MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W267708815

Canada's Role in the United States' Oil and Gas Supply Security: Oil Sands, Arctic Gas, Nafta, and Canadian Kyoto Protocol Impacts

2004· article· en· W267708815 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alastair R. Lucas

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy law journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural gasOil sandsNatural resource economicsUnconventional oilInternational tradeEnergy policyEnergy securityPetroleum industryEconomicsEconomyFossil fuelEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental scienceRenewable energyEngineeringGeographyEnvironmental engineeringWaste management
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTION Canada is the United States' largest foreign supplier of oil, natural gas, and electricity. This includes 15% of gross oil imports and 14% of the total natural gas supply.1 Prospects for continuing and increasing these relatively secure energy supplies are strong in view of proposed major natural gas pipelines from the Arctic and continued development of Alberta's oil sands. The oil sands hold estimated reserves of 2.5 trillion barrels (bbls) with ultimate recoverable reserves of 315 billion bbls.2 However, there are several clouds on the horizon. One concern is the declining of the oil and natural gas reserves and production in the historically productive Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). A second concern is the regulatory and financial burdens and overall economic effects that Canada's December 2002 ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions reduction will have on the petroleum industry in general, and on future oil sands development, in particular. Regulatory uncertainty and investment chill are already observable, and lengthy and uncertain constitutional litigation between energy-producer provinces and the federal government is a possibility. A third concern is the potential cost and delay resulting from complex environmental regulation and the implications of aboriginal interests for the proposed Arctic natural gas pipelines. The final concern is the growing unease of the Canadian public about the long-term national energy supply in view of the energy trade provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and developing United States North American energy policies. These issues will be assessed. First however, Canada's oil and natural gas reserves, supply, and export potential will be reviewed. Attention will be given the massive unconventional oil reserves represented by the bitumen deposits of the oil sands. II. CANADIAN OIL AND GAS SUPPLY A. Oil The WCSB, located primarily in the province of Alberta, has been the principal source of conventional oil, i.e., light crude (density 900 Kg/m^sup 3^). Minor producing areas include Ontario, the Newfoundland Grand Banks, the Scotian Shelf, and the Northern Frontier region. Figure 1 shows the location of these producing areas and includes the location of oil sands deposits that are discussed below.3 In its 1999 report, Canadian Energy: Supply and Demand 2025, the National Energy Board (NEB) estimated conventional crude oil resources to be 34 billion cubic metres (m^sup 3^) of original oil-in-place, of which about 9.2 billion m^sup 3^ (27 percent) is estimated be ultimately recoverable.4 B. Western Canada Sedimentary Basin Eighty-two percent of the estimated 3.6 billion m^sup 3^ of ultimately recoverable light crude reserves in the WCSB have been discovered, and of these, 23% remain as established reserves and future improved recovery reserves. Similarly, [f]or conventional heavy oil, some 1.1 billion m^sup 3^ (82 percent) of the estimated ultimate recoverable resources have been discovered, and of these discovered resources, 0.5 billion m^sup 3^ (50 percent) remain in the established reserves and the future improved recovery [reserves].6 This is clearly a portrait of a relatively mature production basin. Remaining WCSB established reserves are in decline as shown by Figure 2.7 While the number of producing wells has increased, crude oil production has declined as shown by Figure 3.8 The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB) has documented the decline in average well productivity. In 2001, approximately half of the oil wells produced less than 2 m^sup 3^/day per well. These 16,100 wells operated at an average rate of 1 m^sup 3^/day and produced only 13% of total Alberta crude oil.9 C. Arctic and East Coast Offshore Frontier Areas By contrast, there is considerable reserve potential in the relatively unexplored frontier areas. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy law journalSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207