Don’t expect an oil sands resurrection

10 Comments on "Don’t expect an oil sands resurrection"

makati1 on Wed, 9th Mar 2016 6:28 pm 



No profit, no tar sands.

IFuckYouOver on Wed, 9th Mar 2016 7:16 pm 



(Energy to extract, process and create one synthetic barrel of crude oil) – (Energy contains in on synthetic barrel of crude oil) < 0.

This mean that oil sand are energy consumers not energy producers. Same thing with Venezuelan tar sand. Venezuelan is now in big trouble because it has to import energy to extract and create energy.

Canada is now going into the same direction as Venezuela.

IFuckYouOver on Wed, 9th Mar 2016 7:17 pm 



Sorry made a mistake the equation should be as followed

(Energy contains in on synthetic barrel of crude oil)- (Energy to extract, process and create one synthetic barrel of crude oil) < 0.

shortonoil on Wed, 9th Mar 2016 7:56 pm 



We did some calculations a couple of years ago on the ERoEI for Syn Crude based on their production of steam per ton of product. Where the exact number are at present I’m not sure, but I’ll try to re-discover them tomorrow. Based on projections from the Etp Model we determined that Shale, bitumen, ultra deep water and high sulfur extra heavy would be phased out first as production energy costs continued to increase. SAGAS is already out of the economically viable category, and mining is rapidly headed that way as overburden increases, bitumen concentrations per ton declines, and tar sands seams continue to thin. A resurrection for the Tar Sands is now in the technologically slim, and theoretically impossible realm.

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

Kenz300 on Wed, 9th Mar 2016 9:38 pm 



Tar Sands are the highest cost producers………

Their deep pockets will take a while to go broke…….

They will go broke…….

rockman on Thu, 10th Mar 2016 6:36 am 



Not that history always exactly repeats itself but lets remember that the first 1 million bbls per day of Alberta oil sand production was developed at the same price level we have today.

Practicalmaina on Thu, 10th Mar 2016 12:18 pm 



Rockman, if you give me 1mill barrel of oil equivalent in natural gas, and I can take it on a tour of a boreal Forrest and return it to you as 1mill barrels worth of btus. Does not mean it is necessary, ecological, profitable, smart, or going to be able to survive a liberal government or expensive natural gas.

rockman on Thu, 10th Mar 2016 1:08 pm 



P- Valid point. OTOH producing the oil sands has been profitable or it would not have been done. And if the liberal govt decides to deny its citizens of the jobs and revenue from oil sands production that will be between the voters and that govt.

I don’t keep up with Canadian politics: since the oil sands began developing almost 2 decades ago has there been no liberal govt overseeing the effort?

BTW# the Btu’s don’t matter: if the Btu’s consumed (NG) in the process are worth a lot less then the Btu’s created (oil). Financial decisions are not based upon EROEI. They are made on DRODI: Dollars Returned On Dollars Invested. Even a project with a very nice EROEI wouldn’t be done if the DRODI is too low.

Practicalmaina on Thu, 10th Mar 2016 1:12 pm 



Who is to say which btu is more valuable, just because we love motoring and there is higher financial value on oil right now does not make it right. I would prefer to use the btu of gas instead of burning 2 btus for 1 usable in the tank.
I still see new gas stations being built, and charge stations, they could throw in a couple lng pumps

Practicalmaina on Thu, 10th Mar 2016 1:14 pm 



I wonder how much of the profit is tax payer money and how much is forestry products from the scalping of the land.