Of course the only thing worse than Evil Big Oil is CANADIAN Evil Big Oil. Don't get me started about those evil Canadians with their hockey and Rumpleminze and civilized society. Don't want none of that stinking Canadian oil do we? No, much better to have stable, pro-US Middle Eastern oil.
Canada has ~80 years Proven Reserves. Reserves for who? Is that for Canada's useage, or current world useage? I need a bit more info on the graph to properly read it.
ReplyDeleteThe truly weird thing is that while western Canada exports oil to the big refineries in Texas and Louisianna (and soon to the Pacific Rim when the pipeline to the BC coast is complete) the eastern parts of Canada are importing oil from Norway and Algeria.
ReplyDeleteIs it time to build a Trans-Canada pipeline? We could also sell the oil to the eastern seaboard of the US to make more profits.
Al_in_Ottawa
I was having trouble reading it too Fred, but as close as I read the graph, he's saying that Canada has the 2nd largest proven reserve, but at current production, it will be take 150 years to deplete it.
ReplyDeleteThat pretty close Cap?
@ Fred Rackow
ReplyDeleteProven reserves are on the bottom axis, so Canada has cca 175 billion barrels. Top axis is reserves to production ratio.
"The truly weird thing is that while western Canada exports oil to the big refineries in Texas and Louisianna (and soon to the Pacific Rim when the pipeline to the BC coast is complete) the eastern parts of Canada are importing oil from Norway and Algeria. "
ReplyDeleteNot weird. While oil is to some degree fungible,it also has specific qualities and certain refineries run better on certain mixes, so it's a commercial decision on what the cheapest and best sources are for certain product ranges.
That being said, another pipeline eastwards might not be a bad idea.
Ezra Levant has a great book on the subject:
ReplyDeletehttp://ezralevant.com/2010/09/ethical-oil-the-case-for-canad.html
Captain...
ReplyDeleteHere's a book for you to read:
Ethical Oil by Ezra Levant
http://www.mcclelland.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780771046414
Yes, I find it so strange, that you Yanks protest the oil sands development. What are these people thinking? I guess Nigerian oil is OK?
ReplyDeleteAlso rather strange, Bush and Cheney were informed out about the oil sands from Prime Minister Chretien. At the time, they both had never heard about the Alberta oil sands, despite having worked in the oil industry. I was shocked to find this out.
There are also stories that rich American environment groups, are funding anti pipeline developments. One pipeline would go to the West Coast for Asian shipments, the other pipeline proposal goes down to Texas from Alberta. Once again, this seems contrary to the best interests of the USA.
Why would anyone in the US, prefer Middle East oil over Alberta oil? I have no explanation.
this seems contrary to the best interests of the USA. Why would anyone in the US, prefer Middle East oil over Alberta oil? I have no explanation.
ReplyDeleteBecause our hairshirt environmentalists aren't really pro-environment. They're more anti-people at heart. So if it sucks and it hurts and it's more expensive, and nobody is happy with it and it's worse than what we had, it's better! See, e.g. incandescent light bulb ban, ethanol.
TW: Safte. German for juice. Kann ich bitte eine Arabischesafte?
I'm blind, I missed the bottom axis. Graph makes sense now! And as a note to many of the non-Canadian readers of this blog, Saskatchewan is just starting to allow (or not get in the way of (Damn Socialist Governments!))development of the VAST reserves that exist in the province. Kate's SDA site has some good posts about this.
ReplyDeleteAl in Ottawa, have you ever heard of Trans Canada Pipeline - I believe receiving terminal is in Sarnia. But alas, like America you guys don't want' evil Western Canadian oil. That would cause a shift in the national power base. So you choose to screw yourselves in the name of national dis-unity.
ReplyDeleteThere are also stories that rich American environment groups, are funding anti pipeline developments... Once again, this seems contrary to the best interests of the USA. Why would anyone in the US, prefer Middle East oil over Alberta oil? I have no explanation.
ReplyDeleteHardly.
The pipeline that is being most vehemently opposed is the one to pacific tidewater that would allow exports to Asia. Guess what happens to the price of western Canadian oil when it gains access to a new market? Guess what that does to the economics of importing that oil into CA to be turned into gasoline?
I don't know that environmentalists are a cats paw for protectionists and latter-day manifest destiny types - but they are acting like it. It's a funny world they live in - Alberta tarsand oil is 'too dirty' to be allowed into the US (according to some, at least), whcih has the happy effect of grinding down the price. It's also 'too dirty' to be allowed to be exported to China - with the same happy result.
Captain, can you give a link to the source. The data for Saudi seems optimistic to me, they're already injecting water into their wells which is a sign of the end. More pipelines really would be a boon. One problem with the oil sands I heard is that it takes more energy to refine than it contains which limits it to use in transportation. It also means that ironically, as base energy prices go up it becomes less profitable. Then again, if we just fire up some more coal and nuclear plants that would fix it right up but guess who's in the way of that.
ReplyDeleteIt's from the IEA (small print at the bottom).
ReplyDeleteHey Fred R.
ReplyDeleteWe in Saskatchewan threw the socialists out 4 years ago and now have the most popular Conservative Premier in Canada. While Canada weathered the recent recession well, Sask barely felt a breeze. Look for more good thing to come in the future.
As an example of the peculiarities of the NA oil market, the Irving oil refinery in New Brunswick Canada (next to state of Maine) was one of the first to produce low-sulfur diesel and gasoline that met California's strict requirements. So it ended up being shipped to California by tanker through the Panama Canal. The market was distorted by green regulation with the unintended consequence of greater cost and environmental risk.
ReplyDeleteThe ENGOs need to stop Canadian oil from supplying the U.S. for one big reason: The oilsands are considered the biggest threat to the "New Energy Economy." (See the header for the site http://dirtyoilsands.org/). If America can have reliable Canadian oil then the public have less incentive to switch off oil to whatever alternative energy resource the green's are pushing.
ReplyDeleteYou'll notice if you go to the various "tar sands" or oilsands "truth" sites they all have one theme in common: stop or shut down the oil sands. They don't want to monitor and improve water, air or soil quality in the region, they just want production to stop.
If you want to be either encouraged or disheartened (depending on where you fall on the political/energy spectrum), Saskatchewan also has approximately 35% of the world's known resources for uranium. The area in northern AB and SK has not seen a seismic event in the recorded history of the North American continent. Let's see here, Demand (Energy for Oilsands extraction currently met with co-generation onsite) and Supply ( Large Uranium resources + low enrichment CANDU reactor design) + Safety (no shakey-shakey like California, BC or Japan).
ReplyDelete