Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 5,930 
June 24th, 2005, 06:12 AM
Oil sands mining becomes profitable
By The Washington Post
[img]http://www.****france.com//images/22/aosm_full.gif[/img]
FORT McMURRAY, Alberta -- Along Highway 63 here the rolling hills give way to massive open pits, huge waste ponds and tangles of pipes and refining equipment that spew smoke into the air.
In the pits, shovel trucks load dirt into dump trucks so gigantic that a driver has to climb a ladder attached to the front grille to get behind the steering wheel.
The changing landscape reflects an ambitious quest to develop a new source of oil. Major companies, faced with tougher prospects for developing big new oil fields around the world, are doing what was once unthinkable: sinking billions of dollars into projects to wring oil out of deposits of petroleum buried amid sand and clay.
Until a few years ago, such projects -- called "oil sands" or "tar sands" -- sputtered at the fringes of the oil industry. But since technological breakthroughs brought down costs and oil prices have soared, companies have been investing heavily here. Oil-sands production is now profitable when a barrel of oil sells in the low $20s, analysts said -- far below the recent $50 range.
Just outside this boomtown, huge machines dig up the earth and remove the oil sands, whose deposits of a substance called bitumen smell something like roofing tar and are as thick and sticky as molasses. Companies are mining hundreds of feet deep and running the unearthed deposits through a complex process to convert them into oil. Companies move enough dirt and oil sands in two days to fill Yankee Stadium.
Factoring in the oil sands, Canada's proven oil reserves are reported to be nearly 180 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia. U.S. energy officials say Canada's oil-sands deposits are among the largest in the world. The oil sands are buried under an area about the size of New York state. Fort McMurray, the hub of oil-sands activity, boasts on billboards: "We have the energy."
Oil sands also are enriching the province and creating thousands of high-paying jobs. On the edge of town, a modern museum has interactive exhibits showing how the mining and refining processes work. One exhibit allows visitors to smell samples of the oil sands. "As we call it: Sniff the smell of money," said Bert MacKay, the museum supervisor.
Companies here are producing increasing amounts of oil from this unconventional source -- about 1 million barrels a day. If all of that oil went to the United States, it would amount to roughly 5 percent of daily consumption. In 1995, oil derived from the sands was less than half the current amount. Alberta officials expect production to triple from today's level by 2020.
Oil companies have been struggling to replace aging fields whose production has tapered off. Many have been frustrated by oil-rich countries in the Middle East and elsewhere that refuse to open their doors to Western companies.
"We are all kind of fighting each other in the rest of the world where oil production is not increasing," said Michael Rodgers, a senior director of PFC Energy, a Washington-based consulting firm. "We have to start thinking about unconventional resources. A lot of companies are saying, 'We do have this option in Canada.' "
Canada was the top supplier of crude oil to the United States last year, providing about 16 percent of U.S. imports. Even so, development of the oil sands is not happening fast enough to significantly reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., the Royal Dutch/Shell Group and ConocoPhillips Co. have oil-sands projects here. China's oil companies, eager to gain access to supplies to satisfy the country's growing energy needs, also are buying into oil-sands projects.
Oil sands mining becomes profitable
By The Washington Post
[img]http://www.****france.com//images/22/aosm_full.gif[/img]
FORT McMURRAY, Alberta -- Along Highway 63 here the rolling hills give way to massive open pits, huge waste ponds and tangles of pipes and refining equipment that spew smoke into the air.
In the pits, shovel trucks load dirt into dump trucks so gigantic that a driver has to climb a ladder attached to the front grille to get behind the steering wheel.
The changing landscape reflects an ambitious quest to develop a new source of oil. Major companies, faced with tougher prospects for developing big new oil fields around the world, are doing what was once unthinkable: sinking billions of dollars into projects to wring oil out of deposits of petroleum buried amid sand and clay.
Until a few years ago, such projects -- called "oil sands" or "tar sands" -- sputtered at the fringes of the oil industry. But since technological breakthroughs brought down costs and oil prices have soared, companies have been investing heavily here. Oil-sands production is now profitable when a barrel of oil sells in the low $20s, analysts said -- far below the recent $50 range.
Just outside this boomtown, huge machines dig up the earth and remove the oil sands, whose deposits of a substance called bitumen smell something like roofing tar and are as thick and sticky as molasses. Companies are mining hundreds of feet deep and running the unearthed deposits through a complex process to convert them into oil. Companies move enough dirt and oil sands in two days to fill Yankee Stadium.
Factoring in the oil sands, Canada's proven oil reserves are reported to be nearly 180 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia. U.S. energy officials say Canada's oil-sands deposits are among the largest in the world. The oil sands are buried under an area about the size of New York state. Fort McMurray, the hub of oil-sands activity, boasts on billboards: "We have the energy."
Oil sands also are enriching the province and creating thousands of high-paying jobs. On the edge of town, a modern museum has interactive exhibits showing how the mining and refining processes work. One exhibit allows visitors to smell samples of the oil sands. "As we call it: Sniff the smell of money," said Bert MacKay, the museum supervisor.
Companies here are producing increasing amounts of oil from this unconventional source -- about 1 million barrels a day. If all of that oil went to the United States, it would amount to roughly 5 percent of daily consumption. In 1995, oil derived from the sands was less than half the current amount. Alberta officials expect production to triple from today's level by 2020.
Oil companies have been struggling to replace aging fields whose production has tapered off. Many have been frustrated by oil-rich countries in the Middle East and elsewhere that refuse to open their doors to Western companies.
"We are all kind of fighting each other in the rest of the world where oil production is not increasing," said Michael Rodgers, a senior director of PFC Energy, a Washington-based consulting firm. "We have to start thinking about unconventional resources. A lot of companies are saying, 'We do have this option in Canada.' "
Canada was the top supplier of crude oil to the United States last year, providing about 16 percent of U.S. imports. Even so, development of the oil sands is not happening fast enough to significantly reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., the Royal Dutch/Shell Group and ConocoPhillips Co. have oil-sands projects here. China's oil companies, eager to gain access to supplies to satisfy the country's growing energy needs, also are buying into oil-sands projects.
Bright Spark
Posts: 403
Location: Calgary, Alberta.
Location: Calgary, Alberta.
November 1st, 2005, 08:20 PM
As was said, we are not anywhere near full capacity in terms of development... 10 years ago we were producing half as much as today...and it will only increase to triple todays production by 2020.....the amount of money over the years will be increasing to astronomical figures. Also one has to factor in that once many of these companies are up and running Alberta will be taxing them at an even higher level so profits will increase in that aspect as well.
Quote:
Yes Alberta with one of the largest reserves on the planet will become very rich.....and obviously that will spill over to the rest of Canada..... one must also note that Canada makes more money off Alberta oil than Alberta does.
Factoring in the oil sands, Canada's proven oil reserves are reported to be nearly 180 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia.
As was said, we are not anywhere near full capacity in terms of development... 10 years ago we were producing half as much as today...and it will only increase to triple todays production by 2020.....the amount of money over the years will be increasing to astronomical figures. Also one has to factor in that once many of these companies are up and running Alberta will be taxing them at an even higher level so profits will increase in that aspect as well.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,320
Location: Winnipeg
Location: Winnipeg
November 1st, 2005, 08:31 PM
What will you do when you've used up all of the natural gas and fresh water used to get the oil out of the tar sands? What will you do when world demand starts to decrease as alternative fuels come on-line? What will you do when prices drop like a stone?
What will you do when you've used up all of the natural gas and fresh water used to get the oil out of the tar sands? What will you do when world demand starts to decrease as alternative fuels come on-line? What will you do when prices drop like a stone?
Clever Clogs
Posts: 653
Location: Baja Canada
Location: Baja Canada
November 1st, 2005, 09:06 PM
By OGJ editors
HOUSTON, Oct. 28 -- US drilling activity increased by 6 rotary rigs with 1,480 units working this week, up from 1,251 a year ago at this time, Baker Hughes Inc. reported.
Land operations accounted for the gain, up by 7 rigs to 1,372 making hole. Inland waters activity was unchanged with 21 rotary rigs working. Offshore drilling declined by 1 rig to 87 in US waters overall, including a loss of 2 units to 82 working in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Canadian rig count increased by 18 to 585 active rigs this week. That's up from 372 during the same period last year.
http://ogj.pennnet.com/articles/arti..._ID=240198&p=7
************************************************** ***************************
Texas is working a deal - I see. ------->
A new $3-billion US Alberta to Texas oil pipeline is in the works as the team that proposed the Alliance natural gas pipeline a decade ago looks to capitalize on the growing output of the province’s oilsands.
Altex Energy Ltd. wants to build the line from Northern Alberta to the refining hub of the Texas Gulf coast.
The private company’s management includes some of the key personnel behind the $5-billion Northeast-B.C. to Chicago Alliance project, which was proposed in 1995 and began shipping gas five years later.
Uncle
By OGJ editors
HOUSTON, Oct. 28 -- US drilling activity increased by 6 rotary rigs with 1,480 units working this week, up from 1,251 a year ago at this time, Baker Hughes Inc. reported.
Land operations accounted for the gain, up by 7 rigs to 1,372 making hole. Inland waters activity was unchanged with 21 rotary rigs working. Offshore drilling declined by 1 rig to 87 in US waters overall, including a loss of 2 units to 82 working in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Canadian rig count increased by 18 to 585 active rigs this week. That's up from 372 during the same period last year.
http://ogj.pennnet.com/articles/arti..._ID=240198&p=7
************************************************** ***************************
Texas is working a deal - I see. ------->
A new $3-billion US Alberta to Texas oil pipeline is in the works as the team that proposed the Alliance natural gas pipeline a decade ago looks to capitalize on the growing output of the province’s oilsands.
Altex Energy Ltd. wants to build the line from Northern Alberta to the refining hub of the Texas Gulf coast.
The private company’s management includes some of the key personnel behind the $5-billion Northeast-B.C. to Chicago Alliance project, which was proposed in 1995 and began shipping gas five years later.
Uncle
Bright Spark
Posts: 403
Location: Calgary, Alberta.
Location: Calgary, Alberta.
November 1st, 2005, 11:10 PM
...as for the oil prices dropping, it won't be anytime soon in fact it will probably be going up.
Quote:
...... don't ignore the fact that the worlds demand for oil is increasing...and with the growth of the Indian and Chinese economies which will heavily depend on oil...the demand is not about to go down anytime soon. Even with the alternative fuels....here in North America things will definately not change overnight...it will take much time....and this is North America...imagine how long it will take the countries of India and China...and other Asian markets.....
What will you do when world demand starts to decrease as alternative fuels come on-line? What will you do when prices drop like a stone?
...as for the oil prices dropping, it won't be anytime soon in fact it will probably be going up.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,320
Location: Winnipeg
Location: Winnipeg
November 2nd, 2005, 12:25 AM
The world tends to change quickly when it comes to economic drivers. Oil was a fairly minor commodity before WWI, but by the time the war ended it was well on its way to being the main force behind our economy.
Things change even faster now because technologies change faster. All of the major auto manufacturers are working on alternative fuel vehicles. Great leaps have been made in all kinds of electricity production. Building techniques and other green technologies are reducing the need for energy all of the time.
The developing world, including China and India, are not afraid on those new technologies and have no great attachment to the old ones.
There will always be a demand for oil because of the things we can make with it, but that demand will not be enough to keep prices high once oil is not required as as a fuel. Give it a decade, you'll be in trouble again.
Quote:
Don't forget that India and China have very little invested in infrastructure, so if they can use alternative fuels they will. They are hungry for energy, not oil specifically, and both countries have shown a great interest in alternative forms of energy.
don't ignore the fact that the worlds demand for oil is increasing...and with the growth of the Indian and Chinese economies which will heavily depend on oil. Even with the alternative fuels....here in North America things will definately not change overnight...it will take much time....and this is North America...imagine how long it will take the countries of India and China...and other Asian markets.....
The world tends to change quickly when it comes to economic drivers. Oil was a fairly minor commodity before WWI, but by the time the war ended it was well on its way to being the main force behind our economy.
Things change even faster now because technologies change faster. All of the major auto manufacturers are working on alternative fuel vehicles. Great leaps have been made in all kinds of electricity production. Building techniques and other green technologies are reducing the need for energy all of the time.
The developing world, including China and India, are not afraid on those new technologies and have no great attachment to the old ones.
There will always be a demand for oil because of the things we can make with it, but that demand will not be enough to keep prices high once oil is not required as as a fuel. Give it a decade, you'll be in trouble again.
Bright Spark
Posts: 403
Location: Calgary, Alberta.
Location: Calgary, Alberta.
November 2nd, 2005, 12:39 AM
....there are many aspects to think about in this discussion..... after the war the modern car age was born...and our cities became build around the vehicle....so in that aspect you are correct that our society is built around the car much more than the 2nd and 3rd world.
I do believe that this argument is open to much speculation and no one can know for sure what will happen in the next 10 or 20 years but we will see. Obviously there will be a time when oil price will inevitably have to drop and the manufacturing sector will be the biggest user of oil. But with the rapid increase of oil consumption it seems very hard to belive that societies will change in the near future.......also when worldwide reserves are in decline it could keep prices up even though dependence is lessening.
....there are many aspects to think about in this discussion..... after the war the modern car age was born...and our cities became build around the vehicle....so in that aspect you are correct that our society is built around the car much more than the 2nd and 3rd world.
I do believe that this argument is open to much speculation and no one can know for sure what will happen in the next 10 or 20 years but we will see. Obviously there will be a time when oil price will inevitably have to drop and the manufacturing sector will be the biggest user of oil. But with the rapid increase of oil consumption it seems very hard to belive that societies will change in the near future.......also when worldwide reserves are in decline it could keep prices up even though dependence is lessening.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,320
Location: Winnipeg
Location: Winnipeg
November 2nd, 2005, 12:59 AM
It must have been five years ago that BMW was touring an internal combustion hydrogen-powered car around the car shows. It was a working technology then. We all know about the Ballard Fuel Cell. GM has been advertising the advent of hydrogen powered cars for a couple of years. Arnold Schwartzenegger has a hydrogen-powered Hummer. Global warming has everybody but the US looking for solutions because the science and the effects are just too hard to deny anymore.
Your days of wealth are numbered, Hanky. Oil sands are too expensive to extract oil from. Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, and even Manitoba have oil that can be pumped out of the ground, so they can supply the plastics industry for a reasonable price. Alberta's wealth is reliant largely on the oil sands. BC, Manitoba, and Quebec (and likely Newfoundland) are also well placed to produce hydrogen as well as hydro electricity. Ontario doesn't really give a rat's ass if they put gasoline engines or fuel cells in the cars they produce, just as long as they produce cars.
Don't worry though, we'll look after you when the bottom falls out. We always have before.
Quote:
After WWI was over, the Polish army had trouble believing things were changing too. Then they tried to take on Hitler's tanks with horses and cannon. It didn't work out too well for them.
But with the rapid increase of oil consumption it seems very hard to belive that societies will change in the near future
Quote:
The laws of supply and demand don't work that way. It takes about ten years for a modern automobile to go from the car lot to the scrap yard. That accelerates when something innovative catches on. High oil prices have consumers looking for alternatives. The auto manufacturers have been developing alternative fuel vehicles for years.
.......also when worldwide reserves are in decline it could keep prices up even though dependence is lessening.
It must have been five years ago that BMW was touring an internal combustion hydrogen-powered car around the car shows. It was a working technology then. We all know about the Ballard Fuel Cell. GM has been advertising the advent of hydrogen powered cars for a couple of years. Arnold Schwartzenegger has a hydrogen-powered Hummer. Global warming has everybody but the US looking for solutions because the science and the effects are just too hard to deny anymore.
Your days of wealth are numbered, Hanky. Oil sands are too expensive to extract oil from. Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, and even Manitoba have oil that can be pumped out of the ground, so they can supply the plastics industry for a reasonable price. Alberta's wealth is reliant largely on the oil sands. BC, Manitoba, and Quebec (and likely Newfoundland) are also well placed to produce hydrogen as well as hydro electricity. Ontario doesn't really give a rat's ass if they put gasoline engines or fuel cells in the cars they produce, just as long as they produce cars.
Don't worry though, we'll look after you when the bottom falls out. We always have before.
Bright Spark
Posts: 482
Location: Edmonton
Location: Edmonton
November 2nd, 2005, 07:31 PM
Don't underestimate the asian influence in Alberta's growth. Sure our biggest buddy is the rest of Canada and the USA when it comes to our financial success...but Enbridge is currently building a pipeline to some city on the west coast in BC..whose name escapes me at the moment. Why is that important? Because it will be cheaper and easier for Asian markets to extract the money from the coast of BC.
But with this growth comes serious questions. Northern Albertans have the highest rate of asthma compared to any other area in North America. We have the highest cancer rates. We have the highest MS rates of ANY where in the world. Thats gotta say something. And at what cost to the eco-systems water system.
With growth comes responsibility..and sometimes our successes make us a bit insane here in Alberta. And what i fear is that one day the bottom will drop..and unfortuneately for Albertans, there is no Trudeau Government/NEP Policy around to blame in lieu of their own fiscal irresponsibility like there was in the 80's.
Don't underestimate the asian influence in Alberta's growth. Sure our biggest buddy is the rest of Canada and the USA when it comes to our financial success...but Enbridge is currently building a pipeline to some city on the west coast in BC..whose name escapes me at the moment. Why is that important? Because it will be cheaper and easier for Asian markets to extract the money from the coast of BC.
But with this growth comes serious questions. Northern Albertans have the highest rate of asthma compared to any other area in North America. We have the highest cancer rates. We have the highest MS rates of ANY where in the world. Thats gotta say something. And at what cost to the eco-systems water system.
With growth comes responsibility..and sometimes our successes make us a bit insane here in Alberta. And what i fear is that one day the bottom will drop..and unfortuneately for Albertans, there is no Trudeau Government/NEP Policy around to blame in lieu of their own fiscal irresponsibility like there was in the 80's.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,320
Location: Winnipeg
Location: Winnipeg
November 3rd, 2005, 08:18 AM
They...the ones who refuse to do anything to protect the workers and Albertan citizens from the side effects of the oil and gas industry...are already blaming the rest of Canada for the problems, dani.
If you listen to Harper and his crew, they are insisting that we drop out of Kyoto (an international treaty designed to address a global problem) in favour of "made in Canada" solutions. In other words, they want all of Canada to pay for Alberta's environmental problems. They are very close to Ralph Klein and, given Alberta's wealth, there is no reason why Alberta cannot deal with their local problems.
Ther Alberta government refuses to hold the companies responsible for the pollution they produce as well. A lack of tight environmental restrictions is basically a huge subsidy.
So the Alberta government is subsidising the oil industry and expecting all Canadians to pay for it.
The Asian problem is an interesting one. India, with their huge population, uses less energy than Canada does. That's not per capita, that's in total. We like to say that we live in a big, cold country, but the truth is that we're lazy and wasteful.
If we weren't lazy and wasteful, we would be selling more (because we already sell some) clean technologies to China. There is a market there for agriculturally based fuels, likely hemp would be the best crop for that. There is a market there for hydrogen-based fuels, something Canada is well-suited to produce. We have some of the best energy-saving building technology on the planet because of our climate, but we rarely market it.
The pipeline is important because it reduces our dependence on the US market. It is not the only game in town though, and we would be far better off in the long run if we worked on deals that encourage China and India to set up infrastructure for alternative fuels and technologies so they don't get locked into the same mistakes we have made.
They...the ones who refuse to do anything to protect the workers and Albertan citizens from the side effects of the oil and gas industry...are already blaming the rest of Canada for the problems, dani.
If you listen to Harper and his crew, they are insisting that we drop out of Kyoto (an international treaty designed to address a global problem) in favour of "made in Canada" solutions. In other words, they want all of Canada to pay for Alberta's environmental problems. They are very close to Ralph Klein and, given Alberta's wealth, there is no reason why Alberta cannot deal with their local problems.
Ther Alberta government refuses to hold the companies responsible for the pollution they produce as well. A lack of tight environmental restrictions is basically a huge subsidy.
So the Alberta government is subsidising the oil industry and expecting all Canadians to pay for it.
The Asian problem is an interesting one. India, with their huge population, uses less energy than Canada does. That's not per capita, that's in total. We like to say that we live in a big, cold country, but the truth is that we're lazy and wasteful.
If we weren't lazy and wasteful, we would be selling more (because we already sell some) clean technologies to China. There is a market there for agriculturally based fuels, likely hemp would be the best crop for that. There is a market there for hydrogen-based fuels, something Canada is well-suited to produce. We have some of the best energy-saving building technology on the planet because of our climate, but we rarely market it.
The pipeline is important because it reduces our dependence on the US market. It is not the only game in town though, and we would be far better off in the long run if we worked on deals that encourage China and India to set up infrastructure for alternative fuels and technologies so they don't get locked into the same mistakes we have made.
Time Out
Posts: 4,194
Location: Vancouver
Location: Vancouver
November 3rd, 2005, 08:33 AM
We are a lazy and wasteful country contray to what many think. There is more to being environmentally friendly than putting your blue box out for recycling day. Everyone can make changes but they do not or do not have the will to do it.
Personally I would like it that if you buy energy effecient appliances,low flow toilets, energy effecient light bulbs, install solar panels, get proper energy effecient windows, hybird or alternate fuel vehicle etc you should be able to write off first $10,000 on your income tax.
I think that may get some people to change, especially if there is a financial benefit to it.
We are a lazy and wasteful country contray to what many think. There is more to being environmentally friendly than putting your blue box out for recycling day. Everyone can make changes but they do not or do not have the will to do it.
Personally I would like it that if you buy energy effecient appliances,low flow toilets, energy effecient light bulbs, install solar panels, get proper energy effecient windows, hybird or alternate fuel vehicle etc you should be able to write off first $10,000 on your income tax.
I think that may get some people to change, especially if there is a financial benefit to it.
Bright Spark
Posts: 482
Location: Edmonton
Location: Edmonton
November 3rd, 2005, 10:34 PM
I talked to an advisor at work about investing in ethical companies (ie environmentally ethical companies, companies that don't employ sweatshop labour, etc). He immediately gave me a look of disdain and said not to bother, i am better off putting my money in a savings account because i would get a better return there. He wasn't being malicious, he was being factful.
Fact of the matter is that investors get better returns from companies that don't care..if that makes sense. Its people with money that invest that run the economy. So as long as people choose not to put their financial backing into ethical companies, than Ralph, and all the business boys don't need to be held accountable. Its a fact of doing business in the world.
But the thing is...you hear the word investor...and thing its some invisible group of elite men. No..the investor is you or me or your neighbour or anyone else that has an investment account or a registered account.
So until we start putting our money and resources behind companies that want to do well by society....
I talked to an advisor at work about investing in ethical companies (ie environmentally ethical companies, companies that don't employ sweatshop labour, etc). He immediately gave me a look of disdain and said not to bother, i am better off putting my money in a savings account because i would get a better return there. He wasn't being malicious, he was being factful.
Fact of the matter is that investors get better returns from companies that don't care..if that makes sense. Its people with money that invest that run the economy. So as long as people choose not to put their financial backing into ethical companies, than Ralph, and all the business boys don't need to be held accountable. Its a fact of doing business in the world.
But the thing is...you hear the word investor...and thing its some invisible group of elite men. No..the investor is you or me or your neighbour or anyone else that has an investment account or a registered account.
So until we start putting our money and resources behind companies that want to do well by society....
Super Genius
Posts: 1,320
Location: Winnipeg
Location: Winnipeg
November 3rd, 2005, 10:46 PM
The investor is you and me. All of my investments are in Ethical Funds. The returns are lower, but when you take into account the long-term costs of investing in companies that are not eithical, it pays to invest in in those that do things properly.
The thing is that we subsidise corporations that don't do things right. Our governments have paid, and continue to pay, millions and millions to clean up the mess and repair the damage done by corporate irresponsibility.
We now have fire retardants showing up in the breast milk of women in the high arctic. It comes from the wild food they eat. You know who is going to pay to clean that up? Not the guys who have been dumping their poisons into the air and water, they will walk away. You and I are going to pay to clean up the mess.
Ethicl funds shouldn't be necessary. Companies that leave the environment in worse shape than they found it should be made to pay the cost of cleaning up their mess. It would make them such a bad investment that they would either fail or smarten the hell up.
The investor is you and me. All of my investments are in Ethical Funds. The returns are lower, but when you take into account the long-term costs of investing in companies that are not eithical, it pays to invest in in those that do things properly.
The thing is that we subsidise corporations that don't do things right. Our governments have paid, and continue to pay, millions and millions to clean up the mess and repair the damage done by corporate irresponsibility.
We now have fire retardants showing up in the breast milk of women in the high arctic. It comes from the wild food they eat. You know who is going to pay to clean that up? Not the guys who have been dumping their poisons into the air and water, they will walk away. You and I are going to pay to clean up the mess.
Ethicl funds shouldn't be necessary. Companies that leave the environment in worse shape than they found it should be made to pay the cost of cleaning up their mess. It would make them such a bad investment that they would either fail or smarten the hell up.
Newbie
Posts: 1
January 27th, 2008, 11:17 AM
Here's my take on things: the Alberta oilands are indeed an ugly business but I believe we have hardly seen the beginnings of what will happen up there. Twentieth century industrialism was fuelled by oil and it looks like oil will continue to be the lifeblood of industrial economies for a long time yet. I wish there was a renewable clean alternative, but so far I haven't found anything out there that can reasonably be expected to replace oil anytime soon, definitely nothing I would bet any money on. Lets look at some of the commonly touted alternative energy sources:
Hydrogen: It isn't an energy source at all. It must be produced or extracted from some other source, such as water hydrolysis or from natural gas. Natural gas will run out someday just like oil will, probably sooner than most people think. Nuclear energy to produce electricity to produce hydrogen? I have read estimates that if the entire worlds energy production changed over to nuclear, all the known uranium reserves in the world would be used up in 30 - 40 years. Fuel cells have been a big noise in the investment world for a long time. There are inherent problems with them that have yet to be solved. They work, but have a short lifespan. All the money which has been poured into research has yet to produce a breakthrough and even if they did, there's still the problem of where to get all that hydrogen from. Wind generators to produce electricity to produce hydrogen? Theoretically possible, but I've seen estimates on how much capital investment it would take to do that, and it makes the oilsands look cheap. The cost would be staggering, and it raises another problem: Peak Copper. Copper is essential to everything electrical, and it's also going to run out, also probably sooner than most people think. Might be a good investment, though.
Electric Vehicles: I won't spend much time on that one. A long time favourite of stock market hucksters and dreamers. When a battery technology comes around that's 100 times better than anything yet invented, they might become practical. And then there's the problem of where to get the electricity. Probably burning coal. People who think electric cars are the solution have'nt figured out what the problem is yet.
Biofuels: If you converted all the cropland in the US and Canada to fuel production, it would be nowhere near enough. Modern agriculture is really just an energy conversion industry. About 9 calories of fuel energy goes into every calorie of energy you eat. The Green Revolution, which made a world population of 6.6 billion possible, was done with fossil fuel fertilizers and mechanized farming. If we lived in the tropics where we could grow millions of hectares of sucarcane, this might help. But we don't, and it can't. You've heard of Peak Oil, how about Peak Food? You likely will in the not too distant future. Using food producing land to feed cars instead of people is one of the worst ideas out there.
So much for the three most popular alternative energy myths. I've read enough to confidently state they are just that, myths and wishful thinking. The problem is that most people don't have any idea just how energy intensive industrial civilization is, and how totally dependant we are on oil. The energy in one barrel of oil is roughly equivalent to 23,200 slaves working for one hour. The world is burning almost a thousand barrels every second.
Now for the only technology I see as a viable replacement for oil:
Coal to liquids. Coal is the only resource we still have with enough abundance and energy density to satisfy our needs and greed for hundreds of years. On the minus side: the same as for the tarsands. Big, capital intensive, water thirsty, environmentally rapacious. The end result: burning hydrocarbons, polluting the air. But it is viable.
Summing up:
Let's face it. The last hundred years have been a story future historians will call the Oil Age. Look around you. What, if anything, in the room you're sitting in, including the computer you're reading this on, was not produced with oil? The food you ate for breakfast? The clothes you're wearing? The chair you're sitting in? If you can find anything in sight that had no input from oil products or oil energy, good for you. I can't.
So, back to the idea of shutting down the oilsands: forget it. Not going to happen. Period. We're not just addicted to oil, we're utterly dependent on it.
Quoting canada500
I'm obsessive about the world energy crunch we're on the verge of, and I live and work in Alberta. I read everything I can find about the energy industry and I do a little investing, too.
Don't forget that India and China have very little invested in infrastructure, so if they can use alternative fuels they will. They are hungry for energy, not oil specifically, and both countries have shown a great interest in alternative forms of energy.
The world tends to change quickly when it comes to economic drivers. Oil was a fairly minor commodity before WWI, but by the time the war ended it was well on its way to being the main force behind our economy.
Things change even faster now because technologies change faster. All of the major auto manufacturers are working on alternative fuel vehicles. Great leaps have been made in all kinds of electricity production. Building techniques and other green technologies are reducing the need for energy all of the time.
The developing world, including China and India, are not afraid on those new technologies and have no great attachment to the old ones.
There will always be a demand for oil because of the things we can make with it, but that demand will not be enough to keep prices high once oil is not required as as a fuel. Give it a decade, you'll be in trouble again.
The world tends to change quickly when it comes to economic drivers. Oil was a fairly minor commodity before WWI, but by the time the war ended it was well on its way to being the main force behind our economy.
Things change even faster now because technologies change faster. All of the major auto manufacturers are working on alternative fuel vehicles. Great leaps have been made in all kinds of electricity production. Building techniques and other green technologies are reducing the need for energy all of the time.
The developing world, including China and India, are not afraid on those new technologies and have no great attachment to the old ones.
There will always be a demand for oil because of the things we can make with it, but that demand will not be enough to keep prices high once oil is not required as as a fuel. Give it a decade, you'll be in trouble again.
Here's my take on things: the Alberta oilands are indeed an ugly business but I believe we have hardly seen the beginnings of what will happen up there. Twentieth century industrialism was fuelled by oil and it looks like oil will continue to be the lifeblood of industrial economies for a long time yet. I wish there was a renewable clean alternative, but so far I haven't found anything out there that can reasonably be expected to replace oil anytime soon, definitely nothing I would bet any money on. Lets look at some of the commonly touted alternative energy sources:
Hydrogen: It isn't an energy source at all. It must be produced or extracted from some other source, such as water hydrolysis or from natural gas. Natural gas will run out someday just like oil will, probably sooner than most people think. Nuclear energy to produce electricity to produce hydrogen? I have read estimates that if the entire worlds energy production changed over to nuclear, all the known uranium reserves in the world would be used up in 30 - 40 years. Fuel cells have been a big noise in the investment world for a long time. There are inherent problems with them that have yet to be solved. They work, but have a short lifespan. All the money which has been poured into research has yet to produce a breakthrough and even if they did, there's still the problem of where to get all that hydrogen from. Wind generators to produce electricity to produce hydrogen? Theoretically possible, but I've seen estimates on how much capital investment it would take to do that, and it makes the oilsands look cheap. The cost would be staggering, and it raises another problem: Peak Copper. Copper is essential to everything electrical, and it's also going to run out, also probably sooner than most people think. Might be a good investment, though.
Electric Vehicles: I won't spend much time on that one. A long time favourite of stock market hucksters and dreamers. When a battery technology comes around that's 100 times better than anything yet invented, they might become practical. And then there's the problem of where to get the electricity. Probably burning coal. People who think electric cars are the solution have'nt figured out what the problem is yet.
Biofuels: If you converted all the cropland in the US and Canada to fuel production, it would be nowhere near enough. Modern agriculture is really just an energy conversion industry. About 9 calories of fuel energy goes into every calorie of energy you eat. The Green Revolution, which made a world population of 6.6 billion possible, was done with fossil fuel fertilizers and mechanized farming. If we lived in the tropics where we could grow millions of hectares of sucarcane, this might help. But we don't, and it can't. You've heard of Peak Oil, how about Peak Food? You likely will in the not too distant future. Using food producing land to feed cars instead of people is one of the worst ideas out there.
So much for the three most popular alternative energy myths. I've read enough to confidently state they are just that, myths and wishful thinking. The problem is that most people don't have any idea just how energy intensive industrial civilization is, and how totally dependant we are on oil. The energy in one barrel of oil is roughly equivalent to 23,200 slaves working for one hour. The world is burning almost a thousand barrels every second.
Now for the only technology I see as a viable replacement for oil:
Coal to liquids. Coal is the only resource we still have with enough abundance and energy density to satisfy our needs and greed for hundreds of years. On the minus side: the same as for the tarsands. Big, capital intensive, water thirsty, environmentally rapacious. The end result: burning hydrocarbons, polluting the air. But it is viable.
Summing up:
Let's face it. The last hundred years have been a story future historians will call the Oil Age. Look around you. What, if anything, in the room you're sitting in, including the computer you're reading this on, was not produced with oil? The food you ate for breakfast? The clothes you're wearing? The chair you're sitting in? If you can find anything in sight that had no input from oil products or oil energy, good for you. I can't.
So, back to the idea of shutting down the oilsands: forget it. Not going to happen. Period. We're not just addicted to oil, we're utterly dependent on it.
