Alberta Oilsands named highest cost/risk investment in Oil sector

[Cobalt_Kid]

It's a red herring to try and paint people who are critical of the tar sands development as lefties when the last communist super power on Earth is a major stakeholder there with the conservative government's blessing. China has been waging economic warfare on the west for years by devaluing its currency and carrying out industrial espionage here on a vast scale and our government has jumped into bed with them. The concept of intellectual rights or even private property have little meaning to a government that tightly restricts the rights of it citizens...kind of in the same way that the Harper government has been doing more and more here.

China's CNOOC clears final hurdle for $15.1-billion Nexen takeover - The Globe and Mail

I really can't stand commies which is one reason why I don't like the present government. It's also too close to industries that should be allowed to prosper or fail on their own merits, not with the weight of the government behind them. Corporate socialism is just as evil as communism.

So instead of helping the last communist super power in the world or keeping unsustainable industry on public funded life support, our government should really be working in our interests.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Shut up troll

Or you'll. . . what?

Asswit.

, you're back on ignore.

Oh, noes! Not the dreaded. . . IGNORE! Please, pleeeeeze, Mistah Kid, don't put me on. . . IGNORE!

I'm crushed. No, really. Tears streaming down my face and all.

btw, being for things like nuclear power, electric highways, high tech in general, true democratic representation, investing in the real future industries like rare earths and the associated high tech industries that use them only makes someone a lefty in the mind of an idiot.

I favour all those things, except "true democratic representation." I don't do truth. I prefer accuracy.

Don't leave the factor of 'demand' out of this equation.... I'm guessing that it ain't just the Conservatives or Republicans that are filling up their SUVs

Not a factor, except that it makes people willing to spend money.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Or you'll. . . what?

Asswit.



Oh, noes! Not the dreaded. . . IGNORE! Please, pleeeeeze, Mistah Kid, don't put me on. . . IGNORE!

I'm crushed. No, really. Tears streaming down my face and all.


I favour all those things, except "true democratic representation." I don't do truth. I prefer accuracy.


Not a factor, except that it makes people willing to spend money.

What the **** do you care, as you point out it's not even your country, so you're basically here doing your ugly American impression...and very well at that.

 

[petros]

It's not American.

 

[mentalfloss]

The truth hurts, folks..


Energy companies have earmarked an estimated $1.1 trillion of capital expenditure for projects that can only make money if the oil price remains higher than $95 per barrel, while some are only viable at a price of $120-$150.

Slowing growth in China, compounded by action to tackle air pollution, is already affecting the market while the increase in renewable energy capacity and energy efficiency initiatives – and their falling costs – are also reducing demand. Should a breakthrough in energy storage emerge in the next decade, then it would transform the energy and fuel markets still further – and a lot of resources are going into the effort to bring about just such a breakthrough, such as Tesla chiefElon Musk’s efforts to build a “gigafactory” producing batteries for electric vehicles.

At the same time as the costs of alternative sources of energy have been falling, the cost of developing new resources has increased dramatically. For a while, these extra costs were masked by the dramatic increase in the oil price (which was under $40 pb a decade ago and now is more than $100 pb), but since 2010 the price has been fairly stable and the costs have become more apparent, said Martijn Rats, head of European oil and gas at*Morgan Stanley. The five European majors (BP, Shell, Total, Statoil and Eni) generated $121 billion in cash flow last year, he pointed out, but they spent $126 billion and paid $35 billion in dividends.

“That means there is a $40 billion gap. There is tremendous pressure on the financial framework of the majors,” he said. “We believe the cost of new oil projects is well over $100 but the amount of revenue generated per barrel of oil-equivalent is $72. In the current environment, oil development is so expensive that many projects do not make sense from a cost perspective.”


Investors Set To Pressure Oil Industry Over $1.1 Trillion Exposure To High-Cost Projects - Forbes

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

We're putting all our eggs in one basket while letting literally oceans of energy go untapped.

A new material could potentially be used to extract uranium from seawater more efficiently, new research suggests.

New Material Efficiently Extracts Uranium from Seawater | MIT Technology Review

The world’s oceans contain nearly a thousand times as much uranium as conventional reserves, and researchers have spent decades trying to develop an efficient way to extract it. Experts say it is important to develop such technology because it could serve as insurance in case supplies of uranium for nuclear reactors ever become scarce.

With over 4 billion tons of uranium in the oceans, there's enough fuel for thousands of years at current levels.

There's new safe, practical rector designs.

Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) is a passively safe generation III+ reactor derived from its predecessor, the Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (SBWR) and from the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR). All are designs by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), and are based on previous Boiling Water Reactor designs.

Westinghouse AP1000

Nuclear power is a proven, safe, plentiful and clean source of power generation, and Westinghouse Electric Company, the pioneer and global leader in nuclear plant design and construction, is ready with the *AP1000® pressurized water reactor (PWR). It is the only Generation III+ reactor to receive Design Certification from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The AP1000, based on the proven performance of Westinghouse-designed PWRs, is an advanced 1154 MWe nuclear power plant that uses the forces of nature and simplicity of design to enhance plant safety and operations and reduce construction costs.

There's "new" reactor designs like the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) that countries like China are developing.

China blazes trail for 'clean' nuclear power from thorium - Telegraph

The Chinese are running away with thorium energy, sharpening a global race for the prize of clean, cheap, and safe nuclear power. Good luck to them. They may do us all a favour.

Based on a design over 50 years old.

Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) was an experimental molten-salt nuclear reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) researching this technology through the 1960s; constructed by 1964, it went critical in 1965 and was operated until 1969.[1]

The MSRE was a 7.4 MWth test reactor simulating the neutronic "kernel" of a type of inherently safer epithermal thorium breeder reactor called the liquid fluoride thorium reactor. It primarily used two fuels: first uranium-235 and later uranium-233. The latter 233UF4 was the result of breeding from thorium in other reactors. Since this was an engineering test, the large, expensive breeding blanket of thorium salt was omitted in favor of neutron measurements.

It would have been followed by the MSBR which was cancelled for political reasons.

http://hal.in2p3.fr/docs/00/04/14/97/PDF/document_IAEA.pdf

And the scaremongers who keep telling us radiation in any amount is dangerous are full of you know what, there's far more radioactivity released from fossil fuels than there is from nuclear power.

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste - Scientific American

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

The "disaster" at Fukushima only released about 1/4 of the radiation a typical coal power plant does in a year and about 1/10,000 of all coal burned that year.

The Fukushima Radiation Leak Is Equal To 76 Million Bananas - Forbes

And why we really shouldn’t worry about it all that much. The radiation that fossil fuel plants spew into the environment each year is around 0.1 EBq. That’s ExaBecquerel, or 10 to the power of 18. Fukushima is pumping out 10 trillion becquerels a year at present. Or 10 TBq, or 10 of 10 to the power of 12. Or, if you prefer, one ten thousandth of the amount that the world’s coal plants are doing. Or even, given that there are only about 2,500 coal plants in the world, Fukushima is, in this disaster, pumping out around one quarter of the radiation that a coal plant does in normal operation.

So if radiation is the huge threat some claim it is we better shut all coal power down today.

So instead of investing trillions of dollars in the coming decades on energy sources that are almost certainly unsustainable ecologically, economically and socially we could begin to invest in something that offers a real future.

Modern designs like the Fast Molten Salt reactor allow the consumption of the thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel already in reserves.

http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub29596.pdf

The only thing forcing us to continue on the path of stupidity that is the continued development of the tar sands are the same corporate heads and their pet politicians who don't listen to us now anyway. Seems like a good time for a change.

 

[Goober]

Canada’s oil-rich provinces not only best in nation for economic performance, they are best in world: Conference Board | Financial Post

OTTAWA — A new report from the Conference Board puts Canada’s three oil rich provinces on top of the world in terms of economic performance.

or the rest of the country the news is not so stellar.

The think-tank’s annual economic report card comparing 16 of the world’s richest countries puts Canada in fifth place overall, a one spot better than last year and behind Australia, Ireland, the United States and Norway.

That’s partly a function of Canada’s relatively stable growth rate, but also due to difficult recoveries in the eurozone and Japan.

Canada scores highly on economic growth and employment growth, although “poor grades on labour productivity as well as inward and outward foreign direct investment raise concerns about long-term prosperity,” the report cautions.
In a new twist for the Conference Board’s annual report card, the latest grades treats the 10 provinces as if they were countries to create a picture of not only the internal disparities but also how the provinces compare globally.

The report places Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland — the three oil producing provinces — in that order as the top performers with A-plus scores across indicators such as per capita income, economic growth, unemployment and productivity. They are the only jurisdictions rated to have A-plus economies.

Alberta is “class leader,” says the report with 2013 per capita income that was $10,000 higher than Norway, the top-ranked country in that indicator.
Advertisement

At the bottom of the class are Nova Scotia and New Brunswick with D grades, along with countries such as France and Belgium.

 

[petros]

Oil isn't even SK's economic base. Finance is. The oil is pure gravy.

 

[pgs]

We're putting all our eggs in one basket while letting literally oceans of energy go untapped.

A new material could potentially be used to extract uranium from seawater more efficiently, new research suggests.

New Material Efficiently Extracts Uranium from Seawater | MIT Technology Review



With over 4 billion tons of uranium in the oceans, there's enough fuel for thousands of years at current levels.

There's new safe, practical rector designs.

Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Westinghouse AP1000



There's "new" reactor designs like the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) that countries like China are developing.

China blazes trail for 'clean' nuclear power from thorium - Telegraph



Based on a design over 50 years old.

Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It would have been followed by the MSBR which was cancelled for political reasons.

http://hal.in2p3.fr/docs/00/04/14/97/PDF/document_IAEA.pdf

And the scaremongers who keep telling us radiation in any amount is dangerous are full of you know what, there's far more radioactivity released from fossil fuels than there is from nuclear power.

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste - Scientific American



The "disaster" at Fukushima only released about 1/4 of the radiation a typical coal power plant does in a year and about 1/10,000 of all coal burned that year.

The Fukushima Radiation Leak Is Equal To 76 Million Bananas - Forbes



So if radiation is the huge threat some claim it is we better shut all coal power down today.

So instead of investing trillions of dollars in the coming decades on energy sources that are almost certainly unsustainable ecologically, economically and socially we could begin to invest in something that offers a real future.

Modern designs like the Fast Molten Salt reactor allow the consumption of the thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel already in reserves.

http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub29596.pdf

The only thing forcing us to continue on the path of stupidity that is the continued development of the tar sands are the same corporate heads and their pet politicians who don't listen to us now anyway. Seems like a good time for a change.

Hey Cobalt you can start mining that uranium in the ocean and build your power plants .
Why do you want someone else to do it .
Good luck jumping through the environmental hoops . Maybe in ten years you will be close to approval .

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

What the **** do you care, as you point out it's not even your country, so you're basically here doing your ugly American impression...and very well at that.

I was just pointing out the flaws in your argument, hoping to help you to improve it.

Waste of time, really, with you doing your stupid Canadian impression. . . and not even very well at that.

 

[mentalfloss]

Guess I'll have to post this again for the people that think a short term grade is actually something worth gloating about..


Energy companies have earmarked an estimated $1.1 trillion of capital expenditure for projects that can only make money if the oil price remains higher than $95 per barrel, while some are only viable at a price of $120-$150.

Slowing growth in China, compounded by action to tackle air pollution, is already affecting the market while the increase in renewable energy capacity and energy efficiency initiatives – and their falling costs – are also reducing demand. Should a breakthrough in energy storage emerge in the next decade, then it would transform the energy and fuel markets still further – and a lot of resources are going into the effort to bring about just such a breakthrough, such as Tesla chiefElon Musk’s efforts to build a “gigafactory” producing batteries for electric vehicles.

At the same time as the costs of alternative sources of energy have been falling, the cost of developing new resources has increased dramatically. For a while, these extra costs were masked by the dramatic increase in the oil price (which was under $40 pb a decade ago and now is more than $100 pb), but since 2010 the price has been fairly stable and the costs have become more apparent, said Martijn Rats, head of European oil and gas at*Morgan Stanley. The five European majors (BP, Shell, Total, Statoil and Eni) generated $121 billion in cash flow last year, he pointed out, but they spent $126 billion and paid $35 billion in dividends.

“That means there is a $40 billion gap. There is tremendous pressure on the financial framework of the majors,” he said. “We believe the cost of new oil projects is well over $100 but the amount of revenue generated per barrel of oil-equivalent is $72. In the current environment, oil development is so expensive that many projects do not make sense from a cost perspective.”


Investors Set To Pressure Oil Industry Over $1.1 Trillion Exposure To High-Cost Projects - Forbes

 

[petros]

Energy companies have earmarked an estimated $1.1 trillion of capital expenditure for projects that can only make money if the oil price remains higher than $95 per barrel, while some are only viable at a price of $120-$150.

Go figure. How does this differ from solar/wind needing doubled electric rates to keep the doors open?

That is fantastic for the Canadian economy. We are much much further ahead of our OPEC buddies in completing projects and seeing wicked ROI and greener cleaner oil product production.

 

[mentalfloss]

Go figure. How does this differ from solar/wind needing doubled electric rates to keep the doors open?

It differs alot.

Read the story again.

Put on your specs this time.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Go figure. How does this differ from solar/wind needing doubled electric rates to keep the doors open?

That is fantastic for the Canadian economy. We are much much further ahead of our OPEC buddies in completing projects and seeing wicked ROI and greener cleaner oil product production.

What is the Canadian economy?

 

[Spade]

What is the Canadian economy?

Used to be fish, furs, and forests. I guess there is a fourth and fifth eff now for fossil fuels. There go the fish, furs, and forests!

 

[taxslave]

The truth hurts, folks..


Energy companies have earmarked an estimated $1.1 trillion of capital expenditure for projects that can only make money if the oil price remains higher than $95 per barrel, while some are only viable at a price of $120-$150.

Slowing growth in China, compounded by action to tackle air pollution, is already affecting the market while the increase in renewable energy capacity and energy efficiency initiatives – and their falling costs – are also reducing demand. Should a breakthrough in energy storage emerge in the next decade, then it would transform the energy and fuel markets still further – and a lot of resources are going into the effort to bring about just such a breakthrough, such as Tesla chiefElon Musk’s efforts to build a “gigafactory” producing batteries for electric vehicles.

At the same time as the costs of alternative sources of energy have been falling, the cost of developing new resources has increased dramatically. For a while, these extra costs were masked by the dramatic increase in the oil price (which was under $40 pb a decade ago and now is more than $100 pb), but since 2010 the price has been fairly stable and the costs have become more apparent, said Martijn Rats, head of European oil and gas at*Morgan Stanley. The five European majors (BP, Shell, Total, Statoil and Eni) generated $121 billion in cash flow last year, he pointed out, but they spent $126 billion and paid $35 billion in dividends.

“That means there is a $40 billion gap. There is tremendous pressure on the financial framework of the majors,” he said. “We believe the cost of new oil projects is well over $100 but the amount of revenue generated per barrel of oil-equivalent is $72. In the current environment, oil development is so expensive that many projects do not make sense from a cost perspective.”


Investors Set To Pressure Oil Industry Over $1.1 Trillion Exposure To High-Cost Projects - Forbes

All the more reason to move as much fossil fuel as possible while it still has some value. It would suck to have several hundred years worth of oil and coal sitting in the ground absolutely worthless.

 

[petros]

Coal is far from useless. It's needed to makes steel.

 

[captain morgan]

The truth hurts, folks..

The truth is really digging into your sides pretty bad, ain't it?

A trillion dollars looking for a home in hydrocarbons and barely a copper for the non-existent business plans of the ecotards.

The lesson here grasshopper is that money talks, and bullsh*t walks

 

[pgs]

The truth is really digging into your sides pretty bad, ain't it?

A trillion dollars looking for a home in hydrocarbons and barely a copper for the non-existent business plans of the ecotards.

The lesson here grasshopper is that money talks, and bullsh*t walks

And the Habs advance .

 

[mentalfloss]

The truth is really digging into your sides pretty bad, ain't it?

A trillion dollars looking for a home in hydrocarbons and barely a copper for the non-existent business plans of the ecotards.

The lesson here grasshopper is that money talks, and bullsh*t walks

So you can't address the piece.

I understand.