Getting Ready for Oil Sands

posted at 10:55 am on February 3, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

A new report prepared for the Dept. of Energy is catching the attention of domestic energy advocates this week. With an eye toward the future it examines the potential of bituminous sands (or oil sands) from Canada to virtually replace US dependence on remaining Middle Eastern oil supplies in the decades to come, eventually providing a significant portion of US requirements. Unfortunately, for this option to remain viable, early action will be required in terms of pipelines and infrastructure to make sure the opportunity isn’t lost. More from Heliogenic Climate Change.

Study results indicate U.S. refining of Canadian crudes could rise from 1.9 mbd [million barrels per day] in 2009 to 4 mbd by 2030. Associated oil sands streams imports would rise from under 1 mbd in 2009 to over 3.6 mbd by 2030. This projected increase would curb dependency on crude oils from other sources notably the Middle East and Africa.

It is fair to point out that the price point for oil from bituminous sands is currently too high for mass production as compared to pooled crude oil deposits found under Saudi Arabia, for example. This is because more time and energy is required to separate the usable oil from the grit and clay in which it is embedded. However prices change on both ends. Advances in technology may lower production costs of Canada’s supplies even as increased demand from other nations – China in particular – drive prices for existing crude supplies higher. But we will need to construct and expand new pipelines from Canada down to the gulf coast refineries to make this viable.

Don’t think China hasn’t noticed this. They are already looking at purchases in the oil sand rich areas as well as the possible construction of shorter pipelines from the Alberta fields to ports on the British Columbia coast where the oil could quickly be shipped across the Pacific.

The evidence from the WORLD model cases is that, if pipeline projects to the BC [British Columbia] coast are built, they are likely to be utilized. This is because of the relatively short marine distances to major northeast Asia markets, future expected growth there in refining capacity and increasing ownership interests by Chinese companies especially in oil sands production. Such increased capacity would alter global crude trade patterns. WCSB [Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (oil sands)] crudes would be “lost” from the USA, going instead to Asia.

Of course we are already seeing resistance to this from Washington. The EPA is protesting the amount of carbon dioxide breathed out by sweaty oil rig workers increased levels of greenhouse gasses generated by the higher energy extraction methods required. They also note that a new, rich bounty of oil could “hurt efforts to produce more-efficient cars and electric vehicles.”

Having the Obama administration dither over this and kick the can down the road will not do. This report should make clear that a decision will need to be made now in order to prepare for future demand, and sitting on their hands will only allow China to lock this market up before we can get a toe in the door.

Read the original Dept. of Energy report here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

What about shale oil

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Got a friend who works in the oil sands of Alberta. Says the Chinese are definitely looking to elbow in. Being a good Albertan, he also prefers that if anyone gets to use the oil there, it should be the US and Canada.

Look, Barry, we don’t even have to drill there!

Red Cloud on February 3, 2011 at 10:58 AM

It’s time to tell the EPA and Sierra Club to pack (oil) sand!

If we’d make it easier for domestic exploration and production we’d have an amazingly high number of good paying jobs right off the bat. The oil and gas industries use a lot of support companies to keep things moving.

They are called natural resources because they are….RESOURCES!

TugboatPhil on February 3, 2011 at 10:59 AM

I think it is purely dreaming to think we would do anything about this.
It is crystal clear that Nero is fiddling and intends to keep doing so.

ORconservative on February 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM

We can’t be looking for opportunity when we are busy chasing fantasy.

roflmao

donabernathy on February 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM

They also note that a new, rich bounty of oil could “hurt efforts to produce more-efficient cars and electric vehicles.”

Can anyone deny, with a straight face, these treasonous bas*ards intend to bankrupt this once prosperous nation?????

Tim Zank on February 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM

It’s expensive now, but pretty soon it’s going to look cheap. That’s why lots of people around the world want part ownership of it.

RBMN on February 3, 2011 at 11:01 AM

China will definitely lock it up…..dear leader with blinders on….

cmsinaz on February 3, 2011 at 11:01 AM

We should not have to be in this predicament in the first place.

hawkman on February 3, 2011 at 11:01 AM

What about shale oil

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Same story, it’s abundant and would solve a multitude of energy problems/shortages therefore it must be stopped. When will Americans wake up and realize en mass their own government is leading the effort to kill our own prosperity????????

Tim Zank on February 3, 2011 at 11:02 AM

I don’t know about making a new pipeline to take it all the way down the the gulf. Seems to me it would be better just to make new refineries on the Pacific coasts.

Count to 10 on February 3, 2011 at 11:03 AM

A decision needs to be made NOW!

That’s it I’m voting present.

Lily on February 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Surely there is some creature that requires saving from this process. Would it be cheaper to build a pipeline or just build some refineries up North? I guess the unions would make it cost too much.

Cindy Munford on February 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Having the Obama administration dither over this and kick the can down the road will not do.

Oh, He won’t dither. He’ll find a way to stop us from using oil sand just as he has stopped us from drilling for oil and mining coal…When it comes to depriving America of energy, he’s quick and decisive.

Battlecruiser-operational on February 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Can anyone deny, with a straight face, these treasonous bas*ards intend to bankrupt this once prosperous nation?????

Tim Zank on February 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM

I think most of them work on the assumption that that would be impossible. They have this “all other things held constant” way of looking at things, and a complete blind eye to unintended consequences.

Count to 10 on February 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM

I don’t know about making a new pipeline to take it all the way down the the gulf. Seems to me it would be better just to make new refineries on the Pacific coasts.

Count to 10 on February 3, 2011 at 11:03 AM

How about we build them in ND where our big new oil supplies are?

Lily on February 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Sadly history has shown that the American voter is willing to re-elect a President (FDR) that is implementing policies that hurt society as a whole. Hopefully history will not repeat itself in 2012.

WashJeff on February 3, 2011 at 11:08 AM

It is crystal clear that Nero is fiddling and intends to keep doing so.

ORconservative on February 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM

We can turn that around.
We also do not have to be slaves to China for ‘rare’ earth metals,, but since the mine’s in CA, will it be fully developed?
Here is some basic info from the USGS on rare earths.

Point is, there is no reason to pi$$ away all of our opportunities, even if we have our own resources.
And why would you let China get something from your own backyard/neighbor when you could bid for it yourself?
This is actually more than an energy issue, this is a National Security issue.
And BO will pi$$ it away if we let him.

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 11:09 AM

OMG, is there any way we can tap our own resources? This is just crazy. How high do prices have to go before people get the message???

red131 on February 3, 2011 at 11:09 AM

They also note that a new, rich bounty of oil could “hurt efforts to produce more-efficient cars and electric vehicles.”

Barry is going to get his $8/gallon gasoline if it kills us.

GarandFan on February 3, 2011 at 11:11 AM

How about we build them in ND where our big new oil supplies are?

Lily on February 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM

We’re still booming, Lily.
And NW SD’s got some of that stuff, too.
The only hinderance will be if the EPA decides to flex its illegitimate muscles over frakking.
The oil industry is moving forward on pre-development of the Taylor & 3 Forks, but will they go ahead if the EPA starts mouthing off?
ND is very concerned about limits or elimination of frakking.
Bcs if that happens, our boom goes bust.
And you all LOSE, too.

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 11:11 AM

OMG, is there any way we can tap our own resources? This is just crazy. How high do prices have to go before people get the message???

red131 on February 3, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Evidently a great deal higher than they are now.

Tim Zank on February 3, 2011 at 11:12 AM

The demorats and their enviroterrorist friends will dither and twirl just long enough to allow China to lock everything up.

We will all be living in mud huts and scrounging for acorns if they had their way.

Bishop on February 3, 2011 at 11:12 AM

if it kills us.

GarandFan on February 3, 2011 at 11:11 AM

He wants to weaken us.
He hate the US.
He does not share the ‘shining city upon a hill’ ideal.
He thinks despot countries are = to the US.
He is either evil on purpose, or through stupidity.
I concur he is a dupe, being led along by his communist friends, just look up all of the founders & members of organizations from the 60s like the SDS-Students for a Democratic Society & the Weather Underground.
Those people were & ARE STILL communists.
And they are leading BO around by the nose.

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Barry is going to get his $8/gallon gasoline if SO it kills us.

GarandFan on February 3, 2011 at 11:11 AM

FIFY

Tim Zank on February 3, 2011 at 11:14 AM

This is ridiculous! The U.S. has more in potential oil reserves in our oil shale than the world has in oil combined.

But we won’t develop it. When you consider the oil shale, oil sands, the oil we have offshore on both coast, the oil in AK, North America should be a powerhouse in exporting energy.

We could eliminate our trade deficit, payoff our national debt, and cut a check to every American, eliminating all federal taxes to 95% of them, if we did this full bore and sold energy to the 2 billion Asians who need it. And I didn’t even mention the vast amounts of natural gas we have!

We can power our cars and homes with nukes, while we export the gas and the oil. This can be done in 30 years with the benefits I mentioned above. Why are we not doing this?

milemarker2020 on February 3, 2011 at 11:14 AM

When will Americans wake up and realize en mass their own government is leading the effort to kill our own prosperity????????
Tim Zank on February 3, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Not just their own government but tens of millions of citizens that they rub elbows with every day, the deluded liberals whose only goal is to wreck any chance America has of succeeding in anything.

Bishop on February 3, 2011 at 11:15 AM

red131 at 11:09
Pretty high. Our country elected a jerk who promised to increase utility prices. Remember what Michelle Obama said Barack will “not allow.” If he can create more scarcity he can gain more control, he thinks.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 3, 2011 at 11:16 AM

This can be done in 30 years with the benefits I mentioned above. Why are we not doing this?

milemarker2020 on February 3, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Because of a bloated bureaucracy laden with bogus regulatory agencies installed by leftist leftover hippies that want one big frickin’ commune where we are all equally poor.

Tim Zank on February 3, 2011 at 11:18 AM

How about we build them in ND where our big new oil supplies are?

Lily on February 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM
We’re still booming, Lily.
And NW SD’s got some of that stuff, too.
The only hinderance will be if the EPA decides to flex its illegitimate muscles over frakking.
The oil industry is moving forward on pre-development of the Taylor & 3 Forks, but will they go ahead if the EPA starts mouthing off?
ND is very concerned about limits or elimination of frakking.
Bcs if that happens, our boom goes bust.
And you all LOSE, too.

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 11:11 AM

I’ve been following the Bakken find for some years now. What is the status of the plans to build refineries on reservation land to cut out the EPA?

TBinSTL on February 3, 2011 at 11:20 AM

I guess we’re just saving all that cheap natural gas for a rainy day.

elowe on February 3, 2011 at 11:21 AM

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Honestly I believe that if the EPA had its way we would all die freezing in the dark.

There ARE things they could do, jobs they could create, like building refineries, and pipelines.

WY has the same problem with their energy industry. It’s the regulation that strangles them. Which is ridiculous because we all know that electric cars get their electricity from somewhere. Electrons don’t magically appear in the electrical socket. It comes from coal. So really, all their fabulous electric cars are actually coal powered. And they are doing their best to shut down that industry.

What a bunch of morons.

Lily on February 3, 2011 at 11:22 AM

The whole

They also note that a new, rich bounty of oil could “hurt efforts to produce more-efficient cars and electric vehicles.”

… by keeping energy prices reasonable thing is very disingenious. It’s like “we have to kill the patient in order to save him.”

BTW, why is there a smiley face in the lower hand corner of every HotAir page (you have to scroll down to see it).

furytrader on February 3, 2011 at 11:22 AM

When I see that picture of oil sands hows’ come the line Tar Baby comes into my head, wasn’t that a fable or something?

dhunter on February 3, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Meant to say

“BTW, why is there a smiley face in the lower left hand corner of every HotAir page (you have to scroll down to see it).”

furytrader on February 3, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Study results indicate U.S. refining of Canadian crudes could rise from 1.9 mbd [million barrels per day] in 2009 to 4 mbd by 2030.

Dang, that would mean private sector jobs. Something Dear Liar does not want.

rbj on February 3, 2011 at 11:23 AM

The Canadian company just got ‘permission’ from a judge to haul the really big equipment they need to Billings and to Canada over some ‘pristine’ mountains and by some equally ‘pristine’ rivers from Lewiston, Id. Every greenie in Mt and Id has been suing for over a year to stop this project. The rigs are huge but will only travel at night. The greens never did present a valid reason just that the rigs would ruin the river. Of course, we can’t just drill for oil and keep the price down, we have to wait til it’s expensive and get it by pounding sand.

Kissmygrits on February 3, 2011 at 11:24 AM

I wonder that the EPA is concerned about the amount of GHG produced per gallon of gas produced from the oil sands, but not so much about the heavy crude being pumped out of the ground in California which produces much larger amounts of GHG per gallon of gas than the oil sands.

Folks, do yourselves a favour and pick up a copy of Ezra Levant’s “Ethical Oil”. It’s just beautiful the way Ezra takes the left’s primary talking points and uses them to point out how great the oil sands are in comparison to OPEC oil.

Available in hardcover and kindle versions over at amazon.

Jim708 on February 3, 2011 at 11:24 AM

We are being sabotaged by Obama’s anti-energy policies. I believe he knows the price we’ll have to pay for his fantasies, but feels it’s worth the price, however high it may be. He’s quite willing to sacrifice our standard of living and our children’s futures for his own extremist ideology.

*spit*

petefrt on February 3, 2011 at 11:24 AM

This report is more important and yet no one seems to want to talk about it. Please read and send this limk to everyone you know
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

paulrtaylor on February 3, 2011 at 11:27 AM

We’re running out of oil in the next few years, right? I remmeber hearing that in the 70s. But somehow we keep finding oil, shale oil, oil sands, and offshore oil. We also find natural gas deposits right here in the U.S.

So what does our government do? Spend billions on developing solar and wind power. And the worst part is that U.S. companies are going along with the hype.

hawksruleva on February 3, 2011 at 11:27 AM

On the subjest of oil, bho isn’t having a good week with judges. Good for this judge and I hope more go after bho and team.

http://nation.foxnews.com/justice/2011/02/03/judge-holds-obama-admin-contempt-over-drilling-ban
L

letget on February 3, 2011 at 11:28 AM

This report is more important and yet no one seems to want to talk about it. Please read and send this limk to everyone you know
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

paulrtaylor on February 3, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Or keep it to yourself and make some long-term investments ;-)

hawksruleva on February 3, 2011 at 11:28 AM

I did a little research a few years ago and the cost to produce oil from the Canadian sands is under $15/barrel, so the only thing that can stop the expansion is political pressure, from Canadian Liberals and Obama. Oil shale could be produced in the US for around $40/barrel and we have enough for hundreds of years. Peak oil is a politically inspired fantasy. Without global warming idiots to slow us down, the world economy would be booming.

LakeLevel on February 3, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Meant to say

“BTW, why is there a smiley face in the lower left hand corner of every HotAir page (you have to scroll down to see it).”

furytrader on February 3, 2011 at 11:23 AM

I believe it is related to WordPress traffic stats.

Alkaiser on February 3, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Advances in technology may lower production costs of Canada’s supplies even as increased demand from other nations – China in particular – drive prices for existing crude supplies higher.

They already have.

Learn about (California-based) Ivanhoe Energy’s HTL technology overview here.

Video here.

There are significant quantities of heavy oil throughout the world, most of which have not been developed due to the logistical challenges and cost of production using conventional technologies.

These challenges result from four key characteristics associated with heavy-oil development:

* Heavy oil is viscous and dense, and often requires steam to be injected into the reservoir to reduce viscosity and allow it to flow to the surface.
* Once at the surface, heavy oil frequently requires light oil to be blended with the heavy oil to allow the oil to flow in a pipeline.
* The value of heavy oil is less than light oil, because the oil requires pre-treatment before final refining.
* Traditional heavy-oil upgraders have a very large economic minimum scale – around 150,000 barrels per day – as well as a very high capital cost per barrel of capacity.

The net result is that significant known quantities of heavy oil remain undeveloped.

Integrated HTL development solves each and every one of the four challenges outlined above:

* Energy produced from upgrading by-products is largely sufficient to run the facility and also to meet the requirements of the field.
* HTL upgraded oil meets pipeline specifications and does not require diluent for transport.
* HTL upgraded oil is more valuable than raw heavy oil, allowing the producer to capture the majority of the heavy-light differential.
* HTL facilities are cost-effective at scales as low as 10-20,000 barrels per day.

Integrated HTL heavy-oil production can add incremental economics and lower risk in heavy operations with established infrastructure, such as the Athabasca oil sands in Canada, and it also is able to free the value of stranded oil in fields that cannot be economically produced using conventional technologies, such as Pungarayacu in Ecuador.

Terp Mole on February 3, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Having the Obama administration dither over this and kick the can down the road will not do. This report should make clear that a decision will need to be made now in order to prepare for future demand, and sitting on their hands will only allow China to lock this market up before we can get a toe in the door.

In other words, we can go ahead and conclude that we’re going to let this opportunity go to the Chinese, and our kids and grandkids will have yet another in a long list of reasons to look at us with disgust because we let ourselves become (and be ruled by) sackless wonders.

Midas on February 3, 2011 at 11:31 AM

How does the EPA justify corn ethanol production, when it creates 4-6 times CO2 per gal as just using gasoline alone?

It takes much more energy to grow, distill, and transport corn based ethanol, than to produce, transport and refine crude, and then 10% ethanol blend gasoline requires +/- 30% more product as straight gasoline for the same energy output.

Shouldn’t the EPA be stopping corn based ethanol based on CO2 emissions? What? oh wait that is ConAgra on the phone, hold on…

elowe on February 3, 2011 at 11:31 AM

At least some of our kids will have jobs, pumping oil out for our Chinese overlords.

Rebar on February 3, 2011 at 11:35 AM

How about we build them in ND where our big new oil supplies are?

Lily on February 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Most refineries seem to be built on the coast, so it stands to reason that water supply and shipping costs are an issue.

Count to 10 on February 3, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Doesn’t it bother anyone lese that we have all the deposits of hydrocarbons in Solid, liquid, gas and in this case mixed with sand?

According to the Left, these compounds are dangerous, maybe we need to clean up all these deposits from around the world and get rid of them – perhaps by burning them in some sort of combustion process. The result would mostly be harmless water vapor and C02 (Beneficial to plant life, by supposedly dangerous by the lights of the AGW fanatics)

What we need to do is have a crash program to develop ways of getting rid of all these compounds by burning them.

The question is, Just how can we do that?

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Is there some reason we just don’t use our own oil?

Now we have to buy more from Canada?

darwin on February 3, 2011 at 11:42 AM

They also note that a new, rich bounty of oil could “hurt efforts to produce more-efficient cars and electric vehicles.”

Free market, anyone? There is no free market. Since the New Deal, the free market has died a slow death, but what has lived on is the myth of the free market. The myth is needed for a scapegoat when state controls (regulation) goes awry like the housing and financial breakdown in ’08. The myth of a free market is a tool to expand government control. A true free market would make much of what government currently does unnecessary.

cartooner on February 3, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Ivanhoe Energy’s HTL technology anticipates producing 50,000 barrels of oil from Canada’s Tamarak oil sands by 2014

It’s a start. But we need this American ingenuity applied here in America.

Total US domestic production today is 6 million barrels per day.

Terp Mole on February 3, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Ever been to Northwestern Colorado or Eastern Utah? The surface oil sands are so bad you stick to the ground and ruin your shoes in short order. Why Canada, we have plenty right here.

BTW: Did you know a 2009 U of T study and pilot refinery concludes you can make diesel and gasoline from coal at about $30 a barrel oil equivalent. The USA has about 33% of the world’s coal reserves.

Why isn’t our WTF president interested?

tarpon on February 3, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Most refineries seem to be built on the coast, so it stands to reason that water supply and shipping costs are an issue.

Count to 10 on February 3, 2011 at 11:36 AM

They’re built on the coast to refine crude shipments from overseas. If we used our own damn oil we’d build refineries where the oil is.

darwin on February 3, 2011 at 11:46 AM

I don’t know about making a new pipeline to take it all the way down the the gulf. Seems to me it would be better just to make new refineries on the Pacific coasts.

Count to 10 on February 3, 2011 at 11:03 AM

That has to be sarcasm.

Build refineries in North Dakota. Build pipelines out of North Dakota for finished product.

slickwillie2001 on February 3, 2011 at 11:47 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby

“The only way to solve the sticky situation is by separation!”

Time to start some separatin or impeachin!

dhunter on February 3, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Why isn’t our WTF president interested?

tarpon on February 3, 2011 at 11:45 AM

The higher the cost of fuel, the less industrialized America becomes, the less mobile we are, more people leave suburban and rural areas for urban.

The left wants everyone congregated.

darwin on February 3, 2011 at 11:47 AM

That has to be sarcasm.

Build refineries in North Dakota. Build pipelines out of North Dakota for finished product.

slickwillie2001 on February 3, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Why? Having them on the coast would mean that it would be easy to ship oil to California, which can probably use the entire output on its own.

Count to 10 on February 3, 2011 at 11:48 AM

darwin: Is there some reason we just don’t use our own oil?

I assume you mean our own oil sands?

In the United States, oil sands resources are primarily concentrated in Eastern Utah. With a total of 32 billion barrels (5.1×10^9 m3) of oil(known and potential) in eight major deposits[28] in the Utah counties of Carbon, Garfield, Grand, Uintah and Wayne. Currently, oil is not produced from oil sands on a significant commercial level in the United States, although the U.S. imports twenty percent of its oil and refined products from Canada, and over fifty percent of Canadian oil production is from oil sands. In addition to being much smaller than the oil sands deposits in Alberta, Canada, the U.S. oil sands are hydrocarbon wet, whereas the Canadian oil sands are water wet. As a result of this difference, extraction techniques for the Utah oil sands will be different than those used for the Alberta oil sands. A considerable amount of research has been done in the quest for commercially viable production technology to be employed in the development of the Utah oil sands.

It is not a question of technology. Ivanhoe Energy has overcome the technological hurdle. It is merely a question of will.

Fortunately, our current President is wicked smaht.

Terp Mole on February 3, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Let me re-emphasize:

Eastern Utah… 32 BILLION barrels

yeh, with a B

Terp Mole on February 3, 2011 at 11:54 AM

I assume you mean our own oil sands?

Terp Mole on February 3, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Everything. Sands, shale, off shore, inland … wherever it is, use it.

This is getting to the point of treason if not so already.

darwin on February 3, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Ever been to Northwestern Colorado or Eastern Utah? The surface oil sands are so bad you stick to the ground and ruin your shoes in short order. Why Canada, we have plenty right here.

BTW: Did you know a 2009 U of T study and pilot refinery concludes you can make diesel and gasoline from coal at about $30 a barrel oil equivalent. The USA has about 33% of the world’s coal reserves.

Why isn’t our WTF president interested?

tarpon on February 3, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Ummmmm…because $30 a barrel equivalency means a functioning economy which is completely contrary to everything this administration stands for?

bigmacdaddy on February 3, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Defund the EPA …

OH gawd, he’s about to come out and make remarks on clean energy. Can’t this man shut his pie hole for a day? On TV day and night…. can’t. stand. it.!!!

Key West Reader on February 3, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Oh, and get with the program. GM and GE and the unions need money for their green go karts. They’ll force them on us any way they can.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2011 at 12:01 PM

The Bamster wants energy costs to ‘necessarily skyrocket’. He can’t do that by price controls or direct taxation, so he will do it under the guise of the criminally corrupt EPA and the ‘global warming’ scam.

slickwillie2001 on February 3, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Maybe ND, MT, and UT could get together and sue the feds for interfering with their rights to create jobs, provide energy for their people, and use their own natural resources.

They could challenge the constitutionality of EPA rulings.

Also, I believe they all have reservations. And I like the idea upthread about putting refineries etc. on reservation lands to bypass the feds altogether. We know they can because they are allowed gambling. Why should gaming be their only industry?

Lily on February 3, 2011 at 12:06 PM

I’m from Alberta and the oilsands are the greatest blessing imaginable. It allowed Alberta to thrive like few other places. Yet, the province remains weak compared to the Ontarians and other, more liberal-minded, Easterners. They want to shut down the oil sands as part of their ‘climate change’ fighting plan (which conveniently yet deliberately exempted Ontario’s auto industry). Fortunately, Mr. Harper – an Albertan – is in charge so things are going just fine. For now.

If Canada does try to shut down the oil sands, I pray that Alberta secedes and joins the United States. Think of it – uninterrupted readily available access to oil. Yes it’s costly but infinitely preferable to more Middle East wars.

God Bless America. God Bless Alberta. God Damn Ontario.

KillerKane on February 3, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Maybe ND, MT, and UT could get together and sue the feds for interfering with their rights to create jobs, provide energy for their people, and use their own natural resources.

They could challenge the constitutionality of EPA rulings.

Lily on February 3, 2011 at 12:06 PM

What they need to do is just ignore the feds and the EPA.

darwin on February 3, 2011 at 12:08 PM

But won’t someone think of the poor Ethanol farmers??

DarthBrooks on February 3, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Is there some reason we just don’t use our own oil?

darwin on February 3, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Yes. The reason is because 51%+ voted Democrat in the last election.

The problem is not just with oil, gas, coal or natural gas.

Nor does the problem just exist with REE’s and the control by China.

We had a small private partnership that held onto a local PGE/copper/gold deposit (pge >>> platinum group elements) for exploration under a state lease for 10 years. Check out just how much of our platinum and palladium are imported.

The requirements for bonding and the regulatory hoops we had to jump through just to turn drills, in a non-sensitive environmental area, finally broke us.

The real message from the government was that present and future domestic production really isn’t that important.

Yoop on February 3, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Federal Judge Holds Obama Administration in Contempt Over Deepwater Drilling Ban

The federal judge who struck down the Obama administration’s moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill is holding the Interior Department in contempt of court.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman chided the department for its “dismissive conduct” after he overturned the agency’s decision to halt any new permits for deepwater projects and suspend drilling on 33 exploratory wells after the Deepwater Horizon blast…

*wicked smaht!*

Terp Mole on February 3, 2011 at 12:15 PM

So many things to respond to!

What is the status of the plans to build refineries on reservation land to cut out the EPA?
TBinSTL on February 3, 2011 at 11:20 AM

I heard a blurb a while back & nothing since. Here’s a story about it.

Electrons don’t magically appear in the electrical socket.
Lily on February 3, 2011 at 11:22 AM

I suppose if you could use that supergiant Tesla coil of the future….

Every greenie in Mt and Id has been suing for over a year to stop this project.
Kissmygrits on February 3, 2011 at 11:24 AM

This is how greenies make money, bcs that is really all they are interested in.
Here is more info on how these groups are scamming the taxpayers.

paulrtaylor on February 3, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Heh. That is just recoverable oil using today’s technology.
That is only about 4% of the total reserves estimated conservatively that is actually down there.

Most refineries seem to be built on the coast, so it stands to reason that water supply and shipping costs are an issue.
Count to 10 on February 3, 2011 at 11:36 AM

There’s a refinery owned by Tesoro in Mandan ND on the MO River.
We actually do have a lot of water here in ND.
That is why they want to build one in New Town ND. There is water there bcs of the Garrison Dam & the river.
There is no reason not to build a refinery out here where the oil is at.
The only reason no one will do it is bcs by the time permits & environmental studies are done & you are ready to break ground, all of that stuff is EXPIRED.
Liability & govt indecision is why we do not have new refineries being built.
End of story.
ND even has looked into building a STATE OWNED refiniery bcs the need is that great.

Build refineries in North Dakota. Build pipelines out of North Dakota for finished product.
slickwillie2001 on February 3, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Exaclty.
And they are builidng pipelines. Right now.
One was just put in from down in WY through SW ND up to New Salem ND area.
They are building pipeline.

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 12:20 PM

This is because more time and energy is required to separate the usable oil from the grit and clay in which it is embedded.

Actually that isn’t true anymore. The cost to run a “Rig” compared to the cost of running 8 Heavy hauler Semi and 8 heavy dump truck as well as 8 shovel’s actually is less. The time is the problem due to “cooking” the oil out of the “sand”. It takes time, but then so does anything refining.

What about shale oil

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Shale is very very sulferous. It takes more additives and “cooking” to take the sulfer out of the oil (any oil) and is more expensive to “process”. The reason why many like the light sweet crude, less sulfer.

upinak on February 3, 2011 at 12:22 PM

We know they can because they are allowed gambling. Why should gaming be their only industry?

Lily on February 3, 2011 at 12:06 PM

In northern Wisconsin and the UP of Michigan the Native American tribes have worked to block, and were successful in stopping, past development of very rich mineral deposits. They are very busy at present attempting to block two planned mines in the UP (Ni, Cu, Au, Zn) and a potential iron ore pit in far northern Wisconsin.

Yoop on February 3, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Heliogenic Climate Change

Just the name has the pleasing ring of truth to it.

Another factor that might work to equalize the net cost of alternate oil sources would be a reduced defense budget if we were able to disengage to some degree from the ME. I suspect other forces will cause us to remain engaged, at least to some extent, but it would be nice if we were there for the right reasons, not because of feckless energy policy, and we might save money in the process.

paul1149 on February 3, 2011 at 12:34 PM

In northern Wisconsin and the UP of Michigan the Native American tribes have worked to block, and were successful in stopping, past development of very rich mineral deposits. They are very busy at present attempting to block two planned mines in the UP (Ni, Cu, Au, Zn) and a potential iron ore pit in far northern Wisconsin.

Yoop on February 3, 2011 at 12:23 PM

they are slitting their own throats.

upinak on February 3, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Yoop on February 3, 2011 at 12:23 PM

I wish I could say that I am surprised but our reservations vote liberal democrat every single election. So I believe it.

Lily on February 3, 2011 at 12:39 PM

less sulfer.

upinak on February 3, 2011 at 12:22 PM

This is from 2001, but it talks about the impact that EPA CAFE standards have had on diesels.
People don’t understand that diesel engines provide POWER to run INDUSTRY, i.e. productino of products, agriculture, road building, construction, etc.
With these new diesel blends & low to no sulfur diesels, you have such a huge host of problems getting a diesel engine to run with the gamut of filters & crap that are needed to prop this thing up.
It’s making new Semi Truck cost more than the fortune they used to cost.
And the maintenance in keeping it running is effing horrendous.
All bcs of the GOVERNMENT meddling in this.
Sulfur in diesel actually gets rid of the water in the fuel.
When you get rid of S in diesel fuel, you allow water to exist in it & ALGAE grows in that water, which PLUGS UP the multitudes of filters.
It’s a NIGHTMARE.
This is why you cannot even store diesel fuel long term anymore.
You gotta get ‘fresh’ fuel or you’re effed.

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Yoop on February 3, 2011 at 12:23 PM
they are slitting their own throats.

upinak on February 3, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Yup.
I guess if there’s a resource on Res land, as a Domestic Dependent Nation, they have every right to develop or not develop.
For instance, down on the Sioux Res in ND & SD they have not allowed cell phone companies to erect towers unless those companies give every registered tribe member a free phone plan & phone.
They won’t, so guess what? Indians & the white folks that live down there don’t get cell service.
There is a tower the Indians put up themselves that does give service. But it’s so limited hardly anybody uses it.

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 12:41 PM

I’ve heard that. Is there any available chemical that you can add to Diesel to restore the sulfur content? Or maybe algicide?

slickwillie2001 on February 3, 2011 at 12:48 PM

They also note that a new, rich bounty of oil could “hurt efforts to produce more-efficient cars and electric vehicles.”

Barry is going to get his $8/gallon gasoline if it kills us.

GarandFan on February 3, 2011 at 11:11 AM

GarandFan

That is about right for how much gas is here in Europe.

pabo on February 3, 2011 at 12:48 PM

There is an additional first step in refining oil sands that doesn’t exist with crude oil. Yes there is a large pipeline being built to ConocoPhillips just across the river from St. Louis, and thence to Port Arthur, TX where Motiva (Saudi/Shell) is finishing up the expansion of an existing refinery to a mega refinery.

Different crude oil sources are for different refineries. Not all refineries are built alike and they not only have different refining capacities in terms of crude input but also different capacities in product output.

Some refineries are run to produce feed for ethylene crackers and not much more.

Kermit on February 3, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Utility rates will necessarily skyrocket as we move to a “clean GE Energy” takeover of American energy needs.

PappyD61 on February 3, 2011 at 12:58 PM

If we want energy independence CNG offers the quickest solution.
We have a 200+ year supply of natural gas.
We have a massive pipeline network and nearly 100% of gas stations are heated from natural gas.
Converting a car to run on CNG only costs $300 (in Peru) but $6,000 here (over regulation, price gouging and insurance costs are the likely culprits).

If GM and Chrysler were required (we own them remember) to make every car dual fuel ready (if not actually dual fuel) the oil monopoly would be destroyed. Natural Gas utilities would put in filling stations and gas stations would add CNG to their offerings.

We also need to drill in ANWR and other places that make sense (Montana, ND, etc).

Any government serious about energy independence would do this.

The Rock on February 3, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Got a friend who works in the oil sands of Alberta. Says the Chinese are definitely looking to elbow in. Being a good Albertan, he also prefers that if anyone gets to use the oil there, it should be the US and Canada.

Look, Barry, we don’t even have to drill there!

Red Cloud on February 3, 2011 at 10:58 AM

***is it possible that the reason that we’re putting more and more resource assets under Park Service lock and key is that the Chinese want the guarantee that the resources will be held for the Chinese gov’t (as a condition of their continued buying of U.S. Gov’t debt)?

Naaaaaah, never mind.

PappyD61 on February 3, 2011 at 1:01 PM

What about shale oil

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Indeed!!! According to a 2005 Rand report, there are between 500 billion and 1.1 trillion barrels of shale oil (about 100 to 200 years’ worth of U.S. demand) under western Colorado, eastern Utah, and southern Wyoming, which could be extracted using environmentally-safe “in situ” processes for about $30 per barrel.

Allow a shale-oil processing company about a $10/barrel profit, that’s still less than half the current price of crude on the open market. If the U.S. made the decision to allow this oil to be extracted and sold, the U.S. could control the world oil market, and tell the Saudis and everyone else to pound sand. Not to mention tens of thousands of high-paying jobs in the Rockies…

But Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (from Colorado, of all places) says we can’t to it. Just because…

Steve Z on February 3, 2011 at 1:08 PM

In northern Wisconsin and the UP of Michigan the Native American tribes have worked to block, and were successful in stopping, past development of very rich mineral deposits. They are very busy at present attempting to block two planned mines in the UP (Ni, Cu, Au, Zn) and a potential iron ore pit in far northern Wisconsin. Yoop on February 3, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Because that land is sacred to Native Americans paleface, too sacred to build anything there except casinos.

Akzed on February 3, 2011 at 1:15 PM

But we will need to construct and expand new pipelines from Canada down to the gulf coast refineries to make this viable.
Don’t think China hasn’t noticed this. They are already looking at purchases in the oil sand rich areas as well as the possible construction of shorter pipelines from the Alberta fields to ports on the British Columbia coast where the oil could quickly be shipped across the Pacific.

Has anyone thought about pipelines from Canada to refineries (or deepwater ports) along the Alaskan coast? I seem to remember some little thingy awhile back about an international gas pipeline negotiated by some ditzy moose-shootin’ Mama Grizzly on Fox News named Sarah Palin, but what does she know? We’ll have to ask the expert, Katie Couric!

Nah, we’ve gotta trust Smart Power–the guy that wants to abrogate the NAFTA treaty to protect union jobs in Ohio! Who needs dirty old Canadian oil anyway?

/Teh One off

(We do!)

Steve Z on February 3, 2011 at 1:19 PM

That photo looks like a guy holding the Democrat agenda for America, left by a wayward donkey.

Akzed on February 3, 2011 at 1:22 PM

The Chinese have been making massive investments in Canadian tar sands for years now: TIMELINE-Chinese Investment in Canada’s Oil Sands

slickwillie2001 on February 3, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Just a quick note about the economic benifits from the fields around Fort Mac, Alberta.

My brother-in-law is working there now driving one of the Cat 797B haul trucks. Each of those trucks cost $5,000,000 or there about. Between them, the mines around Fort Mac have dozens of them. The largest fleets in the world of the world’s largest truck. It takes five plants across four states to produce this truck. How many well payings jobs is that?

Everytime my brother-in-law dumps a 400 tonne load at the processing facility, it is another 200 barrels of oil. To drive this truck, the company pays him better than $100,000/year. That allows him to work there and commute home to the other side of the country every six weeks or so for a couple weeks.

Great paying jobs from the first weld to the last dump.

Jim708 on February 3, 2011 at 1:33 PM

[The EPA] also note that a new, rich bounty of oil could “hurt efforts to produce more-efficient cars and electric vehicles.”

This, in a nushell, is the EPA’s charter: Why should they CREATE anything, when it’s so much easier to simply DESTROY everything they consider imperfect? Then, all they have to do is wait for whatever’s left of free enterprise to magically build their pristine dream world for them!

logis on February 3, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Look, Barry, we don’t even have to drill there!

PappyD61 on February 3, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Go ahead and laugh, but if these clowns could regulate it, I guarantee they’d somehow find a way to create a massive sand spill.

logis on February 3, 2011 at 1:37 PM

I have a friend who works up at Camp McMurray, he is yummy :) so I vote yes on this proposal!

nwpammy on February 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Or maybe algicide?

slickwillie2001 on February 3, 2011 at 12:48 PM

There is. But they don’t work all that well.
And it isn’t cheap when you’re paying and extra $30-50 per 100 or 200 gallons of fuel on that stuff.
Another cost is filters.
$30-40/pop sometimes EVERYTIME you fill the tank on a Semi.
Add that to the $3.40+/gallon diesel price & you have something that is VERY out of control, per the US FEDERAL GOVT.

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 1:59 PM

slickwillie2001 on February 3, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Let’s also not forget that these new diesel blends are not good enough to keep diesel engines running without gelling up in cold temps.
And am talking at temps like 0 degrees.
That is NOT that cold.

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Let’s also not forget that these new diesel blends are not good enough to keep diesel engines running without gelling up in cold temps.
And am talking at temps like 0 degrees.
That is NOT that cold.

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Here’s a link on sulfur & differences in cold weather vs warm weather diesel fuels.Cold weather deisel (#1 i believe) is something you don’t want to use unless you have to bcs you get worse mileage out of it & it really isn’t good for your engine to run straight all the time.
So now bcs of all this crap, fuels have to have ‘additives’ in the form of CHEMICALS all the time just to combat these problems I am talking about.
If people are so damned worried about teh environment, then how is this any better (the icnreased use of fuel additives)?!

Badger40 on February 3, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2