[Doug]

So much for things slowing done. This has got to be one of largest privatley financed projects in North American history.



Shell applies to build $27-billion oil sands plant
NORVAL SCOTT

Globe and Mail Update

July 30, 2007 at 9:34 PM EDT

CALGARY — Royal Dutch Shell PLC is planning construction on the largest oil sands upgrader to date, even as other firms delay or cancel their own projects in the face of spiralling costs.

According to preliminary cost assessments made in a regulatory application filed Monday, the new Scotford 2 upgrader, which would process up to 400,000 barrels a day of bitumen produced from Shell's oil sands projects in northern Alberta, could cost between $22-billion and $27-billion.

A final investment decision on whether to go ahead with development is expected in 2009.

Previously, the Fort Hills development, which is being developed by a consortium led by Petro-Canada and estimated to cost $26.2-billion in total, was the most expensive single project yet proposed.

“Our Scotford Upgrader 2 development plans reflect a long-term, continuous development path in the Scotford area,” said Brian Straub, Shell's senior vice president of oil sands.

Because upgraders are extremely expensive to construct, especially in Alberta's over-heated economy, there has been no consensus on how companies should best deal with their future output. While Shell, Petro-Canada and Suncor have determined that constructing upgraders within Alberta is the best solution, other companies have not.

Instead they have delayed a decision or pursued alternatives, such as convincing U.S. refiners to retool their facilities to take more heavy crude.

Last year, EnCana Corp. struck a deal with U.S.-based ConocoPhillips Co. that saw the companies exchange oil sands and refining equity, while Husky Energy Inc. bought a refinery in Lima, Ohio, where it hopes to process some of its future oil sands output. Synenco Energy Inc. put itself up for sale in June, saying it couldn't afford to build its Northern Lights upgrader and oil sands project.

The huge scale Shell's potential investment adds to the sizable projects already being developed in Alberta by the company, which completed the $8.7-billion takeover of its Canadian subsidiary, Shell Canada Ltd., earlier this year. The company is ultimately seeking to increase its output from the Athabasca Oil Sands Project (AOSP), which now produces 155,000 barrels a day, to 770,000 barrels a day, and also plans to develop other in situ production at its holdings at Peace River and Cold Lake.

In consortium with partners Chevron Corp. and Western Oil Sands, Shell is currently expanding the AOSP by another 100,000 barrels a day at a cost of between $10-billion and $12.8-billion. While the project comprises both a mine and an upgrader, once that expansion stage is complete the partners have agreed to pursue separate solutions for processing output from future expansions of the plant, meaning Shell now needs to develop independent upgrading projects.

If approved, the new Scotford Upgrader 2 would be built in four separate 100,000 barrels a day stages, with the construction of the first starting in 2009 and finishing in 2012. At peak, each phase would require between 3,000 and 4,000 construction workers, and the final stage isn't expected to be complete until between 2022 and 2027, said Shell Canada spokeswoman Janet Annesley.

With production from the oil sands set to triple from current levels of around one million barrels a day by 2015, the question of what to do with that extra output has vexed oil companies in Alberta.

The problem lies with the nature of bitumen, the heavy form of crude produced from the oil sands which is not only expensive to transport but must also be diluted with a lighter crude product called condensate to make it flow through a pipeline. In addition, it's also difficult for many refineries to process bitumen, reducing demand for the product and limiting its potential destination to only a select group of refineries specially designed to take very heavy crude.

One possible solution is to construct upgraders – sprawling industrial facilities where the sand in the bitumen is stripped away from the oil, improving it into which is improved into what's called synthetic crude, a lighter form of oil that can be processed by more refineries, and so fetches a higher return than bitumen.

[The Kid]

If I'm not mistaken, there are plans to build 5 or 6 upgraders just to the north of the Edmonton region in the next couple of years to handle all of this bitumen.

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

Awesome, who needs nature anyway?


We need more and more of this.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/101/294182118_4a549a4aee_b.jpg

[Doug]

^You obviosuly didn't read the article.

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

The company is ultimately seeking to increase its output from the Athabasca Oil Sands Project (AOSP), which now produces 155,000 barrels a day, to 770,000 barrels a day, and also plans to develop other in situ production at its holdings at Peace River and Cold Lake.


What did I miss? I would have put up a picture of a sprawling industrial facilities where the sand in the bitumen is stripped away from the oil, but I couldn't find a picture of an upgrader I liked.

[SFUVancouver]

That's a staggering figure for a single investment. My Grandfather was a manager with Imperial Oil and he worked on the Athabasca Tarsands project in the 60s and 70s. He said they figured it would take at least 30 years and probably 50 before the tarsands would really be viable, not only from a cost-per-barrel standpoint but also for the volume of production to be meaningful on an international scale. I guess they're right on schedule. It's a shame the process is so destructive to the environment. I know there is substantial environmental remediation after the overburden is returned and replanted but that is only the tip of the environmental iceberg that oil sand production represents.

[fortroad]

Awesome, who needs nature anyway?


We need more and more of this.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/101/294182118_4a549a4aee_b.jpg

Ahh, the Discovery! She be an exhibit now!

[MolsonExport]

brings to mind memories of the thousands of ruined hillsides, chopped-off mountain tops, and polluted streams of Appalachia.

[caltrane74]

ah well at least albertans can make some more money.

[ArchiCAD]

^You obviosuly didn't read the article.

I did and I think it's disgusting that you applaud large scale destruction just for a quick dollar.

[Doug]

It's an upgrader (similar to a refinery), not a new mine or in-situ extraction site.

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

A refiner that will up production for a faster rape of the land.

[WhipperSnapper]

9 million square kilometres of land unsuitable for suburban habitation - I think we can spare a few thousand here and there for the short term

[Kevin_foster]

ah well at least albertans can make some more money.

Uh.... right, because all of the additional oil that will be produced due to these upgraders will be sold only by Albertans.

You have to keep in mind that this affects Canada as a whole - we're becoming an energy powerhouse; don't act like if this was in your backyard your province wouldn't be doing the EXACT SAME THING. Ontario has some major open pit mines - Inco Mine? Lac des Iles Mines, Kam Kotia Mine...

I'm not saying I agree with it, but every province has their environmental exploits - BC with their trees, Alberta with their oilsands, East Cost with their depletion of fisheries, Ontario with their heavy industry.

The damage done sucks, but as long as we are an open market capitalistic nation, this kinda stuff fly's.

What we can hope for here is top notch reclamation, remediation and restoration.

Sort of an ironic note, view this: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=135632

[Coldrsx]

phenomenal for Edmonton

[graupner]

The 3 steps to demolish a nice landscape

1st step: find a nice, wild place in the middle of the albertan forest:
http://www.janrik.net/PanoPostings/CanadianRockies2005/20050729/CRW_6330_ptgui.jpg

2nd step: raze everything and dry up humid soils (if needed):
http://www.rr.ualberta.ca/People/ANaeth/images/LFH%20Salvage%20Site.JPG

3rd step: dig until you find poor quality oil and refine it using highly polluting methods:
http://www.cpaws-edmonton.org/imgs/Threats.jpg

[caltrane74]

nice,

makes me want to move to Alberta.

[shreddog]

Simple Q.

How are the oil sand developments different/worse on the landscape than flooding HUGE expanses of pristine forest to generate electricity? Oh, I know, when the oil sands are finished, the land is rehabilitated and returned to a semi-natural state, whereas those "lakes" throughout Quebec remain mecury laden ponds with fish that are unfit to eat.

Pot, I think I hear Mister Kettle calling ....

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

4th Step - The fat cats get even fatter!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/46/129700460_714144e022_o.jpg

[feepa]

Ya, causing mining in Alberta is any different then other mines across canada and the world...

Please you hypocrites... get over yourself.

I don't see anyone complaining about the HUGE diamond mines up in NWT, or the various-mineral open pit mines in Ontario.

Lets not forget about the polluted Great Lakes from the massive amount of industry that surrounds it

http://forums.secondcitizen.com/images/smilies/potkettle.gif

[shreddog]

Lets not forget about the polluted Great Lakes from the massive amount of industry that surrounds it

Ontario produces 48.7% of all of Canada's liquid pollution - all of which is dumped in the Great Lakes. Toronto pump 9 BILLION litres of RAW SEWAGE into lake Ontario every year. (Hamiliton adds anoth 2.5 Billion of that shit).

People are told not to eat the fish caught in Lake Ontario.

Again, Mister Pot, you have a call waiting on line 1.

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

The great lakes are on the rebound, cleaner now then they have been in years. Just this year Toronto beaches have been given blue flag status which makes them some of the cleanest beaches anywhere. also except for the two lower great lakes which you can catch fish and eat from them. The other three and Georgian for the most part are pristine. Have you seen them, they're massive!


And so past generations made a mess of things in the East, according to you that means it's ok for you to do the same in the west. What a odd way of thinking. Hopefully the environment can handle your turn of making a fucking mess of things. How's your freakish heatwave? Get used to them.

Why even bother having a link to the Green Party?

[harls]

This thread belongs in the Alberta sec.. oh wait, that's someone else's line.

[sync]

The 3 steps to demolish a nice landscape

1st step: find a nice, wild place in the middle of the albertan forest:
[IMG]http://www.janrik.net/PanoPostings/CanadianRockies2005/20050729/CRW_6330_ptgui.jpg[IMG]

2nd step: raze everything and dry up humid soils (if needed):
[IMG]http://www.rr.ualberta.ca/People/ANaeth/images/LFH%20Salvage%20Site.JPG[IMG]

3rd step: dig until you find poor quality oil and refine it using highly polluting methods:
[IMG]http://www.cpaws-edmonton.org/imgs/Threats.jpg[ IMG]

^^^^seriously, this is assinine, and i hope i don't have to explain why.

[shreddog]

The great lakes are on the rebound, cleaner now then they have been in years. Just this year Toronto beaches have been given blue flag status which makes them some of the cleanest beaches anywhere. also except for the two lower great lakes which you can catch fish and eat from them. The other three and Georgian for the most part are pristine. Have you seen them, they're massive!


And so past generations made a mess of things in the East, according to you that means it's ok for you to do the same in the west. What a odd way of thinking. Hopefully the environment can handle your turn of making a fucking mess of things. How's your freakish heatwave? Get used to them.
Okay, since the lakes are massive, that means it's still okay to pollute them with almost half of Canada's liquid waste?? It's thinking like that which nearly killed them in the first place. BTW, as massive as they are, they are still much smaller than the Taigi of Northern Alberta which is barely being dented by the oil sand developments.

And no, past mistakes do not forgive current ones. But unless you can point to activities where you have protested against pollution caused by economic activity in your own backyard, you may come across as a hypocrite, or just plan jealous when complaining about economic activity elsewhere being bad for the environment.

One more thing, perhaps you don't read the papers (or anything else) but as for the lakes "being cleaner now" try reading this Great Lakes fish getting worse: Study (http://www.thestar.com/Environment/article/232782).

Especially the first paragraph ... "Toxins that once only surfaced in big fish are making their way down the food chain, a sign that the Great Lakes are getting even more polluted, a new report says."

and the last one "The fish in Lake Ontario are the most contaminated, a sign that it's the most polluted of the Great Lakes."

[feepa]

This thread belongs in the Alberta sec.

yup already said

[shreddog]

Why even bother having a link to the Green Party?
Because I support them.

Because, unlike some people, I do more than just whine online: Among other groups I am active with the AWA and the Sierra Club in trying to fix the issues in the oil sands. I have actually gone to the Fort Mac and been part of a protest against some oil sand development (McClelland Fen). Not to stop it, but to make it is environmentally benign as possible - as a pragmatist, I realise that there will always be an environmental cost to economic development.

Over the years, I have also been active in getting paper mills to reduce mecury releases, led campaigns to educate elected officials on the problems of raw sewage release and been "active" in protesting clear cutting of Ontario forests.

I believe in actions, not words. I also believe that being a hyprocrite or a mouth piece never fixed a problem. Lastly, I've always believed it is better to lead by example than by words.

That partially explains why the there is a link to the Green party.

The question I have for you, is why are you so against this??

[feepa]

So I guess its alright for Ontario (not to mention the R.O.C.) to continue to mine, refine, and turn raw materials into goods for human use, but Alberta? Heck no! It's Oil! (not ore, gold, silver, diamonds, trees, zinc, uranium, copper, coal, or natural gas...). I guess if Alberta stops extracting Oil, maybe Ontario should stop making oil consuming vehicles? Maybe all the other uses for Oil in the various products around the world should stop using oil to make their products. They are just as "guilty". If oil wasn't needed, it wouldn't be extracted. But I guess its better to get it from somewhere half way acrosss the world? Turn a blind eye?

Some of the people that have comment in this thread really have their heads stuck up their asses.

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

First off, I never said it was ok to pollute the great lakes due to their size. Though I do agree thay are far from perfect in places. As for "The fish in Lake Ontario are the most contaminated, a sign that it's the most polluted of the Great Lakes." It is this way as mentioned in the article That's not only because it has the most industry, but also that it receives water - and therefore pollution - from all the other lakes. We share these lakes with some rather large American cities you know. Would I eat fish from Lake Ontario? Not on a regular basis, but would I from other parts of the great lakes? Hell Yes!

And as for me being jealous, lol not. As soon as Alberta starts taking our entertainment namely 3D and animation jobs away I'll be jealous, until then I'll shake my head at the growth both sustainable and not.

I'm doing my part to curb oil use in my life and my overall impact on the environment. I only ride my bike now, even in the winter. I try my best to by local produce. Always recycling. When I rent a car it's a hybrid or compact. And next time I fly I plan to offset it. I've even voted green once.When I lived in Muskoka I had to drive and never thought I could live without a car, now I think the opposite.

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

So I guess its alright for Ontario (not to mention the R.O.C.) to continue to mine, refine, and turn raw materials into goods for human use, but Alberta? Heck no! It's Oil! .

No, it's fine. But why the need to up production? The oil companies are just getting greedy as are the Feds and the Alberta Provincial government to make a quick buck. IS it necessary to get all the oil out ASAP? Are the aliens coming to steal it from us or something?

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

Some of the people that have comment in this thread really have their heads stuck up their asses.


Namely those from the East? Us jealous of oil type?

[sync]

No, it's fine. But why the need to up production? The oil companies are just getting greedy as are the Feds and the Alberta Provincial government to make a quick buck. IS it necessary to get all the oil out ASAP? Are the aliens coming to steal it from us or something?

strange, because i hear almost daily that supply is at an all time low and demand at an all time high.

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

The question I have for you, is why are you so against this??

The same reason why you should be. And good for you for all you do, seriously. If I had more free time I'd do more as well, but as for right now being an activist won't pay off my student loans so until then.

And SYNC, yes it is but why do we need to up production to such a degree? When is enough enough? It's not as though the demand will go away.

[feepa]

Last I checked, the world is growing, not shrinking. Demand is going up up up, not down. Increasing capacity makes sense. Alberta is secure, other sources aren't.

Yes, the world is about to go through an energy change... 15-30 years from now, hopefully you wont even be able to buy a private vehicle that uses oil for energy. The world is still going to need oil for a long time though for other uses. But I guess Alberta shouldn't increase its capacity, and allow others to cash in?
And it's not like all this land that is used for these massive oil sands projects aren't returned to as close as their natural state as possible when finished...

http://www.strathconacounty.com/videos/AlbertaEnergyHub.wmv

[Doug]

This belongs in the Canada section because it is one of the largest privately funded projects in North American history.

Even with all of the planned extensions and extremely conservative assumptions of recovery, the oil sands will last for at least 150 years. That is far from getting all of the oil out ASAP. Capital markets and the owners of the resource determine how fast production should ramp, no one else.

[The Kid]

First off, I never said it was ok to pollute the great lakes due to their size. Though I do agree thay are far from perfect in places. As for "The fish in Lake Ontario are the most contaminated, a sign that it's the most polluted of the Great Lakes." It is this way as mentioned in the article That's not only because it has the most industry, but also that it receives water - and therefore pollution - from all the other lakes. We share these lakes with some rather large American cities you know. Would I eat fish from Lake Ontario? Not on a regular basis, but would I from other parts of the great lakes? Hell Yes!

And as for me being jealous, lol not. As soon as Alberta starts taking our entertainment namely 3D and animation jobs away I'll be jealous, until then I'll shake my head at the growth both sustainable and not.

I'm doing my part to curb oil use in my life and my overall impact on the environment. I only ride my bike now, even in the winter. I try my best to by local produce. Always recycling. When I rent a car it's a hybrid or compact. And next time I fly I plan to offset it. I've even voted green once.When I lived in Muskoka I had to drive and never thought I could live without a car, now I think the opposite.

One Hero cookie coming right up.....

[Greco Roman]

One Hero cookie coming right up.....

Yeah, because he is concerned about the long-term impacts of such industrial activities, right? :rolleyes:

[ScottFromCalgary]

Yep quite the mess up there in Fort Mac. Oh well, as long as I can't see it from my place, let the good times roll.

[The Kid]

Yeah, because he is concerned about the long-term impacts of such industrial activities, right? :rolleyes:

Oh Oh, it's the former Albertaboy! Doesn't deserve a response.

[The Kid]

Yep quite the mess up there in Fort Mac. Oh well, as long as I can't see it from my place, let the good times roll.

Dude, you are the KING!!!!:worship:

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

I guess Alberta shouldn't increase its capacity, and allow others to cash in?


So when our environment finally says enough is enough and shuts down our happy little planet at least we'll have lots of money:shrug:

[Greco Roman]

Oh Oh, it's the former Albertaboy! Doesn't deserve a response.

Well, my feelings arn't hurt. But you seem to take a different stand on recycling in another thread, so I'm kind of getting the feeling that you are a hypocrite. Where exactly do you stand on the environment, junior?

[Greco Roman]

Yep quite the mess up there in Fort Mac. Oh well, as long as I can't see it from my place, let the good times roll.


It's because of attitudes like this out world is in the polluted state it is.

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

Deleted, to busy at work today to carry on with this.

[MolsonExport]

Yep quite the mess up there in Fort Mac. Oh well, as long as I can't see it from my place, let the good times roll.

That is an appalling attitude. I suppose that you say this in jest.

[caltrane74]

Yep quite the mess up there in Fort Mac. Oh well, as long as I can't see it from my place, let the good times roll.


I love this one!

Won't be too long before people forget how much they hated Toronto.

[The Kid]

Well, my feelings arn't hurt. But you seem to take a different stand on recycling in another thread, so I'm kind of getting the feeling that you are a hypocrite. Where exactly do you stand on the environment, junior?

Not that I care what you think one way or another but lets just say that I am a realist. I think we need to do everything to promote and foster a healthy enviroment while at the same time making sure we maintain and better our standard of living and keep people working. We can't just shut all of the industry down and go back to swinging in the trees and shitting in the woods.

The rest of Canada benefits immensely from Alberta oil, it lines the federal coffers with billions which pays for many of the social programs the rest of Canada enjoys. But many Canadians are ignorant to the facts and just want to make big oil the fall guy for all of the worlds problems. Big oil is actually taking many initiatives to do things better and is investing heavily in new technologies to improve effeciency and make less of an impact on the enviroment but they get credit for nothing. I have seen some of the reclamation firsthand up north and while I won't say it's perfect, it is pretty damned good.

And as some others pointed out, oil is not going away anytime soon. If Canada doesn't supply it, some other third world dump will and is. Only in those cases, instead of using the cash to better the lives of their citizens, the dictators and despots line their own pockets and blow it on arms to kill their own citizens as well as make war on their neighbors.

[The Geographer]

This belongs in the Canada section because it is one of the largest privately funded projects in North American history.

Even with all of the planned extensions and extremely conservative assumptions of recovery, the oil sands will last for at least 150 years. That is far from getting all of the oil out ASAP. Capital markets and the owners of the resource determine how fast production should ramp, no one else.

Isn't the government of Alberta the owner of the resource? :shrug:
It doesn't transfer ownership when it gives development rights does it?

[Kevin_foster]

The 3 steps to demolish a nice landscape

1st step: find a nice, wild place in the middle of the albertan forest:
http://www.janrik.net/PanoPostings/CanadianRockies2005/20050729/CRW_6330_ptgui.jpg

2nd step: raze everything and dry up humid soils (if needed):
http://www.rr.ualberta.ca/People/ANaeth/images/LFH%20Salvage%20Site.JPG

3rd step: dig until you find poor quality oil and refine it using highly polluting methods:
http://www.cpaws-edmonton.org/imgs/Threats.jpg

Oh wow, I didn't know that the Oilsands are being built in the Rockies??????????? :sly:

In any case, for those who don't know - here is a map of where the oilsands lie in Alberta (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Athabasca_Oil_Sands_map.png)

As you can see, the reserves are huge - but by no means mine-able.

I believe that once all projects are in and completed by 2015 - it's estimated the amount of oil there will sustain the current world demand for 400 years.

Seeing oil isn't going to go away, and demand is increasing, perhaps instead of trying to rid ourselves of it -perhaps we should be pushing for cleaner, less invasive methods of extraction?

I'm a huge supporter of R&D to make the process cleaner. I am not, however, supportive of shutting it down entirely.

[SFUVancouver]

This is a demand-side issue. As long as there is sustained and growing demand for petroleum derivatives and products then the energy companies are going to supply it. Simple as that. Except it isn't.

There is a finite volume of remaining conventional and unconventional oil reserves in the earth. That is a fact. We are extracting it at an accelerating rate while discoveries are declining and have been since peaking in the early 1960s. Only 12 new giant fields (100,000+ barrels per day production) out of a global total of 116 have been discovered since the early 1990s and none have been in excess if 300,000 barrels per day production. Of the world's 14 super-giants (500,000+ barrels per day) only one was discovered in the last quarter century. There are four 1,000,000+ barrels per day fields on earth and only two of those were discovered in the last half-century with the last one in the 1970s, more than thirty years ago. Eventually production will peak, as it did more than thirty years ago in the US, once the world's largest producer and exporter of oil. New extraction technologies and drilling techniques sustain extractions rate and temporarily forestall the inevitable decline and in doing so yield a more precipitous drop off when the time comes. Efficiency will buy time on the demand side but demand will continue to outstrip the savings rates in a business-as-usual scenario. Sooner or later the global production peak will occur while demand and prices will continue upward.

Honestly, I hope this isn't news to anyone at this point. Also, let's not ignore the incredible risks associated with human-induced climate change. The earth will be fine but if the scientific consensus manifests itself as predicted, our progeny's world will be different and plausibly less hospitable to human life and a Western lifestyle as we know it now. Let's not forget we have an understandably anthropocentric view of the Earth and the negative implications of climate change.

There is obviously tremendous grounds for hope. The warning bell on climate change has been sounded and the culture is beginning to shift. The nay-sayers are increasingly being marginalized and reduced to arguing minutiae instead of premise. Great shifts can happen very quickly once the pieces are in place. In Vancouver we reduced the amount of garbage going to landfills by more than 50% in five years. The landfills now extract methane, burn it for heat and electricity, the heat and CO2 is pumped to immense industrial-scale green houses where vegetables are grown year-round. Also in Vancouver, all new taxis are hybrids (this has been the case almost without exception for the last 7 years, it is simply official policy now). Consider the countless mass transit projects under construction around the world and specifically in North America which took an ill-advised detour to an almost-exclusively automobile centric understanding of mobility for the last 50 years. Buildings account for the plurality of energy consumption (~40%), through their construction and operation, as well as their demolition (~40% of the waste stream heading to landfills).

The Architecture 2030 (http://www.architecture2030.org/home.html) campaign seeks to create a schedule where by 2030 newly constructed buildings will consume 90% less energy than their baseline today, while simultaneously ensuring existing buildings receive energy-efficient renovations when the time arises for them to be renewed. The official Canadian and US architecture associations (RIAC & AIA) have adopted Architecture 2030 as official policy, the US & Canada Green Building Councils are on board and will ensure its integration into the LEED program, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is on board as well as many others.

The bottom line is that human behaviour got us into this mess and it will be human behaviour that gets us out of it. The built form of cities must adapt itself to the end of cheap transportation energy and people must accept that business-as-usual just won't cut it any more. I see new environmental and efficiency requirements being largely under most people's radar yet fully expected. Nobody would buy a car these days without certainty that it is structurally sound and jam packed with airbags and seat belts. Car makers fought tooth and nail against these safety devices and vehemently resisted any suggestion that the public may want them. Houses and buildings are now built to code to ensure they aren't likely to burn down with everyone in them or fall down in an earthquake. I'm not certain but I would not be surprised if builders fought like crazy against a national building code when it was first introduced.

The bottom line for me is that changes to our lifestyle, buildings, and vehicles are absolutely essential in order to minimize and reverse the effects of human-induced climate change. We've taken on much greater challenges in the past. Just consider the audacity of suggesting the introduction of something as extensive as internal plumbing, almost-universal car ownership, or an electricity grid if these things did not already exist in our lives. You would be laughed out of the room. Suggesting that we stop wasting so much energy to make those conventional and unconventional energy supplies last forever is not heretical, it is essential. I'm thrilled we have the oil sands. They will be a source of wealth and socio-political stability for our country for generations to come. I am also much more confident in their prudent and positive use than if they were sitting in Zimbabwe under Mugabe or his ilk.

[SFUVancouver]

This is a demand-side issue. As long as there is sustained and growing demand for petroleum derivatives and products then the energy companies are going to supply it. Simple as that. Except it isn't.

There is a finite volume of remaining conventional and unconventional oil reserves in the earth. That is a fact. We are extracting it at an accelerating rate while discoveries are declining and have been since peaking in the early 1960s. Only 12 new giant fields (100,000+ barrels per day production) out of a global total of 116 have been discovered since the early 1990s and none have been in excess if 300,000 barrels per day production. Of the world's 14 super-giants (500,000+ barrels per day) only one was discovered in the last quarter century. There are four 1,000,000+ barrels per day fields on earth and only two of those were discovered in the last half-century with the last one in the 1970s, more than thirty years ago. These four super-duper giant fields produce 8,000,000 barrels a day of oil and when combined with the ten 500,000+ barrels a day fields these 14 fields produce 13,900,000 barrels a day. These 14 half-million-plus a day fields are equal to approximately three-quarters the output of the remaining 102 giant fields of 100,000+ barrels a day. Again, only one of these 14 half-million-plus fields has been discovered in the last quarter century, which has been a time of record expenditures on exploration. *see footnote for reference.

Eventually production will peak, as it did more than thirty years ago in the US, once the world's largest producer and exporter of oil. New extraction technologies and drilling techniques sustain extractions rates and temporarily forestall the inevitable decline but in doing they so yield a more precipitous drop off when the decline comes. Efficiency will buy time on the demand side but demand will continue to outstrip the savings rates in a business-as-usual scenario. Sooner or later the global production peak will occur while demand and prices will continue upward.

Honestly, I hope this isn't news to anyone at this point. Also, let's not ignore the incredible risks associated with human-induced climate change. The earth will be fine but if the scientific consensus manifests itself as predicted, our progeny's world will be different and plausibly less hospitable to human life and a Western lifestyle as we know it now. Let's not forget we have an understandably anthropocentric view of the Earth and the negative implications of climate change.

There are obviously tremendous grounds for hope. The warning bell on climate change has been sounded and the culture is beginning to shift. The naysayers are increasingly being marginalized and reduced to arguing minutiae instead of premise. Great shifts can happen very quickly once the pieces are in place. In Vancouver we reduced the amount of garbage going to landfills by more than 50% in five years. The landfills now extract methane, burn it for heat and electricity, the heat and CO2 is pumped to immense industrial-scale green houses where vegetables are grown year-round. Also in Vancouver, all new taxis are hybrids (this has been the case almost without exception for the last 7 years, it is simply official policy now). Consider the countless mass transit projects under construction around the world and specifically in North America, which took an ill-advised detour to an almost-exclusively automobile centric understanding of mobility for the last 50 years. Buildings account for the plurality of energy consumption (~40%), through their construction and operation, as well as their demolition (~40% of the waste stream heading to landfills).

The Architecture 2030 (http://www.architecture2030.org/home.html) campaign seeks to create a schedule where by 2030 newly constructed buildings will consume 90% less energy than their baseline today, while simultaneously ensuring existing buildings receive energy-efficient renovations when the time arises for them to be renewed. The official Canadian and US architecture associations (RIAC & AIA) have adopted Architecture 2030 as official policy, the US & Canada Green Building Councils are on board and will ensure its integration into the LEED program, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is on board as well as many others.

The bottom line is that human behaviour got us into this mess and it will be human behaviour that gets us out of it. The built form of cities must adapt itself to the end of cheap transportation energy and people must accept that business-as-usual just won't cut it any more. I see new environmental and efficiency requirements being largely under most people's radar yet fully expected. Nobody would buy a car these days without certainty that it is structurally sound and jam packed with airbags and seat belts. Car makers fought tooth and nail against these safety devices and vehemently resisted any suggestion that the public may want them. Houses and buildings are now built to code to ensure they aren't likely to burn down with everyone in them or fall down in an earthquake. I'm not certain but I would not be surprised if builders fought like crazy against a national building code when it was first introduced.

The bottom line for me is that changes to our lifestyle, buildings, and vehicles are absolutely essential in order to minimize and reverse the effects of human-induced climate change. We've taken on much greater challenges in the past. Just consider the audacity of suggesting the introduction of something as extensive as internal plumbing, almost-universal car ownership, or an electricity grid if these things did not already exist in our lives. You would be laughed out of the room. Suggesting that we stop wasting so much energy to make those conventional and unconventional energy supplies last forever is not heretical, it is essential. I'm thrilled we have the oil sands. They will be a source of wealth and socio-political stability for our country for generations to come. Now let's start using energy better, bring renewables on-stream as fast as we can, and build better buildings.

*The Upside of Down by Thomas Homer-Dixon pp90-91

[feepa]

So when our environment finally says enough is enough and shuts down our happy little planet at least we'll have lots of money:shrug:
Coming soon to a theater near you! ^^^

So its okay to blame Alberta and Oil, but not Ontario? I certainly see your point, do you see mine?

And last time I checked, the earth is still revolving with out problem...

I sure don't see you getting your back up on projects in other places... Just Alberta... and multiple repeated times... if its Alberta, you must complain about it.
hypo

[feepa]

I love this one!

Won't be too long before people forget how much they hated Toronto.

I thought this was about Oilberta?

FYI: The hate for Toronto will go on longer then the earth exists

Signed,

Rest of Canada.

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

I thought this was about Oilberta?

FYI: The hate for Toronto will go on longer then the earth exists

Signed,

Rest of Canada.

Should be signed Asshole!

And perhaps I do harp on Alberta more then others, but I'm sorry this is an Alberta heavy forum, sorry tough not to.

And huh? So its okay to blame Alberta and Oil, but not Ontario? I certainly see your point, do you see mine?

For what? I'm not blaming Alberta, I'm blaming the oil culture and greed.

[feepa]

the trillion dollar question is how do we evolve from present status suburbia glory to a society that is more friendly towards transit and walking and biking, or phase in alternative methods of powering vehicles... (option a is better in my mind).
Another question is what do we do in the mean time and during transition? We just can't ignore the fact that humans worldwide require oil. This big of change doesn't happen overnight.

[ScottFromCalgary]

That is an appalling attitude. I suppose that you say this in jest.

I do say with tongue-in-cheek, to an extent. As a Calgarian working in the oil and gas industry, there is absolutely no doubt that these projects around Fort McMurray have made me wealthier. Its not as if I enjoy hearing that there is an environmental disaster up there, but I have yet to see any direct consequences while I have seen plenty of upside. Shortsighted perhaps, but that's the case.

[caltrane74]

I do say with tongue-in-cheek, to an extent. As a Calgarian working in the oil and gas industry, there is absolutely no doubt that these projects around Fort McMurray have made me wealthier. Its not as if I enjoy hearing that there is an environmental disaster up there, but I have yet to see any direct consequences while I have seen plenty of upside. Shortsighted perhaps, but that's the case.


These projects are not just making you wealthier, they are making the entire country wealthier. (i.e dollar, bankers, traders, investors, pension funds, workers, etc, etc,)

And better for this enviromental disaster to occur in Alberta where the resources are available to manage the clean up and reclaimation later on down the line. ( than if this were happening in say Africa or China where nobody gaf about the enviroment.)