Posted on 04/09/2005 9:48:08 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter
A swelling tide of petroleum is set to pour out of Canada in coming years, freed from primordial sands for a journey to refineries in Illinois and northwest Indiana. Illinois is the main refining center and port of entry for oil from Canada, the largest supplier of petroleum to the United States.
Now companies are proposing three new pipelines linking the Chicago area or Wood River, near St. Louis, both major refining and transshipment points, with Alberta oil sands fields more than 1,400 miles away.
The estimated cost is nearly $3 billion.Canadian producers say that after satisfying the five refineries here, they will use Illinois pipelines to serve refiners in Oklahoma and perhaps Louisiana and Texas.
"Illinois is our primary market for Canadian oil,'' said Greg Stringham, vice president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
"We may have to push beyond that market into the Gulf Coast. It would route through Chicago.''
Oil sands production is set to increase to 3 million barrels a day from 1 million over the next 15 years, with the United States likely the primary buyer.
Oil sands — a doughy mix of hydrocarbons, sands and clay — underlie 50,000 square miles of Alberta. With at least 175 billion barrels of recoverable petroleum, it is quite likely the world's largest oil deposit.
Strip-mined or heated by steam and extracted by wells, oil sands yield an oil component called bitumen that can be made into synthetic petroleum.The oil sands in Alberta yielded $10 billion in taxes and royalties to the provincial government last year, a figure certain to rise.
The province's economy is growing faster than any other in the country, in part from high oil prices.But there is a downside to the oil sands boom.At best, oil sands extraction laces the earth with roads, pipes, drilling pads and storage tanks that remain in place for decades.
At worst, extraction means obliteration of forests and deep excavation, gashing the earth over many square miles.Provincial law requires oil companies to restore areas they strip mine, and they have tried to put the land back into place.
"But they are not restoring forests,'' said Helen Walsh, arboreal campaign director for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society chapter in Edmonton.
"They are restoring grasslands. Ecologically speaking, it's going to be very difficult to put it back into forest.''
There is a theory that the oil sands of Alberta were once deposits of conventional petroleum. Bacteria consumed the lighter components of the crude, leaving behind bitumen the color of coffee and the consistency of cold molasses.
Oil sands, sometimes referred to as tar sands in the United States, are not the energy source of choice.
Extraction is expensive.
Strip mining requires huge trucks and power shovels. Deep deposits require steam injection to warm the bitumen, temporarily making it a liquid that can be pumped by a well. And the bitumen must be mixed with lighter oil or processed into synthetic crude to become fluid enough to flow through a pipeline. Exploitation of the oil sands fields began 30 years ago, but cheaper oil from elsewhere limited its appeal.
Alan Herbst, an energy consultant with Utilis Energy, said that in recent years the economics of oil sands production have become more seductive. It costs under $20 a barrel to produce a barrel of oil from oil sands.
"With crude oil (selling for) over $50 a barrel, it's definitely a winning deal,'' he said.
And there's also something else appealing about synthetic crude from Canadian oil sands: It comes from a stable country that welcomes U.S. investment.American petroleum companies are excluded from Mexico or Saudi Arabia. And output from Nigeria and Venezuela, essential to the United States, is precarious because of political and social unrest in those countries.
So, refineries here have added capacity and equipment needed to handle Alberta oil.The oil won't run out anytime soon. Energy analysts say Alberta can produce 3 million barrels a day for at least 165 years.
But the environmental cost can be huge. Much of the production comes from strip mining forested land in a region about the size of Florida.
To prepare the site, workers clear-cut stands of spruce, jack pine and aspen. Then earthmovers scalp the soil, sometimes removing 100 feet or more of earth to reach the oil sands.The industry refers to such land as "disturbed.''
In Alberta, a typical mine disturbs about 65 square miles, whether by strip mines or a network of steam injection and extraction wells.So far, 162 square miles have been disturbed. Eventually, that will rise to 682 square miles, or about three times the land area of the City of Chicago.
"These operations are so immense,'' said Dan Woynillowicz, a policy analyst with the liberally oriented Pembina Institute.
He said the land to be mined is ecologically significant."There are a lot of wetlands — bogs and fens,'' Woynillowicz said.
"It is habitat for moose and the threatened woodland caribou. It is quite lush. We may cause irreversible ecological harm to wildlife, to fish, to water.''
The law requires oil companies to eventually restore the strip-mined land, with final approval by the provincial government. So far none has been approved, though the oil industry says there is no question the land will be reclaimed.
Walsh, of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, said there are efforts under way to mitigate the damage done in the production of oil sands, but no effort to halt the mining.
She said increased strip mining seems inevitable.
"The markets are driving the petroleum industry to this horrible exploitation,'' Walsh said.
"It's mostly demand from the U.S."
The petroleum industry has so much power, and it means so much money to the Alberta economy,'' she said.
Chicago Tribune 03 25 05
You expect them to plant fully mature trees?
"The markets are driving the petroleum industry to this horrible exploitation," Walsh said. "It's mostly demand from the U.S."
They kept you waiting until the bitter end but eventually they said it.
It's Bush's fault.
The environmentalists refers to such land as "deeply saddened.''
LOL.....MOST forest products companies are moving their operations to FASTER FOREST growing areas of the world....like Brazil......it takes way TOO long to grow a tree in Canada.....and they just don't get that big, anyway. AND, they likely ARE putting forests back, but it will take 100 years for the trees to be 30 feet high....
Environmentalists make me puke.
[Energy analysts say Alberta can produce 3 million barrels a day for at least 165 years.]
Never tell me that we're in imminent danger of "running out" of oil.
For those of you out there who like to invest, here's a company I've been watching (on and off) for two years:
http://www.cos-trust.com/
The name is Canadian Oil Sands Trust and their stock has done very well. They don't seem like a fly-by-night oil exploration group either.
I went to a bridge tournament this weekend in Northern MT and a bunch of people from Calgary were there. I had a lengthy conversation with a man in the oil business there and he told me the oil sands can last for 300 years. He was very excited about their new extraction technology which finally makes the sands a viable rival to Arab oil and says Canadians love us, the Chinese are not going to get that oil. All the big American players are there.
all the environ-wackies will now have to move back to the States...sigh....
Couldn't they engineer some kind of system to scoop out larger trees and replant them in areas being restored?
The lack of intelligence from environmentalists claiming trees won't grow...simply proves that they really don't know what they are talking about...trees, environment, nuclear energy, clean air, bio-diversity, global warming, etc. University professors are pumping out environmental wanna-bes...and these dimwits can't process information or state clear facts or even carry on a decent intelligent conversation. Every time one of these guys show up on NPR...I start laughing. There are at least five totally fictional statments that they will make...absolutely bogus...and the public believes every word.
How do you propose to move a 100' tall tree that weighs several tons?
One thing I am curious about, is what happens to the land level. When they fill it back up, they have less volume to refill the holes with because they took the tar out of the sands. On the other hand, maybe therein is an answer to the landfill problem -- make up the volume with trash?
Godzilla of course
Liberals? A miserable excuse for Liberals. These are reactionaries. They are being left behind and are weakening rapidly.
Most lumber companies and I'm sure petroleum companies, plant more trees etc than they cut.
Godzilla's busy. When last heard from, Godzilla was being outfitted for an expedition to China, which apparently has never been invaded by giant mutated monitor lizards. Apparently, the big beast decided on Chinese for lunch as a change from his usual Kobe diet with the occasional New York bagel snack.
How do you propose to move a 100' tall tree that weighs several tons?
Easy. One 2 x 4 at a time. ; )
Alberta oil exploration companies are not fly by night they are experienced operators.
The Oil Trusts are like mutual funds. They pool capital from private and institutional investors and invest in exploration companies with proven production and good prospects based on extenstive exploratory drilling a geophysics.
Look up Banks Energy and Velvet Energy to see how a classic Canadian energy play is set up. The upside on a good exploration project in the Sands is phenomenal.
See also SmartStox.com for a video interview and report on Banks Energy.
No I am not an investor in Banks. I'm a resource news writer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.