Sentences with phrase «sand oil increase»

Does Tar Sand Oil Increase the Risk of Pipeline Spills?

Not exact matches

The latest National Energy Board forecasts for increases in oil sands production through 2025 roughly add up to what Keystone and Trans Mountain could handle, says University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe.

Labor unions have pushed for approval of the pipeline, saying it would create thousands of construction jobs, while environmentalists opposed it because it would increase greenhouse gas emissions from Canada's oil sands.

The Panel excluded any discussion of the environmental impacts of oil sands development, although they did allow the consideration of increased oil prices generated by the pipeline on the taxes and royalties associated with forecast future oil sands production.

Oil sands production will continue to increase in the near term, likely through 2020 if not beyond, unless prices decrease materially relative to today.

Cenovus» first quarter saw an increase in its oil sands production to 144,000 barrels per day, up 20 % from the same period in 2014, and lowered operating costs across its assets.

The report also counters warnings from environmentalists that the pipeline's construction would spur a huge increase in production from western Canada's tar sands, believed to be one of the biggest reserves of crude oil outside Saudi Arabia — unleashing torrents of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The company says it is working to ease the pain of toll increases, but it argues that the line is needed as a result of oil sands growth.

Indeed, just ask the oil industry itself how important new pipeline connections are to not only increasing production, but also the very commercial viability of the oil sands resource.

Contrary to the opinion of the US State Department, approving Keystone XL is indeed a necessary condition to increasing oil sands production.

Ultimately, though, the State Department finds that an increase in the amount of oil moved by rail will allow new oil sands production to come on - stream whether or not new pipelines are built.

But when the B.C. government announced this week plans to bar increases to diluted bitumen (oil sands crude) shipments while it launches a new panel study of spill research, the group Stand.earth advised Kinder Morgan investors to call their brokers because this will delay or permanently thwart the company's federally approved Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

So, using their numbers above, for each barrel shipped on KXL, you'd have somewhere between 0.08 and 0.78 barrels of increase in total consumption, with between 0.22 and 0.92 barrels of oil which would have been produced elsewhere being substituted - for by oil sands production.

Let me give you a simple example — suppose the marginal barrel of oil globally is, in fact, an oil sands barrel, and so an increase in oil sands supply (i.e. more barrels available at a lower price) would increase world oil production and consumption.

«It is likely that Keystone XL would, in fact, drive increased oil sands production in Alberta,» says an institute paper.

Consider this: the US is increasing its own production of natural gas — much cleaner than tar sands oil.

The Pembina Institute argues the pipeline would enable oil sands companies to get a better price at U.S. Gulf refineries, sending a market signal to increase production.

Despite a saturated world market, North American production, whether it's bitumen from Alberta's oil sands or light oil from North Dakota or Texas, continues to increase.

Now they want to relive the glory days by increasing the amount of oil flowing from the tar sands at any cost.

Moreover, lower potential output in the U.S. eases the risk of a regulatory ban on oil from Canada's oil sands, and could lead to increased oil exports to the U.S.»

And even if Canadian courts ultimately deem such probing too onerous within the rubric of «reasonableness» review, such details can provide fodder for public commentary that can undermine the government's position in the court of public opinion (regarding the economic case for increased oil sands production, for example, see University of Alberta Professor Andrew Leach's commentary here).

Probably the most discussed aspect of the NGP Report (see this excellent discussion on CBC's The 180 beginning at around the seven minute mark) is the JRP's treatment (or lack thereof) of «upstream» greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), and specifically the apparent asymmetry between the JRP's decision to consider the need to open markets for projected increases in oil production — the vast majority of which would uncontrovertibly be from the oil sands — but not the GHGs associated with this projected growth.

In his May 2009 paper «The Canadian Oil Sands: Energy Security vs. Climate Change» (long one of my favorite sources), Levi identifies a list of six security and economic consequences of oil consumption and production and then examines how increased oil sands production and exports to the U.S. would mitigate or exacerbate these impacOil Sands: Energy Security vs. Climate Change» (long one of my favorite sources), Levi identifies a list of six security and economic consequences of oil consumption and production and then examines how increased oil sands production and exports to the U.S. would mitigate or exacerbate these impacoil consumption and production and then examines how increased oil sands production and exports to the U.S. would mitigate or exacerbate these impacoil sands production and exports to the U.S. would mitigate or exacerbate these impacts.

In fact, absent new measures Environment Canada's 2014 emissions trends report projected that oil sands emissions would drive increased emissions from the oil and gas sector of 45 Mt CO2e (to a total of 204 MtCO2e) between 2005 and 2020, offsetting the emission reductions made in other sectors.

The Crown corporation's original government funding of $ 100 - million increased over time to $ 1 - billion, with the objective of developing technologies and processes that would get the private sector back working on the 90 per cent of the oil sands that were too deep to be surface mined.

But the fact of the matter is that the oil sands have increased incomes across Canada to an extent much greater than that paragraph implies.

To be certain, the opposition to projects like the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry Alberta oil sands products to US markets, and the Northern Gateway pipeline, which would carry oil sands products to a new west coast terminal for export to Pacific markets, has caused delays and increased costs to proponents.

Speaking in New York in May, Mr. Harper emphasized that the rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline would lead to an increase in oil sands shipments by rail, which he called «more environmentally challenging» than pipelines.

This has increased pressure on companies with oil sands assets to improve (i.e., reduce) their environmental footprint, and in some cases, to divest such assets.

The additional boycott from Avon and others announced in early December just goes to show that the risks that the oil sands will lose its social licence increase.

How can it be that blocking the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion — which, if built, will almost assuredly increase the GHG emissions from Alberta's oil sands — would undermine Canada's climate change plan?

How else could he argue, as he did recently in a Maclean's opinion piece, that blocking the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion — and along with it, increased GHG emissions from Alberta's oil sands — would jeopardize Canada's climate change plan and make it impossible to meet our emissions reduction target under the UN Paris Agreement?

The company, Canada's No. 2 pipeline operator, released a letter sent to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and other department officials saying that increased carbon levies for Alberta oil sands producers and new Canadian targets for greenhouse - gas emission cuts should serve to help assuage U.S. concerns that approving the C$ 8 billion ($ 6.41 billion) project would increase climate change.

The Canadian province, which holds the world's third - largest crude reserves, is reviewing renewable - energy policies as exports from its oil sands face increasing opposition from environmental groups and lawmakers in the U.S. and Europe.

On the other hand, Canadian oil production, especially from the oil sands of Alberta, but also from offshore fields in the Atlantic, is bound to increase with the passage of time.

Even building just one LNG terminal coupled with modest oil sands growth would increase oil and gas emissions from 26 per cent of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions in 2014 to 45 per cent by 2030.

But in the end, increasing pipeline capacity to get more tar sands oil to market is a clear contradiction to Canada's promises under the Paris Agreement.

«Until ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of oil sands are more successful and widespread, the Final SEIS makes clear that, compared to reference crudes, development of oil sands crude represents a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions,» the EPA states in a letter made public Tuesday.

And in the environmental impact statement, Pilgrim officials wrote: «While crude oil shipment downriver is a relatively recent phenomena on the Hudson River, the increasing production of crude in North America because of fracking, and Canadian tar sands, is likely to result in increasing demand to move the crude oil to coastal areas for shipment to refineries.

Since it received permission to increase the amont of oil it transports, Global has also sought to add a crude oil heater that would allow it to bring in thick tar sands.

«Common sense holds that the Keystone XL pipeline will increase supply from the Alberta oil sands region,» he says.

In a surprise move, the president also weighed in on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, planned to transport oil from Canada's tar sands to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico — suggesting that it will go ahead only if it causes no increase in carbon emissions.

For every barrel of extra oil obtained from tar sands as a result of the pipeline, global oil consumption would increase by 0.6 barrels, because the extra oil would lower oil prices and encourage people to use more.

Of the 6 mb / d increase in global oil production between 2006 and 2014, almost a fifth came from the Canadian tar sands, and the rest from the US «shale oil revolution» driven by fracking.

The study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, showed that the production of tar sands and other heavy oil — thick, highly viscous crude oil that is difficult to produce — are a major source of aerosols, a component of fine particle air pollution, which can affect regional weather patterns and increase the risk of lung and heart disease.

However, the stark reality is that global emissions have accelerated (Fig. 1) and new efforts are underway to massively expand fossil fuel extraction [7]--[9] by drilling to increasing ocean depths and into the Arctic, squeezing oil from tar sands and tar shale, hydro - fracking to expand extraction of natural gas, developing exploitation of methane hydrates, and mining of coal via mountaintop removal and mechanized long - wall mining.

It will reduce producer's transportation costs, while also increasing the average price per barrel as oil from the sands starts to trade more in line with WTI.

Concerns included the footprint of the pipeline and it generally causing an increase in oil production from the oil sands in Alberta.

Production for Baaken and the Canadian oil sands continues to increase faster than pipeline and transportation capacity.

However, peak oil means a double whammy — it reducec GHG emissions from oil, however, there is the danger, that we switch to coal - to - liquids, gas - to - liquids, tar sands and oil shales, just because increases in energy efficiency, solar and wind output are not enough to counter population increase, decrease in oil availability, and increase in total energy consumption...