1. Direct burning of bitumen with FGD can compete with natural gas. 1.1 With price volatility anticipated, dual fuel capability for bitumen and gas has merit. 1.2 Oil/water emulsion technology may offer advantages over conventional burning. 1.3 Heavier oil (e.g. Vac. Resid or asphaltenes) may have better economics. Not analyzed in study. 2. Petroleum coke can be produced or retrieved from stockpiles; with negligible value, utility supply cost with direct burning of coke is marginally higher than cost with gas. 2.1 Low cash cost is offset by higher capex. 3. Direct burning of coal has higher supply cost than other fuels. 3.1 High delivered cost (more than bitumen, less than gas). 3.2 High capex and opex. 4. There will be costs for GHG emissions for the heavy fuels. 5. For gasification of heavy fuels, capex is higher and energy efficiency is lower, so supply costs of utilities are higher than for direct burning. 6. Natural gas likely to be used for most but not all of hydrogen. 6.1 OPTI/Nexen will gasify asphalt stream for syngas and hydrogen. 7. Natural gas likely fuel of choice for oil sands unless gas prices are much higher on a sustained basis. 7.1 Heavy oil could be viable, with fuel cost linked to revenue. 7.2 High fuel costs, whether gas or heavy fuels, are a threat to oil sands development.
展开▼
