U.S urges Alberta to expand oilsands by "five-fold"

[Table 5]

Drop those pants and bend over Canada, cause here comes the cavalry!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/...oil-sands.html

I realize that this translate into big money for a lot of you in the oilpatch, but the only way I can support this is a cleaner extraction process can be found (perhaps five times cleaner, at the minimum!).

I guess we will really see how Stephen Harper will keep his word on the environment. Something tells me this will be an election issue for many years to come (from an environmental angle, and the rest of Canada wanting it's share). As much as people talk about reclamation, the oil sands is one of Canada's biggest polluters at the moment. Increasing that five-fold without some RADICAL ways it is done will be pretty catastrophic to the environment.

[Cowperson]

EDIT: Oooops . . . . I found the January 2006 meeting I see a the link below:

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/program...spp_report.pdf

Anyway, the point still stands: expansion to 5 million barrels a day is already a goal contained in the "Oilsands Technology Roadmap," not a goal established at this particular meeting.

I agree pollution is a serious issue at Fort McMurray and needs to be addressed.

Cowperson

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Thirty seconds of google work can get you the executive summary of this meeting, allowing you to remove the drama queen filter of the CBC.

Considering that report was put together by proponents of the plan, there is probably more bias in that report than in the CBC version. Hardly "fair and balanced".

But that is really beside the point. I think Alberta will one way or another move forward in its oilsands production. The key is figuring out a way to do it in an environmentally responsible manner that will allow people to profit without morganging their kids health down the line.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Considering that report was put together by proponents of the plan, there is probably more bias in that report than in the CBC version. Hardly "fair and balanced".

But that is really beside the point. I think Alberta will one way or another move forward in its oilsands production. The key is figuring out a way to do it in an environmentally responsible manner that will allow people to profit without morganging their kids health down the line.

My apologies Table . . . that link is to the January 2006 meeting, not 2007 and I edited my previous post to reflect that.

Why would the report make any pretense to balance? That's the job of a media source. CBC failed that test.

Cowperson

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Why would the report make any pretense to balance? That's the job of a media source.

I think we all know that CBC tends to view left as much as other media sources tend to veer right. Expecting any media source to be completely without any bias is a bit naive these days.....i'd almost rather people just give me a solid arguement for their side. CBC did present the story with a viewpoint that recent surveys show Canadians place at the top of their list...the environment.

One thing they did miss discussing though is the complete lack of workforce to complete this upgrading. Where are we going to get the people for this? Mexico? China? I think the logistics of this could be an even bigger hurdle than the environmental challenges.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Table 5

One thing they did miss discussing though is the complete lack of workforce to complete this upgrading. Where are we going to get the people for this? Mexico? China? I think the logistics of this could be an even bigger hurdle than the environmental challenges.

The Maritimes? Oh wait they are already all here.

[mykalberta]

The environment will never be a political issue until a party is voted into power or a placement of power because of the Environment.

Until the environment becomes more important in voters eyes than: Afghanistan, taxes, debt, health, education, etc - it will be an issue that gets great play in the left of centre media but will never be at the forefront.

I agree - I wouldnt expand the oilsands 5 fold without some sort of reduction in emissions. At its current process its too expensive to reclaim oilsands vis a vi costs/environmental impact (I am talking emissions not land reclamation).

I am not sure of the concessions Canada should ask for. I am thinking and exclusivity on foreign oil imports into the US would work nicely. If they wont agree to that, then ###### em.

MYK

[SeeGeeWhy]

Sounds to me like they are trying to put pressure on the EUB to approve projects that already have their applications in the system.

I don't like the way CNRL rolls.

[Lurch]

The Maritimes? Oh wait they are already all here.

Really? I read in another thread those lazy Maritimers are sitting around at home raking in the money hard working, barely subsisting Albertans mail them every two weeks. Now I don't know what to believe.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Table 5

CBC did present the story with a viewpoint that recent surveys show Canadians place at the top of their list...the environment. .

Actually, the drama queen moment for the CBC is when it said in its story that the initiative to go to 5 million barrels a day comes out of the USA in this particular 2007 meeting.

They neglected to tell you its a goal established by Canadians in 2004 in the Oilsands Technology Roadmap at the link below:

http://www.acr-alberta.com/Projects/...gy_Roadmap.htm

That's my point.

Secondly, I have no doubt at all the largest oil-consuming nation in the world (and also the second largest producer by the way) would love to see production at Fort McMurray ramped up five-fold ASAP since America is the most convenient and obvious place to send the stuff. Whatever we produce is quite likely to end up in the USA and laying out the means to get it there, either unprocessed or pre-processed into different products, is something to talk about on both sides of the border.

Interestingly, such a five fold increase in short order might well pressure oil prices lower since oil is a global market, not a continental one like gas.

If they wont agree to that, then ###### em.

What are you going to do? Not sell oil?

Canada at least has that choice. Unlike Venezuela or Iran or other places that are basically worthless holes except for a single product.

Cowperson

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Canada at least has that choice. Unlike Venezuela or Iran or other places that are basically worthless holes except for a single product.

Canada does, but does Alberta? Our economy is still nowhere near as diversified as it needs to be for us to be able to disregard demand for oil.

Btw, I agree with you that this is not a big-bad-US boogeyman issue....the Canadian oil industry is just as involved. Who is at fault is really not my concern, I just want to see a sustainable environmental solution.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Really? I read in another thread those lazy Maritimers are sitting around at home raking in the money hard working, barely subsisting Albertans mail them every two weeks. Now I don't know what to believe.

LOL.

[Lurch]

The environment will never be a political issue until a party is voted into power or a placement of power because of the Environment.

Until the environment becomes more important in voters eyes than: Afghanistan, taxes, debt, health, education, etc - it will be an issue that gets great play in the left of centre media but will never be at the forefront.

I agree - I wouldnt expand the oilsands 5 fold without some sort of reduction in emissions. At its current process its too expensive to reclaim oilsands vis a vi costs/environmental impact (I am talking emissions not land reclamation).

I am not sure of the concessions Canada should ask for. I am thinking and exclusivity on foreign oil imports into the US would work nicely. If they wont agree to that, then ###### em.

MYK

So you think Harper has backtracked on the environment, shuffled cabinet, etc because the environment is a non-issue politically? Somehow I doubt it, as he has come off looking like a clown on the whole file. My feeling is he realized people care enough that his former "let my grandchildren deal with it" policy was not going to fly.

As for what Canada should ask for in Ft Mac, I would think money should do it. If the province actually reviews its royalty structure to get something for the oilsands assets, why in the world should we ask for anything on top of that. Do you believe in markets or not?

[Table 5]

If Alberta were smart, it would take a good chunk of the money it earns from the oilsands, and pump it into making the province a world-leader in alternative green energy. Make the current cashcow pay for the next one.

It's only a matter of time that somebody will step up. Might as well be us.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Canada does, but does Alberta? Our economy is still nowhere near as diversified as it needs to be for us to be able to disregard demand for oil.

Btw, I agree with you that this is not a big-bad-US boogeyman issue....the Canadian oil industry is just as involved. Who is at fault is really not my concern, I just want to see a sustainable environmental solution.

Then we can agree . . . . and I'd agree the Alberta royalty structure needs to be addressed.

Cowperson

[Burninator]

Is making Albertas oil industry more "green" that hard or expensive of a step? I've remeber reading about a oil project that BP was working on (can't recall the country) which had very tough regulations for mining. But they were operating fine. Not making as much money as before, but still turning a sizable profit. Oil companies are not going to make themselves better for the environment they are only going to follow the bare minimum required by the government.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Table 5

If Alberta were smart, it would take a good chunk of the money it earns from the oilsands, and pump it into making the province a world-leader in alternative green energy. Make the current cashcow pay for the next one.

It's only a matter of time that somebody will step up. Might as well be us.

That's right. There is literally nothing about the operations in the oilsands that could be called 'sustainable', unless you take the royalties earned from it and put it towards figuring out the next big thing.

Quite honestly, 'the next big thing' (TNBT, not to be confused with TMNT) is very likely not going to exist on the same scale as 'oil' does. It will come down to local populaces solving their own energy needs by what they have available to them. There will not be a magic bullet, or one specific invention, that will change the current dependence on oil - it will be many small changes adding up to one large lifestyle change.

I fear that if Alberta is going to be the leaders in Green Technology (TM), we will need to drastically change the way we live, grow our cities, and develop our resources to say to the rest of the world "Hey, this can be done."

The US may be the 'closest' market for Alberta bitumen, but isn't there a lot of work being done to move the product overseas to China as well? I'd like to see how much of the production coming out of the Oilsands goes where.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Actually, the drama queen moment for the CBC is when it said in its story that the initiative to go to 5 million barrels a day comes out of the USA in this particular 2007 meeting.

They neglected to tell you its a goal established by Canadians in 2004 in the Oilsands Technology Roadmap at the link below:

http://www.acr-alberta.com/Projects/...gy_Roadmap.htm

That's my point.

Secondly, I have no doubt at all the largest oil-consuming nation in the world (and also the second largest producer by the way) would love to see production at Fort McMurray ramped up five-fold ASAP since America is the most convenient and obvious place to send the stuff. Whatever we produce is quite likely to end up in the USA and laying out the means to get it there, either unprocessed or pre-processed into different products, is something to talk about on both sides of the border.

Interestingly, such a five fold increase in short order might well pressure oil prices lower since oil is a global market, not a continental one like gas.

If they wont agree to that, then ###### em.

What are you going to do? Not sell oil?

Canada at least has that choice. Unlike Venezuela or Iran or other places that are basically worthless holes except for a single product.

Cowperson

No, but I am sure countries like China or Europe (with the recent Russian pipleline instability might be a try).

I am said that in response to the indication that they were pushing for a 5X increase in production from Alberta with the obvious implication as to sell it to them.

With the problems a 5X increase would produce, Alberta/Canada would need serious concessions from the US - if they dont say ok, then say ###### em to the 5X increase.

MYK

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Really? I read in another thread those lazy Maritimers are sitting around at home raking in the money hard working, barely subsisting Albertans mail them every two weeks. Now I don't know what to believe.

It would be nice if you would elaborate on this statement. I'm not sure if you said this 'tongue in cheek' or you are completely oblivious to reality.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

It would be nice if you would elaborate on this statement. I'm not sure if you said this 'tongue in cheek' or you are completely oblivious to reality.

It was a tongue in cheek reference to the equalization thread. Check out around post 60.