Talk:Athabasca Oil Sands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Alberta, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the province of Alberta, Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

	To-do list for Athabasca Oil Sands:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Estimated oil reserves Projected amount of oil reserves for future use (if this makes sense, how long will the Athabasca oil reserves last at a specified consumption?) Economic impact on the region Besides having Fort McMurray become a boomtown, other economic influences such as it's influence on the Alberta economy in general (Albertans did just get cheques from the Klein government) I'd say that has more to do with Alberta's conventional Natural Gas production. Kevlar67 05:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Oil sands production This section seems to be more of a history of companies... is it suppose to be like that? Geopolitical importance To settle the softwood lumber dispute, there was lots of talk about using the oil sands as a bargaining chip... would something like this be included? Indigenous peoples of the area The indigenous peoples of the area take an active role (from what I've been told) in mining operations, in particular with land reclamation. If so, this should be included somewhere (defined role of indigenous people). Environmental impacts Mention something more about land reclamation (Syncrude keeps 3 herds of bison on land being reclaimed!)

Contents 1 Estimated Size 2 Economics 3 Heavy use of water 4 Cleanup? 5 400,000 barrels of oil to China 6 Protests? 7 Realism and hype 8 Reformatting the table 9 Severe NPOV Issues 10 Citing Sources

[edit] Estimated Size

I am editing the estimated size section to reflect the true production numbers, the ones currently listed are lower than the actual production numbers as in 2003 was 858, 000 bbl/d. (Alberta Government, Engergy Department) http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp, these numbers reflect a general industry consensus. -Meanie-

Some of that discrepancy reflects the difference between figures for all of Alberta and for the Athabasca area only. 2004 production for all of Alberta is around 1 million bbl/d. Production is projected to reach 2 millons bbl/d by 2010.

Confusing the issue, and this should be addressed, is that the standard extraction process requires huge amounts of natural gas. This really should be deducted from the energy output, and natural gas availability is limiting oil sands development.

It only takes 0.4 Mcf of gas to produce 1 barrel of syncrude, and 1 barrel of syncrude is equivalent to 6 Mcf of gas, so I think you have a 15:1 gain. I added the idea of bitumen gasification, which seems to be the main alternative being considered. I also added the likelihood that they are just going to curtail exports of gas to the US to free up fuel. This is in the NEB and EUB documents, but I don't think the Americans have been reading them. RockyMtnGuy 22:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a project nearing completion, the Long Lake Project (http://www.nexeninc.com/Operations/Athabasca_Oil_Sands/Long_Lake/project_overview.asp) which is supposed to provide its own fuel, by on-site cracking of the bitumen mined. It's supposed to start operations in 2007, producing 60,000 bbl/day of usable oil. If this works, the natural gas problem becomes much less of an issue.

They used natural gas to fire the boilers because there are natural gas fields underneath the oil sands, and there was no other market for it. Since the Americans are now short of natural gas, it's more efficient to sell the gas to the Americans and burn something else. The Athabasca area has bitumen (which can be burned directly), coal, hydro-electric and (nearby in Saskatchewan) uranium. Pick one or more. RockyMtnGuy 05:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Amusingly, what's really holding up development in the Athabasca area is that the only real city there, Fort McMurray, has been at 100% apartment occupancy since late 2005. House price levels are at Silicon Valley levels. Building is held up because the sewer plant is at capacity. Sewer plant expansion is being held up because the city and the province are arguing over who pays for expansion. The province, not the city, gets the oil royalties.

Oil sands projects, unlike oil fields, are labor-intensive while in operation. These are huge mining operations, and need tens of thousands of people on-site to work them. The area only has a population of about 75,000, and people must be convinced to move there permanently.

-Nagle- 15:58, 2006 February 8

[edit] Economics

I don't have time to do this because I'm leaving for a few weeks in Peru, but the section on oil sands economics needs a reality check. Not even the Arabs have production costs below $2/barrel any more. Saudi Aramco is having to put in waterflood systems and drill horizontal wells with multiple multilaterals to keep production up, and although their costs are a state secret, it can't be cheap. See oil well. Recent oil sands numbers: Suncor's first quarter profits were C$713 million, over 10 times the first quarter last year, their operating costs dropped to C$19.05 per barrel, their sales price increased to C$65.75 a barrel. That means they made a profit of 46.70 per barrel - it's like having a license to print money. RockyMtnGuy 16:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The economics estimates might have to revised based on the latest estimated capex and opex for expanded production. For the next expansion project Shell Canada announced anticipated capital cost of $275 - 325 per annual flowing barrel. Assuming rate of return of 10%, this results in about $45/bbl capital cost contribution. Shell Canada also revealed current operating cash cost at about $20-25/bbl. Therefore, total cost of oil produced is close to $70/bbl (this includes cost of upgrading bitumen). For reference see: http://www.shell.ca/home/Framework?siteId=ca-en&FC2=/ca-en/html/iwgen/investor/presentations/zzz_lhn.html&FC3=/ca-en/html/iwgen/investor/presentations/investor_presentations.html

Shell is probably wishing they did this ten years ago because costs are skyrocketing due to an acute shortage of labor and everything else. However, they're going ahead anyway. Parent company Royal Dutch Shell seems to be desperate to find new oil after it had to restate its reserves. On the other hand, CNRL claims its project is on budget and on time, possible due to the use of sharper pencils. RockyMtnGuy 09:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I bet, Suncor is probably laughing becuase they have had all their ducks in gear for years, and their major expansion is both on time and on budget because of this.

Production costs are probably a lot lower than that now given that gas has fallen. It will be interesting when the reports have come out. Gas is as Cheap as it was around 2000, which means costs are probably nearer to 10 dollars per barrel. Thats one of their largest expenses. That means that at 25 bucks a barrel with those costs, you are still making a cool 20%.--Meanie 03:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Due to a severe labor shortage in the oil sands in particular and Alberta in general, production costs are still likely north of $20/barrel. However, oil prices are still over $50, so they probably are making well over 20% on their investment. RockyMtnGuy 03:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy use of water

I'd like a better comparison to conventional drilling, which also uses a lot of water. (i.e. pumping water into wells to increase the pressure) -- unsigned comment by User:24.57.157.81 17:07, 2005 September 27

Conventional wells have a one-to-one correspondence between the amount of water pumped in and the amount of oil pushed out. Exploiting Tar Sands uses many times as much water per unit of petroleum extracted. And, unlike drilling, exploiting tar sands leaves a vast amount of toxic tailings. The sand, after the oil is extracted, is highly toxic. -- Geo Swan 08:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Athabasca River runs through the middle of the Athabasca oil sands. The Peace River runs through the Peace River oil sands. These are two of the biggest rivers in Western Canada. There's no other use for the water because you can't grow anything and there are no towns downstream. The sand, after the oil is extracted, is less toxic than it was before the sand was extracted because there's less oil in it. You have to realize that the oil sands are basically an oil spill the size of Belgium. It's hard to make it worse. RockyMtnGuy 05:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup?

Does anyone think this still requires a cleanup tag? It looks like a decent enough article. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article overlaps with "Tar Sands", but contains some very good material. Cleaned it up April 8, 2006. Non-Athabascan specific material cut (someone may want to move the old material on the oil extraction process to the main article "Tar Sands" and edit a final text). Extraneous material on oil in sedementary rock was cut (since article is about oil sands); someone may want to create a new article on this subject. Tedious discussion on oil reserves has been simplified; if necessary, insert comments into the main article "Oil Reserves". -- Joseph B.

Oilsands mining operations do not consume water. Syncrude for example draws very little river water anymore, they recycle all the water. Stating that each barrel of oil puts 2 or 3 into a tailings pond is misleading in that it seems to imply that that water then sits there for ever, when in fact its recycled back into the process. River water use is strictly monitored, mines are responsible for all process effected water, including rain water that falls on the mine, and ground water they remove for mine dewatering. The ground water closest to the oilsand layer is not sutible for consuption or release even beofre mining, it carries H2S and in somecases methane.The tailings ponds do not flood forests or bogs, rather dykes are created on cleared land., the dykes are created using both the earth over the oilsands and the tailings, the tailings is not toxic. Theres even exploration into using the tailins sands as a source of Ti. --Shane H.

[edit] 400,000 barrels of oil to China

That doesn't seem like a significant amount, especially to a country like China. As it's written, it's a small, one-time shipment. Is it supposed to be a flow rate: barrels per day, per month, per year? Indefatigable 18:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's barrels per day. Ref: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-10/16/content_485265.htm Fixed article accordingly. --Nagle 01:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the claim that Harper fast tracked the deal because of the soft wood lumber dispute backed up anywhere? It's the first I've hard that, and it seems a bit of a stretch to include it here. TastyCakes 06:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protests?

Aren't there any protests against this monster of a project? I have seen a National Geographic report about the Suncor site and although deforestation, air pollution and water redirection are being mentioned, to me, it mostly was like an advertisement showing, for example, huge trucks. So, again: isn't there any protest against all of this? Internationally as well as on an NGO-basis?

The feature mentioned that 75% of the water which is used, is being cleaned and recycled. It also said that, oil companies have 'promised' to renature the area after the project finished. LIllIi 23:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Who's going to complain? There are 80,000 people up there in an area bigger Florida with a climate nastier than Alaska. They're all working in the oil sands. Other than that, there's a National Park that's bigger than Switzerland. However, you can't go there - there are no roads. But the trees, water, bears and wolves are doing fine in their absence. RockyMtnGuy 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

They're proud of it. The mines are a tourist attraction. Take the "Experience the Energy" tour. “Experience the Energy” of Fort McMurray with a tour of Syncrude Canada Ltd. or Suncor Energy mine sites. See the earth move before your eyes as shovels carrying 100 tons load 380 ton payload trucks with the rich, black oil sand. Follow the process from mining to pipeline and see how the sand is reclaimed as a productive partner in the natural environment. --John Nagle 04:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That and the sites aren't really any worse than any big strip mining project. TastyCakes 17:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

They're actually better than the big coal mines in the Western states which 1) are in a semiarid region with insufficient water to support revegetation, and 2) turn the little available groundwater acidic. And they're nowhere near as big an evironmental disaster as the abandoned open-pit copper mines in Montana, which are filled with lakes of concentrated sulphuric acid, copper, arsenic and other minerals. The Berkeley Pit near Butte, Montana is the largest superfund site in the US. RockyMtnGuy 14:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Realism and hype

In my honest humble opinion it is more than naive to assume that a so called "promise to leave behind a reasonably intact natural environment" by corporate oil producers will ever become reality. When there is no monetary value associated with it, it's not going to happen. It is the provincial/federal governments' responsibility to create that value and require environmental remediation by the producers immediately after exploitation of an area. After all the province/federation licenses the resource exploitation, too. Interesting times for the government to invent some new law. While the oil sand fields are remote, they occopy vast amounts of land and a significant share of Alberta. I assume it would be in Alberta's and everybody else's interest to avoid large scale scarring and the creation of such deadlands the province may have never seen before.

It would also be advisable to carefully review estimates and figures. The current 40 to 400 years of Alberta's oil sand reserves are not production ratio derived (see BP's report "Quantifying energy", June 2006). At best they seem to be extremely optimistic estimates. Alberta and Canada would be well advised to realistically assess the effects of oil sand exploitation. It is the government's responsibility to wisely manage the land for its people. If done so, other Canadian's and the rest of the world will be very grateful, that's certain.

The misleading thing about the BP report is that it really uses only publicly available information which anybody can find from other sources. See the footnote: "nor do they necessarily represent BP’s view of proved reserves by country" - which means that PB doesn't include its own proprietary data in them.

Also see the footnote, "The figure for Canadian oil reserves includes an official estimate of Canadian oil sands ‘under active development’". That means it only includes oil sands leases that are have a mine or thermal facility on them. However, the oil sands are the size of Florida and the vast majority is not ‘under active development’, so BP doesn't include the oil in its reserves despite the fact that thousands of wells have been drilled to delineate it.

The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board publishes a review of Alberta's energy reserves every year. For the latest (178-page) version see Alberta's Energy Reserves 2006 It's actually rather conservative. For instance it assumes a 20% rate of oil recovery from the sands, while the oil companies claim they get closer to 60 or 70%. RockyMtnGuy 23:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reformatting the table

Before reformatting the table, I'll store the old version here for easy reversion. My new version (tested in my sandbox) looks OK, but it sure pumps up the volume of the code.

2005 Production	m3/day	barrels/day
Suncor Mine	31,000	195,000
Syncrude Mine	41,700	262,000
Shell Canada Mine	26,800	169,000
In Situ Projects	21,300	134,000
TOTAL	120,800	760,000

[edit] Severe NPOV Issues

The section on environmental impact is judgement-ridden in absence of evidence and uses alarmist language.

Examples, of which there are many:

"The certain possibility of enduring, expensive environmental and health risks however remain to be studied, remedied and otherwise accounted for." -- deserves a request for source citation at the least. Difficult to prove a negative, I expect. "certain possibility" is weasel-language of the type encyclopedias do not need -- "Critics contend that government and industry measures taken to mitigate environmental and health risks are inadequate, citing..." yadda yadda would be the usual formulation.

"Extremely rich archaeological and natural values may be permanently lost forever as the natural northern Boreal landscape is ravaged and destroyed by large scale essentially dirty, energy consumptive mining practices" -- "Critics further contend that archaelogical sites and natural resources may be damaged by large scale mining."

"The strong need for curtailing mining activity until solutions are provided for ongoing environmental and health risks is paramount to the survival of local inhabitants." -- I'm assuming there's a study that says "More controls or mining will kill everyone", or this would just be irresponsible.

I've made preliminary edits to correct the NPOV issues. Feel free to comment or correct. It is probably obvious but I'll mention for the sake of completeness that I do not self-identify as an environmentalist. 210.172.204.147 09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that it is all boilerplate envirobabble written by people who have no first-hand experience in the oil sands. It's like everything else in the oil sands. Any environmentalist who is capable of contributing something about the oil sands to Wikipedia is too busy writing environmental impact statements or reviewing environmental impact statements to contribute anything. Most of the text looks like copied text with "Amazon rain forest" replaced with "northern boreal forest" wherever it occurred.

• Certain possibility - Huh? That's a contradiction. Like a certain uncertainty.
• Critics contend - Who are these critics, exactly? Name a few. Provide references.
• Government ... measures ... are inadequate - Government measures are always inadequate for people who are not on the receiving end of blank cheques.
• Extremely rich archaeological and natural values - I don't recall seeing pyramids and ancient walled cities on the banks of the Athabasca River. I do recall seeing naturally occurring tar seeping out of them.
• Natural resources may be damaged - Be more specific. Are these the naturally occurring coal, natural gas, salt or uranium resources that might be damaged. Or possibly the diamonds they keep finding in the rivers but haven't found the source of? More likely it's the aforementioned boreal forest, but the companies intend to convert the land to pasture land and stock it with buffalo since they can't restore it to its original boggy scruffiness.

In other words, it needs some informed research rather than cut-and-paste copying from something about Montana copper mines or Appalachian coal mines. I know people who could do it, but again they're too busy consulting. Personally, I know a lot more about the production issues than the environmental issues. RockyMtnGuy 19:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I became severely irritated about the copy-and-paste environmentalism being repeated, and the fifth-hand envirobabble (see citing sources below) being bandied about (a quotes b quotes c quotes d quotes e who was actually talking about the Amazon rain forest) so I did a lot of rewriting from the perspective of neutralizing the language, plus I added a bunch of first-hand references. RockyMtnGuy 05:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Sources

People really need to stick to authoritative sources close to the subject when contributing content to this article. In particular, they should read Wikipedia:Attribution. In this case, I'm thinking about some new material added in the Environment impacts section.

The information added cites the Dogwood initiative as an authoritative source. Following up on the reference, I find the Dogwood Initiative as an environmental action group in Victoria, British Columbia, concerned about protecting BCs forests. The Dogwood Initiative is quoting an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail. Toronto is roughly 1000 miles south and 3000 miles east of the oil sands and is not noted for its acumen about the oil industry. The Globe and Mail is quoting the Pembina Institute, which at least is located in Alberta although nowhere near the oil sands. The Pembina institute is another environmental action group quoting even more distant sources. So, this information is at least fifth-hand and probably more distant. It could take forever to find the original source of this information, and figure out what they were trying to say.

The quoted information says "A cubic metre of oil, mined from the tar sands, needs two to 4.5 cubic metres of water." However, the Pembina Institute's version it says "2 to 4.5 cubic metres of steam". That's not quite the same thing. Does it mean "steam reduced to a cold-water equivalent", or does it mean "steam as a gas". There's a huge difference. Which is it? Feel free to chase down the original source and figure it out.

Here's another misleading quote. "There is beginning to be some preliminary indication of health impacts." That's all there is, rumor and innuendo. The reference cites an article in the National Review of Medicine, based in Montreal (even further from the oil sands than Toronto.) The article is about the Alberta College of Physicians investigating a complaint by Health Canada about a physician complaining about high levels of cancer in Fort Chip Chipewyan. Health Canada is accusing him of causing "undue alarm". Now, while Fort Chip is closer to the oil sands than any of the other places mentioned, it's still a really small place and not all that close. Most likely, the health authorities believe he's raising red flags because of what is known as statistical clustering. In other words, in a small town, a high rate of cancer may be three cases (actually, it was three cases), and for the next decade you might get none at all (known as "regression to the mean"), so they want him to shut up until he has some solid data. The government has spent millions investigating rumors of health problems in other small towns, only to discover that the people there are actually much healthier than in the big cities (less air pollution, of course). In fact, a study by the Alberta Cancer Board determined that rates of cancer in Fort Chip were not unusually high, although you're not likely too see an environmental action group print that. RockyMtnGuy 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)