BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead

Subject: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 May 09 - 11:50 PM

Imperial Oil Canada (Exxon-Mobil) made Albertans happy as the company today approved an $8 billion project for the Kearl oil sands of northeastern Alberta.

Oil prices are expected to stabilize at $80/bbl or higher, which would guarantee a 10-per-cent after-tax profit.

The Kearl sands have 4.6 billion bbls of recoverable bitumin, and, at the rate of 345,000 bbl/day, the project will last half a century.
First production of 110,000 bbl/day will be attained in 2012 and gradually increased after that.

Suncor, planning merger with Petro-Canada, is planning revival of its temporarily stalled projects.
Total SA, the French giant, also is readying their oil sands plans.

Nathan VanderKlippe, The Globe and Mail, May 25, 2009.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 May 09 - 02:01 PM

Northeast Alberta, huh? Probably pumping it from the huge deposits under the US of A.

Give us back our oil or Face The Consequences!

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 May 09 - 02:22 PM

Is that like Palestinian water, Rapaire? Or is there a subtle difference in that water is a liquid and oil sands aren't?

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead
From: bobad
Date: 26 May 09 - 03:18 PM

"at the rate of 345,000 bbl/day, the project will last half a century."

345,000 bbl is what the pentagon uses per day.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead
From: Bill D
Date: 26 May 09 - 05:27 PM

I **hope** they will need a bit less than that by 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead
From: Janie
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:09 PM

Here a recent NGM article regarding the Canadian oil sands, including cost/benefit analyses for companies, people and the environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:12 PM

Didn't you know? All oil in North and South and Central America belongs to the US.

It's called "The W Doctrine."

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead
From: Bill D
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:18 PM

About the time we GET the last of that oil, most of the areas won't be worth living in, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead
From: gnu
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:56 PM

bobad... the Pentagon? per day? I don't understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead
From: bobad
Date: 26 May 09 - 07:30 PM

gnu, see here: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/21330

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead
From: EBarnacle
Date: 26 May 09 - 11:49 PM

Last time I looked, the reason the oil sands were still there because the cost of extraction was very high, to the point that with no subsidy, we would need a cost of more than $100 per barrel to make it work with current technology.

Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 May 09 - 12:29 AM

As noted in the press post, $80/bbl yields a 10 per cent profit, according to the major players- they say this is needed for new developments. Existing operations are still profitable at current levels.

Mining techniques are much improved; over 60% of the oil produced in Alberta comes from the tar sands, and although capital spending is down because of the recession, some $10 billion will be spent on new development in 2009.
Existing operations continue to be profitable. Not quite the cash cow for the Province that it was before the recession; the Province has cut its expected revenue for 2009 to $35.6 billion, a drop of $4.5 billion.

Current Alberta production (all sources) is 1.2 million bbl/day, and is expected to rise to 2 million bbl/day by 2013.

Total Canadian production is roughly 3.4-3.5 million bbl/day currently (Canada Energy Data,-- http://eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Canada/Oil.html
and CBC news story, March 11, 2009.