|
25 May 09 - 11:50 PM (#2640951) Subject: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
26 May 09 - 02:01 PM (#2641283) Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead From: Rapparee Northeast Alberta, huh? Probably pumping it from the huge deposits under the US of A. Give us back our oil or Face The Consequences! |
|
26 May 09 - 02:22 PM (#2641306) Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead From: Richard Bridge Is that like Palestinian water, Rapaire? Or is there a subtle difference in that water is a liquid and oil sands aren't? |
|
26 May 09 - 03:18 PM (#2641328) Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead From: bobad "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. |
|
26 May 09 - 05:27 PM (#2641406) Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead From: Bill D I **hope** they will need a bit less than that by 2012. |
|
26 May 09 - 06:09 PM (#2641442) Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead From: Janie Here a recent NGM article regarding the Canadian oil sands, including cost/benefit analyses for companies, people and the environment. |
|
26 May 09 - 06:12 PM (#2641445) Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead From: Rapparee Didn't you know? All oil in North and South and Central America belongs to the US. It's called "The W Doctrine." |
|
26 May 09 - 06:18 PM (#2641448) Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead From: Bill D About the time we GET the last of that oil, most of the areas won't be worth living in, anyway. |
|
26 May 09 - 06:56 PM (#2641481) Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead From: gnu bobad... the Pentagon? per day? I don't understand. |
|
26 May 09 - 07:30 PM (#2641517) Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead From: bobad gnu, see here: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/21330 |
|
26 May 09 - 11:49 PM (#2641620) Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead From: EBarnacle 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. |
|
27 May 09 - 12:29 AM (#2641635) Subject: RE: BS: Oil Sands Go-ahead From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |