Winds of Change.NET: Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory.

Formal Affiliations
  • Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto
  • Euston Democratic Progressive Manifesto
  • Real Democracy for Iran!
  • Support Denamrk
  • Million Voices for Darfur
  • milblogs
Syndication
 Subscribe in a reader

Crude Reserves & Crude Economics

| 10 Comments
As of this year, Canada's oil reserves suddenly jumped by 3,600% (from 4.8 billion barrels last year to 180 bbl), thanks to reclassification of Alberta's oil sands into the economically feasible "proven reserves" category. To put that figure in perspective, it gives Canada 50% more proven oil reserves than Iraq. The beginning of Canadian world domination? The solution to America's Mideast oil dependency issues? Gal Luft of IAGS.org exlains why things aren't as simple as they seem.

10 Comments

You better tell your prime minister to watch himself, Joe. We're always looking for pretexts...

It's interesting to see that alternative methods of oil extraction are increasingly available.

I read Luft's article, but it doesn't answer a crucial question: Is the 9$ per barrel figure then wrong? Does it take into account the energy use costs of extraction? (Presumably it would). How about the costs of reclamation? Other externalities?

Without some sort of guidelines he doesn't provide a very clear basis for judging the economic feasibility issue he is challenging.

Canadian tar sand oil doesn't have to compete with Saudi oil in cost. Only selling price.

Tar sand oil from Canada was $11 bbl a few years ago so cost is coming down.

I would expect that the price includes required Canadian reclamation. Unless it is a government run operation.

Did I mention that the US of A has 2/3s as much tar sand as Canada? And enough wind to supply all our electrical needs and enough coal for 500 years? And we currently produce around 40% of our own oil consumption.

With natural gas prices escalating, wind is now economically viable on it's own merits.

Especially if you put the wind turbines near Washington, D.C.

heh. all those windbags have a good use after all.

Wow. Something we can all agree on.

Did I mention that the US of A has 2/3s as much tar sand as Canada?

Where? In what states? Is it on the surface like in Canada or would we have to dig? This reminds me of the article I read recently about some company that turns trash into oil.

I don't remember where a western state Colorado I think. Mining was started in the Carter years with a government subsidy. When the subsidy stopped so did the mining. The oil produced at the time was $40 a bbl.

I don't believe Luft's claim about the amount of energy required to extract a barrel of oil from oil sands. If it was true then, as Gabriel Gonzalez suggested, it would cost more to produce than the current world price for oil since the energy would bave to be bought to extract it.

I don't think this guy has done his homework. I also doubt that extraction from oil sands will get as cheap as Saudi or Iraqi oil extraction (and Iraqi oil is easier and cheaper to extract than Saudi Arabian oil btw).

One big factor slowing the expansion of oil sands extraction is the large capital costs of building the extraction plants. The risk is that investors could spend to build a plant, oil production from the Middle East could rise to the point of driving prices below the costs of the oil sand processing costs, and all that capital would have to be idled until world market prices rose again. Also, I checked a number of other sources for the cost of producing Alberta oil sands oil and came up with $12 USD per barrel as the cheapest price using the latest facilities. Not sure where he is getting the $9 per barrel.

We absolutely do need to develop replacements for Middle Eastern oil. I see the development of technologies to obsolete fossil fuels as an essential element of American grand strategy.

Hold on everyone appears to be missing the point. Just because I can produce at $10 per barrel does not mean that I will sell at a lower price. The difference between $40 a barrel and $10 of cost = $30 which goes to the company's bottom line. If supply in increased it will drive prices down a bit, but not to $10 a barrell. And this is assuming that the new supply will not be absorbed into the market but will be excess production. Right now China is sucking up everything she can which is helping to keep prices high. As long as her economy continues to expand count on high oil prices for the forseeable future. Just a thought.

Lets develop alternative energy sources and put the Saudis in the poor house.

Leave a comment

Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:

*This* puts text in bold.

_This_ puts text in italics.

bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.

To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.




Recent Comments
  • TM Lutas: Jobs' formula was simple enough. Passionately care about your users, read more
  • sabinesgreenp.myopenid.com: Just seeing the green community in action makes me confident read more
  • Glen Wishard: Jobs was on the losing end of competition many times, read more
  • Chris M: Thanks for the great post, Joe ... linked it on read more
  • Joe Katzman: Collect them all! Though the French would be upset about read more
  • Glen Wishard: Now all the Saudis need is a division's worth of read more
  • mark buehner: Its one thing to accept the Iranians as an ally read more
  • J Aguilar: Saudis were around here (Spain) a year ago trying the read more
  • Fred: Good point, brutality didn't work terribly well for the Russians read more
  • mark buehner: Certainly plausible but there are plenty of examples of that read more
  • Fred: They have no need to project power but have the read more
  • mark buehner: Good stuff here. The only caveat is that a nuclear read more
  • Ian C.: OK... Here's the problem. Perceived relevance. When it was 'Weapons read more
  • Marcus Vitruvius: Chris, If there were some way to do all these read more
  • Chris M: Marcus Vitruvius, I'm surprised by your comments. You're quite right, read more
The Winds Crew
Town Founder: Left-Hand Man: Other Winds Marshals
  • 'AMac', aka. Marshal Festus (AMac@...)
  • Robin "Straight Shooter" Burk
  • 'Cicero', aka. The Quiet Man (cicero@...)
  • David Blue (david.blue@...)
  • 'Lewy14', aka. Marshal Leroy (lewy14@...)
  • 'Nortius Maximus', aka. Big Tuna (nortius.maximus@...)
Other Regulars Semi-Active: Posting Affiliates Emeritus:
Winds Blogroll
Author Archives
Categories
Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en