Publié : 10 nov. 2005, 15:00
Bitumeux ou bitumineux ?
Les 2 mon Général ?
Les 2 mon Général ?
Site dédié à la fin de l'âge du pétrole
http://www.oleocene.org/phpBB3/
Mais c'est qu'ils pourraient donner des leçons à EDF en matière de démocratie-spectacleSables bitumineux
Les environnementalistes dénoncent le plan d'exploitation du gouvernement
Les groupes environnementaux qualifient de désastre la nouvelle stratégie de coordination de la province pour extraire le pétrole des sables bitumineux.
Les environnementalistes disent que le plan de développement que prépare le gouvernement albertain est conçu pour ne répondre qu'aux besoins des pétrolières et fait fi des considérations environnementales.
Le comité ministériel de l'Énergie propose d'utiliser les terres de la Couronne au nord de Fort McMurray en priorité pour l'exploitation des sables bitumineux.
La région de Fort McMurray est très riche en sable bitumineux. Les projets d'investissements y sont évalués en milliards de dollars et la superficie des mines à ciel ouvert est gigantesque.
Meredith James, du groupe Sierra, croit que le plan de la province n'a pour but que de maximiser l'extraction des sables bitumineux, au détriment des considérations environnementales.
Matthew Bramley de l'institut Pembina déplore pour sa part le fait que la stratégie implique le retrait de « toute une gamme de protections environnementales. Vraiment, la forêt boréale, l'environnement, la province (sic) sont menacés avec cette nouvelle approche ».
Audiences en janvier
La province prépare des audiences publiques en janvier pour discuter de ce plan. Les environnementalistes déplorent le fait qu'elles n'auront lieu qu'à Fort McMurray, ce qui les rend inacessibles à un bon nombre d'Albertains.
Under NAFTA, Americans have the right to buy as much of our electricity, oil, gas and water as they please and we are stuck paying American prices for our own resources.
Comment dit-on "pigeon" en anglais?MadMax a écrit :
Under NAFTA, Americans have the right to buy as much of our electricity, oil, gas and water as they please and we are stuck paying American prices for our own resources.
en Anglais ca se dit aussi "pigeon"phylippe a écrit :Comment dit-on "pigeon" en anglais?MadMax a écrit :
Under NAFTA, Americans have the right to buy as much of our electricity, oil, gas and water as they please and we are stuck paying American prices for our own resources.
Oil riches threaten Canada's unity
26.12.05
By Theophilos Argitis
CALGARY - Vic Fedeli, the mayor of North Bay, was not pleased when Alberta health officials showed up in his depressed northern Ontario mining community and invited local doctors and nurses to interview for higher-paying jobs in their oil-rich home province.
"Barbarians at the gate," he says.
Much of Canada is having a similar reaction. With the increase in world energy prices, Alberta's growing capacity to attract professionals and investors and to shape Canada's economic agenda is stirring resentment elsewhere in the nation, sparking a fight that could do more to shake national unity than 40 years of separatist strife in French-speaking Quebec.
"These debates about money are fundamentally debates about the type of federation we want," said Jean-Francois Gaudreault-Desbiens, a law professor at the University of Toronto and specialist on Canadian federalism. "They could possibly lead to more substantial changes in the long term than all the debates we've had in the past."
Alberta's oil riches, and what to do about them, have become a campaign issue in Canada's January 23 national election.
The Canadian Energy Research Institute estimates the province's oil sands - which contain reserves, estimated at 175 billion barrels, surpassed only by Saudi Arabia - will generate C$634 billion ($808 billion) in additional income over the next 20 years, three times its gross domestic product.
Two of the four parties in the federal election, the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party, are calling for new oil taxes in part to share the bounty. The other two parties, Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals and the Conservative Party, suggest that oil could be used as a lever to win trade disputes with the United States.
All of which makes Alberta's three million residents, about 10 per cent of the country's population, alternately angry and nervous.
"Alberta is going to secede from the union, I think," Jim Johnson, 69, a retired Baptist pastor, said at a Conservative Party rally in Edmonton. "We're just getting fed up."
Alberta's ascendance marks a profound shift in Canada's balance of power. For most of this century, Ontario - the most populous province, with the biggest economy - has been the biggest contributor to the Canadian federal system that forces wealthy provinces to pass money to poorer regions.
Alberta, though, is now the lone region with no debt, and its budget surplus of C$5.9 billion this fiscal year is expected to be four times the original estimate. Companies such as Calgary-based natural-gas driller EnCana are making so much money that the Alberta Government has agreed to pay C$400 next month to each man, woman and child in the province.
Alberta is also attracting professionals such as doctors at a pace that is making the other Canadian provinces uneasy. Its population is growing at the fastest pace of all 10 provinces, more than twice the national average, and added 11,000 workers from other provinces in the year to June 2004 while Ontario lost almost 8400 workers over a similar period.
A poll this month found that 55 per cent of Canadians want a greater sharing of Alberta's surpluses. One-third of Canadians, and almost half of Quebeckers, believe Alberta's wealth threatens the federal system.
Another poll in September found that one in two Canadians want the Government to nationalise the oil industry and impose price ceilings.
"There's always tension in terms of people who would like to see some of the wealth that's created in the west transferred to the east," Industry Minister David Emerson said.
Fuelling that tension is the recognition that oil has helped lift the Canadian dollar to a 14-year high against the US currency, making it harder for manufacturers to compete in global markets.
Canadian manufacturers, based primarily in Ontario and Quebec, have shed 100,000 jobs over the past year, the fastest pace since the 1991 recession.
Lloyd Axworthy, a former Liberal Cabinet minister, said Ontario might hasten efforts already under way to claw back its contributions to federal programmes so it could compete.
"You're going to have Ontario governments developing their own form of provincial nationalism," Axworthy, president of the University of Winnipeg, said. "Someone has to face up to that or else you are going to have a real polarisation of this country."
Meanwhile, Jack Layton, the leader of the New Democratic Party, has called for export taxes on Canadian oil. And the Bloc Quebecois, which supports severing the French-speaking province from the rest of the country, is calling for a surtax on oil- company profits, claiming the rest of the country is being forced to foot the bill for cleaning up the industry's pollution.
The Prime Minister, reluctant to start a constitutional debate in the run-up to the vote, and Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper, a Calgary native, have sided with Alberta, arguing that the province's prosperity will trickle down to other regions.
Even Martin and Harper, though, suggest the province's oil could be used as lever to win a trade dispute with the US over duties on Canadian softwood timber.
Harper said last week the dispute could have "long-term consequences on trade and infrastructure decisions" for the Canadian Government.
Ralph Klein, Alberta's Prime Minister, visited Ottawa last month to send the message that Alberta will fight attempts to increase its payments to the rest of Canada or interfere with its natural-resources policies.
While "there has been no overt move by the federal Government, that's not to say that we aren't being diligent," Klein said. "There's always a fear."
Thar's oil in them sands
* Alberta's oil sands contain reserves estimated at 175 billion barrels, surpassed only by Saudi Arabia.
* The oil will generate C$634 billion ($808 billion) in additional income over the next 20 years.
* That is three times the province's gross domestic product.
* Such riches are causing resentment in the rest of Canada.
* Some 55 per cent of Canadians want a greater sharing of Alberta's surpluses.
* One in two Canadians want the Government to nationalise the oil industry and impose price ceilings.
tu confonds cout de production de chaque baril avec investissemnt nécessaire pour installer une capacité de production de 1 barril.th a écrit :J'ai pas retrouvé ma source d'info initiale, mais google m'a retrouvé ça , à propos de l'Athabasca :energy_isere a écrit :oui, je te confirme que c'est rentable dés 30 $ le baril.
http://www.cnxmarketlink.com/fr/release ... c8242.htmlmême info ici : http://www.lesaffaires.com/fr/Aujourdhu ... 09,810,821Les études techniques préliminaires comprennent la mise à jour des
dépenses en immobilisations. Les coûts ne seront pas établis avant une autre
année, mais il est clair qu'il y a une hausse importante des coûts de
construction dans le contexte de la surchauffe du marché mondial pour le
matériel spécialisé et les matériaux en vrac. Shell estime pour l'heure que le
coût du premier projet d'expansion, qui comprend l'infrastructure commune pour
les projets ultérieurs, pourrait s'élever à quelque 200 $ par baril de
production annuelle. Les projets d'expansion ultérieurs utiliseront cette
infrastructure déjà établie, ce qui réduira le montant des dépenses en
immobilisations prévues.
Certe il s'agit d'investissement initial, mais en partant de 200 $ le barril j'ai du mal à imaginer qu'ils puisse baisser à 30 $...
Notons en passant que l'investissement à été décidé avec un prix de revient du barril à 100$. Ca veut donc dire que Shell prevoit que, dans un futur proche, il pourra le vendre à ce prix...... Donc qu'ils ont intégrés le PO dans leur business plan!