[Terence]

Refineries are as important to national security as a navy is to a maritime nation like Canada.

I would have no problem with a tax funded refinery and processing infrastructure.

[ziggy]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

ha... ha...
I have been hearing that the oil sands arent really any worse of then any other oil pumping site across the world. People just assume the worst because the area looks like a strip mine.

Thats because it is a strip mine.A lot of the brass at the tarsands also cut their teeth in the mines in BC.
Some were labourers and some were truck drivers,I worked with quite a few of them.

Used to be a standing joke that shell should stay into the oil bussiness and out of the mining bussiness.

[ziggy]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Thats possible but it would take years before these refineries were up and running, and where would be build them? This would also be after the ruling government has tackled all the lobby groups and the opposition keeping new refineries out of Canada.
If there was a clear plan showing that by 2015 we would have enough refineries ready to sustain 85% of Canada's fuel consumption, I would support it completely. I really don’t see that ever happening though. Canada is just not industrial enough, and it seems like majority of Canadians are just crazy about climate change to allow the government to become more industrial.

Where would we build them? On all the open space Canada has, Canada has the most land mass yet such a low population. All that land, without that many people will bound to equal a lot of land up for grabs.

You build them as close to the gas and oil feilds as you can.Product has to go into and out of them so you also need pipelines.You dont just go and plunk them down anywhere.

[Terence]

ziggy ziggy:

You build them as close to the gas and oil feilds as you can.Product has to go into and out of them so you also need pipelines.You dont just go and plunk them down anywhere.

But petroleum reserves need to staggered in different locations and not confined to one place. I am not aware of substantial Canadian reserves existing.

The US could be devastated when a Katrina-like future storm hits the Gulf of Mexico and knocks production out of whack. Imagine a solar storm knocking out our power grid or another Eastern Seaboard grid failure of a larger magnitude.

[ziggy]

InternetChatter InternetChatter:

ziggy ziggy:

You build them as close to the gas and oil feilds as you can.Product has to go into and out of them so you also need pipelines.You dont just go and plunk them down anywhere.

But petroleum reserves need to staggered in different locations and not confined to one place. I am not aware of substantial Canadian reserves existing.

The US could be devastated when a Katrina-like future storm hits the Gulf of Mexico and knocks production out of whack. Imagine a solar storm knocking out our power grid or another Eastern Seaboard grid failure of a larger magnitude.

Depends on what you class as reserves,you can pretty well drill a hole anywhere in Alberta and be producing CBM.

[ziggy]

We should build a huge refinery right on the sask. border with huge "T" valve.When the east starts whining about Alberta or sticking their nose into our energy industry where it doesnt belong we can then turn the valve so the gas flows south instead of east.

[Terence]

Since when does Alberta own the reserves? Haven't you pretty much sold out most of the industry to your bosses south of the border?

[ziggy]

InternetChatter InternetChatter:

Since when does Alberta own the reserves? Haven't you pretty much sold out most of the industry to your bosses south of the border?

More like Canadians and their mutual funds,unless your portfolio is totally green you probably own shares in the reserves and those American companies.

[tritium]

ziggy ziggy:

We should build a huge refinery right on the sask. border with huge "T" valve.When the east starts whining about Alberta or sticking their nose into our energy industry where it doesnt belong we can then turn the valve so the gas flows south instead of east.

ziggy, I hear lots about supplying the USA, how about making sure Canadian's come first, thus reducing our gas prices.

Why does OPEC have so much pricing power when 58% of the US's oil is imported and Canada sends us about 30% of that.

Canada is #1
Saudi Arabia is #2
Mexico is #3
Venezuela is #4

$1:

Imports/Exports
The United States averaged total gross oil (crude and products) imports of an estimated 11.4 MMBD during 2002, representing around 58% of total U.S. oil demand. Around two-fifths of this oil came from OPEC nations, with Persian Gulf sources accounting for about one-fifth of total U.S. oil imports. Overall, the top suppliers of oil to the United States during 2002 were Canada (1.9 MMBD), Saudi Arabia (1.6 MMBD), Mexico (1.5 MMBD), and Venezuela (1.4 MMBD).

http://www.solcomhouse.com...

[ziggy]

Tritium,wait untill next year when theres a nat gas shortage.The new technology that lets them squeeze more gas per hole right now means drill rigs are sitting and when the oilsands starts useing lots of gas next year there will be a shortage to ship to the states.

[tritium]

ziggy ziggy:

Tritium,wait untill next year when theres a nat gas shortage.The new technology that lets them squeeze more gas per hole right now means drill rigs are sitting and when the oilsands starts useing lots of gas next year there will be a shortage to ship to the states.

Yeah, read something about that.

http://www.energyandcapital.com/article ... stment/492

[Terence]

tritium tritium:

Yeah, read something about that.

http://www.energyandcapital.com/article ... stment/492

$1:

My solution was simple enough, "Even if there isn't enough natural gas for them to use, wouldn't they just start using nuclear energy?"

I've long felt that nuclear energy is going to continue growing by leaps and bounds in the future. The way I see it, it's the only potential energy source that will be able to generate enough power on a global scale. Just remember that the earth's population is estimated to reach over nine billion people by 2050.

To him, it wasn't matter of "if", but rather "when" that nuclear power would be used during the in-situ processes. Yet that "when" was a bigger question.

"Could be nuclear," he started, "but those power plants take more than a decade to come onto line." I couldn't argue with his logic. There are still a lot of hurdles for nuclear energy to overcome. As one of my colleagues is fond of saying, "Show me the BTUs."

The Ontario government has fast tracked the new and upgraded expansions, I think if the political will is there to commit, and industry is supported, you can knock a substantial amount of those 10 years off the timeline. The US is nuclear-phobic but we have a better understanding and acceptance of the technology. I can't see the Feds or Alberta obstructing this kind of project. Is there a public opinion in Alberta for or against a nuclear policy?

[ziggy]

You sure dont see many anti nuclear protesters here. I think we all know it's just a matter of time before we do have a nuclear plant,the coal companies wont fight it much as they sell all the power they make anyways.

We are an energy province so nuclear should be part of it.

[Terence]

That's good to hear, any surplus electrical power we produce here in Ontario is quickly gobbled up by the Americans. I don't mind that at all. We need multiple new high efficiency nukes here just to keep up with the imminent immigration/population levels.

[N_Fiddledog]

The limited natural gas thing is scary, especially when you put it this way.

$1:

Canada has only 9.3 years left of proven supplies of natural gas at current rates of production. Yet Canada must make 60 per cent of it available for export by NAFTA’s proportionality clause.

http://stoptarsands.wordpress.com/2008/ ... tar-sands/

Then you compute this into that...

$1:

As is well known, there is a huge quantity of hydrocarbon in the form of tar coated on grains of sand in Alberta – some say 180 billion barrels (a 5-year supply for the whole earth), some say more than a trillion. The key point however is that it takes massive amounts of heat, currently provided by cheap natural gas, to melt the tar off the sand grains and the whole operation leaves behind the most gargantuan environmental mess ever conceived by man...

For many years now, knowledgeable Canadian observers have been complaining about the situation. Why is “energy independent” Canada importing 55 percent of its oil requirements at world prices while sending 2.3 million barrels a day to the United States? How can Canada meet its Kyoto obligations while increases in tar sands oil production will increase their share of Canada’s greenhouse gas production from the current 18 percent to 25 percent by 2020? Why are we using so much natural gas to melt off the tar when natural gas production is projected to decline? Last fall there was furor in a parliamentary hearing when the speaker told the body that Eastern Canada will soon be “freezing in the dark.”

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/41753

So basically we're screwed coming or going as long as we have the proportionality clause of NAFTA. In the meantime Venezuelans only pay 17 cents a gallon for gasoline. We shouldn't wait for Obama to get up here with his grandfatherly advise on how we need to make concessions on NAFTA, we should just hand him a copy, and tell him to shove it. Pardon me, he can have the original.