But the problem is not just about supply. Canada's oil sands producers are voracious consumers of natural gas, using it to heat steam to liquefy the tarry bitumen reserves trapped in sand and as part of the process to produce refinery-ready crude from the bitumen.
Oil sands demand for gas has climbed from under 400 million cubic feet a day a decade ago to about a billion cubic feet daily in 2006. And with more than C$100 billion ($86 billion) in projects either planned or being built to tap the massive oil sands resource, demand will rise further.
King estimates that demand from oil sand operators has climbed as much as 300 million cubic feet a day since the summer and will rise again next year, cutting into supplies that would otherwise be available for export.
deMolay wrote:I think your statement is a total crock as well...I doubt very much if you even know where Alberta is, or the size of the oil play going on here?
mekrob wrote: I've never met a single person that could prove with facts that the current proven reserves are vastly understated.
Of course RESERVES are understated, it happens so often that its size can be considered predictable on a macro scale.
Current Canadian RESERVES strike me as completely reasonable, and I'll bet Chavez, when he pulls the trigger on his heavy oil reserves, will be quite reasonable as well.
mekrob wrote:
Of course RESERVES are understated, it happens so often that its size can be considered predictable on a macro scale.
Even when dealing with unconventional reserves?
mekrob wrote:
So as a professional, are you willing to back up deMolay and say there is essentially a URR of 1.7 trillion barrels of oil in Alberta as he claims or would you assume that the figure is probably much lower?
While the current figure (170 billion I believe) is probably too low for an unconventional resource, how much of a change is likely? Is it a nominal figure (ex. 50 billion) or would it be a percentage increase?
mekrob wrote:So then you are saying that he is probably wrong about the 1.7 trillion barrel proven reserves?
mekrob wrote:
That's what this is all about. Everyone knows that *current* proven reserve figures are off the mark, but to claim that the real figures are 10 times higher than that is completely ridiculous(which is exactly what deMolay claims and what I set out to refute) when that would mean that there'd be a recovery rate very close to 100%, when that is extremely difficult with conventional oil.
Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests