Canada may have the world's largest source of crude oil

Canada's oil sands are quickly becoming one of the world's largest sources of crude oil. Some 315 billion barrels are considered recoverable using today's known production technologies, with some 2.5 trillion barrels being the ultimate volume in-place.

http://www.capp.ca/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=688

------------------------

Petroleum resources
New stature for Canadian oil sands

Estimates of Canada’s oil reserves jumped from 4.9 billion barrels to 180 billion this year, making the country the second-largest oil reserve in the world , according to an annual survey conducted by the Oil and Gas Journal. The change catapults Canada ahead of Iraq in terms of reserve size, and decreases OPEC’s share of the world’s oil reserves by more than 10 percent.


An electric shovel loads a haul truck with oil sands mined from the surface of the Athabasca Oil Sands Deposit in Alberta, Canada. Syncrude Canada Ltd., the world’s largest producer of crude oil from oil sands, typically mines 155 million tons of sand each year. Photo courtesy of Syncrude Canada, Ltd.

The survey, based on information provided by companies and governmental agencies, characterizes the current state of the oil and gas industry — both in terms of production and reserves. This year the journal included Alberta’s vast oil sands as part of Canada’s oil reserves. “We have known about the oil sands reserves for a while. We decided to incorporate them now because we recognize that they are economically viable,” says Marilyn Radler, economics editor for the Oil and Gas Journal. In order for an oil resource to be termed a reserve, it must be possible to extract it profitably with existing technologies and under present economic conditions.

The riches of the oil sands lie in bitumen, a thick and tar-like hydrocarbon mixed in with sand, water and clay. The most common way to excavate bitumen is to strip-mine large volumes of sand. Processing plants add hot water and chemicals to the sand to create slurries; bitumen floats to the surface while sand settles out.

Traditionally a high-cost endeavor, mining for bitumen has become much more feasible over the past two decades with the cost for producing a barrel of oil now roughly $8. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that by 2005, 10 percent of North America’s oil production will come from Alberta’s sands (Geotimes, November 2002). One of the main drivers behind reducing costs is a technology called hydrotransport. Rather than hauling oil-laden sands to processing plants by truck or conveyer belt, the new approach mixes the sand with hot water to create slurries that can be transported via pipeline.

<SNIP>

This scares me.

Whatever the immediate investment climate, the United States has strong long-term interests in the Alberta oil sands. According to the Bush administration’s National Energy Policy, “their continued development can be a pillar of sustained North American energy and economic security."

<SNIP>

http://www.geotimes.org/mar03/NN_canada.html
-----------------

Canada’s oil sands are one of the world’s largest hydrocarbon resources. In recent years, stronger energy prices, together with significant strides in technology, have made this resource increasingly more economic to develop.

Over $60 billion in new oil sands related projects have been proposed, with $20 billion already invested in completed projects. In 2004, oil sands production will surpass 160 000 cubic metres (1 million barrels) per day; by 2015, production is expected to more than double to 340 000 cubic metres (2.2 million barrels) per day. Growth in global oil demand suggests that markets will exist for the rising oil sands output and pipelines will be constructed or expanded to tap these markets.

SNIP

http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/newsroom/releases/nr2004/nr0413_e.htm

Regime change is a comin'!

<nyuk, nyuk>

the White House, next time it will be the REAL source of power, Cheney's house, eh!

just to second the motion

Canada has better healthcare, cheaper prescription drugs, lower crime (without significantly more restrictive gun control laws), and it's the birthplace of Paul Schaffer.

Couldn't the United States just surrender?

On Edit: I'm listening a Gordon Lightfoot CD right now!

who knows a good deal when he sees it!

seriously.

and the US troops aren't going to go far. No need for a beefed up military, as Iraq shows, there are different ways to fight an invasion.

EH?

It appears to use a lot of water and water will be getting scarce too. And what happens to the water after the industrial process? What and how much land will be desecrated?
Would the replacement of the internal combustion engine not be a better goal?

Does oil sands 'mining' affect the environment?

A large part of mining operations involves clearing trees and brush from a site and removing the overburden – the topsoil, muskeg, sand, clay and gravel – that sits atop the oil sands deposit. The topsoil and muskeg are stockpiled so they can be replaced as sections of the mined-out area are reclaimed; the rest of the overburden is used to reconstruct the landscape when mining is completed.

Developers are required to restore oil sands mining sites to at least the equivalent of their previous biological productivity, which means the region as a whole forms an ecosystem landscape at least as healthy and productive as that which existed before development.

Oil sands operations emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas (GHG), which is considered a contributor to climate change. Oil sands developers have been actively working towards reducing CO2 emissions by 45 per cent per barrel by 2010, compared to 1990 levels.

More information about GHGs and climate change is available at www.gov.ab.ca/env/climate.html, Alberta Environment's website devoted to the topic.

<SNIP>

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/com/Room/Public+Reference/Commodity-Info/Oil+Sands+FAQs.htm

Unfortunately, we've seen how these projects work, in the best cases it looks good but biodiversity is severely compromised. Are we impacting any endemic species? And how much acreage are we talking about? Do you expect developers to pick up the tab and do a good job?

Full of questions, aren't I?

I used to live in the Athapasca region in the Southern NWT for a spell, so I know the region.

Yes it will impact edemic species. I am sure. They will be pushed out into areas that are not be essentially strip mined. The damage being done in British Columbia with logging is worse.



The developers, as you can see I stated above, are bound contractually to do so. I expect the government will push them to return the habitat back to normal.

rides herd on those guys better than we do.
BTW, endemic species are those found only in a specified area, if you destroy their habitat they are gone. There could well be species of birds that only breed in sharply defined areas up there, though I'd have to check.

SUV tax break may reach $75,000

Environmentalists bash Bush plan

By Jeff Plungis / Detroit News Washington Bureau


WASHINGTON -- President Bush's economic stimulus plan could triple the size of a little-known tax loophole that some small business owners are using to finance purchases of large SUVs.

One of Bush's proposed tax cuts would raise from $25,000 to $75,000 the amount small business owners -- including doctors, lawyers and financial advisers -- can write off when buying an SUV for business purposes.

Since the SUV loophole was first reported by The Detroit News last month, several consumer groups and lawmakers have raised concerns about the fairness of the provision. The debate signals more trouble for a popular vehicle segment crucial to Detroit automakers, whose profits have been sustained largely because of the SUV boom over the last decade.

How did tax policy

<SNIP>

http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosinsider/0301/20/a01-64218.htm
Why does the government willingly give billions of dollars to the airlines, but begrudge every penny that Amtrak needs? How can a country five times smaller than us spend $15 billion to improve its already great railroad network when we are unwilling to spend one tenth of that on Amtrak?

Truly, the US government's neglect of Amtrak is a scandal!


Rail travel should be encouraged

Rail travel is inherently safer than air travel. Rail travel is more energy efficient than air travel. Rail travel is, in many cases (short routes under ~300 miles) quicker than air travel. Rail travel is less vulnerable to terrorist mass-destruction attack.

Most important of all (!) rail travel is vastly more comfortable and enjoyable than air or bus travel. Passengers can enjoy much more personal space, open areas to move around in, buffet/dining facilities, and not worry about getting stuck in a middle seat!

Rail travel is good, no matter what measuring stick you apply. Rail travel deserves to be encouraged. Rail travel deserves government support in at least equal measure to that given to air and road transportation.

<SNIP>

http://www.thetravelinsider.info/2002/0628.htm

Try living in LA without a car.

This is Amerika, we worship our cars! We've created an infrastructure that has the car and oil at it's very heart. Would you tear out the Heart of The American Way? Do you hate us for our freedom? You would have us adopt godless socialist rail travel? Consider Iraq and think again. Got oil?
Try living in South Carolina without a car, there is virtually no public transport here. Never had a car myself, and therefore I must adjust my wants and needs to those around me and perhaps not go everywhere I'd like to, but I get where I need. But try selling that to Amerikans!

We are well and truly fucked, I don't see our people changing until it's way too late.

I drive a bike every day in Holland. Car is for holidays.

http://www.cs.vu.nl/~jmeijer/groningen/pages/fietsen3.html





more pics of Groningen cycling system here

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/events/visits/groningen/


Train Station



Roads and cycle paths. As remarked, separate cycling paths form an essential part of the Dutch traffic network. Many of them serve as a separate lane for cyclists along main traffic roads, these roads themselves are therefore invariably forbidden for bicycle traffic. This means that a few large road bridges or tunnels cannot be used, but most of them are equipped with cycle lanes. On the other hand, there are numerous touristic cycle paths, small bridges and ferries providing additional opportunities that cars don't get! Very pleasant are the touristic cycle paths leading through recreational areas or rural landscapes. These paths often have a connecting function as well and can therefore be used as part of larger cycle tours. Also, the secondary and backroads make pleasant cycling as well.

though it helps if you're young and live in an urban setting. When I lived in the city I biked everywhere. Now I'm older, live 15 miles from town, so I live within my self imposed limits since I don't own a car.
Sorry about the presumption of nationality, I'd be proud of either.

it is better to replace the internal combustion engine. The problem is this... And I for the first time on this site will say that I am a conservative but hate repukes and am looking for people who think like I do but don't think its dems so i scour sites looking for people who think like I do... Tough to find... don't like the shrub but don't like kerry either

Anyways, I believe the internal combustion engine needs replaced but the problem is there is no set tech that can be used now for all. It needs further development and Clinton and the shrub both discussed it but its tough to get congress to do anyhting to fund the research. Fuel cells and solar are not ready and biodeisel is ready but not a whole lot of places to buy the fuel yet. It will take the better part of a generation to produce these things. But then again it is difficult to fund the research because big oil doesn't want to lose their grip on the world. Europe already uses an alternative source of energy to fuel power plants instead of coal. We do in the US at 34 places, mostly in California. That alternative source is cow poop. the equipment to refine it runs around 300 grand and produces something like 2000 kwh of energy every year per place. Its renewable methane supply and doesn't destroy the environment with as much pollution. Again though energy companies don't like it... Sigh... and animal rights groups don't want to further the so called "torture of cattle". Sigh... They are bread for food and milk. Might as well use everything we can. Even better the by-product is a very high purity fertilizer thats ALL NATURAL... no MTBE's. makes perfect sense. UNFORTUNATELY, its still not gonna happen.

The rest of the stuff is pie in the sky science that is not proven to work in large scale yet. Until then my conservative ass will drive my saturn that gets forty miles to the gallon and recycle my aluminum and steel products and limit the heat and electricity I use to do my part and use an electric razor (which is quite a bit more efficient than disposables and shaving cream)...

Can we just set up a new government a little further west like in St. Louis or KC and restart without special interest groups and get some damned term limits so maybe we can get friggin policies that make sense.

Oh yeah, you can't dictate lower drug costs like canada does because those drug costs go not only to line pockets but to also fund research for newer and better drugs. The asshole CEO's will get theirs whether they fund new drugs or not...

conservatives.

Good for Canada, eh?

But they do have wicked winds up there and stand to benefit from harnessing it.

to break off and become independent, then the Bush misAdministration might just use that as a reason to help try to "keep the country united".

Prepare to be listed as "condemned" and the Bush misAdministration use, once again, its power of "eminent domain", just like the Texas Rangers ballpark.

Hell, invading a country was nothing to them, why not use the ole "eminent domain" schtick??

For a number of good reasons.

The heat has cooled since the referendum ten years ago.

The Cree and Inuit Natives who populate 2/3's of the northern part of the province (where all the resources are) voted over 95% not to secede from Canada. Their argument is if French Canadians have the right to self determination so do they. The Quebecois disagree of course and want the whole province.

There are pockets of anglos all over Quebec and the end result will look like the West Bank with borders running around towns.

It's not going to happen.

I don't think that would justify a US invasion, even if secession were to succeed in some form.

If anything Canada will just become a better place to live... wealthier, with ample social programs, more money to spend on the protection of the environment, an intact and strong socialised health program with free medical for all - and still continue to be the world's leader in immigration (300,000-plus per year)

No amount of Clarity Acts or deals can stop Quebec seceeding if that's what they want to do. If Quebeckers vote for secession, the views of Anglos and natives will be subservient to the will of the majority.

Not with federal native treaties to be settled. It's more complex that 'the majority'.

The majority does not always rule as proven by your 2000 elections.

Whatever happens, Quebec will not be partitioned. That's a very dangerous precedence, and as we've seen elsewhere, no solution. Quebec will either leave or stay as an intact unit. Do not fool yourself that we will be able to dictate terms to a Quebec intent on seperation.
When there is more than two choices on a ballot, it's likely a plurality will prevail. When there are only two choices, the majority will prevail.

and, under those terms, Quebec would lose their economic base. Quebec will not separate, there is no appetite for it anymore even within the Quebeqois.

Therefore discussion is moot.

If they go for a UDI, the Clarity Act means very little.
My point is, if Quebec really wants to secede, there is very little we can do about it. I'm certainly not going to hold anybody within confederation by force. If we want to alleviate the tensions within Canada, we have to give Quebec the option to leave. If we don't give that option, if we state that we will willingly frustrate their ambitions and force them to remain within Canada, we only succeed in strengthing the seperatist hand.

In the international community their right to self determination could be considered as viable as the Quebecois.

When people can UDI, there's very little you can do.

Village declares independence

Just when you thought revolutions had gone out of fashion, the residents of a sleepy English village have proved it is not the case.

The East Sussex hamlet has declared independence from the UK, erected a series of border posts and demanded "foreigners" obtain visas to obtain entry.

The People's Republic of Ashurst Wood Nation State - which uses the acronym Prawns - announced its break from "taxation and British oppression" in the first minute of 1 January.

A revolutionary committee informed the Queen and Prime Minister Tony Blair of its intention to rule unencumbered by the law of the land.

The "universal declaration of independence" came with a statement saying: "We are pleased and proud to announce to the world that we are no longer prawns of the government of the Disunited Kingdom, we are now Prawns in our own right."

<SNIP>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/594935.stm

called "Exxoneration," in which a fuel-desperate US invades Canada for its oil. Canada manages to stave off the invasion by applying cleverness rather than military might. The hero of the book is the head of Petro-Canada. Funny stuff.

You see, the thing is, if the price of oil drops, they'll stop oil sand processing. It only makes economic sense if oil is expensive. The same is true of a number of other non-crude oil resources such as the oil tar in South America. They might make economic sense to develop if oil is above $40 a barrel, but don't make sense if it's any cheaper than that.

And if pure crude is truly in decline it won't drop below US$40. It will allow tar sands to become economically viable and compete in the market, which is something OPEC does not want, but is inevitable.

terrorists and their oil?

I mean, Bush can't read, so he won't find out...
Right?
Damn it, I LIKE Canada and would rather it not be invaded.

Venezeula. Chavez is on the hit list.

Surprised?

Heavy oils, which can be pumped and refined just like conventional petroleum except that they are thicker and have more sulfur and heavy metal contamination, necessitating more extensive refining. Venezuela's Orinoco heavy oil belt is the best known example of this kind of unconventional reserve. Estimated reserves: 1.2 trillion barrels.
Tar Sands, which can be recovered via surface mining or in-situ collection techniques. Again, this is more expensive than lifting conventional petroleum but not prohibitively so. Canada's Athabasca Tar Sands is the best known example of this kind of unconventional reserve. Estimated reserves: 1.8 trillion barrels.


http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/3unconventional.html

use to be ours surely, so close very close, lets see they do have a large muslin group, could be part of axis of evil..............grinnin, and a teasin

That is the question.

Canada has vast reserves of oil in its tar sands deposits in northern Alberta. These are worldscale deposits relative to known conventional oil reserves and will play an important role in theworld's economy in years to come. Substantial energy is required to extract the oil andupgrade it into usable products. This energy is currently derived from fossil fuels and releasesof carbon dioxide are a consequence. Additionally, hydrogen may be produced as a materialcomponent used to upgrade the oil. This hydrogen is currently produced by reforming ofmethane to remove the hydrogen component which also produces carbon dioxide which isgenerally discarded. This paper examines a relatively new extraction and processing concept(Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) which can use steam and electricity from CANDU reactors and also produces oxygen, and heavy water.

These products, in turn, can be used toincrease energy production while reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The paper focuses onthe magnitude of carbon dioxide emission avoidance which is anticipated based on data fromcurrent and projected projects.The paper reviews the current status of development of the oil sands industry and projectscarbon dioxide emissions which would be expected if current extraction and upgradingtechniques are continued.

The scope of a project using a CANDU nuclear reactor as an alternate energy source toproduce steam and hydrogen for upgrading is outlined.It is concluded that the carbon dioxide emissions that could be avoided by deployment ofnuclear energy powered oil sands projects would be a substantial fraction of Canada'semission reduction goals for Kyoto.

more at: (caution, it's a PDF):

www.cns-snc.ca/events/CCEO/nuclearenergyindustry.pdf

The point is that it is not an energy source unless you get
more energy out than you have to put in. This is true even
if the energy you put in comes from some other source, it still
has to come from somewhere.

and perhaps even conventional nuclear power won't be adequate - but surely nuclear weapons will?

from http://www.innovationalberta.com/article.php?articleid=90

Intro: A step back in time and a blast from the past. Historian Michael Payne looks back at efforts to set off an atomic bomb at Cheechum Crossing. All in the name of getting oil out of the Athabasca Tar Sands.

With all the activity in Alberta’s oil sands, just be glad this isn’t the 1950s. Back then some very important people were absolutely convinced that they could release the oil by blasting it with atomic bombs and Cheechum Crossing near Fort McMurray was picked as the test site for the first detonation. Historian, Dr. Michael Payne, relates one of the more bizarre stories from Alberta’s oil sands history.

oh, to bring back the can-do attitude of the 1950's . . .

It states nuclear energy will be used to power the extraction of the oil sands, which will reduce carbon dioxide emmissions. That's ironic, considering the resulting product will fuel even more carbon dioxide output.

IIRC it takes the energy of ~4 barrels to produce a barrel of synthetic crude. Ten years ago the break-even price for Sunoco's operation was $13/bbl.

So I've been told

Now is the time to thank Mulroney for the Free Trade act.....(sarcasm firmly in place)

Many of you perhaps do not know that the US maintains control over ALL our oil. That is right my fellow canadians - the US BUYS EVERY SIGLE DROP OF OIL PRODUCED IN CANADA....AND CANADA BUYS BACK WHAT IT NEEDS DOMESTICALLY. And you can thank Mulroney for that little sell out.

I heard this from a reliable inside source right in Calgary in the oil industry....did not believe it at first, but it is true.

So, Canada needs not worry about the Us taking over, or invading for resources - Mulroney GAVE IT ALL AWAY, AND THE US CONTROLS CANADA RIGHT NOW EVEN THOUGH WE NAIVELY THINK WE HAVE SOVEREIGNTY.

http://www.jacos.com/Company.htm

How does this fit into the picture if the US owns it all?

I would place bets that all of it is exported to the USA. Let us not get tied down with the idea that ownership of a company equates into control....because if the US has a written agreement that all of Canada's oil is to be bought and shipped to the US - then it does not matter who owns the company.

It is the same today with Iraq. Iraq owns the oil. Fair enough...but the US controls who buys it, at what volume and at what price.

I heard this from a reliable inside source right in Calgary in the oil industry

I've been looking and I see nothing in NAFTA or the US-Canada Free Trade Act that says as much. I don't think Canadians would accept it and I see Japanese involvement as clear evidence that the statement above is not correct.

need to drill. The Canadian government can shut them down any time it is needed. We all know that NAFTA, in reality, sucks so Canada can shut down the taps as needed.

"Canada's leaders have 48 hours to let the UN inspectors in or face the consecutives of their dastardly deeds.", said Bush, opening a bold new initiative in the war on terror.

Canadian officals at first responded with laughter, then asked, "Wait, he's not kidding, is he?"

No further statements were issued.

.
.
.

And Alberta is reputed to be "US-friendly", I suppose US $$$ have made it's way into the pockets of Albertans big-business types.

Alas, poor Alberta, to be on the radar scope of the US oil-mongers.

I'm afraid that the US will just take what it wants - we know their idea of "Manifest Destiny" - sort of their own blank check to take from the World whatever they want

and now, anything that interferes with what the US sees as it's deserved "way of life" entitles it to do whatever it wants, including destroying other nations -

Oh - a starting point for you researchers





Each Joint Venture Owner has a specific undivided co-ownership interest in the assets of the Syncrude Project, as set out in the diagram above. Syncrude does not have any beneficial interest in those assets.

http://www.syncrude.com/investors/index.html

I wonder how many of those companies a REALLY Canadian controlled ?

In other related news:

Canadian Oil Sands Trust announces strong financial and operating results for the first quarter 2004

Calgary, April 23, 2004 (TSX -- COS.UN) – Canadian Oil Sands Trust (“Canadian Oil Sands” or the “Trust”) (TSX - COS.UN) today announced its financial results and a distribution of $0.50 per Trust unit for the quarter ended March 31, 2004. The first quarter distribution will be paid on May 31, 2004 to unitholders of record on May 6, 2004.

“On the heels of our Stage 3 capital cost update, I am delighted to report that the operations at Syncrude have exhibited outstanding performance during the first quarter,” said Marcel Coutu, President and Chief Executive Officer. “The Trust’s funds from operations more than doubled in the first quarter of 2004 to $1.62 per Trust unit compared to the same period last year, largely reflecting strong Syncrude production performance, which resulted in average sales volumes of just over 88,300 barrels per day, net to the Trust, for the quarter.”

/snip/

• Reliable operations and strong production throughput combined with lower energy costs resulted in operating costs averaging $16.91 per barrel for the quarter, 30 per cent lower than the same period last year.
• Funds from operations per Trust unit were 105 per cent higher for the first quarter of 2004 compared to 2003, reaching $1.62, or a total of $142 million.
• The Trust’s realized selling price prior to hedging declined 14 per cent to $44.39 per barrel in the first quarter of 2004 compared to the same period of 2003. The increase in average West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”) prices was eroded by a significantly stronger Canadian dollar.
• Net debt to book capitalization was 41 per cent at the end of the first quarter of 2004, similar to December 31, 2003.

MORE

Lots more info at the link, indicates an "estimate" that the "trust-units" (i.e. = "shares" ?) 57% held by Canadian "residents"

strange choosing of words if you ask me

but then, for some strange reason,

I am suspicious of our mega-oil consuming neighbors to the south

no idea why . . . :shrug:

(oh dear)

I doubt they were swapping pancake recipes!