It is a little fuzzy how much of a limiting factor natural gas is.

It's only a limiting factor for those thinking inside the box. In reality, what they need is a source of process heat. They can get this from natural gas, they can get it from coal, they can get it by burning the heavy ends of the bitumen, or they can get it from nuclear reactors. The possibilities are many and diverse.

They burn natural gas because it's relatively cheap, easy to use, and available locally. If it ceases to be those things, they can switch (with a little difficulty) to something else.

Gail,

Natural gas is limiting only so far as the current economics make it. There are PLENTY of alternative approaches that would/could/will be used if the price of Natural Gas increases. It is also worth noting that there is natural gas produced from the bitumen when it is exposed to heat. The in-situ mining process generates a fair bit of it.

There is also the syngas approach using the petroleum coke that has been used in one form or another for a hundred years. (adding water to carbon and generating H2 and ultimately CH4 which can be added to the bitumen to produce lighter crudes or used directly as fuel). You are correct that they are "carbon-intensive", but when "people are freezing in the dark" through lack of access to fossil fuels, they will be happy to have these processes available!!

Unfortunately, I think you are all too correct in all of your other (excellent and prescient) statements about the politics of the oil sands. However, I think I should add that Albertans naturally feel a certain affinity for Americans as they tend to have a "cowboy culture" themselves. I would think that it would be very very difficult for Albertans to consider "cutting off" the Americans from access to the Oil Sands. Also, the political difficulties in "re-negotiating NAFTA" are HUGE. I have trouble imaging that any Canadian government would seriously consider that. The economies of the two countries are just TOO intertwined. Of course, Albertans are business people too and you can be sure that China will be given the choice of importing Alberta oil as well!! I am sure that they will gladly accept. I would expect that Albertans would gladly use that leverage (the Chinese importation) to get a better deal from the US.

Technology improvements are already available (e.g. "wet combustion") that would allow the tailing pond waters to be combusted and the napthenic acids with them. It is just the current economics and conservatism of the industry that prevents their adoption.

Ian

It is a little fuzzy how much of a limiting factor natural gas is.

If one is doing mining with an upgrader (as Syncrude does), the upgrader produces natural gas and other gasses that can be used as part of the energy requirement of mining. With some fine-tuning, this process could probably be adjusted so that all of the energy requirement could be met with self-produced petroleum products..

It's worth remembering that natural gas has two purposes, at least as I understand it. One is to produce heat - something they should be able to burn the bitumen or crude produced, if it's really a positive EROEI. The second is as a source of hydrogen. You need hydrogen to turn long carbon chains into short carbon chains. The hydrogen can be produced in a reaction with water and coke/bitumen/oil but it's very carbon intensive. It also reduces the EROEI equation even more.

In situ production as it is currently done uses natural gas, but other approaches are being explored. One approach is burning some of the bitumen itself to provide the heat for melting the bitumen, for example with Toe to Heel Air Injection, a method currently being evaluated. Another approach under development uses electrical induction.

I'm quite disappointed that no mention is made of EROEI for in-situ production. It would surprise me if it even reaches unity if one counts the energy lost to combustion in the ground; it's entirely possible that more than one barrel of bitumen is burned in order to coax a barrel of bitumen to drain out.

Whether this is profitable or not depends not on whether EROEI is negative or not, but on the fact that the one-plus barrel of oil being lost to production doesn't have to be produced itself. IE, if it's cheap enough to drill holes and pump in air and burn the stuff in the ground it will be produced unless there's a large enough price attached to releasing carbon in the air.

As for using electricity, that's about the most hideous mis-appropriation of resources I can imagine. Generate one of the most flexible, non-polluting, efficient forms of energy - indeed, a form that can even be multiplied by using it in a heat pump - and using it to heat one of the dirtiest forms of energy so that it can be used at 10% efficiency in the transportation sector.... It may make some perverse economic sense, but only if you have a "stranded" or otherwise very low cost source of electricity. Nuclear wouldn't seem to qualify.

David