HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 7:54 AM
JAH JAH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 878
U.S. urges 'fivefold expansion' in Alberta oilsands production

U.S. urges 'fivefold expansion' in Alberta oilsands production

Last Updated: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 | 10:45 PM ET
CBC News

The U.S. wants Canada to dramatically expand its oil exports from the Alberta oilsands, a move that could have major implications on the environment.

U.S.and Canadian oil executives and government officials met for a two-day oil summit in Houston in January 2006 and made plans for a "fivefold expansion" in oilsands production in a relatively "short time span," according minutes of the meeting obtained by the CBC's French-language network, Radio-Canada.

The meeting was organized by Natural Resources Canada and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Canada is already the top exporter of oil to the American market, exporting the equivalent of one million barrels a day — the exact amount that the oilsands industry in Alberta currently produces.

A fivefold increase would mean the exportation of five million barrels a day, which would supply a quarter of current American consumption and add up to almost half of all U.S. imports.

But the current extraction of oil from the tarsands results in the spewing of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere: it's already the biggest source of new greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.


The news of call for the massive boost in oil production comes as Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged to make the environment one of his top priorities, vowing that Canadians deserve more action on climate change. Polls show the environment is the number one concern of Canadians.

Yet, according to the minutes of the Houston meeting, to multiply its output by five and to do it quickly, Canada would have to "streamline" its environmental regulations for new energy projects.

"We need to look at additional pipelines from Canada to the U.S. as a new source of supplier, a growing source of supply," said Bob Greco of the American Petroleum Institute.

In his state of the union address in 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush set out a goal to drastically reduce oil imports from the Middle East and make American dependence on Middle Eastern oil "a thing of the past."

"America is addicted to oil which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," Bush said then.

Paul Michael Weaby, a Washington insider and an expert on the geo-strategic aspect of the oil industry, said Bush is counting on Canada to achieve the U.S. of goal to wean the country off Middle Eastern oil — a goal now defined as a national security objective.

"He wanted to have a reduction of 1.5 million barrels a day by 2015 from the Middle East. Although he did not mention Canada, that is in fact where the replacement supply will come from."
__________________
CITY OF CHAMPIONS
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 10:35 AM
Dalreg's Avatar
Dalreg Dalreg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,301
Yep and when we won't increase production an invasion will soon happen. Better hide the nukes!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 1:17 PM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: uǝpʍoqɐʍ \█♣█ ƃǝdıuuıʍ pd ɥʇɹou
Posts: 21,098
aww wtf............
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 2:09 PM
CorporateWhore's Avatar
CorporateWhore CorporateWhore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 3,680
Quote:
U.S urges Canada
riiiiiiiight. time to drop our pants and bend over.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 2:32 PM
h0twired's Avatar
h0twired h0twired is offline
Dynamic Positivity!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,212
A five fold increase would be nice for the economy.

Good luck finding the people to actually work on the rigs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 2:50 PM
harls's Avatar
harls harls is offline
Mooderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aylmer, Québec
Posts: 15,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateWhore View Post
riiiiiiiight. time to drop our pants and bend over.

no kidding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 2:55 PM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Greatest Place On Earth
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 14,287
Fortunately Bush and his neocon cowboys are soon to be out of office. Here's hoping the US can FINALLY figure out a credible candidate to counter the past 6 years of fearmongering and stupidity. My vote's on that Obama dude (nice and close to Osama, just to frighten the red staters), but my gut tells me something stupid like Hillary.

Serious question though - why are the oilsands such bad GHG polluters? Is it due to all the natural gas being burned during extraction/upgrading? What is inherent to oilsands work that produces so much CO2? And can this be controlled?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 3:01 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 11,608
Better send us some people then. Mexicans perhaps?

That is too much expansion too soon for us to handle. Maybe the US can then pay for some of the refineries or Nuclear Plants to power all this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 3:09 PM
Waterlooson Waterlooson is offline
mañana is my busiest day
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Cabos&BC
Posts: 1,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by josh white View Post
Better send us some people then. Mexicans perhaps?

That is too much expansion too soon for us to handle. Maybe the US can then pay for some of the refineries or Nuclear Plants to power all this.
Maybe if the US wants us to save their ass - as we always do - perhaps they should honor their legal obligations under the NAFTA.

Last edited by Waterlooson; Jan 18, 2007 at 3:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 3:17 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 3,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateWhore View Post
riiiiiiiight. time to drop our pants and bend over.
Alberta already does!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 3:43 PM
The Chemist's Avatar
The Chemist The Chemist is offline
恭喜发财!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 中国上海/Shanghai
Posts: 7,363
Can we send the 5-fold increase in pollution and environmental damage this expansion will cause to the US too?
__________________
"Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world."

- Jack Layton, 1950-2011
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 3:52 PM
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 6,827
The "US" nor any national government drives expansion of oil sands production. Financial markets do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 4:08 PM
big W big W is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: E-Town
Posts: 4,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
The "US" nor any national government drives expansion of oil sands production. Financial markets do.
Yes you are right. The demand is not the US government but the US consumer. We know the demand is there and the problem is getting the stuff to the US. The issues in my mind are environmental concerns and increased royalty rates.
__________________
SHOFEAR- "The other goalie should have to turn in his man card. What a sorry display that was." - March 24, 2008
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 4:38 PM
ScottFromCalgary's Avatar
ScottFromCalgary ScottFromCalgary is offline
Calgreedian
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Alberta
Posts: 1,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by josh white View Post
That is too much expansion too soon for us to handle. Maybe the US can then pay for some of the refineries or Nuclear Plants to power all this.
Well thankfully the decision to build these massive oilsands projects is not made by US politicians but rather good old fashioned economics. If the demand is there and it can be supplied by Canadian companies, why would we not want to supply the US? They are going to get their oil from somewhere, so they may as well be lining our packets rather than further enriching OPEC.

As long as the government keeps its nose out of this, private enterprise will ensure that supply and demand stay in equilibrium.
__________________
"The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 4:45 PM
ScottFromCalgary's Avatar
ScottFromCalgary ScottFromCalgary is offline
Calgreedian
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Alberta
Posts: 1,134
Ottawa hails nuclear energy for oilsands

Jason Fekete and Mike de Souza
Calgary Herald and CanWest News Service

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Ottawa set its sights on the oilpatch Wednesday, as one minister said he's "very keen" on using nuclear power in the oilsands while another questioned the wisdom of retaining tax incentives to develop Alberta's massive bitumen deposits.

Energy experts quickly questioned the federal government's ringing endorsement of using nuclear power for the oilpatch, arguing there are better alternatives for slashing greenhouse gas emissions.

Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn told reporters Wednesday in Ottawa that nuclear power is an option worth pursuing as petroleum producers look to decrease reliance on natural gas and slash greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands operations.

"As we see the potential increase in (oilsands) production, moving from a million barrels a day up to four or five (million), we need to do better. I think there's great promise in the oilsands for nuclear energy," Lunn said.

"There's a great opportunity to pursue nuclear energy -- something that I'm very keen on."

Whereas oil companies burn vast amounts of natural gas to extract the molasses-like bitumen from the oilsands, nuclear energy is emission-free and doesn't spew greenhouse gases, Lunn argued.

Lunn's comments came as he announced $230 million in federal funds will be invested over four years into research on clean energy, which could look at such options as clean-coal technology, carbon capture and storage, and "next-generation nuclear."

Details of where the new investments will go won't be released until this spring. The announcement was the first of three new climate change initiatives to be unveiled this week, replacing billions in energy programs scrapped or frozen when the Conservatives took office.

While nuclear power was hailed by Lunn, experts are skeptical about its future in the oilsands.

David Keith, Canada research chair in energy and the environment at the University of Calgary, said nuclear is "really not a very good fit" for the oilsands.

Rather, carbon dioxide capture and storage is the most likely technology to be used in Alberta to curb emissions, he said.

"If we want to do sensible policy instead of just get driven by sound-bite foolishness, we need to back off on forcing the oilsands companies to do this," Keith said, "and instead push where it's more cost-effective on the electric utilities."

Alberta would be better suited eyeing nuclear energy as an option for replacing coal-fired electricity plants if the aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, he said.

Premier Ed Stelmach predicted this week the nuclear power debate will only heat up in coming months and years.

Meanwhile, federal Environment Minister John Baird -- who joined Lunn for the research announcement -- seemed to question tax incentives introduced in the 1990s to boost oilsands output.

Baird said he couldn't understand why Liberal Leader Stephane Dion was part of a government that introduced the incentives, and was puzzled by the federal assistance in the booming sector.

"I cannot explain why the Liberal government of Mr. Dion made these changes," Baird said, speaking in French. "I'm not here to defend the policies of Stephane Dion and the Liberal party. It was his cabinet with Stephane Dion that created this program. (Finance Minister Jim) Flaherty is in the middle of listening to the needs of Canadians from coast to coast and he will present the budget not this morning, but in the coming weeks and months."

Environmentalists and the NDP and Bloc Quebecois have repeatedly called for an end to programs introduced in 1997 that allow oil companies to write off their startup costs with breaks on taxes and royalties. While it helped kick-start development in the 1990s -- when oil prices languished below $15 US per barrel -- critics say the industry now makes record profits.

Stelmach has promised a review of the oilsands royalty regime. The deal charges companies one per cent royalties of a project's gross revenues until their investment is paid off. Then the rate jumps to about 25 per cent of net revenue.

Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, noted Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised weeks ago not to adjust the tax structure that's been so successful at drawing investment into the northern Alberta oilsands.

"He said there would be no changes to the oilsands fiscal regime as part of the budget -- those are the prime minister's words," Alvarez said. "We have not heard that there would be any fiscal changes and we are proceeding on that basis."

Former Edmonton Liberal MP Anne McLellan, who helped negotiate the federal/provincial oilsands deal now in place, said energy companies have come to rely on the agreement and appreciate the certainty. There are more than $100 billion worth of oilsands developments on the drawing board.

"It's been absolutely key to the prosperity of this province," said the former deputy prime minister. "I find it very interesting if this Conservative government is suggesting that we were somehow mistaken when we did that."
__________________
"The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 11:19 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
trespasser
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 33,587
Well, if AMERICA said it...
__________________
Winnipeg: June 2012 + other photos / random things
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you've got, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted: Jan 18, 2007, 11:39 PM
JAH JAH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 878
Crazy thought.. but if Alberta and the US became major trade partners and Alberta supplies the US with all this oil and have them less dependant on the Middle East for oil.. might this increase any terrorist threats for Alberta in the future?
__________________
CITY OF CHAMPIONS
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted: Jan 19, 2007, 12:06 AM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,733
Fuck what america wants, fuck em. if they want it, they can pay the cost of oil plus 50%.

I also think we should be using nukes in the oilsands. Far cleaner.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted: Jan 19, 2007, 12:15 AM
Xelebes's Avatar
Xelebes Xelebes is offline
Whitehall Shadowdweller
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rockin' in Edmonton
Posts: 8,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed View Post
Fortunately Bush and his neocon cowboys are soon to be out of office. Here's hoping the US can FINALLY figure out a credible candidate to counter the past 6 years of fearmongering and stupidity. My vote's on that Obama dude (nice and close to Osama, just to frighten the red staters), but my gut tells me something stupid like Hillary.

Serious question though - why are the oilsands such bad GHG polluters? Is it due to all the natural gas being burned during extraction/upgrading? What is inherent to oilsands work that produces so much CO2? And can this be controlled?
Hillary won't be able to run for President, me thinks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted: Jan 19, 2007, 5:11 AM
dubiousmike's Avatar
dubiousmike dubiousmike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Cowtropolis
Posts: 554
Well, for what it's worth, I wouldn't mind seeing Canada take a huge, huge bite out of Saudi Arabia's market share. That would give me a nice, warm feeling inside.
Reply With Quote
     
     
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:38 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.