An Analysis of Industrial Policy Mechanisms to Support Commercial Deployment of Bitumen Partial Upgrading in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partial upgrading of bitumen (PUB) improves the quality (increases the value) of crude oil from bituminous sands to the level where pipeline specifications are met without—or with reduced use of—costly diluent. By reducing the cost of transportation to downstream refineries, PUB can serve as a solution to market access challenges and takeaway capacity constraints for oil sand producers. However, despite significant government and private investments, proponents in the Canadian province of Alberta still face challenges in commercializing the technology. We used a capacity investment model to explore the expected effects of different policy support types on a firm’s decision to invest in a partial upgrading facility integrated with an existing oil sands extraction facility. We evaluated 10 potential policy interventions and their expected effects on investments in partial upgrading. We focused our analysis of these policy interventions on the revenues and costs of firms, risk sharing, and overall public benefits and costs. We find that the majority of interventions are transferred from government to private interests, with little public benefits. Defensible policy actions include capital investment at the demonstration phase, providing incentives for industry collaboration, equity investment at the commercial stage, and reforming the government’s bitumen valuation methodology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".