Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 01/13/2006 View Thu 01/12/2006 View Wed 01/11/2006 View Tue 01/10/2006 View Mon 01/09/2006 View Sun 01/08/2006 View Sat 01/07/2006
1
2006-01-13 Great White North
Canada's oil supply could top Saudi Arabia in 10 years
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-01-13 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 I'm quietly optimistic about new oil shale recovery techniques. There is a trillion barrels in colorado shales.
Posted by phil_b">phil_b  2006-01-13 00:52|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]  2006-01-13 00:52|| Front Page Top

#2 TW, Alberta is not Canada. It is in Canada, at least for now. It may not be so 15 years from now.
Posted by twobyfour 2006-01-13 00:56||   2006-01-13 00:56|| Front Page Top

#3 It will be part of Canada 15 years from now and these reserves may be wholely owned by China People are not paying attention.
Posted by Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2006-01-13 02:58||   2006-01-13 02:58|| Front Page Top

#4 Well, let us suppose that the Canadian tar sands are bought up by China.

Since oil is sold in a global market, and is largely fungible, that would simply mean that there'd be less demand for Middle Eastern or African oil.

The only way that Chinese control of Canadian oil matters, is if the global supply of oil suddenly shrinks - but even then, as phil b points out, there are over a trillion barrels of oil that could be tapped in the U.S.
They're just not as cheaply recoverable as is Middle Eastern or even Canadian oil.
Posted by Michael Herdegen">Michael Herdegen  2006-01-13 03:30|| www.dailyduck.blogspot.com]">[www.dailyduck.blogspot.com]  2006-01-13 03:30|| Front Page Top

#5 I think you’re overstating the “independence” movement up here. I’m an American living in Canada (Alberta). While there is a lot of disgruntlement over getting screwed by the federal government from the oil revenues, most people up here wouldn’t want to separate and form their own country. It gets more media attention than it deserves and the movement is not as organized nor as deep as it is in Quebec. Not to mention, this sentiment exists only the rural areas of Southern Alberta. You don’t hear much about it in the big cities. Albertans don’t think of themselves as “Albertans”, but more as “Canadians”.

I also think this “allegiance” with the US is overstated. There’s a lot of anti-Americanism in Alberta (and I can’t stress this enough). I see it everyday at work. Granted, I live in Edmonton, which is decidedly more left-wing than the rest of the province, but still. Alberta isn’t THAT right-wing; there was a recent poll on which American party Albertans would support and over 60% supported the Democrats.

As for the Chi-coms buying out the oil here, it’s all talk. I don’t think their offers come close to what American firms offer. Once in a while, Paul Martin while whine and moan about Canada-US trade issues (to score political points with the anti-Americans and unionists, who are also anti-American) and threaten to seek other export “markets”, but this is just talk. I don’t think he is that stupid (though the way he’s running his reelection campaign here is making me wonder) and he knows Canada needs the US export market to survive and that China has never really honored any trade agreements.

The one I would worry about is Jack Layton, who leads the socialist NDP party. He would probably cut the supply to the US and sell to China. Heck, it was one of his campaign promises if the US didn’t fix the softwood lumber issue. But I think he’d do this mostly because he sees the PRC as an ideological ally. The chances of him getting elected this time are very, very slim, though.

And while they are improving techniques to extract oil from the tar sands, it’s still a very expensive and time-consuming process. Not to mention, the quality of the oil just isn’t all that good compared to the black gold in the Middle East. Unfortunately, we’ll all have to depend on Middle Eastern oil for a long time.
Posted by bonanzabucks 2006-01-13 03:57||   2006-01-13 03:57|| Front Page Top

#6 Let's not forget the hybrid cars. And battery-cell vehicles are being tested on our streets everyday. I saw one a couple of month's ago.
Posted by CaziFarkus 2006-01-13 04:24||   2006-01-13 04:24|| Front Page Top

#7 Why are'nt we subsidising this form of oil production. If these places were able to go on line in one year (I know that can't happen now), Venazaula, and the Middle East would be hurt almost instantly. We could punish them without sending our best to stop them. Seems that subsidising would be the cheap way.
Posted by plainslow 2006-01-13 08:51||   2006-01-13 08:51|| Front Page Top

#8 Not subsidy, but import duties.

Recovery from tar sands requires very large capital investment that is repaid over a very long time. In order to make the investment pay off, the price must consistently remain above some floor level at which it makes a profit.

The current oil market is very volatile. The price can crash or skyrocket in a matter of weeks.

In order to provide the minimum return the market requires, we should not subsidize oil developers, but assure that oil prices do not fall below a floor at which they can make a profit through an import duty. If the tar sands can be developed at a profit when the price is $50 per barrel, we should put a duty on imported oil that brings its price to $50. If the oil is purchased for $35 per barrel, the duty is $15. If the price is $55, the duty is $0. This would assure that the tar sands were developed using investor greed instead of the corruptible government largesse of subsidies.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-13 09:37||   2006-01-13 09:37|| Front Page Top

#9 Expect a lot of terr attacks in Canada.
Posted by gromgoru 2006-01-13 10:28||   2006-01-13 10:28|| Front Page Top

#10 massive build out of wind, solar and nuclear plants, increased ethanol production and flex-fuel supercharged plug-in hybrids would eliminate the need for importing oil. Could be done in less than 10 years.
Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2006-01-13 12:06||   2006-01-13 12:06|| Front Page Top

#11 subsidizing oil just continues our growing dependency but hides it from the consumer in the form of higher tax prices.

oil should be taxed more, not subsidized.
Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2006-01-13 12:08||   2006-01-13 12:08|| Front Page Top

#12 Nimble Spemble, great point. But I don't think you even need to do that... the tar sand people could do it themselves by shorting oil futures and lock in their returns. No need to get the gov't involved... free market is fully equipped to handle volatility in pricing.
Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2006-01-13 12:10||   2006-01-13 12:10|| Front Page Top

#13 the tar sand people could do it themselves

If they could, why aren't they? If spot oil is at $35, it's going to be hard to sell futures at $50.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-13 12:13||   2006-01-13 12:13|| Front Page Top

#14 But they are doing it themselves, investment in oil sands is growing exponentially.

It's not something you can simply turn on, takes time to build the infrastructure to support it.
Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2006-01-13 12:23||   2006-01-13 12:23|| Front Page Top

#15 How long before it begins to affect price though. Venzauala, Saudi Arabia, Iran, are only able to do as they please because of oil. They have no other real export of much value other than illegal product (illeagal in the west)
Posted by plainslow 2006-01-13 15:06||   2006-01-13 15:06|| Front Page Top

#16 If we could stop the envirowackos from shutting down US exploration, we could be energy-indepentent in two years. That's the major problem, not a lack of resources. There are enough coal seams in the Rocky Mountains to supply LPG to every customer in the United States for the next 80+ years. The recovery technology is in place, and we're already producing. There are dozens of really DEEP oilfields that aren't being produced because the expense is too high at the moment, but $60/bbl will change that - IF the price stays that high long enough. A friend of mine developed a technology to extract oil from oil shale for $45/bbl, but it took too much water - water that couldn't be supplied then, and really isn't available now. Shipping oil shale to somewhere else where there IS water is expensive.

We need three things to increase US energy independence: modernization of existing facilities (refineries, oil pipeline networks, power lines, rail links, ports, harbors, etc.), development of both new facilities (refineries especially) and alternative facilities (nuclear, nonconventional, etc.), and restructuring and reducing the financial and legal tangle to provide better incentives for both traditional and non-traditional energy production. There are dozens of allied groups doing everything possible to sabotage all three programs. We, the people that are most affected by all this, need to put a stop to their sabotage, and hold them accountable. That includes hanging a former impeached president and his co-conspirator.
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2006-01-13 18:42|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2006-01-13 18:42|| Front Page Top

#17 "the tar sand people"

Good name for a band. Adjustments req'd for an SUV name, though.
Posted by .com 2006-01-13 22:17||   2006-01-13 22:17|| Front Page Top

11:45 Red Dog
11:44 Red Dog AU commish
16:19 Bird Dog
16:10 Bird Dog
10:01 Ray Gunn
09:55 AU commish
23:53 Omeang Grailet5065
23:52 .com
23:48 ed
23:45 anon
23:42 .com
23:38 twobyfour
23:36 Frank G
23:35 twobyfour
23:35 .com
23:34 Seafarious
23:28 3dc
23:25 Frank G
23:08 .com
23:03 twobyfour
23:03 SC88
23:01 .com
23:00 .com
22:58 .com









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com