Q&A with Marcel Coutu

Syncrude's Chairman of the Board delves into operations, the environment and the demise of oil around the world. This article appears in the July 2008 issue of Oilsands Review.

By Peter McKenzie-Brown
Canadian Oil Sands Trust owns the biggest single share of Syncrude (37%), and the firm’s CEO is also Syncrude’s chairman. Oilsands Review asked Marcel Coutu about operating and environmental issues at the oil sands giant. His edited comments follow.

OSR: Developing new technology has been part of the business from the beginning. To what extent is that still the case?

MC: The first few years of this business were about survival, because oil prices were low and costs were high. When oil prices were low and margins were thin the driver for this business was always lowering costs. That really hasn’t changed much. Both Syncrude and especially Suncor have been major developers of new technology. Suncor, for example, developed hydro transport – technology that enabled us to move oil sands ore by pipeline rather than truck. So all of a sudden we were operating satellite facilities, without having to truck ore to the processing site. That was a major innovation. The tailings ponds are a major challenge area. It’s an important functioning part of our operations, and enables us to recycle our water. It’s a major challenge. We need to find ways to separate clay from the water more rapidly. This will help us reclaim land better.

OSR: Oilsands inflation has been high in recent years. How has that affected you?

MC: The one inflation component that has dwarfed all the others is the price of natural gas, which has moved up in parallel with the price of oil. We buy eight-tenths of an MCF of natural gas for every barrel of light sweet product we produce. The rest of our costs are increasing by low double-digit to high single-digit numbers, and over the years those costs add up. Fortunately, oil prices have more than offset operating-cost inflation.

OSR: How much energy do you consume for every barrel of oil you produce?

MC: About 1.5 gigajoules (1.5 MCF of natural gas equivalent) per barrel. That’s higher than 0.8 MCF, the number I mentioned earlier; that refers to purchased energy. The total energy we consume in our operations includes energy we generate as a by-product to our upgrading processes. It is largely electrical energy, in which we are more than self-sufficient. We produce a lot of waste gas from our processes, and use that to fire gas turbines. We also have a lot of waste heat from our operations, and we raise steam with that heat and put that steam into steam turbines. This makes our operations more efficient. Beyond that we arbitrage against the price of electrical power around the clock, sometimes selling electricity into the Alberta grid, sometimes buying it, depending on how those conditions align. We arbitrage those markets in both directions. We do the same with natural gas. It’s one of the businesses we do to make ourselves as energy efficient as possible.

OSR: How are you managing carbon dioxide emissions?

MC: We’ve been reducing them from the time we opened the plant gate. Carbon dioxide emissions are all about energy consumption – they are exactly the same thing; reciprocals, if you will. You only create CO2 emissions by burning fuels. We have always been incentivized to keep our energy consumption as low as we can, and lowering consumption means lowering CO2 emissions. We have always been focused on reducing CO2 emissions because they represent a direct cost to us.

OSR: You are a member of ICON, the Integrated CO2 Network. Any thoughts on carbon sequestration?

MC: The plants at Fort McMurray are the largest collectible source of CO2, but it is an expensive proposition. You have three levels of major expenditure there. You could sequester a lot of CO2, but I’ve seen numbers that you are actually generating more CO2 than you are sequestering by going through this process. First you have to construct equipment to extract the CO2, then build a pipeline, then pump the carbon dioxide into the saline aquifers, salt domes, old reservoirs or whatever you use to host the stuff.

OSR: The notion that crude oil supply is about to peak or has peaked is gaining a lot of currency. What do you think?

MC: Natural gas is in vast supply around the world but oil is not. Crude oil production in most of the producing countries in the world is in decline. All OPEC can now do is raise prices by cutting production. They cannot lower prices by increasing production because they don’t have the capacity. We are in a very pure free market situation, with prices being set by supply and demand. When I look at that dynamic, I have stopped worrying about the demand side. No matter how much the US goes into recession, for any period that is important to any of us, any decline in consumption there will be offset by increased demand elsewhere – in China and India, but also in developing countries that produce their own crude oil. Those countries generally subsidize oil products, and subsidies accelerate demand growth. At these prices you are seeing some conservation somewhere, but it is being more than offset by increased demand somewhere else. Whether people are still going to be buying at $200 a barrel I don't know, but by the time we get to $200 it will be the supply side that will keep things tight and moving upward.

OSR: How serious a problem is maintaining global production?

MC: Very. World oil production is generally in decline. You can assume that out of global production of 87 million a day, productivity will come off by 5-10 percent every year, so you have to replace that production each year before you can even begin to satisfy global demand growth. So what we are seeing is the demise of the commodity, since we are never really going to be able to meet the demand. Prices will be volatile, but the trend in my view is that prices will continue to climb. The demand will be fully there regardless of anything that happens to the US economy. The decline is real and cannot be arrested, at least not in the short term. One hundred and fifty dollar oil is within striking distance.

OSR: What is the role of the oil sands in this environment?

MC: Oil sands production is close to a million barrels a day, a little more than 1 per cent of global production. It’s going to take a huge amount of effort, capital and time, maybe ten years, to double Canadian oil sands production. It’s true that the Canadian resource is huge, but accessibility is long and slow. Our impact will be very slow. One thing we need to bear in mind is that the size of our resource goes up with the price of oil; the higher world oil prices grow the greater our resources become. We have re-evaluated Syncrude’s leases, and that re-evaluation has taken us way up from 9 billion barrels, which was our traditional resource base. That’s good for Canada and Alberta and the rest of it.

OSR: How are you dealing with the labour shortages around Fort McMurray?

MC: To answer that, you have to think of labour as being in two buckets. The people in the operational bucket are there for the duration. They have great careers, pension plans and so on. Everyone puts their shoulder to the wheel, and we get the job done. We lose some people, but the situation is manageable. Then there is the contract bucket – construction workers, pipefitters and so on, who are mostly there to work on expansions. They are there on a temporary basis and they are hard to hold onto. They are the challenging part of the work force. The labour problems we face are focused in that area.

OSR: Having waterfowl fly into the tailings pond brought international attention to Syncrude. Do you want to comment on it?

MC: We’ve extended apologies to everybody. It was really a heartbreaking incident for us. Why did it happen? Because we didn’t have our equipment deployed before the ice thawed. It’s something we have been managing for decades with success, but we got caught by the weather. We didn’t have our deterrents in place.

OSR: What are some of the other environmental issues you face?

MC: In general, our environmental story has been glowing. Where we have done a poor job has been in telling the world about it. I’d like to comment in three areas – water, air and land. Let’s start with water. At Syncrude we consume two tenths of 1 percent of the water from the Athabasca River for our operations. We recycle as much as we can. If you extrapolate from that, the whole oil sands industry consumes less than 1% of the Athabasca’s flow. Air is a more serious issue. We reduce our CO2 emissions because it makes economic sense, as I said earlier. But there are nastier things that we have been managing for years and they cost us a lot of money, and the nastiest of them all is sulphur dioxide. Our SO2 emissions peaked at 250 tonnes per day when we were producing around 250,000 barrels a day. In our last expansion we moved from 250,000 barrel per day to 350,000 barrels per day, and we invested about $1 billion in SO2 scrubbing equipment. We not only stopped the growth of SO2 emissions but reduced them slightly from our peak levels. Now we are spending another billion dollars to reduce those emissions to about 150 tonnes per day. On the land side, in March we were the first company in the whole industry to get certification for land reclamation. We have returned that property to the province. It’s really impressive. You would never know there had been a mine there.

Losing The Arctic Edge

This article appears in the July 2008 issue of Oilweek.

Canada needs to move quickly to join international rivals exploiting the potential of the Arctic

By Peter McKenzie-Brown
Canada began to explore the far north for oil almost a century ago. In 1911 Jim Cornwall, a northern businessman, saw oil on the Mackenzie River and hired an Aboriginal named Karkesee to look for seepages. Karkesee found several. Later analysis showed the oil to be medium in gravity and low in sulphur.

Cornwall formed a syndicate with two Calgary businessmen and the group engaged T.O. Bosworth, a prominent petroleum geologist, to study the area. During his 1914 expedition, Bosworth staked three claims on behalf of his backers and reported enthusiastically on the area’s prospects. Ironically, given later events, Bosworth stressed that his supporters should take every effort to control pipeline transportation from the North to southern markets.

World War I put a halt to the group’s exploration plans, and by Armistice Day Imperial Oil owned Bosworth’s claims. The company began exploratory drilling along the Mackenzie in 1919, first drilling two salt water wells near Great Slave Lake. Farther down the Mackenzie, near Fort Norman, the third showed oil. Led by Ted Link, who later became Imperial's chief geologist, the crew drilled the successful well with a cable tool rig. Legend has it that Link chose the site by waving his arm and saying, “Drill anywhere around here.”

In August 1920, at a depth of about 1,240 metres, the world's most northerly oil well came in; Imperial put it on production the very same year. Although just south of the Arctic Circle, the Norman Wells field established Canada as the world’s undisputed leader in northern exploration and production, and she retained that title for more than 60 years. Led by Dome Petroleum and a series of attractive federal grants, the industry’s golden age of Arctic exploration in the 1960s and 70s delivered huge natural gas discoveries and a number of small oil finds.

Let’s fast forward to the present. In petroleum terms Canada has become a second-tier Arctic nation. The US, Norway and Russia are all Arctic producers. In recent years, Denmark has done some drilling off the eastern shore of Greenland. Canada is clearly the laggard. Despite skyrocketing oil and gas prices and the many successes of Canada’s golden age, exploration in our Arctic is almost at a standstill.

As if to rub our collective nose in it, Enbridge Inc. and Gaz Metro recently announced that their proposed Rabaska liquid natural gas terminal in Québec had found a secure source of LNG. The source will be Russian energy giant Gazprom, which will deliver cargoes from an Arctic facility in the Barents Sea due to begin deliveries in 2014. By the terms of the agreement, Gazprom and Gaz de France will become equity partners with the two Canadian companies in the $840-million regasification plant.

The Great Abandon: In a sobering presentation to the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Dave Russum (VP of geosciences for AJM Petroleum Consultants) made a compelling case that Canada has fallen behind its rivals in the development of Arctic oil and gas, and that she needs to catch up. Only five countries have claims to mineral rights in the Arctic – the others are the United States, Russia, Norway and Denmark. 

The United States became a major oil producer at Prudhoe Bay in 1977, and continues to produce from that supergiant field. Last year Norway began producing LNG from its Snøhvit field. Russia, which already has Arctic production in Siberia, will begin producing from Shtokman in the Barents Sea in 2014. And Canada?

This country’s most northerly oil production still comes from the 88-year-old Norman Wells field. A tiny amount of gas production serves a few small towns and villages in the Mackenzie Delta, but this service has as much to do with local development as petroleum economics. When energy prices crashed and Dome Petroleum collapsed in the mid-1980s, the industry decamped from Canada’s Arctic with great abandon. Why? Several concerns have discouraged Arctic exploration for a generation. The main issue is geology. “In the Arctic most of the expected resources are gas,” says Russum, “and they are devilishly expensive to develop. Except for Prudhoe Bay, (the Arctic basins) have pretty much been gas plays, and we expect about 75% of the resource there to be gas. Oil has been the prize. If you couldn’t find oil, you didn’t want to develop there.”

During the last two decades the expense and difficulty of Arctic development was worsened by surplus natural gas supplies in North America. The situation has greatly changed in recent years, says the executive director of the Arctic Institute of North America. Benoît Beauchamp agrees that the Arctic is gas-prone, but says this is no longer an obstacle to development. In recent years natural gas has become recognized as a premium source of energy, although it generally serves continental rather than global markets.

This continental character raises the spectre of Canada’s tradition of bitter disputes over northern pipelines. It now appears that the joint federal and provincial panel evaluating the social and environmental impacts of the present Mackenzie Valley Pipeline proposal – this one put forward by Imperial Oil in 2004 – will delay the environmental decision on the $16.2-billion project by at least another year. This adds to a string of such problems that date back to the mid-1970s.

Like previous proposals, Imperial’s pipeline project has been dogged by setbacks. The company has yet to resolve Aboriginal land access issues or come to an agreement with Ottawa on how to finance the project. According to Beauchamp, construction of this pipeline is critical for renewed exploration in the North. “The announcement of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline will be the gunshot that starts the race up there. Then there will be a bonanza.”

Beauchamp is more sanguine about Canada’s place in the North than Russum. “It’s true that there hasn’t been much drilling in the Arctic Islands since the 70s, but there is a great deal of interest now in the Mackenzie Delta – no drilling, but seismic and other preliminary work. A few years ago an ExxonMobil/Imperial partnership acquired a large land parcel in the shallow Beaufort, on an extension of the Delta.

That’s likely an oil prospect, and three parcels adjacent to that property will be up for grabs in June. It will be extremely interesting to see how strong the interest is.” As it happened, BP acquired one of those properties for $1.2 billion. The other two went for a mere $10 million combined. Beauchamp expects an Arctic boom. “Interest in the Arctic is mounting. There are very few places left in the world with the potential of the Arctic, and companies need to develop reserves in order to grow. Canada is likely to be a focus because we are a stable country. Corruption is not a problem here, unlike Russia. We aren’t likely to abrogate signed agreements, as the Russians did at Sakhalin Island, for example. The problems in Canada are mostly related to the approval process.

Canada Rules! Russum sees the issue as being somewhat more urgent. “For security, sovereignty and economic reasons, Canada should take an active role in Arctic development.” That’s an opinion shared by Federal Natural Resources Minister, Gary Lunn, who met in May with leaders from the United States, Russia, Norway and Denmark to sort out how best to deal with conflicting sovereignty claims in the Arctic, including Canada’s.

“It is critically important that it’s under our sovereign control so that we set the parameters for the environment and that we make the decisions whether or not even to allow exploration,” Lund said on the eve of the meetings, which were held in Ilulissat, Greenland. “We are going up to reaffirm our commitment on defending and protecting our sovereignty in the Arctic.” On an immediate front, Russum notes that depletion rates have been accelerating in all of Canada’s gas-producing regions. “In every area, particularly those in Alberta, we have seen declines. This is not particularly surprising, given the drop-off in drilling,” but it is an important reason to move back into the Arctic. “Estimates suggest that there might be 10 billion barrels of oil and 181 trillion cubic feet of gas in the Canadian Arctic. With high production rates depleting gas reserves across Canada, we need to be considering all opportunities.”

“Conventional and unconventional gas in southern Canada will not satisfy future North American needs,” he adds. “We have to recognize the need to develop a wide range of energy sources.” Energy is the vital commodity, he says; it equals power. In a rather unCanadian way, he argues that “countries with abundant energy (like Canada?) will control the world. Net consumer countries (like the United States?) will be at the mercy of world economics and politics.”

In the case of natural gas, the Arctic will soon become a particularly important source of supply. According to Russum, a quarter of the world’s undiscovered gas is likely to be there. Looking at the entire transpolar region, 26 geological basins make up the Arctic. Of those, 21 have had some exploration activity, and explorers have found oil or gas in ten. There is commercial production in four basins (two in Russia, one in Norway and Alaska’s North Slope). Two - Canada’s Cameron Island and the Mackenzie Delta – have been the source of minor production volumes. Given the small number of wells drilled and the Arctic’s challenges to development, these results are impressive.

Imagination Beckons: Given the prospects for huge Arctic gas discoveries and the controversy over gas pipelines to the large North American markets – in addition to the Mackenzie Valley line, there have been disputes for 30 years over a line from Prudhoe Bay through the Yukon into the Alberta network – Russum argues that Canada should consider LNG production from the Arctic. “Although there are big problems with sea ice in the winter, these are problems the Norwegians have solved” he says, “and which the Russians obviously believe are solvable. Certainly one ‘benefit’ of global warming is ice shrinkage, which means more open water in the Arctic and a more easily passable Northwest Passage.”

Another advantage of LNG is that producers have more market options – especially since “world demand is now driving gas movement.” This point harks back to the geographical maps that Dome Petroleum made famous in the early 1980s. As those maps pointed out, the Beaufort Sea is roughly in the geographic centre of the developed world. If sea ice were no problem, LNG tankers loading up in the Arctic would find themselves about equidistant from London, New York, San Francisco and Seoul.

Destination decisions for cargoes from that region could be based purely on best price; the calculation of transportation costs would be largely redundant. By contrast, traditional pipelines have a number of drawbacks quite apart from political wrangling. One of those is greater terrorist risk. Others include long timelines, the enormous capital required and the fixed destination. Pipelines from stranded resources don’t have much market flexibility.

Whether developed through traditional pipelines or LNG or both, Russum believes it needs to be done. “In the Canadian Arctic, the long-term costs of frontier gas production are going to be similar to the costs of producing unconventional gas – shale gas, coal bed methane – in large volumes. Imagination will be required for development, and we will need to apply out-of-the-box thinking. If we do this, there is no reason our Arctic production can’t be economically viable in the global market place.”

The resources are there and the technology is available. The world’s hydrocarbon markets have never been stronger. According to Russum, “We used to be the leader in exploring the Arctic, along with the Americans. Now we have a real opportunity. We have to move beyond discussing development. We have to pursue it in an economic, environmentally sensitive and socially responsible manner.” He pauses for effect. “We only have four competitors. Three of them have already proved that Arctic development is viable in this environment.”