DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparative Assessment of the Federal Oil and Gas Fiscal System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparative Assessment of the Federal Oil and Gas Fiscal System OCS Study BOEM 2011-xxx CERA Comparative Assessment of the Federal Oil and Gas Fiscal System Final Report U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Bureau of Land Management OCS Study BOEM 2011-xxx IHS CERA Comparative Assessment of the Federal Oil and Gas Fiscal System Final Report Author Irena Agalliu October 2011 Prepared under BOEM Contract M10PC00090 IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates 55 Cambridge Parkway Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02142 Published by: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Bureau of Land Management DISCLAIMER This report was prepared under contract between the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement and Bureau of Land Management and IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. The opinions, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in it do not necessarily reflect the view and policies of BOEM and BLM, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. REPORT AVAILABILITY Extra copies of the report may be obtained from the Public Information Office (Mail Stop 5034) at the following address: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 381 Elden Street Herndon VA 20170 CITATION Suggested citation: Agalliu, I. 2011. Comparative assessment of the federal oil and gas fiscal systems. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Herndon. VA. OCS Study, BOEM 2011-xxx. 300 pp. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks are extended to David Hobbs who advised on this project, the expert reviewers Emil Sunley and Carole Nakhle, and the Department of Interior team led by Dr. Radford Schantz for their helpful suggestions and comments. The author would like to acknowledge Rick Chamberlain, Tim Zoba, Curtis Smith, Aube Plop Montero, Diane Betts, Gina Hsieh, Imre Kugler, Shawn Gallagher, Adebola Adejumo, Taner Sensoy, Horacio Cuenca, and Jim Watkins, for the cooperation, encouragement , support and the tremendous effort in collecting information and developing the cost and economic models for this study. iii ABSTRACT The competitiveness of oil and gas fiscal systems is often based on random ranking of jurisdictions without taking into consideration the relative prospectivity of the respective jurisdiction, the varying policy objectives, and socioeconomic drivers, not to mention the different investment environments, distance from markets, commodity prices, typical finding and development cost, relative size of discoveries, well productivity, and other factors. Analyses that focus solely on government take fail to account for the limitations of the government take statistic. A composite index that compares fiscal systems on government take as well as measures of profitability, revenue risk, and fiscal stability in relation to the relative prospectivity and policy objectives is a more objective and thorough approach to comparing fiscal systems. This report compares the oil and gas federal fiscal systems against a selected peer group of jurisdictions that compete for investment in the upstream oil and gas industry. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ iv TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ v LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xii ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS ..................................................................... xvii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 2. Objective of the Study ................................................................................................ 2 3. About IHS CERA ........................................................................................................... 2 4. Approach ..................................................................................................................... 2 4.1 Finding the Right Peer Group.............................................................................. 3 5. Government Take on Federal Lands ........................................................................... 5 6. Fair Share .................................................................................................................... 6 6.1 What Is Fair Share? ............................................................................................. 7 7. Resource Endowment ............................................................................................... 10 8. Ranking of Fiscal Systems ......................................................................................... 11 8.1 Ranking of Fiscal Terms ..................................................................................... 13 8.2 Revenue Risk ..................................................................................................... 15 8.2.1 Revenue Risk Index....................................................................................... 18 8.3. Fiscal Stability .................................................................................................... 20 8.4 Composite Index ............................................................................................... 22 9. Alternative Fiscal Systems......................................................................................... 24 10. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 28 1. CONTEXT AND SCOPE ................................................................................................... 31 1.1 Approach ............................................................................................................... 31 1.1.1 Size and Availability of the Oil and Gas Resources in Place .......................... 32 1.1.2 Finding and Development Costs ................................................................... 32 1.1.3 Price and Cost Scenarios ............................................................................... 33 1.1.4 Finding the Right Peer Group........................................................................ 36 1.1.4.1 Worldwide Approach ............................................................................ 36 1.1.4.2 Regional Comparisons .......................................................................... 36 1.1.4.3 Similar Cost Environments .................................................................... 36 1.1.4.4 IHS CERA Fiscal System Selection Criteria ............................................ 37 1.1.5 Ranking of Fiscal Systems ............................................................................. 41 1.2 Organization of the Report ................................................................................... 43 2. DESIGN OF PETROLEUM FISCAL SYSTEMS .................................................................... 45 2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 45 2.2 The Concept of Government Take ........................................................................ 47 2.2.1 Definition and Use of Government Take ...................................................... 47 2.2.2. Components of Government Take................................................................ 48 2.2.2.1 Ad Valorem, or Production-Based Levies ............................................ 48 v 2.2.2.2 Profit-based Levies ................................................................................ 50 2.2.2.3 Equity Participation ............................................................................... 52 2.2.2.4 Quasi-fiscal Instruments ........................................................................ 54 2.2.3 Limitations of Government Take .................................................................. 55 2.3 Literature Review .................................................................................................. 56 2.3.1 Government Take Referenced by GAO ......................................................... 56 2.3.2 The Government Take for New Acreage ...................................................... 60 2.3.3 Fair Share ...................................................................................................... 63 2.3.4 What Is Fair Share? ....................................................................................... 65 2.4 Features of U.S. Federal Oil and Gas Fiscal Systems............................................. 69 3. FACTORS INFLUENCING GOVERNMENT TAKE AND INVESTMENT DECISIONS ............. 71 3.1 Resource Endowment ........................................................................................... 71 3.2 Political and Commercial Risk ............................................................................... 74 3.3 Policy Goals and Constraints ................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oil Sands Royalty Rates Ranging from One to Nine Per Cent Pre-Payout and 25 to 40 Per Cent Post-Payout Depending on the Price of Oil
    October 25, 2007 Premier Stelmach delivers historic, new royalty regime for Alberta New Royalty Framework gives Albertans their fair share; supports sustainable, vigorous energy sector Calgary... Albertans will receive their fair share from the development of the province’s non-renewable energy resources under a new royalty regime that also supports a robust, sustainable energy sector. Premier Ed Stelmach outlined his government’s plan that will see Albertans benefit from increased royalties generated by an internationally competitive energy industry. “I made a commitment and I delivered. Future generations of Albertans will receive a fair share from the development of their resources. I offer stability and predictability to those in the oil and gas industry, and the time to adjust to royalty changes. And I can also assure investors that Alberta will remain an internationally competitive and stable place to do business,” said Premier Stelmach. Alberta’s New Royalty Framework fulfills Premier Stelmach’s commitment to establish a regime that meets the needs of Albertans today and in the future. The new framework is based on input received from the public, industry, international experts as well as the report of the Alberta Royalty Review Panel established earlier this year. Royalties are expected to increase by $1.4 billion in 2010, a 20-per-cent increase over currently projected revenues for that year. Actual revenues will depend on future prices and production levels in the province. Therefore, the Alberta government’s annual budget development process will not change. The new royalty regime includes the following components. New, simplified royalty formulas for conventional oil and natural gas that will operate on sliding scales that are determined by commodity prices and well productivity.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 Financial Summary
    annual report 2006 enerwe are Enerplus Resources Fund annual report 2006 annual page move.indd a1 3/2/07 9:00:38 PM plus 02 Selected Financial and Operating Highlights 05 President's Message 11 Our Strategy 20 Our Assets 28 Our Opportunity 31 Our Responsibility 37 Management’s Discussion and Analysis 67 Financial Statements 100 Supplementary Reserve and Other Information 118 Corporate Information annual page move.indd a2 3/8/07 2:13:59 PM strategy it’s the energy of enerplus Enerplus Resources Fund is Canada’s oldest and one of North America’s largest conventional oil and gas income funds. Established in 1986, we have grown our business from a $9 million initial public offering to a market capitalization of over $6 billion today. Since inception, we have provided investors the opportunity to participate in an income-generating investment within the energy industry that distributes cash monthly from the sale of our oil and natural gas production. We are committed to providing investors with a superior return on their investment and will continue to seek opportunities that create value and enhance the sustainability of our business over the long-term. Enerplus Resources Fund annual report1 2006 Enerplus Resources Fund annual report 2006 annual page move.indd 1 3/2/07 8:37:45 PM financial and operating highlights Cash flow from operations increased by 11% in 2006 despite Financial highlights modest weakness in commodity prices. For the years ended December 31, 2006 2005 Financial (000’s) Cash Flow from Operations (1) Net Income $ 544,782
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory: the All-Too
    1 SNATCHING DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY: THE ALL-TOO-BRIEF PREMIERSHIP OF ED STELMACH IN ALBERTA by Bohdan Harasymiw Professor Emeritus of Political Science University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4 [email protected] ABSTRACT: Why would a new provincial premier, having in his first general election increased his governing party’s seats in the legislature from 62 to 72 out of 83, resign just three years later? Normally, in Canada a provincial first minister remains in office so long as s/he wins elections, and either retires of his/her own accord or is forced to resign after an electoral defeat. Ed Stelmach’s brief tenure as premier of Alberta is a singular anomaly in that regard. Answers to this puzzle are to be sought in the leadership selection process, the supposed shortcomings in his style of leadership and policy decisions, the threat to the Progressive Conservatives’ forty-year hegemony from the wildly popular Wildrose Alliance, and lack of confidence from the party’s financial backers. Relying on interviews with the principal players, monographic and newspaper accounts, and party as well as Elections Alberta archives, the paper makes systematic comparisons between the major features of Stelmach’s term in office and those of his predecessor, the inimitable Ralph Klein. It also compares prospectively, to test the validity of hypotheses resting on Stelmach’s presence as the explanatory variable. All of this retrospective and prospective scrutiny is in the search for a credible explanation or interpretation. This leads to the conclusion that Stelmach’s ethnicity, widely credited as responsible for his selection as party leader, may also have brought about his demise.
    [Show full text]
  • Oilsands Development
    DISSENT IN RALPH KLEIN’S KINGDOM? Exploring oil sands discourses found in Alberta newspapers’ editorials Paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Conference June 2010, Montreal QC Laura Way Department of Political Science University of Alberta [email protected] Draft paper Please do not cite without author’s permission Dissent in Ralph Klein’s Kingdom Laura Way ABSTRACT From the outside, Alberta politics are commonly perceived as homogenous. This is most often attributed to the electoral dominance of the Conservative Party at both the provincial and federal levels. Nowhere is this “homogeneity” more evident than in how Albertans and their government’s view oil and gas development, and the oil sands in particular. Even today, three letters, NEP, can be used to stroke public sentiment against perceived government interference. However, this study challenges this perspective. It argues that a more nuanced view of Alberta conservatism and alternative viewpoints emerge when one examines the degree of diversity found within the portrayal of oil sands in three Alberta newspapers: the Fort McMurray Today, the Edmonton Journal, and the Calgary Herald. Each of these papers serves a community intricately linked to oil sands development — ground zero, the capital and service centre, and the head office respectively. During the study’s time period of October 1, 2005 to October 31, 2007, there were two public reviews about the future of oil sands development and a leadership race to replace Ralph Klein as leader of the Conservative party and Premier of Alberta. Because, the very nature of oil sands development was open for debate the media were presented with a newsworthy topic.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Economics, Understanding Royalties
    energyeconomics understanding royalties energyeconomics • 1 Forward Royalties What are they? How are they calculated? How are they collected? What are they used for? Royalties are an important part of the Alberta government’s revenue stream and help in funding important programs like health, education and infrastructure. They ensure that Albertans receive a portion of the benefits arising from the development of the Province’s energy resources. A well-designed royalty system endeavours to strike the right balance between returning a share of the profits to the resource owner, while encouraging the development of the resource which creates jobs and economic growth. A jurisdiction’s royalty system can have a direct consequence on the pace of development, including the rate at which resources are developed, jobs created and the level of investment. Alberta’s royalty system, however, is only one of many factors that affect development. Such things as commodity prices, the political climate, currency exchange rates and labour costs also play a role. Energyeconomics: Understanding Royalties is intended to provide easy-to-understand information about the Province’s royalty system so that Albertans can see how the history and economics of our energy industry impacts our daily lives. oil non-renewables coal oil sands natural gas renewables wind electricity petrochemicals solar refined products INITIATIVes water CO2 storage hydrogen biomass etc. geothermal salt gold sulphur minerals uranium titanium zirconium dianmonds etc. 2 • energyeconomics INTRODUCTION . 3 our changing energy resources . 4 extracting the Resource . 4 : oil Sands . 5 understanding Alberta’s Royalty Regime . 6 Evolution of Alberta’s Royalty System . 6 incentiVe Programs 1980-1997 .
    [Show full text]
  • How Recent Government Changes in Canada Impact Oil and Gas Export to Asia?
    IEEJ：August 2016 © IEEJ2016 How Recent Government Changes in Canada Impact Oil and Gas Export to Asia? Michelle Luk, Researcher, Oil Group 1. Introduction Canada is a resource rich country dependent on energy export and the ability to access import markets. The vast majority of oil and gas resources are located in Western Canada. Most energy exports are to the United States, but as American energy production grows, Canada must diversify its export markets, particularly to Asia. Asia is the world’s fastest growing economic region, making it a priority market for Canada’s energy products. Although there has been a substantial influx of major projects pursuing Asian market in the past decade, there are still considerable challenges in building the necessary export infrastructure. This paper will highlight the latest regulatory changes made by federal, Alberta and British Columbia governments to address barriers to implementation, and examine whether these changes will have positive impacts on oil and gas export projects to Asia. Firstly, local communities are becoming more relevant in the governance of energy development in Canada, playing a key role in policy decision making. Discussion on energy projects in Canada is now inseparable from that of Aboriginal rights as well as climate change. Likewise, industry players are becoming increasingly aware of the favorable role that the ‘social license’ plays in obtaining regulatory and public approval for projects. For these projects to continue, the recently elected federal and provincial governments have developed regulatory frameworks to address these public concerns. Secondly, although there are several proposed oil and gas projects, industry leaders have been struggling to obtain final investment decisions (FIDs).
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Annual Information Form
    SUNCOR ENERGY INC. ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM Dated March 1, 2017 26FEB201716492895 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM DATED MARCH 1, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Advisories 2 Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 2 Common Industry Terms 4 Common Abbreviations 4 Conversion Table 5 Corporate Structure 5 Name and Incorporation 5 Intercorporate Relationships 7 General Development of the Business 7 Overview 9 Three-Year History 11 Narrative Description of Suncor’s Businesses 11 Oil Sands 16 Exploration and Production 21 Refining and Marketing 25 Other Suncor Businesses 26 Suncor Employees 27 Ethics, Social and Environmental Policies 28 Statement of Reserves Data and Other Oil and Gas Information 30 Oil and Gas Reserves Tables and Notes 35 Future Net Revenues Tables and Notes 41 Additional Information Relating to Reserves Data 52 Industry Conditions 58 Risk Factors 67 Dividends 68 Description of Capital Structure 70 Market for Securities 71 Directors and Executive Officers 77 Audit Committee Information 79 Legal Proceedings and Regulatory Actions 79 Interest of Management and Others in Material Transactions 79 Transfer Agent and Registrar 79 Material Contracts 79 Interests of Experts 80 Disclosure Pursuant to the Requirements of the New York Stock Exchange 80 Additional Information 81 Advisory – Forward-Looking Information and Non-GAAP Financial Measures Schedules A-1 SCHEDULE ‘‘A’’ – AUDIT COMMITTEE MANDATE B-1 SCHEDULE ‘‘B’’ – SUNCOR ENERGY INC. POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR PRE-APPROVAL OF AUDIT AND NON-AUDIT SERVICES C-1 SCHEDULE ‘‘C’’ – FORM 51-101F2 REPORT ON RESERVES DATA BY INDEPENDENT QUALIFIED RESERVES EVALUATOR OR AUDITOR D-1 SCHEDULE ‘‘D’’ – FORM 51-101F2 REPORT ON RESERVES DATA BY INDEPENDENT QUALIFIED RESERVES EVALUATOR OR AUDITOR E-1 SCHEDULE ‘‘E’’ – FORM 51-101F3 REPORT OF MANAGEMENT AND DIRECTORS ON RESERVES DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION ADVISORIES In this Annual Information Form (AIF), references to ‘‘we’’, December 31, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • 361-Emerald Poveda
    APPENDIX B: TIMELINE OF THE ENERGY INDUSTRY IN ALBERTA$ Initial Note The presence of hydrocarbons in Alberta dates back millions of years; however, the earliest recorded use of bitumen occurred about 300 years ago, and hydrocarbons were first used to generate energy in Alberta over a century ago. Pre-1715 560 million years B.C. À Plants absorbed solar energy and used it to convert carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and carbohydrates such as sugar, starch and cellulose; these carbohydrates and other organic materials eventually settled on the ground and in streams, lakes, and sea beds and, as they became more deeply buried, were transformed by heat and pressure into solid, liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons known as fossil fuels. From 1715 to 1899 Year Event 1715 The first known reference to the Athabasca oil sands was made by Captain Swan, a Cree chief acting as a middleman between the native hunters of the West and the fur factories of Hudson Bay. Swan told Governor James Knight in council at York Fort in 1715 about a river feeding the Churchill River where he found ‘Gum or pitch’. In 1719 Swan returned to York Fort, where Henry Kelsey had replaced Knight as governor. He gave Kelsey a sample of ‘that Gum or pitch that flows out of the Banks of that River’. 1788 Alexander Mackenzie wrote of bituminous seeps among Alberta’s Athabasca tar sands, into which a six-metre pole could be inserted ‘without the least resistance’. $Quoted from www.energy.alberta.ca. The list of events may not include all major actions as it was developed based on announcements.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing Major Royalty Debates in Alberta's Oil Sands
    Analyzing Major Royalty Debates in Alberta’s Oil Sands: Corporate Power at Play in a Subnational Resource-Cursed Petrostate by Justine Salam A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Global Governance Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2021 © Justine Salam 2021 Examining Committee Membership The following served on the Examining Committee for this thesis. The decision of the Examining Committee is by majority vote. External Examiner Patrick McCurdy Associate Professor, University of Ottawa Supervisor Angela Carter Associate Professor, University of Waterloo Internal-external Member Sharon Kirkpatrick Associate Professor, University of Waterloo Other Member(s) Eric Helleiner Professor, University of Waterloo Heather Whiteside Associate Professor, University of Waterloo ii Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. iii Abstract Canada has the third largest proven oil reserves in the world and these are predominantly located in the province of Alberta in the form of oil sands. Despite having large oil resources and the ability to profit substantially from oil royalties, Alberta levies lower royalties on oil corporations than other comparable jurisdictions. Even when oil prices were extraordinarily high in the post- 2000s, over the last decade, researchers argue Alberta was inefficient in maximizing revenues from the oil industry (Campbell, 2013; Shrivastava and Stefanick, 2015). This is a critical problem given that the natural resources sector, particularly the oil sands, is a primary stream of provincial government revenue.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the BRIK (Bitumen Royalty-In-Kind) Program
    LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Standing Committee on Alberta’s Economic Future Review of the BRIK (Bitumen Royalty-in-Kind) Program Twenty-Eighth Legislature First Session May 2013 Standing Committee on Alberta’s Economic Future 801 Legislature Annex 9718 – 107 Street Edmonton AB T5K 1E4 780.427.1350 [email protected] STANDING COMMITTEE ON ALBERTA’S ECONOMIC FUTURE May 2013 To the Honourable Gene Zwozdesky Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Alberta I have the honour of submitting, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Alberta’s Economic Future, its final report pursuant to standing order 52.07(2) on the Review of the BRIK (Bitumen Royalty-in-Kind) Program. Sincerely, [original signed by Chair] Moe Amery, MLA Chair, Standing Committee on Alberta’s Economic Future c. Dr. David McNeil Clerk of the Legislative Assembly CONTENTS MEMBERS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ALBERTA’S ECONOMIC FUTURE .......................... ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 2 3.0 DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 3 4.0 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................... 5 4.1 Overview of the Bitumen
    [Show full text]
  • Alberta at a Crossroads, Royalty Review Report
    ALBERTA AT A CROSSROADS ROYALTY REVIEW ADVISORY PANEL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ALBERTA AT A crossroads 3 OUR PANEL’S WORK AND APPROACH 14 Our Mandate 15 Our Process 15 Public Engagement 15 Technical Review 17 Our Approach 17 SOME STARTING POINTS 18 About Alberta’s Royalty Framework 19 Royalties Serve a Particular Purpose 19 Developing Our Resources Requires Partnership 19 Alberta’s Royalty Revenues Have Evolved with the Marketplace 21 Alberta’s Royalty Framework is Complex 22 The Value of our Resources is Based on Price and Cost 23 SETTING THE conTEXT 25 How Prices Influence Royalties 26 Natural Gas Took the First Hit 26 Crude Oil Markets Took the Next Hit 28 Bitumen Markets Are Proving Resilient, But Face Challenges 30 Some Important Takeaways 31 How Costs Influence Royalties 32 There are Two Types of Costs 32 Ageing of our Conventional Oil and Gas Pushes up Operating Costs 34 Transformative Processes in Oil and Gas Have Altered Capital Costs 35 S Changes in Oil Sands Development Are Resulting in Changing Costs 37 Characterizing, Tracking and Indexing Costs 37 T Not Everyone’s Costs are the Same 39 Alberta Needs to Encourage Cost Leadership in its Energy Industry 42 Investment, Returns and Royalties 42 en Energy Companies and Investors 43 T How Investment Decisions Are Made 43 How Alberta Stacks Up 46 con OUR PANEL’S FINDINGS 48 What We Found About Royalty Structures Generally 49 What We Found About Crude Oil, Liquids and Natural Gas 51 What We Found About Oil Sands 52 OUR PANEL’S RECOMMENDATIONS 54 Establish Guiding Principles and Design Criteria for Alberta’s Royalty Framework 55 Modernize Alberta’s Royalty Framework for Crude Oil, Liquids and Natural Gas 57 Enhance Royalty Processes for the Oil Sands 65 Seize Opportunities to Enhance Value-Added Processing 67 OTHER MATTERS RAISED WITH OUR PANEL 72 APPENDICES 75 wood MackenZIE daTA AND OUR panel’S INTERPRETATION 89 S T en T con EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ALBERTA AT A CROSSROADS IN SUMMARY • The future of Alberta’s energy industry is not going to be like the past.
    [Show full text]
  • North American Oil Sands: History of Development, Prospects for the Future
    Order Code RL34258 North American Oil Sands: History of Development, Prospects for the Future Updated December 11, 2007 Marc Humphries Analyst in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division North American Oil Sands: History of Development, Prospects for the Future Summary When it comes to future reliable oil supplies, Canada’s oil sands will likely account for a greater share of U.S. oil imports. Oil sands account for about 46% of Canada’s total oil production and oil sands production is increasing as conventional oil production declines. Since 2004, when a substantial portion of Canada’s oil sands were deemed economic, Canada, with about 175 billion barrels of proved oil sands reserves, has ranked second behind Saudi Arabia in oil reserves. Canadian crude oil exports were about 1.82 million barrels per day (mbd) in 2006, of which 1.8 mbd or 99% went to the United States. Canadian crude oil accounts for about 18% of U.S. net imports and about 12% of all U.S. crude oil supply. Oil sands, a mixture of sand, bitumen (a heavy crude that does not flow naturally), and water, can be mined or the oil can be extracted in-situ using thermal recovery techniques. Typically, oil sands contain about 75% inorganic matter, 10% bitumen, 10% silt and clay, and 5% water. Oil sand is sold in two forms: (1) as a raw bitumen that must be blended with a diluent for transport and (2) as a synthetic crude oil (SCO) after being upgraded to constitute a light crude. Bitumen is a thick tar-like substance that must be upgraded by adding hydrogen or removing some of the carbon.
    [Show full text]