European Militaries Don't Need US? Oh Really??

[Asher]

The estimates are not only ridiculously conservative in price ($62), but also efficiency. They assume 20% efficiency, while even today (using new tech, steam assisted gravity drainage), oil companies are hovering around 60%.

[giblets]

You do not understand the numbers you are looking at.

The 175M number for Canada is a 10 year old figure based on what was technically possible and economically feasible for extraction at that point. That number goes way up every year.

There are 1.75 trillion barrels of bitumen in proven reserves. The 175B came from the estimate that 10% was recoverable at then-oil prices with then-techologies ten years ago.

Those estimates were with $62 oil, BTW.

Well yeah. I'm just not assuming that the ratio of Canadian oil reserves to OPEC reserves would quintuple if you raise the price to $150 or something.

[Asher]

Well yeah. I'm just not assuming that the ratio of Canadian oil reserves to OPEC reserves would quintuple if you raise the price to $150 or something.

It's not just SA with overstated reserves, it's basically the entire middle east. OPEC as a whole keeps blowing smoke about how much they COULD raise production, but the industry as a whole rolls their eyes and knows what game they're playing.

Canada has massively understated reserves, especially as the price creeps higher and higher and technology advances.

[Fake Boris]

Isn't it wonderful how well Asher is making the case for massive investment against oil dependency?

[Asher]

The case is what, exactly?

The only case I'm making is the centre of oil power shifts from OPEC to Canada. Why does that scare you?

[Fake Boris]

We've already discussed this.

We need a way to curb dollar valuation.

[Asher]

Easiest way to do that, for you, is to kick Quebec out and forbid the use of our currency

[Fake Boris]

Yes. No need to "forbid" though, just create the Q dollar.

[Fake Boris]

I'm wondering if it would be feasible to dollarize the Albertan economy though. Would probably help Ontario and the Maritimes, too.

[TCO]

Come on Asher. You are impaling your face on Kuci's fist. Albertan oil is a minor fraction of US imports but the US is a majority market, but we are exposed? Current logistics favor us, but we are exposed since you might change in the future? You can build pipelines over the Rockies faster and cheaper than we can reroute tankers? Oil is a fraction of energy $ for the US, but a majority for Alberta (yet we have no substitutes)? We have some native prodiuction that can be increased...you have polar bears to sell to?

Plus, cheating in Fantasy Hockey. Tsk tsk.



Come on, Glonkie.

[Asher]

Come on Asher. You are impaling your face on Kuci's fist. Albertan oil is a minor fraction of US imports but the US is a majority market, but we are exposed? Current logistics favor us, but we are exposed since you might change in the future?

Albertan oil is a significant source of your inputs and it grows dramatically every year and will continue to do so for decades.

You can build pipelines over the Rockies faster and cheaper than we can reroute tankers?

We can (and are) building pipelines to the coasts. For you it's more than a matter of rerouting tankers, you will also need to build pipelines to get the oil inland. The current inland areas depend on oil imported via pipeline from Canada, not from tankers. It is easier for us to build the pipelines to the coast than it is for you to redesign your oil infrastructure nationwide.

Oil is a fraction of energy $ for the US, but a majority for Alberta (yet we have no substitutes)?

You are exposed because oil may just be a "fraction of energy $" for the US, but a significant rise in price and/or shortage of oil is crippling to your economy as a whole. You are exposed because you are utterly dependent on other people giving you energy (oil, natural gas, electricity). Canada is not exposed because we produce way more than we need.

Alberta can always ship its oil elsewhere. Oil demand in North America is flat or declining, it's soaring in Asia. Lack of shipping oil to the US just expedites the shipping of oil to Asia.

We have some native prodiuction that can be increased...

Nope. Nothing remotely significant.

you have polar bears to sell to?

India and China. They are the main focus for growing exports today.

The only reason additional pipelines to the US are even being considered/built is because the US is asking for them explicitly as part of weening you guys from Middle Eastern oil.

[giblets]

So let's see... Canada is expanding pipelines to the Pacific, therefore we should believe that Canada has sufficient infrastructure to sell most of its oil overseas. Yeah, there's no gap in that reasoning.

[Asher]

So let's see... Canada is expanding pipelines to the Pacific, therefore we should believe that Canada has sufficient infrastructure to sell most of its oil overseas. Yeah, there's no gap in that reasoning.

There's no gap provided you're looking long-term.

Canada does not have the capacity now to ship most of its oil overseas (at least not without using US ports). But the oil does not disappear because of that, the wealth is retained -- it's just not sold in the short-term.

Long-term, Canada is master of its own destiny with energy. The US is at the mercy of the rest of the world. You can depend on the middle east, or you can depend on Canada. Take your pick.

[giblets]

If you're looking long-term, oil is a fungible commodity and it doesn't matter if Canada directly sells to the US or not.

If you don't sell the oil in the short term, your economy is crippled- same as if the US has trouble buying in the short term. Except that oil is a much larger part of Alberta's economy.

[Asher]

If you're looking long-term, oil is a fungible commodity and it doesn't matter if Canada directly sells to the US or not.

If you don't sell the oil in the short term, your economy is crippled- same as if the US has trouble buying in the short term. Except that oil is a much larger part of Alberta's economy.

There are alternatives to the pipelines. In the short-term (ship) tankers could be redirected and (land) tankers utilized.

As for the economy being crippled, not necessarily. Alberta's economy is crippled when the capital projects collapse related to the oil, it's not dependent directly on the oil revenues themselves (the big US oil companies profit from that). The province gets a lot of money from the royalties, but that would just make Alberta like the rest of the world in that we don't get free money from oil in the short term.

The need to fast-track infrastructure to get the oil to the coast would have tons of capital projects involved that would offset lower employment directly in the day-to-day oil field operations, which would be reduced or suspended. Further, additional investment would continue apace in the design & construction of the extraction facilities, which is what's really driving the economy.

Alberta also has zero debt and a perfect credit rating, so the short-term financial pain isn't crippling. It's not like we're the US and in debt to a hilarious degree.