<A slight feeling of disquietThe Oil DrumA Look at the EIA Revision Pattern>
<DrumBeat: October 4, 2006DrumBeatDrumBeat: October 6, 2006>

299 comments on DrumBeat: October 5, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

roel on October 5, 2006 - 9:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Alberta leadership rivals zero in on upgrading bitumen outside province

Tory leadership rivals such as Lyle Oberg are beating up the oil companies over their oilsands strategies.
An amazing thing is happening in energy-rich Alberta -- the oil industry has emerged as the whipping boy in the leadership race to replace outgoing Tory Premier Ralph Klein.

Yes, that's the sector that has enabled Alberta to live debt free, reduce taxes and boost economic growth to a rate that rivals China's.

Front-runners such as Jim Dinning and Lyle Oberg are beating up oil companies over their oilsands strategies, some of which may involve processing bitumen elsewhere because costs in the province's overheated economy have become too high.

The candidates, upset that too much of Alberta's value from its energy resources could leak outside its borders, and obviously unperturbed that the province's economy is already stretched from too much investment, want even more upgraders to be built here.

Some want to change the royalty deal affecting oilsands projects.

A sample of the hot air: "If you mine it here, you upgrade it here," is the rallying cry of Mr. Dinning.

"I will ensure that bitumen is upgraded in Alberta to the best ability of the industry," says Mr. Oberg, who wants the government to collect higher royalties on bitumen sent to the U.S. for processing. "If there are upgraders built, then they will be here."

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
neon9 on October 5, 2006 - 2:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A question, if you have the answer. Is the 'upgrading' of the heavy oil/oil sands what produces the CO2 that I hear so much about? And does it use water?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
roel on October 5, 2006 - 3:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Far as I know, yes, the upgrading produces about 300 pounds of CO2 per barrel. It uses natural gas for the hydrogen addition. The water is mostly used in the extraction process.
There is of course much more CO2 coming from the fuel that powers the heavy equipment used throughout)

Upgrading

The oil in oil sand is called bitumen, a complex hydrocarbon made up of a long chain of molecules. In order for bitumen to be processed in refineries, this chain must be broken up and reorganized. Unlike smaller hydrocarbon molecules bitumen is carbon rich and hydrogen poor.

Upgrading means removing some carbon while adding additional hydrogen to make more valuable hydrocarbon products. This is done using four main processes: coking removes carbon and breaks large bitumen molecules into smaller parts, distillation sorts mixtures of hydrocarbon molecules into their components, catalytic conversions help transform hydrocarbons into more valuable forms and hydrotreating is used to help remove sulphur and nitrogen and add hydrogen to molecules.

The end product is synthetic crude oil, which is shipped by underground pipelines to refineries across North America to be refined further into jet fuels, gasoline and other petroleum products.

It must be noted that some of the oil companies pipe their bitumen south in diluted form for upgrading at other refineries. Others produce either a single high quality synthetic crude oil or multiple petroleum products to suit market feedstock demand.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.