The Future of (Natural) Gas from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin?

The Future of Gas from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin

The Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) is one of the major gas-producing areas of North America.  It supplies about a quarter of all gas used by the US and Canada, and 98% of Canadian production.  Current production is 450 million cubic metres a day.  To put this into perspective, this volume is close to half a cubic kilometre, and the mass of this much gas is 330,000 tonnes.

The National Energy Board issues reports on various aspects of Canadian energy production and use.  This is the main entry point for natural gas reports on its web site, and this is the entry point for more general energy reports that include sections on natural gas.  It is instructive to study the evolution of scenarios put forward for the future of gas supply from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. 

The 1999 report  and the 2003 report on energy futures for Canada each show two "scenarios" for future gas production, and all four of  these scenarios show a peak and subsequent decline in output of conventional gas from the basin.  The major difference lies in the timing of the peak and the output at peak.  In the 1999 report, the peak date is seen as being a decade away, but in the 2003 report, the peak is seen as having already passed in 2001.  Assembling gas information from a number of sources (The National Energy Board, Statistics Canada and Natural Resources Canada) permits some interesting comparisons.

small gas graph

Click for larger image

In the figure, the red line shows the history of conventional gas output from the basin.  This information comes from NEB gas reports for 1976 to 1990 and Statistics Canada information for 1991 on, with coal bed methane production subtracted out for the last three years.  Coal bed methane production rose from zero to about 11 million cubic metres per day over those three years.  The dark blue and purple lines show the future scenarios envisaged in the 1999 report (Figure 5.4).  The light blue and yellow lines show scenarios from the 2003 report (Figures 5.21 and 5.23).  The brown line shows the number of new  conventional gas "connections" made in each year in the WCSB, divided by 50.  This information is taken from the gas short-term deliverability reports.  A "connection" refers to the connection of a gas well to a gas reservoir.  Since some wells connect to more than one reservoir, the number is generally somewhat higher (by about 10%) than the number of successful wells.

It can be seen that while 6000 or fewer new connections per year were sufficient to get the supply up to 400 million cubic metres per day in 1995, getting to 450 million cubic metres per day in 2001 and 2002 required something like 12000 per year, and that maintaining close to that production over the last few years has required an increase to 17000 new connections per year.  Two factors are at play here: the size of new gas deposits being accessed has been decreasing, and the early depletion rates for new connections have increased.  This means that the initial production from a new connection tends now to fall more rapidly than in the past.  This is at least in part a matter of choice - the "fracturing" of the rock around new connections makes it easier to obtain high initial gas flow rates, which reduces the number of new connections required to achieve a given total output, but at the cost of requiring more connections in future years, because the output of new connections, and thus total output, falls more quickly.  The initial depletion rate for new connections now seems to have stabilised at about 40% for the first year, the decline slowing considerably thereafter, but the size of new deposits continues to decline.

This picture is very different from that envisaged in 1999:

WCSB conventional production peaks at 21.6 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) (612 million m3/d) in 2013 for Case 1 and 18.9 Bcf/d (535 million m3/d) in 2008 for Case 2 (Figure 5.4).

More startlingly:

Successful conventional gas well completions in the WCSB rise to 7700 by 2013 in Case 1. The Case 2 completions peak at about 6000 in 2011, reflecting the lower resources assumption (Figure 5.5). The number of wells drilled will be higher because dry holes will increase the count; however, this will be partially offset by multiple completions in the same well. Based on an average success rate of 70 percent, the total wells drilled would peak at about 10000 and 8000 for Case 1 and Case 2 respectively.

This is startling for two reasons - not only does it mean that we are now drilling holes at well over twice the rate expected at higher and later peak production, but also that the drilling rate was already higher than predicted for peak in the year these scenarios were contemplated.

In the longer term, the basin's conventional resources (including undiscovered) were seen as nearing exhaustion by 2025:

In both cases, about 95 percent of the established reserves are produced by 2025. In Case 1, 82 percent of the undiscovered resources is produced, whereas in Case 2, 95 percent is produced.

The 2003 report shows two scenarios, called "Supply Push" and "Techno-Vert".   The bases of these scenarios are described thus:

The Supply Push scenario represents a world in which technology advances gradually and Canadians take limited action with respect to the environment. The main theme of this scenario is security of continental energy supply and the push to develop known conventional sources of energy.
The Techno-Vert scenario represents a world in which technology advances rapidly and Canadians take broad action with respect to the environment and the accompanying preference for environmentally-friendly products and cleaner-burning fuels.

Possible impact of the Kyoto protocol is not considered in either.

The report is somewhat equivocal on the likely size of the "resource base"

Through exploration drilling and development, industry’s knowledge of the WCSB has improved and resource estimates have generally increased. Continuous development of technology further enhances the ability to identify and exploit pools. At the same time, improved information leads to a narrower range of estimates.

However, as with other basins, opinions still vary on the actual size of the WCSB resource base. As technology improves and exploration increases in both scenarios, perhaps new geological concepts can be proved that would enable further increases to natural gas resource estimates. However, recent drilling and production data suggests that the WCSB may be maturing; and changes in natural gas resource estimates may be warranted for some areas.

The basis of the gas production in "Supply Push" is described thus:

Some resources in the WCSB are located in isolated areas or in small pools that may not be economical to develop at natural gas prices consistent with either scenario. Consequently, 64 Tcf (1,813 billion m3) or 90 percent of the available undiscovered resources in the WCSB was utilized for determining deliverability in SP.

While for "Techno-Vert", the basis is:

In TV, better economics through improved technology and higher natural gas prices, enable 92 Tcf (2,606 billion m3) or 95 percent of the available undiscovered resources to be used for determining deliverability. The larger resource base in TV also allows deliverability from the WCSB to be maintained longer than in SP.

From comparison of the graphs above, it seems that the estimates of the "Resource Base" underwent a very significant contraction between 1999 and 2003.  The amount of drilling required (in either 2003 scenario) is described as follows:

The supply profile for the WCSB assumes that drilling levels similar to those experienced in 2001 are maintained until about 75 percent of available resources have been produced. At this point, the size of the remaining resource begins to limit prospective drilling locations and constrains production. Both scenarios also assume that the producing characteristic of new wells would be similar to current wells in the same area.

One can see that drilling levels well above the 2001 numbers are now being used to achieve something like the output anticipated.  It seems that the last assumption is not holding up very well.  Decline rates remain stable, but the output (initial and total) of new connections has continued to fall, after briefly stabilising in 2001-2.  The following figure, taken from the October 2006 short-term deliverability report, shows the output of an average connection for each of the years1998-2005.  Note that this graph shows a plot of production rate vs. cumulative production, not time.

Connection Performance Graph

Click for larger image.

It would appear that output of conventional gas from the basin may not achieve that contemplated in either of the 2003 scenarios. If this happens, output by 2025 could be well under half of present output.

Estimates of remaining reserves and resources for natural gas in North America may be found on the web site of Natural Resources Canada.

Gas reserves and resources

Click for larger image

Figures like this lead to headlines about Canada having enough gas for 80 years (divide total claimed by current production), so one might wonder how the beginning of a considerable decline in WCSB production would square with this information.  The numbers for the WCSB in this figure total 374 Tcf (10600 Bcm), but include in the "Undiscovered Resources" 80 Tcf (2300 Bcm) of coal bed methane, leaving 294 Tcf (8300 Bcm) of conventional gas.  A steady decline in production from 5.8 Tcf/year (164 Bcm/year) in 2005 to half that in 2025 (roughly consistent with the NEB 2003 "Techno-Vert" scenario) would result in 87 Tcf (2450 Bcm) being used in that period.  If we were to assume that the supply would continue to decline by a factor of two for each subsequent 20-year period, the total conventional gas extracted (over infinite time) would be about 174 Tcf (4900 Bcm).  This is less than the "Reserves + Discovered Resources" sub-total, let alone the total including "Undiscovered Resources".  Given that this estimate is based on a scenario that now seems improbable when one looks at recent drilling and output numbers, perhaps a further review of WCSB conventional resource estimates is overdue.

There are many variables that will affect conventional gas output from the WCSB.  A simple "number of connections" indicator does not show whether those connections are from shallow low-output wells or riskier, deeper higher-output wells.  A change in approach, perhaps in response to economic events, could result in better average new connection output.  It does seem unlikely, though, that this will have a major effect at what is a relatively late stage in the game for this basin.  The methods used to predict future flows assume that the output of existing wells will not be affected by drilling  new ones in the same area.  If gas production rates are kept up by drilling multiple wells into the same gas deposit, this assumption will break down and more rapid declines may ensue.  This may well have happened with the Ladyfern deposit, for which a 70% decline in output occurred in the first year, after a huge drilling effort.  Coal Bed Methane production is still at a very early stage.  How well it will be able to make up for the decline in conventional production remains to be seen.

The remaining gas estimates above for the rest of Canada total 226 Tcf (6400 Bcm).  By far the greater part of it is as yet in the "Undiscovered" category, and most of it is a long way (sometimes thousands of kilometres) from existing pipes.  The only area other than the WCSB that is now producing gas is the "Scotian Shelf", and both its output and the estimated size of the resource are tiny by comparison.  The MacKenzie Delta will probably begin to produce gas at some time in the next few years, but this will entail a huge engineering project that will eventually deliver about 55 million cubic metres per day.  Getting gas from the Arctic islands, the Newfoundland offshore or some other frontier areas may well prove even more challenging than from the MacKenzie. For more details of Canadian gas resources see another NEB report from April 2004.

WCSB conventional gas and coal bed methane will provide the bulk of Canadian production for the foreseeable future, so a very significant decline in total supply looks probable.  A glance at the U.S. numbers in the figure above shows that gas situation in the lower 48 states is no less "mature" than that in the WCSB, and the likely future of production in North America as a whole is implied somewhat starkly in Jean Laherrere's work, which also shows an estimate of future Canadian CBM production - about 1 Tcf/year or 75 million cubic metres per day in 2025.  It seems highly improbable that imports of LNG will make up for more than a fraction of the overall decline, so get ready to use a lot less gas a decade from now.


Note the new reddit and digg counters! just click on them and hit the up arrow/digg button to help out!

Don't forget del.icio.us or your other favorite link farms, such as metafilter, stumbleupon, slashdot, fark, boingboing, furl, or any of the others.

I can assure you that the authors appreciate your efforts to get them more readers.

The December 2006 ASPO Newsletter has a similarly depressing graph of future production on page 5.

https://aspo-ireland.org/newsletter/en/pdf/Newsletter72.pdf

It looks like we should get ready to use more blankets, and to expect summer electrical outages.

Why electric outages in summer? There is plenty of solar electricity to be had in summer to compensate.

In principal this sounds great. Here is some actual data for Canada PV potentials:
https://glfc.cfsnet.nfis.org/mapserver/pv/pvmapper.phtml?LAYERS=2700,270...

Perhaps you can show me how I can run even a severely limited household load off this input? I'm 2 hrs north of Toronto, ON.

Oh - what will I do with the system for the 6 months of the year that it is virtually useless? The capital costs will remain through these "dark" months. ROI looks pretty poor.

I wish you were correct, I hope you can demonstrate the error in my calculations . . .

P

Last I checked, Ontario is less than 10% gas fired electricity on a terrawatt hour basis.

Nuclear is about 40% I think, hydro another 30%.

Of course at Peak Load, the mix shifts.

There is programmed to be considerable growth in gas (eg that 550MW station being built in Toronto Harbour) *but* a lot depends on the fate of Nanticoke (largest or 2nd largest coal fired station in N. America). From what I have read, the government has deferred that decision?

Obviously, the highest generation potential for solar energy on the North American continent lies in the Southwest of the US and in Mexico. That potential is so abundant that more energy can be produced there than will be used. The rest can be transmitted over sufficiently built out grids to areas up north which do not have enough insolation to be fully self-sufficient. That extends to Canada, of course. And the potential of Mexico should really not be discounted. Free trade would allow to invest American (and Canadian?) money in ideal locations in Mexico and give all participating countries an enormous economic potential. One can only hope that this kind of continental collaboration will happen in the future.

I looked at the map and it seems to me that the southern parts of Alberta, Saskatshewan, Manitoba and Ontario are still useful sites for PV and solar thermal applications.

For comparison: in California (where I live) annual average insolation is 5.5kWh/m^2/day, which is plenty. Your map shows 4.2-5kWh/m^2/day for the mentioned Canadian provinces. My site, which is typical for much of CA, has an approximately 30% advantage over the Canadian South which goes away completely if you consider the difference between fixed flat plate panels mounted at latitude and a two axis tracking flat plate. In that case the US/Canadian border receives over 6kWh/m^2/day of useful insolation, more than what I am getting with fixed panels. Again, for comparison, the US/Mexican border receives 6-10kWh/m^2/day. The complete maps are here:

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/Table.html

It is obvious that between ideal Mexican locations and useful Canadian locations technology has to bridge a gap of a factor of 2.5-3. More advanced tracking solar systems can make up for part of the difference. Energy imports from the US, and even Mexico are absolutely in the cards for Canada.

For now the US imports most of its energy from Canada and Mexico. As solar generation picks up in the future, we will see a shift of that relationship to the South.

But solar is only one part of the equation, of course. Canada has wind energy resources:

http://www.windatlas.ca/en/maps.php?field=E1&height=80

And I would think that with such an enormous land area it should be able to partially cover its energy needs from biological sources.

And given the fact that Canada only has one tenth of the population of the US and that most of its population lives within a couple hundred miles from the US border should make Canada's energy problem very similar to that of the northern US.

I don't see Canada as a particularly hard case to deal with since we have to solve a much harder problem in the US, already. We will. So will Canada.

Yes, Canada has all the hydro, wind and bio electric generation potential a country could ever want, however, due to CAN/US grid integration -your problem is our problem- as evidenced by the infamous Ohio tree branch of 04'.

They make switches, you know. Even for a GW or two. All you have to do is to push the button...

:-)

Here in the northeast, we've been having summer electrical outages for years.

But leanan, how can that Possibly be ?!?!?

"There is plenty of solar electricity to be had in summer to compensate." All you have to do is wish upon a star and imagine anyone of iNfinITe POSsibILitiezzz ....

"But leanan, how can that Possibly be ?!?!?"

It is called "mismanaged infrastructure". They simply did not invest enough in their power grid, hoping that the tooth fairy will fix overload problems.

Now, "sendoilplease", didn't you chose your name to impress the tooth fairy, yourself? It sounds like change is something that does not appeal to you. You want your status quo and cheap, don't you? But may I suggest a change of name?

"sittingonafatasswaitingforamiracle"

is a good name, too, because it completely describes the mindset.

Or do you prefer

"ificantsolveitneithercanyou"

for your next pseudonym? Because that is really all you are saying in your post. But I will be glad to discuss the numerical facts of solar energy with you. If you really care, that is. Which I kind of doubt, right now. So surprise me!

If this is a typical natural gas scenario, it looks like I need to be able to heat my home with half the natural gas in 2020, right?

Hmmmm... let's see: 2020 is 13 years from now. That means I have to reduce consumption by 5.15% per year on average. Sounds like a mild PO scenario.

I guess I better get those windows fixed and better curtains on, some more insulation for the walls and maybe a solar heater or a heat pump... :-)

You have forgotten, to name two things, (1) the increase in population requiring heat, and (2) the increase in electricity production, presumably by natural gas generators. Then, we could begin talking about the ongoing demand destruction in industrial usage...Peak NG isn't going to be mild at all.

Actually, reducing ones NG consumption by 5% year over year is not that easy, but it is still better than having to reduce it by 7%. To me it looks like the NG generator scenario is basically a non-starter. Utilities which continue to lock themselves into that hell-hole probably belong there. I feel sorry for their customers, already. On the other hand, enormously rising electricity price for areas which are suffering from such mismanagement will fuel adoption of wind and solar energy which will become far more competitive just when NG prices will go through the roof, again.

yes, those clever suburbanites they have figured out how to insulate a home. but then they build a 4000 sf vinyl sided mcmansion(far from work so they can drive the suv's in a rat race up and down the freeway to nowhere - two income "family" i might add) but they have better schools and better parenting out there in the wasteland.

I guess I better get those windows fixed and better curtains on, some more insulation for the walls and maybe a solar heater or a heat pump...

... and what happens when everyone in your street, town, city or country has the same idea?

Is there enough insulation material etc in existence?

And how about the skills to fit heat pumps etc?

And what about the poor or those in rented properties?

"Is there enough insulation material etc in existence?"

Mineral wool? Sure. It's made from silicates. Most of Earth's crust is made from silicates. How about EROEI?

"According to a 1996 report on the energy, environmental and economic benefits of fiber glass, rock wool and slag wool insulations, conducted jointly by the Alliance to Save Energy and Energy Conservation Management, insulation produced each year saves about 400 trillion Btu annually, or more than 12 times the energy used to manufacture insulation."

http://www.naima.org/pages/resources/faq/faq_mineral.html

"And how about the skills to fit heat pumps etc?"

That is easy: it's called "education"! Anyone can do it. It's just like going to school.

"And what about the poor or those in rented properties?"

We can force the property owners to take care of that. It's called "laws and regulations". Write to your representative.

Geez, IP, I don't know how you see to write with your head so firmly stuck up your ass. I doubt that you even own the condo your in much less a house much less an income property. But, I am a landlord. So consider your response:

"And what about the poor or those in rented properties?"

We can force the property owners to take care of that. It's called "laws and regulations".

Oh yea, you're going to "force"me to take action. Now I happen to have been cncerned about energy for probably longer than you've been alive so my rental is highly insluated with double pane windows. But it does have an obsolete propane furnace (I'm in the boondocks.) use because they heat using the wood heater.

But, let's suppose your "laws and regulations" require me to install the most efficient heat source available. Well, I can't install a ground source heat pump because the electrical system won't handle it so I guess I'm "forced" to put in a new propane furnace. And, let's assume the replacement is estimated to cost $10k. What's my reaction? Screw it. I'll pull out the furnace entirely and they can just heat with wood. But they have to have a funace. OK.

So, you are forcing me to spend $10K. Numerero uno, the rent goes up based upon the real rate of inflation to cover my capital costs. I'm losing $1k per year so to keep it simple, my minimum increase is $100 per month because that's what I'm losing on the $10k (Yea, it's rounded but landlords work that way.). BTW, the $1k is lost interest.

NOw I've got to pay for the furnace. Well, the IRS won't let me deduct the expense in a few years. No, they want me to deduct it over probably 15 years. I figure five years is reasonable so I tack on an additional $170 per month (remember, landlords round things off to the next highest number). So my lucky tenants are now paying $270 a month more. Can they afford it? I don't care. I'm perfetcly willing to close it up since I own it outright and my guess is someone will pay the higher rent...but they are unlikely to use the fancy furnace.

Am I going to take back these rent increases once I've recouped my money? Of course not. Now, other landlords might have other considerations so I can't speak for them. However, I'm willing to be t they aren't much different than I.

By the way, why don't you tell us all of your experience installing heat pumps.

Todd; a Realist

Todd certainly talks like a landlord. In my experience, landlords are parasites who find death adders in their pockets when they're asked to shell out for maintenance. If they even think something will happen to cut into the profits they make from owning somebody else's home, you get a long sob story about how it'll all come out of the tenants' pockets.

The most significant thing in Todd's post is the information that his rental property is in the boondocks. When Peak Oil starts biting, virtually the only people wanting to live there will be people with a job on site (like farmers). Instead, people will be willing to live in a shoebox if it means they can cut their travel costs down to manageable levels.

What does this mean for Todd's property? It means he'll lose his tenants as they either leave for a saner location or have their pick of properties after the rest of the population leaves. Prices will be so low that, if they stay, they may even buy a place and stop providing any landlord with their pocket money.

Todd will be lucky if he can get out without taking a huge loss. And I'll be saving my sympathy for:

(a) Outer suburban homeowners with mortgages far higher than their homes will be worth and petrol bills screaming for them to sell up and move; and

(b) Inner-city tenants who will be faced with the choice of staying put and paying triple the rent, or moving into a shoebox and paying 50% more.

I love sweeping generalizations from people who don't know what they are talking about. You're a case in point. First, if you knew anything about business, you'd know that no one, not even landlords can operate at a loss. If a law were passed that sitpulated that I had to spend $10k for a new furnace, I'm not going to just give the money away. And, it isn't that I abhor spending money. When I replaced the roof a couple of years ago, I added insulation to bring it up to R-30. It was an R-20. No rent change.

Second, take a huge loss? Naw. As I said I own it outright. Loss of income? I can survive quite well without it. In any case, there are few properties like this with power, phone, water and views to die for so re-renting it even at a higher monthly amount wouldn't be a hinderence. Why don't I ask more now you might ask? We have wondeful tenants and the current rent is about what they can afford. I'm not greedy. They been there seven years or so.

But, there's more to it than money or a place to live. As I've said many times, I'm a doomer and I want tenants that share this belief; who understand what may happen in the future. They know what action will be taken, and their part in it, to keep going if things get tough. This includes knowing that I won't throw them out if they can't pay the rent because of loss of income.

However, mandate that I spend money on a funace, then I have to raise the rent to recoupe my expenses.

One final thing. I was born at the end of the Depression so I had contact with all the family members invovled. My dad's father lost his business, his home, everything. He went from lower upper class to dead poor. My mom's parents took in relatives who couldn't afford any rent. They lived in the basement. My folks often had very little food. Unlike the Depression, people today have the option of making choices as to how they view the future. There will be winners and losser.

Todd; a Realist

On re-reading this later I see I forgot to mention the rental is on 17 acres. Yup, besides a lot of land, they get mountain, valley and views of the Pacific Ocean from a private road. Not that it makes a difference but it's worth noting I suppose.

Hello,
well, Mr. Infinite has some experience with how other places do things - like Germany. For example, you write 'my rental is highly insulated with double pane windows' which means you are just about par for the course for Germany, 1980 or so - you know, years after the first oil shock. Highly insulated in Germany these days are triple pane windows (vacuum or inert gas filled) - and yes, they do cost a bit of money. As does the solar water heater - but generally, the PV installation pays for itself in a few years, if you have the capital to install one.

You may want to read more about what is fairly common in Germany at http://clvweb.cord.edu/prweb/press/biohaus/journal_jan.asp - they are attempting to build something in the U.S. which is not considered all that extraordinary here in Germany.

I do think at times IP goes off the wall, but in part (though how large a part remains open) it is because he is trying to describe things which other people in other places consider absolutely normal, while being told this is not how people are. Or how it won't work, even though he knows it does in other places.

In a way, his reactions are a good indication of how the world often views today's America - with utter incomprehension.

And since most of the world isn't comprised of Americans, his points aren't actually all that irrelevant, even if in a purely American context, they seem strange.

If Americans keep insisting that they can't actually meet the challenges that other people consider utterly routine, the point will come (if it hasn't, actually), where America will sit isolated while the rest of the world goes along, dealing with life, ignoring the 2 year old's tantrum in the corner - except baby has the Bomb, which is a real cause for concern. But blowing things up is not actually all that useful - how is oil production in Iraq going these days, by the way?

rental properties are subject to supply and demand like most everything else and there are good renters out there (although relatively rare). and even when there was a glut of rentals on the market, good renters were out there, but to attract good renters your property has to be competetive with the market (and that would include the cost of heating the shack). another big factor is whether the landlord owns the property outright (and not just working to make money for the mortgage holder). if the landlord has to keep the place rented to make the payments, they may be more inclined to accept less than desirable renters. now, if you own the property, having it sit unrented for awhile will hurt, maybe hurt a lot, but it wont mean that you loose the property. * (from slumlordin' 101 by elwoodelmore)

Expat,

I really love your posts but regarding energy efficiency what were you doing 25+ years ago? Were you as concerned then as you are now? You talk about what the Germans are doing today. Ok. Do they all use air-to-air heat exchangers? Do they all use heat exchangers on their sinks/tubs to reclaim the hot water? The list of things that can be done is endless. And, it's not just what they are doing today. Is everything being retorfitted with the most up to date stuff regardless of its age (For all I know it might be.). Is Germany mandating SIP consrtuction? Are they mandating PV/wind systems for individual homes (My PV system is 3.6kW. What's the size of your system?)? What about active solar heating/cooling systems? They're certainly proven. How about Trombe' walls?

As a landlord, you denigrated the double pane windows I installed. Yet, I did this over 25 years ago when no one cared about energy efficiency. Hell, when I designed my house about the same time with insulation that grossly exceed the standards at that time (and currently) and used solar insolation for 30% of the heat, the county building department thought it was funny - they actually asked why I was doing this.

But in the case of my rental, I offered to install friction-fit, removable interior storm windows to make them triple glazed like I installed on my own house. My tenants declined. They certainly aren't fancy but they work for me.

I and my tenants are essentially carbon neutral for heating since we heat with wood. Mine comes from my property and theirs could too but they have physical limitations so they buy it. As an old fart, I can't cut enough for both of us. How many Germans are carbon neutral when it comes to heating (and in my case, cooling)? My guess is zip.

My point to all of this is that there are many paths to energy efficiency and one can't generalize. The US is clearly an energy hog. As I said above, some will win and some will lose.

Todd; a Realist

Actually from memory 25 years ago (or 30) people were much more concerned about energy efficiency than now.

The price of oil and electricity, relative to incomes, was much higher then than now.

However building technology has improved a lot since then. And some jurisdictions (California, notably) require much higher standards of insulation etc.

I agree with you that as a landlord, you are only going to install new technology as and when you have to, and that will be reflected in higher rents. And so it goes for a propane boiler.

My own take is that we can incentivise people to install heat pumps (and we should) but we shouldn't be in a position of mandating that sort of technology. Insulation is a low cost/high return proposition, heat pumps are a high cost/high return proposition.

It may also be reflected in lower costs for the tenant.

"I doubt that you even own the condo your in much less a house much less an income property."

It's OK... we own four properties on three continents. The largest property happens to be my own. I know what the heating bill looks like because I am paying it. :-)

"Oh yea, you're going to "force" me to take action."

I am not. The lawmakers are. They are doing that already. For one thing, there are safety regulations. You can't have people live in an unsafe house. If you do, you are breaking the law. Are you breaking the law, Todd?

Since you are already regulated, what are you getting upset about? You will be regulated some more. Big deal. Actually, you might just be penalized by energy prices to the point where you won't find people to rent your place. If you don't like the business, sell your income property and invest your money otherwise.

As for the rest of your argument: yes, rents will go up. The poor are screwed. They poor are always screwed. It does not take PO to screw them. How do I know? My parents were poor when I was a kid. Man, were we screwed, and gas was cheaper than water is today!

I did not need PO to be screwed as a poor kid, Todd. I really didn't. And that is just the short version: how screwed the poor are is mostly a function of politics. Therefor the poor in the US are double screwed. The poor in Europe, on the other hand, are only half screwed.

"By the way, why don't you tell us all of your experience installing heat pumps."

I don't have any, yet. I keep asking my parents, if they want one, but they rather pay the heating bill as it is, right now. I could push them harder to do it, but why bother? A year or two down the road they will reconsider, anyway. My Mom is good with numbers. She will figure out how much money she can save once the NG in their neighborhood gets really pricy.

IP,

You know, I've allowed myself to be sucked into thread hijacking and I should have never responded to your initial post. I'm a Mod on another forum and I should have known better.

If you want to continue along this line, repost it on DrunBeat.

Todd

the poor in the rented properties will just have to get a no money down e/z pay loan (garanteed by the govt.) to buy and fix up a hovel of their own. then they can become wizzards of the financial world (use the hovel as an atm)

Given that this estimate is based on a scenario that now seems improbable when one looks at recent drilling and output numbers, perhaps a further review of WCSB conventional resource estimates is overdue.

A detailed update on Alberta WCSB resources was published in 2005 jointly by the Alberta EUB and the NEB as "EUB/NEB Report 2005-A: Alberta’s Ultimate Potential for Conventional Natural Gas".

It shows an ultimate potential for marketable conventional gas at 223 Tcf, of which 122 Tcf has been produced, with remaining discovered reserves at 39 Tcf, and undiscovered "reserves" at 62 Tcf. Average discovery rate in the 4 years preceding the report was 3.8 Tcf with annual Alberta production at 4.8 Tcf. The report anticipates that the rate of discovery will decline.

possibilities:

- keep producing the gas for oil sands production
to sell synthetic crude to the Americans

- keep selling the gas in the export market to the Americans

- honour Kyoto Accords by sequestering CO2 or reducing exports to zero

while keeping in mind the reduction in glacial runoff and reduced
snow pack due to AGW

and the possibility of increased drought on the Prairies...

hmm Peak gas and Peak water

seems we have hit the RESET button on our planetary life support
system.... and we don't have a Plan "B"

It's likely they will build a nuclear reactor for steam for the tar sands.

If only because of the global warming issues associated with tar sands development.

Building a nuclear reactor in Fort McMurray, though, will be no mean feat (200 miles north of Edmonton, population 30,000, they are paying McDonald's workers $30k a year labour is so short).

And if I read the press release correctly, they talking about displacing a measly .6% of current NatGas usage levels with said reactor. .6! Again I ask... What's the point?

and they probably still give lousy service

Libelle, very good post. The links are great.

Did you pick the 1999 report on purpose? Was it their most optimistic report or were earlier ones more optimistic? Also, do you have any sense of when they realized