Skip to comments.We'd Be Crazy To Turn Backs On Oil Sands
Posted on 08/27/2011 4:17:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
When it comes to energy, America is lucky to be next to Canada, whose proven oil reserves are estimated by Oil and Gas Journal at 175 billion barrels. This ranks just behind Saudi Arabia (260 billion) and Venezuela (211 billion) and ahead of Iran (137 billion) and Iraq (115 billion).
True, about 97% of Canada's reserves consist of Alberta's controversial oil sands, but new technologies and high oil prices have made them economically viable. Expanded production can provide the U.S. market with a source of secure oil for decades.
We would be crazy to turn our back on this. In a global oil market repeatedly threatened by wars, revolutions, and natural and man-made disasters and where government-owned oil companies control development of about three-quarters of known reserves having dependable suppliers is no mean feat.
We already import about half our oil, and Canada is our largest supplier with about 25% of imports. But its conventional fields are declining. Only oil sands can fill the gap. Will we encourage this? Do we say "yes" to oil sands? Or do we increase our exposure to unstable world oil markets?
Those are the central questions posed by the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline connecting Alberta's oil sands to U.S. refineries on the Texas Gulf coast. The pipeline requires White House approval, and environmentalists adamantly oppose it.
To be sure, there are dangers. Pipelines do crack; there are spills. Susan Casey-Lefkowitz of the Natural Resource Defense Council reminds of recent spills of about 1 million gallons into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan and about 40,000 gallons into the Yellowstone River in Montana.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
I turn her back on the Canadian oil sands. The Bakken Oil Strata in North Dakota, Montana and South Dakota are tremendous resources within our borders.
BTW it's been estimated that we have about 100 years worth of lighnite coal which can be gasified to produce gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas and helium with NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT!
I bookmark interesting articles for my husband so he can look over them later.
This cannot be bookmarked, Young Werther, because of your (ahem) post. I'll have to cut and paste or read it out loud.
Either way, one of us have to do extra work because of you photo!
Let the Canadians drink their oil, we can turn coal into gas cheaper.
With that rocker who would need heat in the winter.
Come now, our policy ever since OPEC has been to pay inflated oil prices to the Arabs so we could ‘bring them into the twenty-first century’, although actually it was the twentieth century when we agreed to this.
And now that Zero is in the WH, why in the world would we want to undercut our devotion to paying blackmail to Muslims? Nobody has been honest with the American taxpayer. Nobody. And it’s appalling. Well, I understand now why honesty isn’t in the cards, it’s not PC.
You obviously didn’t get the message that the arrogant pos that currently resides at 1600 wants to ban coal
Susan Casey-Lefkowitz of the Natural Resource Defense Council reminds
Sister of Debbie Wasserman-Schulz? Hmmm.
When it’s on our continent and it comes from a stable source we better take advantage of it. I want to use shale, sand, coal, bio waste and anything else that makes sense.
We have energy supplies like oil,gas and nuclear that would more than suffice America but we have fools and liars and thieves in DC who hate America, the politicians, who have corraled the foolish of America into using useless energy supplies like wind and solar by fiat laws.
Before we can use our God provided energy supplies, we must rid ourselves of the evil democrats and rinos who are destroying us in DC.
Amen brother, Amen! Until we clean out the garbage in D.C. we will continue to be on a downhill spiral!
And that's just for starters.
He would like to do the same for all fossil fuel and probably nukes, too. Exxon made a huge oil find in the Gulf and he pulled their drilling permit. Shale oil probably won't fare much better as long as he is around.
We have to get oust him in 2012 for the sake of the country.
The fundamental drawback to oil shale, besides, the cost, production to extract the oil trapped in the shale is environmental.
You didn’t read the article, did you?
I VERY seriously doubt that. I'm familiar with both processes, and getting the oil from sands is a LOT simpler than gasification and Fischer-Tropsch.
Extracting oil from shale is fairly costly from what I’ve read.
I’d bet on oil sands being much cheaper.
In any case, I think Keystone got US government endorsement yesterday.
Well, actually, my comparison was intended to be between oil sands and coal, but oil shale might not be that far off.
I recall reading somewhere some time back an article that Shell had come up with a process for "in-situ" pre-processing. As I recall, they basically drill two wells, run a cable down each, and then impose an electric current, heating the rock, and lowering the oil's viscosity.
Once "thinned" by heat,the oil is then able to flow to a horizontally drilled production well located between the "electrode wells".
I remember an Exxon guy talking about the company's experience with early oil shale technology near Rifle, Colorado. Exxon dug up the shale, crushed it down to the size of golf balls, irradiated it to get the oil, then tried to dispose of the spent gob.
In the process, the golf balls had become tennis balls, so the piles of reject materials were 33 percent larger (and higher) than the original topography.
Nice subject for the Thursday night Sierra Club meeting, eh ?
I'm well aware of the Sasol process, and I once worked for a company who was looking to gasify coal to provide electricity and feedstock for their process plants. They had a full-size prototype plant up and running, but when the federal subsidies and oil price surge went away, they tore the whole thing down, and went back to natural gas electric power and oil-derived materials (naphtha) for feedstocks.
We talk about the energy we’ll get from the oil shales. But what about the amount of energy it’ll take to extract the oil?
You might want to take a closer look at the map of the Bakken oil sands, and note that the majority of the deposit is North of the 49th parallel, extending well into Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and even part of Alberta. That 49th parallel would be the US-Canadian border there, for those from Rio Linda.
Could be that many of our pols and bureaucrats in the Federal government are in the employ of the Saudi’s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.