The Trillion-Barrel Tar Pit

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
And you thought Iraq was a cakewalk! Canada would fall like a house of cards ... ;)

CANADA: The Trillion-Barrel Tar Pit

Who needs "oil independence" - our friendly neighbor to the north is sitting on a black gold mine!

By Brendan I. Koerner

Fort McMurray, Alberta, is an unlikely destination for a congressional boondoggle, especially when cold snaps of 40 below make it dangerous to leave any patch of skin uncovered. But here I am in midwinter, 250 miles north of Edmonton, watching a flock of Washington politicians in subzero parkas cling to tour guides like a trail of oversize ducklings. With gas prices approaching $3 a gallon in some states, the US representatives are braving the frigid air not for adventure but to learn about a filthy sort of alchemy, one that turns sludgy, sticky earth into sweet crude oil.

Alberta sits atop the biggest petroleum deposit outside the Arabian peninsula - as many as 300 billion recoverable barrels and another trillion-plus barrels that could one day be within reach using new retrieval methods. (By contrast, the entire Middle East holds an estimated 685 billion barrels that are recoverable.) But there's a catch. Alberta's black gold isn't the stuff that geysered up from Jed Clampett's backyard. It's more like a mix of Silly Putty and coffee grounds - think of the tar patties that stick to the bottom of your sandals at the beach - and it's trapped beneath hundreds of feet of clay and rock.

This petroleum dreck is known in these parts as heavy oil, and wildcatters are determined to get it out of the ground and into a pipeline. If they succeed, the stereotypical oil zillionaire may be not an Arabian emir but a folksy Albertan fond of ending sentences in a question, eh? Like Jim Carter, president of Canada's largest oil company, Syncrude. A coal-mine foreman by trade, Carter talks as if he just got out of a cut-rate business seminar, spewing jargon like "going-forward basis" and "continuous-improvement mindset." He's the kind of guy who straps a snowplow on his John Deere mower and clears the streets just for fun. But he clawed his way out of the pits to a corner office, and now he has a plan to make Canada's oil reserves pay off.

Heavy oil isn't a new discovery. Native Americans have used it to caulk their canoes for centuries. Until recently, though, it's been the energy industry's stepchild - ugly, dirty, and hard to refine. But the political winds are favoring the heavy stuff, as "energy independence" - aka freedom from relying on Middle East oil - has become a war-on-terror buzz-phrase. Even President Bush has waxed optimistic about Alberta's "tar pits."

Better yet, recent improvements in mining and extraction techniques have cut heavy oil production costs nearly in half since the 1980s, to about $10 per barrel, with more innovation on the way. The petroleum industry is spending billions on new methods to get at the estimated 6 trillion barrels of heavy oil worldwide - nearly half the earth's entire oil reserve. Last year, Shell and ChevronTexaco jointly opened the $5.7 billion Athabasca Oil Sands Project in Alberta, which pumps out 155,000 barrels per day. Venezuela's Orinoco Belt yields 500,000 barrels daily, and that number should spike when a new ChevronTexaco plant goes online this year.

The trailblazer in heavy oil is Syncrude, a joint venture among eight US and Canadian energy companies, which has been harvesting greasy sand since 1978. Last year, the company shipped 77 million barrels of its trademark product, Syncrude Sweet Blend, mostly to US refineries. That's 14 percent of all Canadian oil sales, company executives boast - enough to produce 1.5 billion gallons of gasoline.

Chalk up the impressive output to Syncrude's efficiency. Carter and his team like to present themselves as roughnecks, but they run the company like bookish software engineers. Their oil mines - noisy and grimy and often reeking of sulfur - operate with the high tech prowess of a Taiwanese factory churning out LCDs.

The Caterpillar 797 dump truck is a true monster - 48 feet from tip to tail and 22 feet high, it creeps uphill with a 400-ton payload at 1 mile per hour. Syncrude owns 36 of the vehicles, which cost $5 million each. This herd of yellow pachyderms lumbers around the company's open-pit mines, shuttling oil sands from the digging shovels to a massive processing facility called a crusher. The inside of the crusher resembles the guts of the Nostromo, the doomed ore-hauling ship in Alien. Whale-sized pipes and narrow catwalks crisscross everywhere; steam billows from hoses that snake along the floor. Here the sands are pulverized, then sent to cyclofeeders to be mixed with hot water and pumped to gargantuan centrifuges where the oil-rich component, bitumen, is separated out. The bitumen is sent to giant cokers and roasted with hydrogen into Syncrude Sweet Blend.

It's a laborious process, to say the least - 2 tons of sand yields just one barrel of oil - but nowhere near as painstaking as it used to be. In the 1920s, Karl Clark, a University of Alberta chemist, discovered that steam could tease pitch out of sand. His breakthrough piqued Big Oil's interest, but no one could make the process cost-effective. In the 1950s, a few desperate hopefuls suggested detonating a subterranean nuclear bomb to blast the gunk to the surface. When Syncrude started, it relied on draglines, huge cranelike devices weighing more than 15 full 747s. Attached to these $100 million machines were enormous buckets; the draglines would scrape the buckets across the earth to scoop up huge chunks of sand - a tough process to coordinate come winter.

The murderous climate caused untold headaches. The conveyor belts that carried oil sands from dragline to processing plant were prone to cracking. Whenever the cokers got clogged with calcified soot, Syncrude had to shut down for a week and send in cleaners with sledgehammers - "the kind of job that makes you thankful you have an education," quips Mark Sherman, who now manages the company's cokers.

When an OPEC glut sent oil prices skidding to $10 a barrel in 1985, Syncrude was losing $5 to $10 on every barrel of synthetic crude it produced. Only savage staff cuts staved off complete ruin. Nearly a decade later, Syncrude began to get creative. In 1994, the executives opened an R&D lab in Edmonton and started spending $30 million a year to devise increasingly efficient extraction methods. They ditched the draglines for more agile trucks and shovels and replaced some of the conveyor belts with hydrotransport, a method in which crushed sand is mixed with hot water into a pipeline-ready slurry.

[...]
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
We should invade.

Isn't there a lot of oil also in the US that isn't retrievable (b/c of costs?) at the moment, too?
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
We should invade.

Isn't there a lot of oil also in the US that isn't retrievable (b/c of costs?) at the moment, too?

Yes I've always been in favour of invading Alberta ;)

I think the ironic thing is that the less dependent we are on oil reserves, and the more alternative energy sources we develop, the easier it will be to get at the oil in reserves like this one... maybe once we all drive solar-cars to work there'll be enough cheap gas for everyone to bomb around in a hemi-cuda all weekend :)
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
*shrugs* White was never my color.
BTW How DID they paint over black?
That has to be the feat of the 19th century.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
The longer it takes the technology to develop the better...
Wait till oil is a bit more limited and expensive...

Then we'll be rich off our a$$es!!
Fvck yeah!

Good news. For both sides of the border.
less transport costs and military situations in the mid east.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Ok...the US will not invade Canada...we are too well liked around the world...
EU would take our side, we are closer to russia than the US.

Would be a pretty stupid idea...
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Ok...the US will not invade Canada...we are too well liked around the world...
EU would take our side, we are closer to russia than the US.

Would be a pretty stupid idea...

The world will follow our charismatic and charming overlord Geroge W. Bush!!!!

The EU will be too scared to fight against the Overlord!

Imagine it, the US can more than double its land mass in a single day!!!

Go Bush Go!
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
We should invade Canada and liberate them of their supreme leader, Queen Elizabeth II. It's an easy target and it will be the first step in overthrowing the cruel, evil dynasty that Queen Elizabeth II is a part of.

I actually know someone from Alberta and he talks about how many people there want to leave Canada. We can use them as resistance fighters like in Afghanistan.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Ok...the US will not invade Canada...we are too well liked around the world...
EU would take our side, we are closer to russia than the US.

Would be a pretty stupid idea...

Closer in what meaning? 75% of your trade is with the US, that makes you pretty damn close. You're like an unwanted stepchild :D
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
There is a very small minority who want to separate...
They are just bitter with the current government.

Alberta wants to privatize healthcare and not share the wealth with the rest of canada.
They are so rich from the oil that they could if they wanted pay everyone's federal income tax and still have a balanced budget.

Instead we force they to give the money to other less fortunate provinces to encourage economic development.
Albertans think it's theirs.
It's the problem with having 2 or 3 rich provinces out of 13 regions.

I think california has had similar ideas...
They would never fight for the US though...that is something i'm 100% positive about.
Go ask your buddy...we are pretty patriotic...as are you guys...
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
There is a very small minority who want to separate...
They are just bitter with the current government.

Alberta wants to privatize healthcare and not share the wealth with the rest of canada.
They are so rich from the oil that they could if they wanted pay everyone's federal income tax and still have a balanced budget.

Instead we force they to give the money to other less fortunate provinces to encourage economic development.
Albertans think it's theirs.
It's the problem with having 2 or 3 rich provinces out of 13 regions.

I think california has had similar ideas...
They would never fight for the US though...that is something i'm 100% positive about.
Go ask your buddy...we are pretty patriotic...as are you guys...

I've never heard of anyone from California having ideas like that. I was born there and go there all the time.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Train
We cant take over Canada, we need a place for all the Liberal pussies to run away to when WWIII starts.

Really? I thought you'd just lay low in Michigan as usual. :p
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,512
2
81
I read an article partly about this in this months National Geographic. The cost of making hot water is one of their major cost components. There are plans to reduce this cost by using the waste heat from a nuclear power plant. If they do that, the cost per barrel should be significantly less than it is now.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: Train
We cant take over Canada, we need a place for all the Liberal pussies to run away to when WWIII starts.


I'll be watching you tan in gamma-rays....

oh yeah, are you an actual marine, or one of those michigan milita people who roleplay in camo and play soldiers in spare time? :p
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
If you do I'll go up and join the army and then you'll regret it.

If the methods to properly retrieve that oil kick in as world demand really outpaces supply it should make Canada nice and rich, and then maybe I'll go back :)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,803
6,775
126
Originally posted by: Train
We cant take over Canada, we need a place for all the Liberal pussies to run away to when WWIII starts.

It's known as survival of the fittest.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,803
6,775
126
The sad thing is that Canada has a Tank of Mass Destruction and only God knows what will happen when Bush finds out. Then God will tell him.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sad thing is that Canada has a Tank of Mass Destruction and only God knows what will happen when Bush finds out. Then God will tell him.

God hates Canada. Therefore Canada will be under US rule.

God will send down lightning and thunder down on the Canadians! Bush will come riding atop his golden chariot to vanquish the evil Godless Canucks.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,803
6,775
126
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sad thing is that Canada has a Tank of Mass Destruction and only God knows what will happen when Bush finds out. Then God will tell him.

God hates Canada. Therefore Canada will be under US rule.

God will send down lightning and thunder down on the Canadians! Bush will come riding atop his golden chariot to vanquish the evil Godless Canucks.
I think Haliburton makes all that stuff at tax payer's expense.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sad thing is that Canada has a Tank of Mass Destruction and only God knows what will happen when Bush finds out. Then God will tell him.

God hates Canada. Therefore Canada will be under US rule.

God will send down lightning and thunder down on the Canadians! Bush will come riding atop his golden chariot to vanquish the evil Godless Canucks.
I think Haliburton makes all that stuff at tax payer's expense.

HAHAHA LMAO!