Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: Peter Lougheed opposes Keystone pipeline

  1. #1

    Default Peter Lougheed opposes Keystone pipeline

    Lougheed always had the ability to see the long term implications where other's couldn't.

    In a radio interview yesterday a couple media people were critical of Lougheed's view saying upgrades only employ a couple hundred people when up and running. I sure got the impression that they only seemed to crave the short term gain without a thought to the long-term consequences of our reverting back to being just hewers and haulers.


    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...-keystone.html



    Here's another interview...

    http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/
    Wednesday September 14, 2011
    Deborah Yedlin - Keystone XL
    Our business commentator Deborah Yedlin offers her opinion on the proposed Kesytone XL pipeline.
    Last edited by KC; 15-09-2011 at 10:47 AM.

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,295

    Default

    As usual the CBC anti-tarsands agenda is in full play.

    Lougheed does NOT oppose Keystone XL.

    He opposes not upgrading the bitumen here first and THEN shipping it via Keystone.

    But Lougheed opposes pipeline is so much better an anti-tarsands headline, and who really cares if that's misleading at best.
    ... gobsmacked

  3. #3
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Regarding the media commentators statement that upgraders only employ a couple hundred people once they are operational, I am currently involved in a shutdown at Syncrude.
    This is not a major shutdown by Syncrude standards but there will be 2600 contract workers on site for about six weeks.
    I have mixed feelings regarding the Keystone pipeline. Many of the gulf coast refineries were built to handle heavy Mexican crude and can handle bitumin with relatively minor modifications. To insist that these customers buy upgraded synthetic crude would only mean they would look elsewhere for feedstock.
    There are hundreds of refineries throughout the U.S. and the world built to handle light conventional crude. These should be the market for Alberta upgraders. The key to penetrating this market is to make upgrading in Alberta economically competetive.
    The biggest impediment to this is the capital cost of building here, and the biggest factor in this is a shortage of skilled labor.
    I have a small crew at Syncrude, there are no large capital projects utilizing tradesmen from our industry taking place right now and I still had to fly in over half of my workers from the east coast.
    As long as Alberta neglects trades training and the trades themselves are looked down upon by large segments of society, (I wonder how many hundreds of derogatory comments towards "Joe Lunchbucket" have been made on this site alone)we will be uncompetetive in this business.

  4. #4

    Default

    ^ axe the unions and this province might become competitive.

  5. #5
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    Is it the province neglecting trades training or the industry in the province? If Syncrude needs more skilled workers why aren't they apprenticing them instead of flying them in?

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMorrocco View Post
    ^ axe the unions and this province might become competitive.
    Yes, please, deregulate even more.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  7. #7

    Default

    XL is very important for Alberta. It opens up the entire US (instead of just the east coast at the moment), which should improve prices. Interestingly, it also opens up Europe (as oil can be shipped from the Gulf of Mexico to there). As a new pipeline, it will have far lower enviromental risk than existing older pipelines, TransCanada has an excellent environmental record.

    Without XL, the oil will still need to get to the US, its just more of it will go on roads and rail, which have even higher environmental risks. There seems a naive belief by protestors in the US that if XL is stopped, the oil sands extraction growth will stop, but that is not going to happen, esp. with the less visably environmentally damaging SAGD techniques ramping up.
    Last edited by moahunter; 15-09-2011 at 12:52 PM.

  8. #8
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    ... As long as Alberta neglects trades training and the trades themselves are looked down upon by large segments of society, (I wonder how many hundreds of derogatory comments towards "Joe Lunchbucket" have been made on this site alone)we will be uncompetetive in this business.
    To be fair, two very large issues are:

    1) the boom and bust cycle (and not sure we can have much influence over that), which makes it more attractive for Canadians outside Alberta to fly in than to re-locate and then not long afterwards get laid off; and

    2) the sheer size and scope of development in a jurisdiction of only 3 1/2 million.

    The province has expanded spaces at NAIT, etc and maybe could do more. But at near full employment (5.3%), I don't think there are a lot of people turning thier noses up at opportunities to learn a trade.

    I used to hear grumbling in some quarters about what was alleged to be union "featherbedding" in relation to apprecticeship training - but I'm not qualified to know if that was valid or hogwash. Possibly it's an issue too.

    In the end, we will continue to need net-migration and immigration for many years to come.
    ... gobsmacked

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    As usual the CBC anti-tarsands agenda is in full play.
    Funny, in the two days since the interview was aired, and with mounting interest in the interview from non-CBC news sources, there has been no "I was misquoted" clarification from Lougheed that I can find.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  10. #10
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,295

    Default

    Likely because he wasn't mis-quoted. The lead however misrepresents his position. Torqued is the word that comes to mind.

    The Vancouver Sun headline is also a tad misleading - but at least it doesn't outright allege that Lougheed opposes a pipeline under, apparently, any circumstances.
    ... gobsmacked

  11. #11
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,605

    Default

    Here is an interesting wrinkle on the Keystone Pipeline issue: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/08/16/AsiaTarSands/

  12. #12
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,295

    Default

    Normally a company such as Enbridge wouldn't spend millions of dollars preparing an application for a pipeline only as a ruse to pressure the U.S. State Department into approving a different pipeline built by a competing firm.

    But maybe thier CEO was abducted by aliens and neurotransformed into an anti-capitalist double agent.

    I swear - the Borg gets more clever by the day ...
    ... gobsmacked

  13. #13

    Default

    ^agreed, its a very silly conspiracy theory, Enbridge and TransCanada are now competitors since TransCanada moved into Oil, they aren't going to help each other out like that.

  14. #14

    Default

    XL is fine if it isn't shipping raw bitumen down the line. We should be upgrading here.

    This is an important issue before we start shipping bitumen down the line because of restrictions in NAFTA. We shouldn't rush into anything before it's well thought out because of this reason.

    Article 605 - Proportionality Clause
    -This article means that once Canada sells a certain proportion of it's oil or natural gas to the United States, it can never sell less than that proportion. Resultantly, Alberta's oil from Canada's oil sands do not supply all of Canada (Quebec eastward imports from the Middle East). Currently we're selling around 50% of our oil and 65% of our natural gas to the United States. The Keystone pipeline will increase this proportion.

    Another important clause in this article prevents the Alberta government from demanding that pipes send upgraded oil if they are already sending down raw bitumen. So once it's decided to ship raw bitumen down, even if we want to upgrade it here later, we can't.

    Therefore, in my opinion it's important for the government to make the right decision for the long term. Using the Keystone pipeline to ship bitumen down to the States to be upgraded may be quite profitable for oil companies headquartered in Calgary, but it's not beneficial to the rest of the province.

    Our oil is not going anywhere, there's no need to get rid of it in a hurry. We should sell it in the most profitable way possible.
    Last edited by mnugent; 15-09-2011 at 05:54 PM.

  15. #15

    Default

    If we are going to value add every once of natural resource here in Alberta... our gov't both federal and prov better get on the ball.. We will need a massive increase in workforce. To be blunt we don't have the human capital to build/run the infrastructure required to make Peter's request possible....

    Edmonton's population growth is already tough to keep up with..... I think at some point reality needs to trump wishes or "it be nice" dreams.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 15-09-2011 at 02:25 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  16. #16

    Default

    ^I don't understand your argument.

    It's difficult to find workers, so we should just give up and ship thousands of jobs down the pipeline?

    You are right that we haven't had strong leadership in this area. Harper actually tried to intervene in this matter at a Calgary luncheon with oil executives a couple years ago and was shut down. If Mar gets in I don't see him making an effort.

  17. #17
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    Our oil is not going anywhere, there's no need to get rid of it in a hurry. We should sell it in the most profitable way possible.
    I agree. I'm tired of hearing about this so-called worker shortage. There seems to be plenty of workers available to continue expanding the mining operations to extract the bitumen to ship to the US. The workers need to be redeployed to refinery construction and mine expansion stopped until local refinery capacity is available.

  18. #18
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,425

    Default

    Lougheed have been out of politics since 1985, I'm sure he knows that alberta have got through many changes since he left the office.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  19. #19
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    Our oil is not going anywhere, there's no need to get rid of it in a hurry. We should sell it in the most profitable way possible.
    I agree. I'm tired of hearing about this so-called worker shortage. There seems to be plenty of workers available to continue expanding the mining operations to extract the bitumen to ship to the US. The workers need to be redeployed to refinery construction and mine expansion stopped until local refinery capacity is available.
    That doesn't really touch on the issue. There is spare capacity for upgrading and refining in the United States. Capital costs to build in Alberta are prohibitive when compared with altering existing refineries in the Deep South to accept raw bitumen. That said, all these capital projects appear to be paid off and producing profit after very few years of production albeit less per barrel than again what I noted above.

    These multinationals are purely about maximizing profit and making sure each asset is running to max capacity.

    There is so much working coming down the pipe, It's not going to be possible to staff it with professionals and craft locally. They will be coming from all over the world.

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Normally a company such as Enbridge wouldn't spend millions of dollars preparing an application for a pipeline only as a ruse to pressure the U.S. State Department into approving a different pipeline built by a competing firm.

    But maybe thier CEO was abducted by aliens and neurotransformed into an anti-capitalist double agent.

    I swear - the Borg gets more clever by the day ...
    Unbridle will not build the pipeline unless they have a commitment from the oil companies. They put their capacity up for auction and were over ascribed first time so increased the capacity of the pipeline before they even started design. It is not for them to find a market only to supply a demand. This is article has no credibility.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    Our oil is not going anywhere, there's no need to get rid of it in a hurry. We should sell it in the most profitable way possible.
    What makes you think upgrading and refining it first is the most profitable way? Given the enormous cost do build more capacity, it clearly isn't, it makes more sense to send excess capacity to where there is excess capacity (i.e. US). Its more environmental as well to use the assets that exist to capacity first (be they in Canada or the US) before spending more resources building new ones. This will bring more royalties for more investment in our universities / health care, etc (with more than 300 years of supply, we don't need to greedily hoard the resource under our beds, it isn't going to run out anytime soon). There will still be more than enough jobs in Alberta, we are already entering a critical labor shortage.
    Last edited by moahunter; 15-09-2011 at 07:53 PM.

  22. #22
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    In reality there isn't a whole lot more work coming down the pipe as far as upgrader construction goes.
    CNRL is going to build Horizon phase 2, Suncor Voyageur will eventually get built and the Heartland upgrader will probably go. (both Suncor and Heartland have subtantial portions already complete)
    After these, the only upgrader work that may come would be Syncrude UE2 but that is only a rumor.
    Shell was burnt so bad with the Scotford expansion that they have shelved their expansion plans indefinately.
    The next wave of oilsand development will be SAGD or variations of that technology. These projects are far easier to build than mines and upgraders. There will be lots of smaller facilities whose production alone won't justify upgrading on site. This means merchant upgraders like the Heartland will be the way Alberta can upgrade this production.
    This being the case. we simply must find a way to make these upgraders competetive or the work will go somewhere else.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    Our oil is not going anywhere, there's no need to get rid of it in a hurry. We should sell it in the most profitable way possible.
    What makes you think upgrading and refining it first is the most profitable way? Given the enormous cost do build more capacity, it clearly isn't, it makes more sense to send excess capacity to where there is excess capacity (i.e. US). Its more environmental as well to use the assets that exist to capacity first (be they in Canada or the US) before spending more resources building new ones. This will bring more royalties for more investment in our universities / health care, etc (with more than 300 years of supply, we don't need to greedily hoard the resource under our beds, it isn't going to run out anytime soon). There will still be more than enough jobs in Alberta, we are already entering a critical labor shortage.
    True true. The misunderstanding people have is that the oil will either be refined in the US or here, so we should "insist" that it happens here.

    Not exactly correct: it is attractive to refine it in the US because of existing refining infrastructre that has spare capacity (i.e. it's free!) and it is not attractive to build new refining capacity in Alberta, especially since lots of people are already against the industrial development already occurring in the province.

    So you either need to build i) a pipeline, or ii) refining/upgrading capacity here and then still a pipeline to export the finished products. Which do you think is more cost effective?

  24. #24
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    In reality there isn't a whole lot more work coming down the pipe as far as upgrader construction goes.
    CNRL is going to build Horizon phase 2, Suncor Voyageur will eventually get built and the Heartland upgrader will probably go. (both Suncor and Heartland have subtantial portions already complete)
    After these, the only upgrader work that may come would be Syncrude UE2 but that is only a rumor.
    Shell was burnt so bad with the Scotford expansion that they have shelved their expansion plans indefinately.
    The next wave of oilsand development will be SAGD or variations of that technology. These projects are far easier to build than mines and upgraders. There will be lots of smaller facilities whose production alone won't justify upgrading on site. This means merchant upgraders like the Heartland will be the way Alberta can upgrade this production.

    This being the case. we simply must find a way to make these upgraders competetive or the work will go somewhere else.
    I do not understand all of this angst over whether or not up graders are built here or the bitumen is upgraded else where. The biggest factor is the price differential between synthetic oil and heavy oil. Right now the gap is not that large so upgrading it here is not that lucrative. Right now there is a demand for heavy oil so better to fill the demand before someone else does. Eventually the price differential will get to the point that building up graders here will make economic sense.
    For years we have been exporting crude oil to the states and no one said anything now it is a huge issue
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  25. #25
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,824

    Default

    The Athabasca Oilsands contains more oil than all other known world reserves combined. Enough to last the world at todays consumption rate for 200 years. Sell, sell, sell and take the money because before all the oil is sold it will be obsolete and worth nothing, also by refining at the gulf we will take less heat for pollution caused by the refining process. imho

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    As usual the CBC anti-tarsands agenda is in full play.

    Lougheed does NOT oppose Keystone XL.

    He opposes not upgrading the bitumen here first and THEN shipping it via Keystone.

    But Lougheed opposes pipeline is so much better an anti-tarsands headline, and who really cares if that's misleading at best.
    But that IS Keystone - it's essentially a bitumen pipeline. It means we lose the 'value-added' component, we lose global market access as we're lock that production into sales to the US, we loose pricing control, we loose the longterm benefits of creating higher level jobs at home, etc. And I'm guessing that we set a precedent, an infrastructure precedent - meaning more such pipelines can be built to do the very same thing.

    Note: I forget the name of it, but in the 1970s Alberta had a natural gas act that restricted the burning of natural gas in power plants etc. vs cracking / upgrading it for plastics, fertilizers, etc. (Hence in Fort Saskatchewan, we have one of the largest petrochemical complexes in the world. Much of the value added has been taking place here now rather than in Texas. )

    I'm ignorant of how royalty rates are determined (seems very political - jobs, profits, political donations vs just good old "fair market value" FMV ) but one huge advantage I could see coming out of the Keystone and other is improved pricing transparency. That should scare the heck out of the Alberta industry as it might allow everyone to better reverse engineer the fair market value pricing and determine what a fair royalty rate would be for bitumen.

    On the premise that we have set the royalty rates too low (below FMV) as a compromise for "job creation" and local oil company profits in the home province as well as across Canada, then currently Albertans are recovering some of that loss. However, just dig-and-dispatch and much of that lower-than-fair-market-value-subsidy is being transferred to the US.

    It's very kind of us to make such a large donation to the USA.


    Now, I'm just a layman, so I hope people like Lougheed come out and clarify the business risks for us all.
    Last edited by KC; 17-09-2011 at 09:02 AM.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    The Athabasca Oilsands contains more oil than all other known world reserves combined. Enough to last the world at todays consumption rate for 200 years. Sell, sell, sell and take the money because before all the oil is sold it will be obsolete and worth nothing, also by refining at the gulf we will take less heat for pollution caused by the refining process. imho
    Man, who cares about the media spin on the pollution. That isn't going to change. This is a business issue about where the profits go. Do we capture them for ourselves or ship potential profits south. That may be good if it off-loads the various risks as well (investment risk, environmental risk, employment risk, etc.) but does it? How? Sickening as it is, as a province we need to grab as many synergies and profits for at home as possible all the while laying off downside investment risk to 'out of province' investors, etc.

    In other words, we want to do what makes the most sense for wealth creation and quality of life at home. Note: wealth creation is not just job creation. Quality of life is not just personal income.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Here is an interesting wrinkle on the Keystone Pipeline issue: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/08/16/AsiaTarSands/
    Byers view on the oil sands is already well known.
    http://www.canada.com/topics/news/fe...7-8597e7c2c48f

    The fact that he writes this, and for The Tyee, seems more about him getting his view across than actual facts.

  29. #29
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    The Athabasca Oilsands contains more oil than all other known world reserves combined. Enough to last the world at todays consumption rate for 200 years. Sell, sell, sell and take the money because before all the oil is sold it will be obsolete and worth nothing, also by refining at the gulf we will take less heat for pollution caused by the refining process. imho
    Man, who cares about the media spin on the pollution. That isn't going to change. This is a business issue about where the profits go. Do we capture them for ourselves or ship potential profits south. That may be good if it off-loads the various risks as well (investment risk, environmental risk, employment risk, etc.) but does it? How? Sickening as it is, as a province we need to grab as many synergies and profits for at home as possible all the while laying off downside investment risk to 'out of province' investors, etc.

    In other words, we want to do what makes the most sense for wealth creation and quality of life at home. Note: wealth creation is not just job creation. Quality of life is not just personal income.
    But.... one major problem with building the upgraders and refineries here is the shortage of manpower to do so and also the huge cost to oil companies that already have major refining capabilities in place they can utilize to the south.

  30. #30
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DoyleG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Here is an interesting wrinkle on the Keystone Pipeline issue: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/08/16/AsiaTarSands/
    Byers view on the oil sands is already well known.
    http://www.canada.com/topics/news/fe...7-8597e7c2c48f

    The fact that he writes this, and for The Tyee, seems more about him getting his view across than actual facts.
    I predict with the loss of Jack Layton and the possibility of Justin Trudeau leading the Liberal Party the NDP will be relegated back to a 3rd or 4th place party. A bunch of wing nuts federally and provincially imo. In future I am sure there will be less NDPers than polar bears.

  31. #31
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,824

    Default

    Sort of the way the NDP in Alberta went after Grant Notleys tragic accident.

  32. #32
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,295

    Default

    Small clarification, Keystone is a pipeline - not a bitumen pipeline.

    Yes, it will initially carry (diluted) bitumen plus lighter oil from the Bakken play in Montana and North Dakota in the Excited States of America.

    In future, if more upgraders are built in Alberta (and they will), Keystone will carry some (diluted) bitumen, some upgraded to synthetic crude oil and oil from the Bakken play.

    In fact, if all bitumen was upgraded to synthetic crude in Alberta, we'd still need Keystone to get it to market.
    ... gobsmacked

  33. #33

    Default

    ^are you referring to Keystone, an already completed pipeline, or Keystone XL?
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-09-2011 at 03:55 PM.

  34. #34
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,295

    Default

    Whoops, sorry - XL
    ... gobsmacked

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Lougheed always had the ability to see the long term implications where other's couldn't.

    In a radio interview yesterday a couple media people were critical of Lougheed's view saying upgrades only employ a couple hundred people when up and running. I sure got the impression that they only seemed to crave the short term gain without a thought to the long-term consequences of our reverting back to being just hewers and haulers.


    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...-keystone.html



    Here's another interview...

    http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/
    Wednesday September 14, 2011
    Deborah Yedlin - Keystone XL
    Our business commentator Deborah Yedlin offers her opinion on the proposed Kesytone XL pipeline.
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    Our oil is not going anywhere, there's no need to get rid of it in a hurry. We should sell it in the most profitable way possible.
    What makes you think upgrading and refining it first is the most profitable way? Given the enormous cost do build more capacity, it clearly isn't, it makes more sense to send excess capacity to where there is excess capacity (i.e. US). Its more environmental as well to use the assets that exist to capacity first (be they in Canada or the US) before spending more resources building new ones. This will bring more royalties for more investment in our universities / health care, etc (with more than 300 years of supply, we don't need to greedily hoard the resource under our beds, it isn't going to run out anytime soon). There will still be more than enough jobs in Alberta, we are already entering a critical labor shortage.




    Seems things are never black and white... "Partial upgrading... "could not only be economically viable in the province, but also generate substantial gains in employment, labour income, exports and government revenue. " see articles below.

    Aso, for those about to jump on the NDP and say, " but they raised the big company corporate taxes", realize that corporate taxes are only after expenses. The more any remaining profitable Alberta companies spend the less tax they pay. So they can decide where to spend it, or let the Province decide where to spend it.


    bolding is mine
    Opinion: Partial bitumen upgrading could boost Alberta's economy
    by Kent Fellows, Robert Mansell and Jen Winter, January 20, 2017, Calgary Herald


    excerpt:

    "Politicians often speak of the need to “add value” to our oilsands bitumen. They advocate upgrading it here to create jobs in Alberta. Upgrading is the process by which very viscous raw bitumen is processed into a lighter “synthetic crude oil.”


    While the higher value for synthetic crude is an argument for full upgrading, one must recognize the costs of this. Unfortunately, those costs are higher than the gain in value. As such, investment in new upgraders is not currently commercially viable. Suncor cancelled its Voyageur upgrader in 2012 and, in 2016, CNOOC suspended its upgrader at ...


    Does this dash the Alberta dream of increased domestic processing? Perhaps not. Emerging partial upgrading technologies could not only be economically viable in the province, but also generate substantial gains in employment, labour income, exports and government revenue.

    Partial upgrading brings bitumen to something resembling a medium or heavy crude, and at a lower cost per barrel than full upgrading. The Alberta Royalty Review Advisory Panel recognized gaps in several North American refineries that could be filled by this partially upgraded Alberta oil.

    A partial upgrader serving that less-competitive market not only appears to hold the potential for investors to make attractive returns in the long term, it would also provide important benefits to Alberta.


    First, since partially upgraded crude can be shipped via pipeline without diluent (the product used as a diluting agent), producing it in Alberta would free up pipeline capacity. Diluent also...




    http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/col...bertas-economy








    Field upgrading is making it possible to pipe bitumen without thinning agents
    The energy industry may be able to move beyond diluent
    BY DARREN CAMPBELL, April 01, 2014

    Moreover, since one barrel of dilbit (diluted bitumen) is made up of three parts bitumen to one part condensate, this means a low utilization of pipeline capacity. “You’re moving an awful lot of diluent around for no real gain or benefit other than to move this heavy oil,” says Joseph Kuhach, Ivanhoe Energy’s senior vice-president, upstream technology and integration. “If you can move this heavy oil without diluent, now you eliminate that cost and you’ve got the ability to transport [bitumen] and you’ve got a lot more capacity in your pipeline.”
    ...
    Bitumen production is projected to increase dramatically from the current 1.9 million barrels per day (bpd) according to several recent studies. The Canadian Energy Research Institute forecasts oil sands production to reach 3.1 million bpd by 2020. Looking further out, Houston-based consultancy IHS CERA and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers see production reaching 3.8 million bpd and 4.5 million bpd by 2025, respectively. While the numbers vary, all the forecasts point to major oil sands production increases and, by extension, significant volumes of diluent will be needed to make make the bitumen “pipelineable.”
    ...
    Partial upgrading is a technological Holy Grail for the oil sands industry because it enables producers to achieve considerably more value for their bitumen at much lower cost than through full upgrading. Full upgrading ..."


    https://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2...eyond-diluent/


    Partial upgrading of oilsands could fetch additional $10-15 per barrel: report
    Jesse Snyder | January 5, 2017 5:06 PM ET
    http://business.financialpost.com/ne...-barrel-report

    Canadian oil sands producers could fetch up to $15 more per barrel with this technology
    Cecilia Jamasmie | Jan. 10, 2017

    The report notes that even one partial upgrader, churning out 100,000 barrels per day, could boost Alberta's annual GDP by $505 million and create 179,000 person-years of employment.

    "Full upgraders have proved uneconomical without substantial public subsidies, but partial upgrading offers a potentially economical middle ground," the authors wrote. ...

    About 60% of Alberta’s current oil sands output is shipped in its raw form, which requires ...


    http://www.mining.com/canadian-oil-s...is-technology/
    Last edited by KC; 20-01-2017 at 10:18 AM.

  36. #36
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    Piping diluent around has never made sense to me. In addition to the cost, you are creating the ideal way to get sticky goo into places where it will be very difficult to get out in the event of an accident. Either process it into something that will flow on its own, or load it into rail cars neat.

  37. #37

    Default

    Another story from January:


    Partial bitumen upgrader could boost Alberta GDP by $505M, study says
    University of Calgary research paper touts emerging technology as economical 'middle ground'
    CBC News Posted: Jan 05, 2017 5:54 PM MT Last

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...umen-1.3923061

    Excerpt:


    partial bitumen upgrading has the potential to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the provincial economy, a University of Calgary study says.

    A push to accelerate development of the technology — which would turn oilsands bitumen into medium-grade crude —was one of the recommendations made by the royalty review panel in 2015.

    A report released Thursday by the U of C's School of Public Policy argues that even one partial upgrader, churning out 100,000 barrels per day, could boost Alberta's annual GDP by $505 million and create 179,000 person-years of employment.

    "Full upgraders have proved uneconomical without substantial public subsidies, but partial upgrading offers a potentially economical middle ground,"


    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...umen-1.3923061
    Last edited by KC; 04-04-2017 at 11:31 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •