Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Alberta Tar Sands Pt. 2

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: Tar Sands are uneconomical for oil production

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 02 Jun 2015, 20:57:40

kanon - "The consumers, the real burners of fossil fuels, have little choice but to continue and increase their consumption wherever possible." Of course everyone has a choice. Though they may be a tony minority but there are those who chose to minimize their fossil fuel footprint. All it takes is given up a certain amount of personal comfort.

And the vast majority have made it clear they won't. And politicians know if try to force folks to give up too much comfort factor their careers are likely over. Yes: this is the system we have to work with.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11220
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Tar Sands are uneconomical for oil production

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 02 Jun 2015, 21:10:34

ennue - LBut if the other shoe doesn't drop, then I would say it definitely has a positive EROEI." Countless times I've explained in great detail how economic realities destroy fossil fuel extraction long before EROEI can get very low. So many hang on to this bizarre fantasy that the energy industry willingly loses $BILLIONS (if not $TRILLIONS) in capital. Honestly I just don't see how this gives them any satisfaction other then to think there's no money being made by us. But almost in the same breath many also criticize the same group for making obscene profits.

If so many folks think energy companies are losing money in the efforts to supply them with their needs then they should kiss the Rockman's hairy white ass in appreciation. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11220
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Tar Sands are uneconomical for oil production

Unread postby Graeme » Tue 02 Jun 2015, 21:15:05

This is the system we work with. It's called democracy and the citizens are not happy.

Anti-tar sands march along banks of the Mississippi expected to draw thousands

A busy week in the future of oil in America will culminate in the largest anti-tar sands event ever to take place in the Midwest on Saturday along the banks of the Mississippi River, organizers say.

The Tar Sands Resistance March will start at Lambert Landing in St. Paul at 10 a.m. Saturday and will proceed to the State Capitol lawn, where a rally and concert will be held. Event organizer Andy Pearson of environmental group MN350 said he expects the event to draw thousands of protesters, including busloads of people from places as far as Nebraska and Ohio.

The event will begin with a water ceremony by Native American performers, with the march beginning at noon. After reaching the Capitol grounds, more than a dozen speakers will address the crowd, including speeches from Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and Winona LaDuke of Honor the Earth.

On Tuesday, Pearson was joined by MN350 founder Bill McKibben, Indigenous Environmental Network executive director Tom Goldtooth and Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, on a press conference call with national media to talk about the event, which hopes to highlight the potential environmental threats proposed pipeline expansions pose to northern Minnesota and the country.


grandforksherald

New York Says "Not So Fast" to Tar Sands Facility on the Hudson River

In a stunning and laudable reversal, New York's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has required Global Partners' Port of Albany air permit application to undergo a full environmental review. Global's air permit application is part of its plans to retrofit its existing Port of Albany crude-by-rail facility to allow it to begin handling tar sands crude oil from Alberta, Canada. The tar sands retrofit would require Global to install seven boilers that would be used to keep the tar sands warm as it is moved from rail cars into storage tanks. Eventually, this oil would be loaded onto barges and shipped down the Hudson River, destined for refineries in New Jersey, Delaware, and the Gulf Coast. Following receipt of 19,000 public comments and concerns from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DEC has reversed its November 2013 finding that Global's proposed project would "not have a significant environmental impact." As one of the world's most carbon-intensive crude oils whose production is laying waste to Alberta's boreal forest, the DEC's November 2013 finding flew in the face of what is known about the environmental impacts of adding tar sands oil to our fuel mix. What's worse, infrastructure like Global's proposed modifications would lock the region into at least 50 years of tar sands transport and use at a time when the region needs to transition to cleaner fuels, especially for transportation. Moving forward, DEC must seriously consider the cumulative and long-term impacts of approving this project on both Albany and the broader region.


While the threat of a broader and larger tar sands invasion of the U.S. continues to loom over our communities, waterways, air, and climate, the DEC's decision is a significant roadblock in the tar sands industry's expansion plans. With refineries in New Jersey and Delaware already configured to refine tar sands crude oil, the industry has long eyed the Port of Albany as a gateway to dramatically increasing the quantity of tar sands refined on the East Coast. Now, because of the DEC's decision and the recent two-year delay for TransCanada's Energy East tar sands pipeline, there is hope that the Northeast will continue to remain mostly tar sands free into the foreseeable future. This gives local, state, and federal decision-makers time to take action to prevent a tar sands invasion and lay the groundwork for an alternative energy future.


nrdc
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Tar Sands are uneconomical for oil production

Unread postby Graeme » Fri 05 Jun 2015, 17:44:26

Is Canada on track to meet its climate promise? A preview of the country's upcoming international progress review

Canada is expected to miss its 2020 Copenhagen obligations by a wide margin -- mostly due to increased tar sands expansion. As of 2014, Canada is only expected to meet half of its Copenhagen pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Even worse, Canada's emissions are increasing, and it is now expected to miss its 2020 goal by an amount that is more than the combined carbon pollution of every passenger car, truck, bus, train and plane in the country (127 MtCO2e). Looking ahead, Canada is on a path to increasing emissions through 2030, due largely to the expansion of its tar sands industry.

Tar Sands: While emissions from conventional crude oil production and natural gas production and processing are expected to fall by 2020, tar sands emissions are growing rapidly and are expected to continue to do so (See Figure 1). By 2020, tar sands emissions are expected to be nearly three times the level in 2005 according to the Government of Canada's Sixth National Report on Climate Change, (2014).


Image

Although the Canadian government announced a series of new measures as part of its post-2020 targets, it still failed to address the largest source of emissions, tar sands. Historically, the Canadian government has not followed through with its promises to address this troubling growth in tar sands emissions. Instead, the Canadian government has aggressively promoted unchecked tar sands expansion. The expanding tar sands industry bears heavy responsibility for Canada's failure to meet its international climate commitments.

Rather than addressing the growing carbon emissions from its tar sands sector, the government has as discussed in this backgrounder actively facilitated tar sands expansion by eliminating environmental protections, stripping away public review processes, lobbying internationally for approval of new tar sands pipelines, and undermining clean energy policies in Canada, the United States, and the European Union.


theenergycollective
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Tar Sands are uneconomical for oil production

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 10 Jun 2015, 18:20:22

Alberta’s oil sands take a hit as scientists, academics call for halt to development

Alberta’s oil sands producers have suffered another hit to their reputation, as a group of prominent scientists and academics called for a moratorium on further development due to environmental concerns.

Decisions on oil sands development “add up to a social and environmental legacy that will last for generations,” Simon Fraser University ecologist Wendy Palen said on a conference call Wednesday. Ms. Palen said the group pulled together scientific research on oil sands development from their various fields and reached a consensus: “We offer a unified voice, calling for a moratorium on new oil sands projects.”

In a statement signed by 110 researchers from across North America, the group says the planned growth in oil sands production is inconsistent with efforts to cut greenhouse-gas emissions and avert the worst impacts of climate change, and also threatens the ecosystem of a vast stretch of the boreal forest.

“No new oil sands or related infrastructure projects should proceed unless consistent with an implemented plan to rapidly reduce carbon pollution, safeguard biodiversity, protect human health and respect [aboriginal] treaty rights,” their statement said.


theglobeandmail

North American scientists call for end to tar sands mining
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Tar Sands are uneconomical for oil production

Unread postby shortonoil » Sat 27 Jun 2015, 20:52:19

To make the production of a liquid hydrocarbon sustainable without an additional outside source of energy it must have an ERoEI > 6.9:1. Bitumen production uses NG for that purpose. Without it its ERoEI would most likely be about 2:1. Bitumen production is, however, at the mercy of the world petroleum market. When its price falls far enough bitumen will be phased out being one of the higher cost production products. Looking at the graph below, even though we don't know where the bottom of it will be over the next decade, further growth in bitumen production is not likely to happen after 2017.

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm

Shale, ultra deep water, bitumen, and extra heavy high sulfur will be the first to be shut-in.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 6358
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Tar Sands are uneconomical for oil production

Unread postby Graeme » Fri 03 Jul 2015, 18:42:19

Canada: petro-state or prosperous nation?

Imagine a Canada with an abundance of nature and wildlife, clean air and water, healthy citizens, and a prosperous economy. Sounds close to what we have, doesn't it? But it may not be for long if we keep heading down the road we're on.

Author Andrew Nikiforuk has argued that Canada is becoming a petro-state. "Without long-term planning and policies, Canada and Alberta will fail to secure reliable energy supplies for Canadians, to develop alternative energy sources for the country, or to create valuable resource funds for the future," he writes in his best-selling book Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent. Because of the response of Alberta to Pierre Trudeau's National Energy Plan, Canada doesn't even have a national energy plan.

The reality is that our government is putting all its eggs in one basket, relying on the tar sands to fuel the economy. And although the government has at least come around to acknowledging that global warming is a problem, it hasn't acted as if it's a problem worthy of much attention. Its energy and environmental policies show that it is willing to let the economics of the fossil fuel industry trump concern for our common future.


This ongoing failure on the part of those elected to serve our interests is bad from both an environmental and an economic standpoint. A briefing note prepared for Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt last fall and recently obtained by Canadian Press warns that a lack of clarity and certainty regarding the government's climate change policies is jeopardizing investment in Canada's energy sector. The government promised new regulations more than two years ago but now says it is "reworking" its plan.

The briefing note says the government should have policies that facilitate investment in green equipment, buildings, and infrastructure.


davidsuzuki

We now know why Greece failed. Is Canada heading the same way?
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

BC Govt. rejects Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion

Unread postby Paulo1 » Mon 11 Jan 2016, 16:25:36

Just heard on CBC that the BC Govt has formally pulled support from Kinder Morgan's pipeline expansions plan to more than double dilbit shipments through the port of Vancouver.

Here is a link:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e28106524/

Northern Gateway.....dead
Keystone XL.............dead
Kinder Morgan...........probably dead

There will be some more angry Albertans after today's announcement :(
Paulo1
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun 07 Apr 2013, 14:50:35
Location: East Coast Vancouver Island

Re: BC Govt. rejects Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion

Unread postby Cog » Mon 11 Jan 2016, 17:06:32

Once the liberals in Canada get done destroying the oil industry, I guess the unemployed can go back to providing guide service for polar bear hunts.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12789
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: BC Govt. rejects Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion

Unread postby GHung » Mon 11 Jan 2016, 17:54:39

Cog wrote:Once the liberals in Canada get done destroying the oil industry, I guess the unemployed can go back to providing guide service for polar bear hunts.


Meh... Kinder Morgan was tanking well before this decision, and it's a greedy, over-zealous oil patch with its goldrush mentality that has done the most damage, to itself. Drill, baby, drill => glut, baby, glut => debt, baby debt => welcome to the 52 Week Low Club.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: BC Govt. rejects Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion

Unread postby Synapsid » Mon 11 Jan 2016, 17:57:51

Well, the BC government did say that it will continue to study the project.

I guess that says there's a door left open. Dunno.
Synapsid
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: BC Govt. rejects Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion

Unread postby Antaris » Mon 11 Jan 2016, 18:45:08

Be happy Cog that the NDP are not in power. Nobody would be working but, unhappy government employees.
Antaris
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun 06 Jan 2013, 00:27:57

Re: BC Govt. rejects Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion

Unread postby Paulo1 » Mon 11 Jan 2016, 20:02:24

Well folks,

I know tons of young people who ended up working in Alberta, including my son. From afar, it was the worst development I have witnessed in Canada or in their lives. When I taught high school, kids would tell me that they didn't need to do this or that because 'they were going to Alberta'. When I saw them a few years later they had minimal skills, a poor work ethic, and huge debts. (Big trucks, though) A wise immigrant would have taken the paycheque bonanza and set themselves and their families up for generations. Friends of my son are deeper in debt than they could have ever imagined. That has been a metaphor for the rest of Canada. As a country we lived beyond our means and assumed debts past generations would have shied away from. We believed we were another rich petro-state.

And no, I am not nor was ever an unhappy Govt. worker. I taught trades training, math, and worked construction and bush flying when school was out. I paid for my education pounding nails.

Around here, the conversation began, "so, you're working in Ft. McMoney". Don't hear it too much anymore.

I have always supported reasonable development of the Oil Sands, for domestic use, only. In times of energy constraints it would have given Canada an edge and foundation to power its' traditional stregths and industries. But no, we had to have a Jed Clampett black gold rush that launched us into a Dutch Disease malaise. We had to be part of the current glut that is bringing the whole energy system to its knees, while adding to a poisoned earth.

regards
Paulo1
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun 07 Apr 2013, 14:50:35
Location: East Coast Vancouver Island

Re: Alberta Tar Sands Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 23 May 2016, 10:57:57

The Canadian Press wrote:The National Energy Board has recommended that the federal government approve the contentious $6.8-billion Trans Mountain pipeline expansion with 157 conditions.

The federal regulator has issued its long-awaited report on the project after a two-year debate that cost millions, galvanized aboriginal and environmental protests and prompted mass arrests.

A three-member review panel recommended Ottawa approve Kinder Morgan Canada’s proposal to triple the capacity of the pipeline, which carries crude from oilsands near Edmonton to Burnaby, B.C.

But Kinder Morgan will first have to address 157 engineering, safety, environmental and emergency preparedness conditions.

The positive recommendation has cleared a major hurdle for the project, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet set to make a final decision by the end of the year.

There was fierce opposition to the project and the process throughout the energy board’s hearing, with the British Columbia government and cities of Vancouver and Burnaby opposing the expansion.

http://www.mymcmurray.com/national-ener ... tional-ok/
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15539
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Alberta Tar Sands Pt. 2

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 23 May 2016, 15:13:20

T - Good catch. As you and I discussed long ago: the Canadians have been much more interested in getting that production to the Asian market then expanding shipping capacity to the US. After all the Canadians were shipping to the US every bbl they could produce WITHOUT that order crossing permit. What they've wanted so badly for many years is to not be held captive by the US oil market.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11220
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Alberta Tar Sands Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 18 Jun 2016, 15:33:52

CALGARY — Analysts say lost oilsands production from the Fort McMurray wildfires could top 30 million barrels and cost the industry upwards of $1.4 billion.

Some of the largest oilsands producers in the province were forced to shut down or curtail operations last month as 80,000 residents of Fort McMurray evacuated the city to escape the fierce blaze, which has yet to be extinguished.

Damage to oilsands projects was minimal but Calgary-based analysts say restarting operations is taking longer than expected.

Analyst Martin King of FirstEnergy Capital estimates the industry’s production loss at $1.4 billion, while Nick Lupick, an analyst for AltaCorp Capital, puts the value of the losses so far at almost $1.6 billion. Both said Wednesday that they expect their numbers to grow.

“It sounds like there have been some pipeline clogging issues on some of these projects,” said King. “I guess when the bitumen cooled it hardened and so they’re having trouble getting stuff down these pipes right now.”

King said his wildfire cost estimate is based on a production loss of about 37 million barrels, about half in the form of raw bitumen, which must be mixed with light oil to facilitate flow in a pipeline. The other half is much more valuable synthetic crude.

Lupick said he based his calculation on lost production of about 28 million barrels but with a higher proportion in the form of synthetic crude, which commands prices similar to West Texas Intermediate oil, thus delivering the higher dollar figure.

“Based on an outage of three weeks during the fires on average for all of the affected projects, the total lost revenue works out to be roughly $1.6 billion,” he said. “Made up of roughly $1.05 billion of SCO and $550 million of bitumen revenue.”

He said he expects the final production loss to grow beyond 30 million barrels because of delays in restarting projects and the fact that Syncrude Canada must complete a maintenance turnaround at its upgrader before returning to normal operations.

Lupick estimated Suncor Energy (TSX:SU) has lost about 21 million barrels of output from its own oilsands operations as well as from Syncrude, in which it has a majority stake.

Those barrels would have been worth about $700 million, he said, adding an outage at Suncor’s Edmonton refinery that caused gasoline shortages in Western Canada would take the loss to about $800 million.

Lupick said other costs of restarting production could easily inflate Suncor’s total losses to nearly $1 billion.

In a recent report to investors, analyst Paul Cheng of Barclays said about half of the one million barrels per day of production interrupted by the fire has been restored.

“By the end of June, we estimate the majority of production would be back online, with about 300,000 bpd still ramping up or undergoing planned turnarounds, and operations basically back to normal by mid to end of July, assuming no new shut-ins from ongoing fires,” he wrote.


http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/06/15/al ... 14-billion
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15539
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Alberta Tar Sands Pt. 2

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 18 Jun 2016, 22:59:56

So they lost 2.7% of the anticipated 2016 production. I suspect they'll weather the fire OK. The low oil prices...not so much. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11220
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Alberta Tar Sands Pt. 2

Unread postby toolpush » Sun 19 Jun 2016, 03:23:27

Tar Sand producer hit a sticky problem.

http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/art ... a_id=52580

Clogged Pipeline Delays Restart of Suncor's MacKay River Facility -Source

June 15 (Reuters) - An Enbridge Inc pipeline connected to Suncor Energy Inc's MacKay River oil sands facility near Fort McMurray, Alberta, has clogged after heavy oil cooled in the system, prolonging a shutdown of the site, three sources familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
toolpush
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon 06 Jan 2014, 08:49:16

Re: Alberta Tar Sands Pt. 2

Unread postby Cog » Sun 19 Jun 2016, 05:01:25

Turn those machines back on.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12789
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Statoil exits oil sands projects in Canada

Unread postby vox_mundi » Fri 23 Dec 2016, 12:38:41

Statoil exits oil sands projects in Canada

Image

Norwegian oil giant Statoil said Thursday it was exiting its oil sands projects in Canada, booking a loss, in a move hailed by environmental activists.

The group said it had reached an agreement to sell its 100-percent stake in the Kai Kos Dehseh (KKD) oil sands projects in the province of Alberta, to the Athabasca Oil Corporation of Canada for Can$832 million ($626 million, 597 million euros).

Included in the sale was a 24,000 barrels per day thermal oil project along with other oil leases and related strategic infrastructure.

Following the divestment, Statoil will not operate any oil sands projects, a business area the deepwater oil specialist had moved into to great dismay of analysts.

Statoil will take a loss of between $500 and $550 million on the deal.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests