Oil sands - July 10
by Staff
Click on the headline (link) for the full text. Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
so we don't need the Saudis anymore, right? Hmmm... ...Even the most optimistic scenarios do not expect Canadia oil sands to represent more than 5% of global oil production in 2020. And these optimistic scenarios keep on bumping against unexpected (to some) obstacles. I've pointed out repeatedly that the transformation of oil sands into usable liquids requires lots of energy and lots of water, not to mention lots of other inputs, including engineers that need to be trained, housed, paid and have kids that need to be schooled. Thus the price of the useful "barrel of oil equivalent" keeps on rising as the cost of all these inputs keeps on going up. Some of that (housing costs, local infrastructure) can be attributed to growing pains, but the rest (energy, water, equipment, trained workforce) are structural problems that will ensure that the industry will never be more than barely profitable, as its costs roughly mirror oil prices - quite simply because the thermodynamics are not great (if you need half a barrel of oil, in addition to other inputs, to produce one barrel of usable oil, that puts a very real damper on your profitability). ...To sum it up: * Canada does have a lot of oil in the form of oil sands; * that oil is pretty expensive to produce - indeed, its price increases with that of oil itself, and it has very real environmental consequences locally; * even in the most optimistic scenarios, oil sands will only be able to provide a small portion of world oil production (les than 5% of world output, or less than a quarter of US demand), making them welcome, but by no means sufficient to ensure North American self-sufficiency.
The partner in the joint-venture Athabasca Oil Sands Project (AOSP) said this week the cost to build a first expansion phase has soared 50% since last fall, when project operator Shell Canada Ltd. more than doubled an initial investment forecast to $7.3-billion. Western Oil Sands' statement would therefore bump the project's price tag toward $11-billion, a figure operator Shell Canada, with a 60% stake in the ASOP, did not refute yesterday at a major oilsands conference in Calgary hosted by TD Newcrest. Gary Aitken, director of equity research at Bissett Investment Management, said Western Oil Sands and Shell sent the sector and investors a loud signal. "I think that perhaps there is some cautioning going on," Mr. Aitken said, adding it's likely that projects among the nearly $100-billion worth of investment planned for the oilsands over the next 10 years will be delayed rather than scuttled altogether.
The cost of the full three-stage expansion, pegged at about $13.5-billion last year, now might come in at more than $20-billion. "Intense demand for construction labour, material and supplies . . . have resulted in unprecedented increases in capital costs. This demand is further intensified in Alberta by the development of multiple oil sands projects," said Western Oil Sands Inc. in a press release late yesterday. Western, along with Chevron Corp., is a minority partner in Shell's Athabasca operation. The announcement is the loudest statement yet that development in the oil sands north of Fort McMurray in northeastern Alberta is coming unhinged and that the demand for steel and workers is reaching untenable levels. The news came hours after the price of crude oil reached a record close of $75.19 (U.S.), up a third from about $53 a year ago -- a steep gain that has fuelled inflation throughout the energy business around the world. Pressure in the oil sands also means that initial production from the Athabasca expansion won't occur until 2010, Western Oil Sands said, a year behind schedule. Shell said the expansion plan has "great potential" but senior vice-president Brian Straub added, "In this heated marketplace, cost and schedule control is the top priority." Every player with an oil sands project in the planning stage -- including the world's largest energy companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. -- is feeling the bite, and those involved say some proposals won't hit their targets.
This is oilsand — the stuff that has built a boom town in the bush and muskeg four hours north of Edmonton. It is the stuff that pumps billions of dollars into Alberta’s economy every year and draws tens of thousands of people from across the country and around the world. It puts that gleam in Ralph Klein’s eye. It puts diamonds on fingers, fine wine down throats and Ferraris in driveways. Every day, they make a million barrels of oil up here — enough to meet half of Canada’s energy needs, although most of it goes south to the United States. The scale is what you don’t understand until you come here. Alberta’s oilsands cover an area three times the size of Nova Scotia. There are an estimated 1.7 to 2.5 trillion barrels of oil in the sand here, seven to 10 times more oil than is in Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves.
But the regional municipality that includes the Alberta town of Fort McMurray will tell regulators this month that its over-stretched services cannot cope with a planned C$6bn (£2.9bn) expansion of Suncor Energy's nearby oilsands operation. Fort McMurray is at the centre of one of north America's most frenzied resource booms since the Klondike gold rush of 1897. The bitumen-like deposits - estimated to contain more oil than anywhere but Saudi Arabia - have drawn oil giants and investors from around the world. According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), a total of C$60bn is earmarked for new extraction and processing projects over the next five years. House prices in Fort McMurray are higher than Toronto or Vancouver. The roads and schools are struggling to keep up with a population that has doubled to 60,000 in the past decade, and is expected to hit 100,000 by 2010. Like the municipality, the oilsands industry is discovering the downside of a boom. Excitement over the spiralling oil price has given way to frustration over shortages of labour and equipment and soaring costs. The stampede has also driven up land prices for new oilsands projects. To make matters worse, the gap between the price of light crude oil and the heavy product yielded by the oilsands has widened from about $6 a barrel a few years ago to $17 now. |
news by category
- Resources
- Regions
- Related Issues
featured content
- Authors
- Dan Allen
- Cecile Andrews
- Sharon Astyk
- Megan Quinn Bachman
- Albert Bates
- Ugo Bardi
- Dan Bednarz
- Rebecca Burgess
- Sarah Byrnes
- Molly Scott Cato
- Kurt Cobb
- Dave Cohen
- Erik Curren
- Lindsay Curren
- Andrew Curry
- Herman Daly
- Kris De Decker
- Rob Dietz
- Charlotte Du Cann
- Rahul Goswami
- John Michael Greer
- Nate Hagens
- Richard Heinberg
- Øyvind Holmstad
- Rob Hopkins
- Robert Jensen
- Brian Kaller
- Frank Kaminski
- Paul Kingsnorth
- Amanda Kovattana
- Ellen LaConte
- Gene Logsdon
- Kathy McMahon
- Asher Miller
- Bill McKibben
- Rick Munroe
- Tom Murphy
- Andrew Nikiforuk
- Dmitry Orlov
- Christine Patton
- Damien Perrotin
- Dave Pollard
- Joanne Poyourow
- Barath Raghavan
- Wayne Roberts
- Stuart Staniford
- John Thackara
- Gail Tverberg
- Tom Whipple
- More authors...
- Publishers
- ASPO-USA
- Civil Eats
- Climate Progress
- Culture Change
- Energy Bulletin
- Fernand Braudel Center
- Feasta
- Nourishing the Planet
- Oil Depletion Analysis Centre
- On the Commons
- OpenDemocracy
- OpenEconomy
- Post Carbon Institute
- Shareable
- Solutions
- The Daly News
- The Oil Drum
- Shareable
- TomDispatch.com
- Transition Milwaukee
- Transition Voice
- Yale Environment 360
- Yes! Magazine
- Media Publishers
- Reviews
- Web chats
The Post Carbon Reader
A must-read collection by some of the world’s most provocative thinkers on the key issues shaping our new century. Buy now and receive a 20% discount.







