Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[MacDaddy77]

http://www.transcanada.com/5951.html

media advisory that 75% of the pipeline would be made in USA with US steel. I would assume this equates to the 75% of the line that sits in the USA. as mentioned in this article only 40% of the actual construction remains; edit just re-read article and it was only 50% manufactured in USA.

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364727...l-oil-pipeline

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I wouldn't be. He's a Trans Canada shareholder, I doubt he would do anything too harsh on them, and obviously would more likely do something favorable. It's just another lie for his supporters to defend, but defend they will.

Isn't that a massive conflict of interest?

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I wouldn't be. He's a Trans Canada shareholder, I doubt he would do anything too harsh on them, and obviously would more likely do something favorable. It's just another lie for his supporters to defend, but defend they will.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifer.../#7a83e6772434

I read what you said and thought "holy conflict of interest Batman", then checked to see if it would be easy to confirm what you said. It was. I guess offering to turn down the POTUS salary wasn't an entirely charitable gesture. He owns a few Canadian stocks. Yay for us.

[MacDaddy77]

POTUS is exempt from Conflict of interest rules. Doesn't make it right but also doesn't make it illegal.

Canada could be in good position with racist, misogynistic, bigoted POTUS

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

POTUS is exempt from Conflict of interest rules. Doesn't make it right but also doesn't make it illegal.

Canada could be in good position with racist, misogynistic, bigoted POTUS

Until we're not. The wind will change, his toupee will be ruffled, and we'll have a wall built.

[Nufy]

Could be a non issue depending on the new terms...

TCPL basically have to start from scratch with their procurement, at least a full review on design.

If the market won't support it...it wont happen.

[Red Ice Player]

If Keystone and the Kinder Morgan expansion get built, I think the next step to properly and responsibly exploit our resource should be to build a state of the art Candu facility to provide carbon free electricity for extraction and upgrading for all future bitumen and heavy oil production. Of course, this nation building project will never happen. The unfounded fear of nukes makes this idea a non starter, even though it's made good economic and environmental sense for decades.

[burn_this_city]

Reactor would be good for power generation, but its limited for extraction steam generation. Steam condenses in pipelines beyond 15km from the source.

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Reactor would be good for power generation, but its limited for extraction steam generation. Steam condenses in pipelines beyond 15km from the source.

Well don't in situ facilities have their own gas powered steam plants now? I was thinking in terms of these plants all being converted to electric power in the long term, allowing long term exploitation with the smallest CO2 footprint.

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Reactor would be good for power generation, but its limited for extraction steam generation. Steam condenses in pipelines beyond 15km from the source.

Some companies are experimenting with TAGD using electric heaters.

Cheap(er) electricity would help promote that technology.

A side benefit is that it doesn't require water.

[Violator]

Originally Posted by Red Ice Player

If Keystone and the Kinder Morgan expansion get built, I think the next step to properly and responsibly exploit our resource should be to build a state of the art Candu facility to provide carbon free electricity for extraction and upgrading for all future bitumen and heavy oil production. Of course, this nation building project will never happen. The unfounded fear of nukes makes this idea a non starter, even though it's made good economic and environmental sense for decades.

Can't we just build it in Saskatchewan or Edmonton those places are already waste lands

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Nufy

Some companies are experimenting with TAGD using electric heaters.

Cheap(er) electricity would help promote that technology.

A side benefit is that it doesn't require water.

We did some tests on giant electrodes in the ground. Cost was too high relative to steam.

Water reuse in SAGD once operating is really high. Approaching unity for mature fields. So depending on your water treatment processes at power plants your water use might be similar. With a SOR of three (steam oil Ratio) and a minimum 95% water recycle rate. You use .08 Barrels of water per barrel of oil. And your make up water is Brackish so it isn't really useable water anyway.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Red Ice Player

Well don't in situ facilities have their own gas powered steam plants now? I was thinking in terms of these plants all being converted to electric power in the long term, allowing long term exploitation with the smallest CO2 footprint.

Coverting existing gas fired boilers to electric boilers would likely not be cost effective for existing fields. You would need almost free electricity for the capital investment to make sense. Or something like 10 times the cost of gas.

For new or expansions the break even point would be much lower.

The best bang (CO2 reduction for Canada) for Nuclear would be replacing gas and coal fired plants for major cities and using gas fired for remote plants.

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by GGG

Coverting existing gas fired boilers to electric boilers would likely not be cost effective for existing fields. You would need almost free electricity for the capital investment to make sense. Or something like 10 times the cost of gas.

For new or expansions the break even point would be much lower.

The best bang (CO2 reduction for Canada) for Nuclear would be replacing gas and coal fired plants for major cities and using gas fired for remote plants.

Absolutely. Policy like that would require vision. If Canada could become a nation that actually embraces nuclear power, we would be well positioned going forward. Nukes make more sense here than just about anywhere on earth, given our cold weather, our vast spread out geography and smaller population. But it's nuclear.

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by GGG

We did some tests on giant electrodes in the ground. Cost was too high relative to steam.

Water reuse in SAGD once operating is really high. Approaching unity for mature fields. So depending on your water treatment processes at power plants your water use might be similar. With a SOR of three (steam oil Ratio) and a minimum 95% water recycle rate. You use .08 Barrels of water per barrel of oil. And your make up water is Brackish so it isn't really useable water anyway.

Not the same technology I am referring to...I think.

I was part of a pilot project a few years back that put electric heaters in the well bore to heat up the formation.

After 4 - 6 months of "Heat soaking" a producer well (directly below the heater well) would produce the results.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Red Ice Player

If Keystone and the Kinder Morgan expansion get built, I think the next step to properly and responsibly exploit our resource should be to build a state of the art Candu facility to provide carbon free electricity for extraction and upgrading for all future bitumen and heavy oil production. Of course, this nation building project will never happen. The unfounded fear of nukes makes this idea a non starter, even though it's made good economic and environmental sense for decades.

A long time pet peeve of mine. A perfect synergy exists with Saskatchewan Uranium and Alberta heavy oil side by side. Never taken advantage of.

[InglewoodFan]

Everything old is new again, nuclear for the oilsands had some profile about 10 years ago. Went nowhere, but I still think the idea has some potential.

Not sure if a new reactor would be much of a boon to the Alberta engineering and construction business, the skillsets required are pretty rare.

[Fuzz]

The biggest problem for nuclear is that they are always late and always over budget. It is a huge capital expense that no one wants to take on.

[InglewoodFan]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The biggest problem for nuclear is that they are always late and always over budget. It is a huge capital expense that no one wants to take on.

Yeah, it is a bit of a catch-22. Nobody builds them for the reasons you mention, therefore there is no one with experience who could build the next one on a better schedule and budget. Currently, every reactor built seems to be a unicorn, it would be so much better if they were more commodity and cookie cutter.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The biggest problem for nuclear is that they are always late and always over budget. It is a huge capital expense that no one wants to take on.

The biggest problem for nuclear is determining what to do with the waste and, as you said, they're expensive, and the high-efficiency reactors are stupendously expensive.

Regardless of the fact that they're more efficient and safer.