canada now?

[Maple]

25. Naahhh

The US has tried that 5 X already.

Never works.

[TahitiNut]

27. Does he know where it is?

:dunce:

[u4ic]

37. LOL

:rofl:

Maybe he should call an inebriated King Ralph for directions. I wonder what homeless shelter they'll end up bombing...

[Brundle_Fly]

31. attacking Canada

would create the biggest political disaster for the Neo-Cons

the world would unite faster than you can say oil, and shut down america.

China, Britain, Mexico, Holland, Australia, France, Iceland, Russia, Finland, India, New Zealand, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Japan etc etc etc....

all of the world is on Canada's side.... America, sadly had very few friends, and would lose the poodle countries instantly.

I am in Alberta, and I have to say this is good news for our province, This whole softwood lumber fiasco, has the local politicians pissed. America will have to start at least playing fair for once.

"It's good to have hand"
-George Costanza

I guess that is why Cheney was here last week.

edit for stupid typos.

[Brundle_Fly]

32. can you even imagine the senate???

or the congress, they'd be fist fighting in the aisles.

[Joebert]

33. I'd figure out how to enlist...

in the Canadian military.

If somebody honestly brought up the prospect of even sniffling at the Canadians, I'd renounce my citizenship and leave the country. That would mean that my country had truly died.

Many people forget it was the Canadians that let our planes land on 9/11. Halifax worked miracles to land all those planes and take care of our people.

Thank goodness, there's no way it will ever come to us even making funny faces at our true friends to the North.

[Brundle_Fly]

35. umm.

Faux News consistently makes funny faces, threatens boycotts, insults us for taking your military runaways, and political defectors.

they use arguments like Canada, "doesn't matter" if america rolled over and crushed canada, the world wouldn't notice, and Faux has bi- monthly specials about how we are screwing america up, and are the easiest source for terrorists to get into the U.S. and how we play games with the borders, and have zero security, and f**ked you by not helping the missile defense system, we have a state run propganda news system (FOX SAYS THIS, ABOUT THE CBC) question our patriotic values, and our hate for americans.

so as for funny faces....you have made more than a few.

I love americans, and most of my Canadian buddies love Americans, and every American we meet, gives us the same schpelle, how they hate Bush and are losing faith in America.

Well no kidding, if we had a media like that, we could be taught to hate anyone too.

I can't believe Americans have become so apathetic they don't DO something, your country is getting stolen from underneath you. EVERYONE on this board see it, and yet nothing happens.

I feel for all of you, and send my love.

[Joebert]

38. As you know, Fox News speaks for a teeny subset of the people.

A lot of my fellow Americans watch it, and do what they're told on that channel, but it's only really for that upper 1/10th of 1%.

As far as doing something about it goes, it's terribly disheartening thinking that we can fix it only to see Diebold and ES&S running the show. Big media hiding what goes on, corporate ownership of the air/dish keeping alternative voices off the air...

It's demoralizing to see the candidates that keep getting sent up against the Reps, when they're just Republicans with a larger vocabulary, and a different color tie.

In my opinion, I think we're all just shell shocked, and don't know what to do about it.

With gas prices going bananas, it's a great way to keep less wealthy people off the roads, and away from large scale protests.

[u4ic]

36. This may be good news for our province

but the cretin in power isn't (Ralph). x(

[BigBearJohn]

26. Maybe I should invest

[NVMojo]

29. sorry but these fuckers have had control over our oil and natural gas

supplies for some time. I could go on. They control all delivery of natural gas in the northwest down to San Francisco, the upper half of Nevada ...and on and on. They have interferred in the production and delivery of any America resource we could have developed and delivered. This is all a fucking planned out scam. Let's all be stupid and shout HOORAH!!!

[Maple]

34. Which fuckers

are you talking about?

[rucky]

39. Woah...slow down. You must know something we don't know

but I'd like to find out.

links? articles?

[bribri16]

40. Maybe Buchanan and Gibson will take back their smear attacks on Canada now

Most Rethugs and RW-nuts speak about Canada as badly as they do about France and Al-qaeda.

[ConcernedCanuk]

41. Great article and worth reading, but c'mon - LBN? > > "June 13, 2005"

.
.
.

wakey wakey mods!

[cornermouse]

43. If true, Alberta's about to lose every single right they ever

thought they had.

[Orrin_73]

44. Watch out Canada, youre on

the hitlist now. They can attack you anytime, prepare for an invasion.

[TrogL]

46. I dunno, I keep having this literal nightmare

US troops storming the Alberta Legislature building and bombing the airfield north of town. Maybe it's true.

[ovidsen]

47. NY Times re: US-Canada-oil

An article in Saturday's Times basically said that the US (and it's citizens!) should really be paying more attention to economic relations with Canada, 'cause Canada has what the US needs. Oil. (Duh!)

last paragraph:

Mr. Camarta (head of Shell Canada's oil sands operations in N. Alberta) told (the writer) that Vice President Dick Cheney would visit the oil sands next month. Memo to Mr. Cheney: Can you settle the softwood lumber dispute while you're there? With all that oil, do we really want Canada mad at us?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/27/business/27nocera.ready.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1125343814-55GvBUvr6pvIijjilJ5S/Q


Heh heh. Heh.:evilgrin:

[yurbud]

48. wasn't cost effective to extract until oil prices got this high.

Hillbilly Hitler art:

[CHIMO]

49. Before

We all go off in an "irrationally exuberant" cloud, it would seem that one should look at the numbers. The present returns are heavily based on natural gas and conventional oil. The web site from the Alberta government shows just how heavily weighted they are weighted to the conventional reserves, which we all know are not out in front of the discussion.

About Royalties

Conventional Oil
The oil royalty rate is determined by:

when the oil pool was discovered (vintage);
the productivity of the well; and,
the inflation adjusted price of oil.
Oil revenues amounted to:
2003/04 $981 million
2004/05 $1.193 billion Q2 (Second Quarter Update)
Budget 2004 assumes that oil prices for fiscal year 2004-2005 will average $US26 bbl WTI (West Texas Intermediate). Q1 Update assumes US$34 bbl. Each US$1 rise or fall in the price of oil averaged over a full fiscal year results in a $65 million difference in budget revenues.

NOTE: The budget and quarterly updated world oil price forecasts are based on historical levels of oil demand growth. Because of recent oil production disruptions due to events like hurricanes in the oil rich Gulf of Mexico, civil unrest in Nigeria, Russian production disruptions, Norwegian labour disruptions etc. present prices are much higher than forecast. The increase in demand coupled with supply disruptions has driven oil prices to record levels.

Natural Gas
The royalty rate on natural gas is determined by:

when the gas pool was discovered (vintage);
the inflation adjusted price of gas less adjustments for the cost of processing the royalty share of the gas; and,
if the well is a low producing well.
The government takes a share of the natural gas and by-products gas produced however as raw gas is not a marketable commodity and has to be processed the government pays for the cost of processing its share into a marketable commodity.

Crown's share of production:

approx. 30% for newer gas
approx. 35% for older gas
less cost to process crown's share

Natural Gas and by-product revenues amounted to:

2003/04 $5.450 billion
2004/05 $6.839 billion (Second Quarter Update)

Budget 2004 assumes that natural gas prices will average Cdn$4.20/Mcf in 2004/05 while the Q1 assumes prices will average $6.01/Mcf. Currently, each Cdn10-cent rise or fall in the price of natural gas averaged over a full fiscal year results in a $105 million difference in revenues.

Oil Sands
Alberta's oil sands royalty was specifically designed to encourage development of the oil sands resource. The 1997 generic oil sands regime takes into account some of the barriers – higher technological risk and higher capital costs – faced by oil sands developers.

Prior to a project's “payout” (the point at which the developer has recovered all allowed costs plus a return allowance) the applicable royalty is 1% of the project's gross revenue. Following a project's payout, the applicable royalty rate is the greater of 25% project net revenue, or 1% of gross revenue.

Oil sands revenues amounted to:

2003/04 $197 million
2004/05 $554 million (Second Quarter Update)

Budget 2004 assumes that oil prices for fiscal year 2004-2005 will average $US26 bbl (West Texas Intermediate). Q1 Update assumes $34/b. Oil sands royalties currently increase/decrease by $12 million per $1 WTI bbl. More importantly, higher prices accelerate the point at which projects reach payout.

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/157.asp

So go to the site and read it. Take from it as you will. But it all depends on high prices, and the price of natural gas and water has to be factored into the equation as well. Plus lots of other factors.

[NMMNG]

51. Ok, so Alberta can supply the US for 50 years

Then what? 50 years is not that long in the grand scheme of things. It would be incredibly short sighted to jump on Alberta as a cure to our Middle-Eastern oil woes. We'd have a reprieve for a few decades, then be right back where we started.

What we need to do is start weaning ourselves from the petroleum teat, rather than just looking for a new place to suckle. Sadly, this is not likely to be the MO for Bushco.