NFR Canada's ANWR

coonrad

New Member
#1
If you want to go fishing in Alberta you might want to plan your trip now why you still have a chance :eek:

The media gives much press to the contentious issue of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In Alberta however, it's a done deal for a much more impactful form of resource extraction. The mining of oil sands. An energy intensive and environmentally devastating form of turning bitumen in to oil.

The world's second-largest oil reserve lies under Alberta in the form of oil sand, which must be processed extensively to yield bitumen, a hydrocarbon mixture related to asphalt that can be turned into crude oil. It is estimated that 174 billion barrels of oil of varying quality could be recovered from the sands. Development is speeding ahead: so far, 34 billion Canadian dollars have been spent developing the oil sands, and another 45 billion in development projects will be completed by 2010 by companies including Petro-Canada, Syncrude, and Suncor.
Quote above and some of the photos from this link http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/wtr_16059,318,p1.html







From the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/09/i...tml?ex=1136437200&en=9574175b11e385d0&ei=5070

About 82,000 acres of forest and wetlands have been cleared or otherwise disturbed since development of oil sands began in earnest here in the late 1960's, and that is just the start. The pockets of oil sands in northern Alberta - which all together equal the size of Florida - are only beginning to be developed.
"There are no moose, no rabbits, no squirrels anymore," complained Howard Lacorde, 59, a Cree trapper whose trapline has been interrupted by a new oil sands project developed by Canadian Natural Resources. "The land is dead," he added, shaking in anger, as he walked through a construction site that was once his trapline.
 

nomlasder

Active Member
#2
They have known about this for many years, and have on purpose been slow to develope. I heard a comment on the news the other day, " Canada has the largest reserve of oil in the world and we are sitting right next to the largest consumer"

What you never hear about, is the Naval Oil reserve are West of Prudoe Bay that is about 1/2 again as big as ANWR. Anyone been to the Collville River?
 

Cactus

Dana Miller
#3
nomlasder said:
What you never hear about, is the Naval Oil reserve are West of Prudoe Bay that is about 1/2 again as big as ANWR.
The only "Navel Oil Reserve" I'm aware of is shale oil deposits in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. It's estimated reserves are something like 1.5 trillion barrels of oil or more; not all of it is recoverable. It was being developed in the 1970's and 1980's before the Saudis opened up the tap and reduced crude prices. Prices have to be above $25/barrel to make recovery economically feasible.
 
#5
I worked in the oil industry in Alberta for 10 years. Raping of the earth is nothing new (not that I condone it). The tar sands up in the Fort McMurray area have always been a oilman's mecca of sorts - they were just waiting for the price of oil to catch up to the cost of driving the bitumen out of the sand. Back in the 90's the magical price was $40 a barrel before it was profitable - looks like we're there now.

As far as booking your fishing trip, in my opinion, there are little worries since rivers like The Bow, Crowsnest, Oldman, Ram, Elk and such are not threatened by this (that doesn't mean that they haven't been effected in the past by other exploration and development).

'Mac
 

gt

Active Member
#6
don't know if you are aware of the shale oil deposits beneath the pot holes in central WA. BLM is scrambling, and has been for the last 4 years to clarify who owns what mineral rights. leasing by various development companies is underway right now. get ready for the rape of that part of the state.

same scenario, cost of extraction has now become profitable.
 
#7
gt said:
don't know if you are aware of the shale oil deposits beneath the pot holes in central WA. BLM is scrambling, and has been for the last 4 years to clarify who owns what mineral rights. leasing by various development companies is underway right now. get ready for the rape of that part of the state.

same scenario, cost of extraction has now become profitable.
With technologies like horizontal drilling, hopefully they can minimize the impact to the environment.

The only thing I can say is at least this country has, relatively speaking, stringent controls on drilling. It could be worse like over seas.

'Mac
 

Cactus

Dana Miller
#8
ray helaers said:
I thought the current price was over $50/barrel.
It is! But I imagine the oil companies are waiting awhile before they start to develop the oil. They lost their shirts in the 1980's when the price of oil dropped dramatically and are a little shy about jumping in too soon.
 
#9
Most of the oil sands developments are strip mines, just about the worst eyesore possible. However, there is no impact on the fishing conditions, and it is not a wilderness area refuge.
 
#10
The biggest concern is how they are going to be transporting the bitumen to get it refined into oil, as well, 3% of Canada's emissions come from Fort Mac.
No wildlife refuge up there, but, they are still raping the land to sell to the Chinese....
 
#11
Oil @ $91 today.MDJM66 called it. Apparently CA is getting ready to intensify "Fracking", one impact is it requires massive water to inject with added chemicals into the well. Sourcing the water and disposal of spent water with added chemicals is the $64 million question.
 

ribka

Active Member
#12
Thanks for the reasoned respone

I worked in the oil industry in Alberta for 10 years. Raping of the earth is nothing new (not that I condone it). The tar sands up in the Fort McMurray area have always been a oilman's mecca of sorts - they were just waiting for the price of oil to catch up to the cost of driving the bitumen out of the sand. Back in the 90's the magical price was $40 a barrel before it was profitable - looks like we're there now.

As far as booking your fishing trip, in my opinion, there are little worries since rivers like The Bow, Crowsnest, Oldman, Ram, Elk and such are not threatened by this (that doesn't mean that they haven't been effected in the past by other exploration and development).

'Mac
 
#13
Lived in Alberta for the first 37 years of my life, even did some work up in Fort McMurray (where the oil sands are).
The great stream fishing is in most of the foothills of the rockies and this has been relatively unaffected by the oil sands, but, other exploration, sour gas wells, etc, has affected it over the last 20 years.
The pipeline is my biggest concern.
 

Vladimir Steblina

Retired Forester...now fishing instead of working
#14
"82,000 acres disturbed".

I guess the question is how much oil for that acreage. 82,000 acres is a fairly small area depending on output. I would much prefer fracking to development of the tar sands. Footprint is very important.

For example in eastern Washington alone we have destroyed 136,000 acres with industrial wind areas.

A rational discussion on energy policy is badly needed.

I guess it is more fun to rant and rave about energy policy while driving everywhere.
 
#15
Of the two (fracking and/or oil sands), fracking scares me more. Fracking/miscible floods and the like have been in play for years and used to extract the last vestiges of oil/gas from a site. Used to be used my small firms that would roll in after the Chevrons and such leave. Now the big guys are giving it more of a shot I guess.

Maybe I am over simplifying it, but developing the oil sands results in a big hole in the ground and the loss of a bunch of energy to generate steam to separate the oil (bitumen) from the sand. Fracking/misible floods mean injecting high pressure liquids into the ground where results are not visible and not always predicted correctly (i.e. contaminating underground water sources).

My rants.

Stew ... 'Mac ...