It depends on how much you're using and what quality you're upgrading, but the range we are using is a half of 1,000 cubic feet of gas to a full 1,000 cubic feet of gas. In economic terms, that's $3.50 to $7 of gas to create $58-a-barrel oil. So the economics are there.
The thermal capacity of that means you're using about a half of a BTU to a full BTU to create six BTUs. So you're not reducing the heat content when you're using that.
That said, natural gas is the largest single operating cost that an oil sands plant has. So they are looking at ways to try to find alternative fuels, as was mentioned before. That's the dilemma. Natural gas is a clean burning fuel, but could it be used elsewhere? If you move to some of these other technologies that are being used, such as coke gasification or some of the things that Nexen and OPTI are using at their plant, you actually burn part of the bitumen, the heavier fuel, to create your heat and steam. So you free up the natural gas to go to other markets, and the technologies there are actually much more inclined to carbon capture and can be used for more carbon capture and sequestration.
Nexen right now is building a 70,000-barrel-a-day to 150,000-barrel-a-day project in the field that will actually be using that technology. So because of the gas cost, they are driving themselves to use these alternate forms of technologies, which actually have dual benefits. If it's successful, it will really change the mindset of how people use natural gas in the oil sands.
Does that help?