On Saturday, December 14, representatives from 193 UN member states and 2 observer states signed an agreement that will see a cooperative effort to limit the global temperature to 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. The effort is spread across a wide range of contributing factors, but one of the major talking points is the oil sands space. The space has long held negative connotations; a view point compounded by Obama’s recent blocking of the Canada-Gulf Coast Keystone pipeline. Executives in the space, however, are saying that the Paris summit marked a turning point for oil sands, and that the sector now has the opportunity to reinvent itself. Let’s have a look at what lies behind this reinvention, and try to figure out what it means for companies in the oil sands industry.
First, what is the problem? For those not familiar with oil sands, they are a mixture of sand, clay and bitumen (also sometimes water) that is too thick to freely pass through pipelines or pumps, without being processed. Oil sands represent a large portion of global oil reserves, with an estimated worldwide resource of 249 billion barrels (Gbbl), of which 176 Gbbl (close to 80%) are in Alberta, Canada. The space is big business for the Canadian economy, but there are some serious concerns over its environmental impact – concerns that could hold it back in the wake of the Paris agreement.
First of all, the process produces large amount of greenhouse gasses. A study conducted in 2011 by Stanford University academic Adam Brandt concluded that crude derived from oil sands is 22% more carbon intensive that traditional oil well drilling. A concurrent study conducted by a California based engineering firm concluded that oil sands crude production creates 12% higher emissions than standard crude production.
Second, it can be highly destructive to local natural environments. One of the biggest oil sands production facilities in the world is the Athabasca oil sands in Alberta, Canada. At this field, the bitumen sits on top of a layer of limestone, which allows for surface mining. The Athabasca oil sands lie in the middle of the Boreal forest, and to allow for surface mining, and in turn to allow for access the bitumen, miners need to destroy forestry. The government in Alberta requires that the company mining the land (currently two companies dominate the region - Suncor Energy Inc (N:SU) and Syncrude, the latter of which is a joint venture between seven companies, including Suncor and a host of state owned enterprises) restore it to what’s called equivalent land capability (ELC). Restoration qualifies for ELC if the land supports any number of a range of uses post-processing, and companies have come under fire in the past for reclamation as pasture for bison, rather than forestry.
Third, water use. The traditional oil sand conversion process involves high levels of water use – estimates put the numbers at up to 4.5 cubic meters of water required to produce 1 cubic meter of synthetic crude. Governments in the respective oil sand field territories have imposed strict water use rules on the companies involved in the space, and water is generally recycled (returned to source) after use. However, this brings with it a host of other issues, including the potential for toxic returns to a water source. Estimates suggest that Suncor and Syncrude will have polluted 1 billion cubic meters of water from the Athabasca River by the end of this decade.
So with these issues, why are companies like Suncor involved in oil sands, when they could be involved in traditional well drilling? It’s a case of economics. The price of oil is a hot topic at the moment, and the vast majority of producers are unable to well profitably at $50 barrels, never mind the current $35 barrels. Suncor’s cash operating cost at its Alberta fields was $34.45 per barrel as of March this year – a time when oil priced in at between $45-55 a barrel. Currently oil sits at a little over $35 a barrel, but by nature of the production process, as the price of oil drops, the cost of production per barrel drops (as producers are having to pay less for transport costs, machinery running etc.) With this in mind, Suncor is likely still drawing a profit on the barrels it is producing out of Alberta.
Additionally, we are seeing technological advances in the space that look set to reduce this cost per barrel even further, as well as alleviate some of the environmental impact of oil sands processing – something that falls in line with the Paris summit agreement. Take MCW Energy Group Limited (TO:MCW), for example. The company, run by the former Exxon (N:XOM) president of Arabian Gulf operations, has developed a technology that allows for the processing of oil sands without any water (removing the possibility of water source pollution) and which uses a solvent to separate the bitumen instead of heat (which vastly reduces greenhouse gas emission.) Because a solvent is used, the byproduct of the process is clean sand, meaning it automatically meets the ELC criteria. Further, a report conducted in 2012 suggests the technology can produce at a cost of $24 a barrel.
So what’s the takeaway here? Well, oil sands will remain controversial, there’s no question about that. However, with the latest Paris summit targeting a 2-degree cap in global temperatures, the space has an opportunity to reform its image. With technology in the sector improving the environmental impact that oil sand production has in its mining regions, and the increasingly attractive per barrel economics, oil sand is here to stay – and at a time when the entire energy sector is under real pressure from markets, there may be opportunity in some of oil sand’s constituent companies to pick up an exposure at a discount.