Well this is good news for North American Oil Security, it will ahve very little impact on prices. If the price goes down too much these projects will no longer be profitable, thus they will be put on hold. At current price levels these projects are just over the break even point, since oil sands are much harder to extract and refine then conventional crude.

However this is great news for Alberta, as long as the Eastern Canadians don't put forth another NEP.

Our local paper said recently that Canada's Oil Sands has 1.3 trillion barrels which puts it right up at the top of the list. Then you have to consider the discovery in Colorado and Utah that also totals in the trillions (US estimates vary from 2.0 to 2.5 trillion) of barrels making the US and Canada the worlds largest oil reserves in the world.

As for the cost to produce it, I think it is only a matter of time before they tweak current methods which will make them more cost effective and then it might possibly lower the price some, just how much no one really knows.

Sometimes I wonder if the US will wait until the worlds supplies get real low and then one day announce that "look here we have trillions in oil reserves". Now you will have to buy from us. It wouldn't surprise me.

Originally posted by shots
As for the cost to produce it, I think it is only a matter of time before they tweak current methods which will make them more cost effective and then it might possibly lower the price some, just how much no one really knows.

Good point shots! I was thinking along the same lines. When the push comes to shove, with enough R&D the current methods can be perfected to achieve much better effiency and lower costs. Thing is, right now it's not in the interest of big oil. And sure as hell, they won't pass the savings on to the people....

Originally posted by steve99
Sometimes I wonder if the US will wait until the worlds supplies get real low and then one day announce that "look here we have trillions in oil reserves". Now you will have to buy from us. It wouldn't surprise me.

I've thought this for some time too. The US refuses to drill in ANWR, and off it's coasts, just sitting on it's oil reserves, and buying/using up everyone else's.

Originally posted by V Kaminski
There may be a fly in the ointment when it comes to oilsands exploitation using current technology... water use, humgo-water use.

You do have to use a lot of water for in-situ recovery. With the possibility of water shortages in the future, it is a bit of a concern. I think that can be fairly easily overcome through the use of non-potable water instead of fresh. You just need to convince the energy companies to switch and good luck on that.

Another problem is heating the water to turn it into steam. The water is normally heated with natural gas, a pollutant and also a fossil fuel. You end up trading one resource to get at the other.

The easy solution to the water heating problem is go nuclear. Not a popular idea at all.

I figure if you line up the environmentalists on one side and the oil companies on the other side, somewhere in the middle will be a decent solution that everyone can live with.

After all, a good compromise is when neither side gets everything they want.

No, a good compromise is when both sides come away feeling like they won.

shots, the point about Fresh water consumption is a valid criticism. Canadian's are rather lucky to have the worlds largest Fresh water reserves in the world though.

Another thing, most environmentalists are not against "development." We are against irresponsible development. There is just as much money, if not more money, in green, renewable technologies and regardless of how much oil we have, we still do need to look into switching soon, within the next 10 to 20 years.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Another thing, most environmentalists are not against "development." We are against irresponsible development. There is just as much money, if not more money, in green, renewable technologies and regardless of how much oil we have, we still do need to look into switching soon, within the next 10 to 20 years.

Well said. It's not a question of how much oil is sitting in the ground we must look at cleaner alternatives for our energy needs. Depending on oil is a one way ticket to nowhere.

brill

Originally posted by sardion2000
No, a good compromise is when both sides come away feeling like they won.

Even if neither side got everything they wanted.

There's no time like the present to look around for better alternatives to oil. Yes, we have the oilsands to get more crude from, but when you have to expend an equal amount (if not twice over) of energy to extract it, while spewing pollutants in the air, it's not a good long-term solution.

After all, Sardion has enough problems breathing already.


PS. I had only heard of frothing being used to recover minerals from the tailings. I'll have to look into that more. Thanks for the link Victor.


[edit on 6-6-2006 by Duzey]