DOE seeks to cut cost of Level 2 EV charging equipment in half in 3 years; $12M FOA
New BMW 116d EfficientDynamics Edition will drop CO2 emissions to 99 g/km

Oil sands growth to push Canadian crude production to about 4.7M bpd in 2025, up 67% from 2010; in situ production takes lead in 2016

Capp
Canadian oil sands & conventional production. Source: CAPP. Click to enlarge.

Oil sands growth will drive Canadian crude oil production to about 4.7 million barrels per day by 2025 from 2.8 million bpd in 2010—a 67% increase—according to the latest forecast from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). This is about 401,000 b/d higher than previously forecast, due primarily to the higher conventional production and the inclusion of some additional in situ projects that were previously put on hold.

The forecast sees oil sands production rising from 1.5 million barrels per day (actual) in 2010 up to 3.7 million barrels per day in 2025. Conventional production is seen dropping slightly from 2010’s 0.9 million barrels per day to 0.7 mbpd in 2010. Pentanes/condensate contribution remains constant at 0.1 mpbd, while the offshore contribution drops from 0.3 mbpd in 2010 to 0.1 mbpd in 2025.

Capp2
Canadian and US crude oil pipelines—all proposals. Source: CAPP. Click to enlarge.

The forecast also breaks out oil sands production by extraction method (mining and drilling) and tracks the amount of domestic upgrading. In 2010, 47% of raw bitumen was derived from in situ projects and 53% from mining operations. Starting in 2016, production from in situ projects will account for the majority of Canadian oil sands production.

Expanding access to existing markets in the US and diversifying into Asian markets are important to enable this production growth and to ensure Canadian producers receive competitive prices for their products.

—Greg Stringham, CAPP vice-president of markets and oil sands

Capp3
Growth Case: Western Canada oil sands & conventional production. Source: CAPP. Click to enlarge.

While the economic downturn in 2009 saw many oil sands projects deferred, an improved investment climate, more robust commodity prices and market demand for Canadian crude provided the stimulus for several projects to return to active development in 2010. This trend continues in 2011. Some companies are actively developing oil sands project phases previously placed on hold and investor interest in new projects also continues to increase, CAPP says

Meanwhile, application of new technology has enabled resurgence in production of conventional oil from tight (low permeability) reservoirs.

CAPP’s forecast is based on its annual survey of producers to determine planned production of oil sands, conventional and offshore crude oil through 2025. CAPP used this data along with other inputs from producer companies to illustrate production trends.

Resources

Comments

HarveyD

The best news is that the majority of oil sands extractions will used in situ by 2016 and produce less pollution.

The second good news is that Canada will produce 200% of its requirements by 2016.

The third good news is the Canada will expand its oil and NG/SG export to Asia by 2016.

The fourth good news is that Old Henry, in the Gulf of St-Lawrence, will be in production by 2016. Eastern Canada will have another local source for oil.

The fifth good news is that USA will have an increased stable source of oil by 2016+.

HarveyD

correction 2016 such have been 2025 in all cases.

SJC

I would rather make fuels in the U.S. from coal, natural gas and biomass than import more oil. Leave it in the ground, we will all need it later.

HarveyD

USA can hardly produce 20+ million barrels/equivalent/day forever. Without imports, it would run out of crude oil, coal, NG/SG, biomass and other feed stocks 3 to 4 times faster.

To continue at the current increasing consumption rate, USA will have to import more oil and energy in the years and decades to come, unless the current economic crisis is extended by a few more years/decades, like the last big one. That may be a strong possibility, in that case, local reserves could last much longer.

Jer

I am surprised that they expect conventional oil sources from 'known' fields to exist in 2025.

I will be very surprised if conventional oil sources discovered in the Arctic within Canada's future agreed-upon economic zone in the coming decades will not cause the 'conventional' portion to grow way beyond the conventional sources now expected.

Here's to hoping that CCS technology and safe, efficient 'hyper' cold platform drilling technology will be up to the task on both sources, respectively - and Canadians will find something else to do for revenue and export past 2040s.

SJC

The U.S. produces over 6 million out of the 18 million barrels that is now consumes per day and should be able to do that for a while. We have 200 years of coal at present consumption, so even if we doubled that we would have 100 years. Biomass is sustainable at one billion tons each year as long as the sun shines. That is good for over 1/3 of our gasoline consumed, even without food crops.

The U.S. COULD do fine without any oil imports from anywhere for about 100 years. We also need to have more efficient transportation so that we use less over time. We have gone over all of this over and over many times before, but I guess some just want to keep talking about it.

Reel$$

Energy is abundant throughout the universe. At any moment complete and total access to that energy is possible. Only the portent of power sharing prevents this from happening immediately. Progress is being made. The old rulers understand it is time to share. The future is bright and there is plenty for all.

SJC

Well, this is not the universe it is planet Earth complete with greed mongers and war. There may be enough oil in the middle east, but they will not let you have it without paying them a ransom.

HarveyD

The solution and urgency is not the same for every country.

USA, China and India (almost 50% of the world population) do not have enough oil, NG/SG, coal and biomass to meet their increasing requirements for more than a few decades. Canada has enough for 1000+ years.

Gone are the days when large countries could grab those products for next to nothing. Oil at $1.50/barrel will never happen again. It will be 100 times that price very soon. The same will happen with the price of coal, NG/SG and biomass feed stocks. Be prepared to pay much more for those products.

That being said, more efficiency will have to be introduced in all transportation vehicles, airplanes, ships, machines, household and commercial HVAC, appliances, electronic gadgets etc to reduce energy and fuel consumption to a sustainable level.

It can and must be done. No need to deny it.

SJC

If the U.S. gets on fuel economy and fuel plants we could eliminate 4 million barrels per day of OPEC oil. If other countries like China and India want to buy that oil, then that is their business. I suspect they will adopt similar measures and take the pressure off the world oil market.

HarveyD

I hope that you are right SJC. Otherwise, can you imagine 1000+ million gas guzzlers in China and as many in India and another 300+ million in Brazil and as many in Russia? In other words, they should not do as we did but as we are planning to do by 2050+. It is a tall order?

SJC

There used to be 2 million cars in China, then 20 million and now heading to 200 million. Developing countries develop and they like cars, but there is no reason we have to remain dependent on oil to run them. Whether EV or an FFV plug hybrid running on M85 made from biomass, they are BOTH not using petroleum derived fuels.

critta

They are frightening maths SJC and even more scary when you add in India. You and every other poster assume that the energy is available, in one form or another, for everyone in the world to live as westerners do now. This is clearly not the case.

The Pentagon has commissioned research that predicts resource wars as we reach peak oil in the near future. China, India and Brazil will not eaily give up the right to a western lifestyle just so we can live in the wasteful manner we are accustomed to.

The picture on coal is not nearly so rosy as some posters seem to think. Miners are laready digging up lower grade coal because the high grade stuff is gone. Just because a resource exists doesn't mean it is economical to produce.

Here in Australia a coal mine expansion is being challenged in the courts because it will compromise our greenhouse gas targets. Both here and in the US, new coal fired power plants are unable to find finance because banks see them as too risky.

HarveyD

Good points critta. Wind and Solar energies are cleaner, much more sustainable (no real negative effects on food production and price) and almost unlimited as long as the sun/wind is there and that may be for another 5+ billion years.

Germany has decided to do away with nuclear and fossil fuel power plants and rely on clean power sources in the near future. The first 25% step is already done. Italy and many other countries may follow their example by the end of this decade. Japan is serious looking at the German experience. They (Japan firms) will produce 50+% efficient solar panels by 2016.

USA, with all powerful coal, oil, corn lobbies, will not follow and will keep using low cost dirty energy sources regardless of the negative effects on the people health and well being. China and India have difficult decisions to make. They may not follow Germany's example either.

Eventually, much higher import duties may have to be applied on products made with dirty energy.

Xxdanbrowne

Here's a better idea: instead of trying to get oil from stone (no pun intended), do this instead:

DRIVE SMALLER VEHICLES.

It's a no-brainer.

The average fuel efficiency of the North American fleet is 15 mpg. Doubling that to 30mpg by driving smaller vehicles will reduce the requirement for 20 million barrels per day significantly.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)