Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Canada could have an answer to U.S. oil woes
Globe and Mail Update ^ | Friday, September 28 | MATHEW INGRAM

Posted on 09/30/2001 5:36:15 PM PDT by aculeus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: aculeus
We have similar deposits in the USA. Oil in great quantity but locked into clay or sand and difficult to extract.

It's been done in Alberta for decades, granted it isn't as cost effective as pumping it out of a well.

41 posted on 09/30/2001 8:34:51 PM PDT by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
You're pretty ignorant, aren't you. I guarantee you that the U.S. buys as much oil from Canada as from Saudi Arabia right now, if not more. Also the oil sands are producing big-time right now. This is not some pie in the sky technology. Syncrude and Suncor are each producing around 200,000 barrels per day, with huge expansions under way. Oil sands as a whole will produce 2,000,000 barrels per day in the next 5-10 years. Lots of U.S. involvment - Conoco, Shell, etc. I am truly amazed the their is so liitle information about this in the U.S.
42 posted on 09/30/2001 8:36:56 PM PDT by mosby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther
One of the few good things Jimmy Carter did was to start the 'Synthetic Fuels' program, where we were devloping new technology to produce fuel from the very extensive coal, oil shale, and tar sands deposits in this country. These deposits are the equivalent to about 300+ years of domestic oil consumption.

In the early 80's, I was involved with several of them, in Wyoming, Colorado, California, though not the one in Buela Montana, which apparently was the only one to survive. The alberta tar sands have been working for 20+ years and they keep improving the processing processes.

One of the bad things Regan did was to stop this experimental program, as if he had left it going, we would now have an economically viable production process.

Remember that Hitler had a viable process, and as Germany had no oil fields, all their fuel came from coal.

43 posted on 09/30/2001 8:47:40 PM PDT by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: XBob; Young Werther
Another big factor in the early 1980's . . . .. Reagan's plan to bankrupt the Soviet Union.

Reagan knew that the Soviet Union was making big bucks from sale of oil, but its costs were fairly high compared to Arab oil. By promising military aid to Saudia Arabia, and quiet negotiations, the price of oil plummeted from $30/barrel to about $10/barrel. The Soviet oil cost about $18/barrel to produce . . . so suddenly what was helping to finance their expansionist policies became a drain.

So at $30/barrel, the Arabs AND the Soviet Union benefitted, but with the Saudi's pumping excess oil out, and pricing dropped to $10/barrel . . .. the profits of everyone dropped . . . and it helped the U.S. economy recover from the Carter years . . .. and it helped bankrupt the Soviet Union.

All in all ..... a great deal!!

For those thinking that we helped to finance the Pakistani bomb . .. remember that the PROFIT levels went DOWN with the drop in prices.

The info from above came from a book about how R.Reagan set out to help push the Soviet Union into collapse.

Mike

44 posted on 09/30/2001 9:15:31 PM PDT by Vineyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JulieRNR21
The tar sands region near Fort McMurray in northeastern Alberta has the potential to provide several centuries worth of oil for North America (at current consumption levels, of course). However, there are a couple of things that should be noted as far as the economics of the oil sands extraction process is concerned.

1. The quality of raw oil from these tar sands is very poor, so it is necessary to refine this oil extensively before it can be used. Middle East oil, on the other hand, is very "pure" in that it does not need to be refined very much to make it usable.

2. While it is true that Suncor has been able to prefect the tar sands extraction process over the last few years, it is only a matter of time before geological reality starts to have a negative impact on the cost of extracting the oil. These tar sands are located in a deep, diagonal seam in the earth's rock layers, and the oil that is currently being extracted is from the shallowest part of one end of this seam. As this oil is depleted, it will become necessary to either drill through progressively deep layers of rock to get to the oil or develop a method of drawing the oil out through some kind of directional digging process. The thing you have to remember is that this oil is not drilled (as it usually is), but mined, so the directional drilling that is used these days will not help.

On the other hand, I am quite confident that Alberta has tremendous potential to serve as a long-term energy source for the U.S. (not just oil but coal, which is abundant along the eastern slopes of the Canadian Rockies). For one thing, this province is very forward-thinking and pro-business, and I expect that innovative extraction and refining techniques will be developed here over the coming years. In addition to that, oil and natural gas extraction plays such a vital role in the economy here that many of the standard land use approvals are waived, by law, for projects in these areas.

To top it all off, and to answer some other questions here related to the environmentalists in Canada, there isn't a place in Canada, if not all of North America, that is more antagonistic to environmentalists when their objectives cause problems in the local economy. Even PETA pulled all of their billboard and radio ads up here this summer, in response to some veiled threats from the cattle industry. The Alberta Beef Industry had started their own anti-PETA campaign, with the following slogan:

"Save a cow ... Eat an environmentalist!"

Albertans do have a sense of humor.

45 posted on 09/30/2001 9:16:53 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

If we don't buy it? who else will?

how long do you think these opec billionaires will sit around not collecting money...not long.

46 posted on 09/30/2001 9:19:17 PM PDT by KneelBeforeZod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Whoever has the most oil last, wins.
47 posted on 09/30/2001 9:19:35 PM PDT by slimer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Great Dane
# 40.....We sure do, Dane! Didn't mean to be so nationalistic aboot it, LOL

Leni

48 posted on 09/30/2001 9:25:21 PM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mosby
you're exactley right. here are the stats for 2000:
"The top suppliers of oil to the United States during 2000 were Canada (1.69 MMBD), Saudi Arabia (1.57 MMBD), Venezuela (1.52 MMBD), and Mexico (1.36 MMBD)."

25% of the crude is used for engine oils. We could have a huge savings if we can get to totally synthetic for engines. ( hell, I'd even agree to a fed mandate for it)
49 posted on 09/30/2001 9:25:38 PM PDT by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: XBob
One of the bad things Regan did was to stop this experimental program, as if he had left it going, we would now have an economically viable production process.

Why not just let capitalisim discover the viable processes? Government is terrible at inventing economically viable anything. Reagan did the right thing.

50 posted on 09/30/2001 9:41:13 PM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Have a chat with your not-so-friendly neighborhood greenie or ecofreak about why we are STILL not fully developing those resources? Don't forget to check in with your local OIL COMPANY EXEC. Whoda thought these two would have something in common, except, of course, BIG OIL's role in helping to spawn BIG ENVIRONMENTALISM.

Que bono??

Apparently some of these folks prefer that we shiver in the dark or send our kids to bleed and die in some God-forsaken desert BEFORE punching a few more holes in their beloved Gia!

51 posted on 09/30/2001 10:15:30 PM PDT by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mosby
The Saudi's ALONE produce 10mil barrels a day.........over 15mil in the Persian Gulf.......with the potential for 40mil from existing wells.

Two million barrels a day from the Alberta sands is a drop in the bucket, espeically at that price.

That said, it could help......along with ANWR and more nat gas DRISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE.

52 posted on 09/30/2001 10:22:56 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
Not sure what you mean by "especially at that price". Price for tar-sands oil is essentially the same as for Saudi oil, otherwise no-one would buy it. Saudi oil costs less to produce so the Saudis' pocket more of the price, but that is completely irrelevant to the buyer. Saudi's do produce more at present, but Alberta tar-sands have 300 billion barrels of reserves compared to 265 billion barrels for the Saudis. Those 300 billion barrels are recoverable using existing technology - tar-sands actually have over 1 trillion of reserves, but the rest is not recoverable using existing technology.
53 posted on 09/30/2001 10:42:33 PM PDT by mosby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
"To: XBob One of the bad things Regan did was to stop this experimental program, as if he had left it going, we would now have an economically viable production process. Why not just let capitalisim discover the viable processes? Government is terrible at inventing economically viable anything. Reagan did the right thing. 50 Posted on 09/30/2001 21:41:13 PDT by Reeses "

=========

well, the government funds a lot of basic research into what are initially very expensive, uneconomical processes, eg NASA, which sometimes later turn out to be quite valuable and commercially feasible, eg satellite communications satelites and weather satellites, and spy satellites.

The projects in the early 80's were quite complex, very very expensive, and hard to do. However, if they had continued, we would have had plenty of oil by now, because we were experimenting (my company only) with 7 distinct possibilites.

One of the things the government is supposed to do is provide for our national security. In terms of energy, they certainly haven't, in fact it has been royally screwed up.

54 posted on 09/30/2001 11:15:40 PM PDT by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Vineyard
44 - "Reagan knew that the Soviet Union was making big bucks from sale of oil, but its costs were fairly high compared to Arab oil. By promising military aid to Saudia Arabia, and quiet negotiations, the price of oil plummeted from $30/barrel to about $10/barrel. The Soviet oil cost about $18/barrel to produce . . . so suddenly what was helping to finance their expansionist policies became a drain. "

You are absolutely correct here. Reagan prevented us from developing our own synthetic oil supply, but he also used the same thing to defeat the Soviet Union, and cause it to fall apart. Russia, however, still provides about 75%, if I remember correctly, of the natural gas for Western Europe.

55 posted on 09/30/2001 11:21:07 PM PDT by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
45 - "As this oil is depleted, it will become necessary to either drill through progressively deep layers of rock to get to the oil or develop a method of drawing the oil out through some kind of directional digging process. The thing you have to remember is that this oil is not drilled (as it usually is), but mined, so the directional drilling that is used these days will not help. "

-----

We were working on several different solutions to this type of problem, and had several 'model' solutions we were working on in the early 80's. No more mining, but some drilling and other stuff.

56 posted on 09/30/2001 11:27:12 PM PDT by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: slimer
47 - :"Whoever has the most oil last, wins"

Very good summary, and we have hundreds of years supply in the US and more hundreds in Canada..

57 posted on 09/30/2001 11:31:10 PM PDT by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Comment #58 Removed by Moderator

Comment #59 Removed by Moderator

To: mosby
You're pretty ignorant, aren't you. I guarantee you that the U.S. buys as much oil from Canada as from Saudi Arabia right now, if not more. Also the oil sands are producing big-time right now. This is not some pie in the sky technology. Syncrude and Suncor are each producing around 200,000 barrels per day, with huge expansions under way. Oil sands as a whole will produce 2,000,000 barrels per day in the next 5-10 years. Lots of U.S. involvment - Conoco, Shell, etc. I am truly amazed the their is so liitle information about this in the U.S.

You are right, we do buy a lot from canada, we buy oil from Canada that is economical to produce. All you guys act like there are a bunch of guys sitting around smoking cigars deciding where to buy our oil from. We buy it from where it is most economical.

60 posted on 10/01/2001 4:10:19 AM PDT by Rodney King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson