PDA

View Full Version : petro-state politics, Canada



LeeG
07-31-2009, 04:07 AM
Hey you folks up north, I came across this book regarding tar sands. Do you folks think of yourselves as a petro-state?


http://www.dmpibooks.com/book/tar-sands

Bruce Taylor
07-31-2009, 06:32 AM
Hey you folks up north, I came across this book regarding tar sands. Do you folks think of yourselves as a petro-state?


http://www.dmpibooks.com/book/tar-sands

I heard a long interview with Nikforuk on the radio a couple of months ago (on Tinman's station, CFRA :D) and was quite impressed.

dm_scott
07-31-2009, 01:51 PM
Bit player on the worldwide scene with about 13% of known reserves, but hey we got cards and we're in the game.

A whopping 85% of know North American reserves, also the US's biggest foreign supplier.

LeeG
07-31-2009, 01:57 PM
that 13% is six times ours so that's quite a bit. One of the trend lines that will affect world supply is that the oil exporting countries are using more of their production for their own growth so that what is available for the consuming countries may be flat or declining even with world production flat or increasing.

dm_scott
07-31-2009, 03:00 PM
Recent US and Canadian trends look kind of flat at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=54&aid=2 , but that's a quick look and really means not too much. Any reasonably long term look has got to show a rising trend in North America, unless petro consumption follows a Kuznets curve too, and I don't recall seeing anyone advocating that anywhere.

Lots of competing theories out there on petro.

LeeG
07-31-2009, 03:19 PM
Kuznets, sent me to google for that one. scott, do you know of the politics of oil sands development? Seems to me that if oil has a reliable floor price above $80 large tracts of Canada are going to be a mess.

Three Cedars
07-31-2009, 04:12 PM
Do you folks think of yourselves as a petro-state?

I don't but the US seems to and the current government in Ottawa as well.

In the last several months some natural gas well fixtures have been blown up by someone who doesn't like sour gas being flared off , now there is a $1 million dollar reward for that somebody , unlikely to be collected .

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/07/30/calgary-encana-award-bombings.html

Bruce Taylor
07-31-2009, 04:25 PM
In 2006 New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman penned an article for Foreign Policy magazine called "The First Law of Petropolitics." In it he elaborated on his observation that oil-rich states tend to be more authoritarian, especially at times of high oil prices. He formulated the law this way: "The price of oil and the pace of freedom always move in opposite directions in oil-rich petrolist states." Could Canada's oil riches in the form of tar sands be making it subject to the First Law of Petropolitics?

From a review of Nikiforuk's _Tar Sands_ -- Dirty Oil_: Is Canada becoming a Petrostate? (http://www.energybulletin.net/node/49745)

Alarmist, but thought-provoking.

dm_scott
08-01-2009, 10:06 AM
"large tracts of Canada are going to be a mess."

Could be, but at this point I really don't see any viable alternatives on the energy front.

From looking at the Alberta Gov site, the amount that is surface mineable appears to be all north of Fort McMurray.

I'm not familiar with the methods they will use once they can't surface mine it.

LeeG
08-01-2009, 10:15 AM
" Could be, but at this point I really don't see any viable alternatives on the energy front.

.

that's the truth, there really aren't alternatives to oil. There's different ways of using it but it is truly unique.

Dan McCosh
08-01-2009, 10:56 AM
From a review of Nikiforuk's _Tar Sands_ -- Dirty Oil_: Is Canada becoming a Petrostate? (http://www.energybulletin.net/node/49745)

Alarmist, but thought-provoking.

Canada tends to destroy Friedman's economic and political generalities. It's the main supplier of foreign oil to the US, but that's not what is usually meant when the US is attempting to free itself from dependance on foreign oil. It's the main trading partner, but that relationship is hardly the one-way street of, say, China and the US. It's the longest unprotected border, but doesn't present quite the same issues as Mexico, and so on. I hardly think it is in any danger of becoming a "petrostate" in Friedman's sense. One could easily argue that Canada represents a model of how the global economy is supposed to work, but rarely does.

PeterSibley
08-02-2009, 06:21 AM
Lee ,at what price does it become profitable to make an oil sustitute from coal ?

Dan McCosh
08-02-2009, 08:52 AM
Last I looked, it was about $40 a barrel or so. The Fischer–Tropsch process is used in a few places, was used by the Germans in WWII. Extensive testing in the 1970s.

LeeG
08-02-2009, 11:21 AM
Dan, I'm not up on the details but some googling on the topic seems to put advocates quoting $40-50 but I'm not sure if that includes C02 sequestration given that the process produces a lot more C02 than oil extraction and refining. Also if large scale conversion did occur I'd think that would have an effect on the price of coal.

PeterSibley
08-02-2009, 04:59 PM
There's a bit of discussion about conversion of brown coal in Victoria .We had better hope that GW is BS because if it's not ....we're dead !! and so are our grandchildren .Gone .

LeeG
08-02-2009, 05:53 PM
they won't be dead, they'll just move on the greener pastures. Won't global warming increase farming in Canada?

PeterSibley
08-02-2009, 05:58 PM
It might increase your population to UK levels ,all those US refugees .

It won't be pleasant in OZ !

JimD
08-02-2009, 09:07 PM
... Won't global warming increase farming in Canada?

We're going to use the last of our fresh water blasting oil out of the tar sands. There won't be any left for irrigation. Then we can all starve except for the Canadian astronauts in NASA's Mars program.

Dan McCosh
08-03-2009, 08:51 AM
Dan, I'm not up on the details but some googling on the topic seems to put advocates quoting $40-50 but I'm not sure if that includes C02 sequestration given that the process produces a lot more C02 than oil extraction and refining. Also if large scale conversion did occur I'd think that would have an effect on the price of coal.

Coal conversion was researched heavily several times. It was seen as a source for motor fuel that had the potential to last for several hundred years. Like most alternative fuels, it produces CO2, which has been seen as problematic only recently. Like most fuels, it represents a fungible commodity, and the relative price will probably be constant unless petroleum becomes scarce.

If you are serious about CO2, you are pretty much restricted to nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric dams--and you could make a case against these as well.

dm_scott
08-03-2009, 01:33 PM
Last time I checked on CO2 sequestration, it was forecast to increase the amount of coal required by 40%, to cover the power requirements of the sequestration process.

Don't see that as being a cost effective method at this time.

I've seen some minor pieces on fungi and microbe conversion that might be promising, but way too early to tell if those will be viable either.

Just curious, but if the CO2 scares you, why doesn't the H2O as water vapor? Every combustion equation that I've seen shows more H2O than CO2 produced. By all accounts, H2O is a much "stronger" green house gas than CO2. But I guess if you worried about that, you'd be advocating restrictions in boiling water in the home and steam release in the industrial world.

Bruce Taylor
08-03-2009, 01:55 PM
Just curious, but if the CO2 scares you, why doesn't the H2O as water vapor?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

LeeG
08-03-2009, 02:08 PM
Just curious, but if the CO2 scares you, why doesn't the H2O as water vapor? Every combustion equation that I've seen shows more H2O than CO2 produced. By all accounts, H2O is a much "stronger" green house gas than CO2. But I guess if you worried about that, you'd be advocating restrictions in boiling water in the home and steam release in the industrial world.


C02 doesn't scare me, things I don't understand but see as threatening can be scary. The US invading a country on "bad intel" was scary but became less so once I started understanding the political forces that prefered bad intel over good intel.

"by all accounts"..whose?