Sentences with phrase «less oil sands»

Not exact matches

If you're talking about a new project with no significant investment already deployed, building a new mine if you expect today's prices to hold in the long term is a tough call — a 50 - year oil sands project is a lot of risk for less than a 10 % rate of return — but even there, you can see the impact of the lower Canadian dollar and the hedge provided by a royalty regime which lowers rates when prices are low.

If you're talking about a new project with no significant investment already deployed, building a new mine if you expect today's prices to hold in the long term is a tough call — a 50 year oil sands project is a lot of risk for less than a 10 per cent rate of return — but even there, you can see the impact of the lower Canadian dollar and the hedge provided by a royalty regime which lowers rates when prices are low.

And just what «innovation» will make extracting northern Alberta oil sands less costly?

Even today, market forces are telling the oil sands to produce less.

Vancouver sits less than 750 miles from the Canadian oil sands but it may as well be on another continent for vehicle drivers.

At this point, oil sands players are getting less picky about which ocean that turns out to be.

Services, for example, generally require less investment than oil sands or motor vehicle production.

Refiners don't particularly want tar sands oil, which is tougher to make into usable transportation fuel, so it sells for about $ 20 to $ 30 less per barrel than crude from Texas or the Dakotas.

The plant flecks fly through the tube where ordinary sand heated to 500 degrees Celsius flashes them to an oil vapor in less than 800 milliseconds in a process called pyrolysis.

To many environmentalists — and, less predictably, to many energy developers as well — the slowdown in oil sands extraction may prove to be an unexpected blessing.

Shell states that tar sands are less damaging that coal: Well since when was coal and oil used to the same ends unless they are talking about widespread adaption of CTL technology which could happen in some countries with large scale coal rserves I guess but even I doubt that CTL projects will scale to 3 — 5 mbpd which is the projected output of Albertas oil sands come 2030.

The oil sands are still a tiny part of the world's carbon problem — they account for less than a tenth of one percent of global CO2 emissions — but to many environmentalists they are the thin end of the wedge, the first step along a path that could lead to other, even dirtier sources of oil: producing it from oil shale or coal.

The greenhouse impact of the oil sands is also far less significant than some claims, particularly given the reality that oil consumption rates are what matters — not the amount of gigatons of carbon sitting in deposits of this sort in the ground.

[Nov. 18, 11:37 p.m. Updated Vaclav Smil, the Canadian resource and risk analyst, has written a potent critique of Obama's move, noting, among other things, «If there would be no oil - sand oil produced in Alberta to feed the XL pipeline and then refined in the United States and the products burned in American vehicles, then the Chinese would generate an additional mass of CO2 equivalent to that prevented burden in less than two weeks.»]

Nader said, «We do not need nuclear power... We have a far greater amount of fossil fuels in this country than we're owning up to... the tar sands... oil out of shale... methane in coal beds...» Sierra Club consultant Amory Lovins said, «Coal can fill the real gaps in our fuel economy with only a temporary and modest (less than twofold at peak) expansion of mining.»

He claimed that reliance on railroads to move tar sands oil meant that less rail capacity was available to transport coal and other things.

Without some $ 100 - million that U.S. foundations have spent swaying us to their point of view, tar sands development and the shipment of tar sands oil would be far less contentious a public issue.

Expect more oil sands projects to capture and reuse waste heat and embrace alternative processes that consume less energy.

Rubin tells us the heavy oil from the Tar Sands (or «oil sands» as the industry tries to say) costs more to refine, and gets less on the market — perhaps forty something a barrel, versus the 50 or 60 dollars a barrel we hear quoted as «the price of oil».

The economics means that the oil price will go up as demand exceeds supply and at that point we will turn to less likely sources of oil, such as the tar sands, but eventually we will reach a point where converting coal to the usual oil products, such as chemicals and gasoline, will be a more economically viable route.

Facing proposed oil and gas regulations that would increase production costs by less than a dollar a barrel, the tar sands industry notes that its production is already on the edges profitability and adding a few cents per barrel in additional production costs would be very likely reduce production and revenue.

Using less oil — and transitioning to cleaner transportation technologies — would help decrease the need for unconventional energy sources like tight oil or tar sands.

Those are words from Susan C., who lives in Marshall, Michigan, less than a mile from where Enbridge's tar sands oil pipeline ruptured on July 25, 2010.

«The risks associated with the oil sands, the environmental risks, are significantly different than — and probably less significant than — the kind of risks associated with offshore drilling,» said Canada's Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice.

He argued that using Canadian tar sands — which he called some of the «dirtiest oil on the planet» — would «make it much less likely for human civilization to succeed in meeting» that goal of leaving oil and other fossil fuels untapped.

But a sharp decline in the price of oil makes many of the new oil sands projects less viable.

«In reality, the oil sands are more environmentally progressive and emit less waste than all sorts of other common industries in Canada and around the world.

But transporting oil from western Canada by pipeline is less expensive than shipping by rail, which requires specialized cars and / or specialized handling because of the very high viscosity of oil sands oil.

The new impact statement says that extracting, shipping, refining and burning oil from the tar sands produces more climate - altering greenhouse gases than most conventional oil, but less than many of the project's critics claim.

Now that most oil is produced off shore and other hostile environments, or from tar sands or from newly - discovered deposits at depths of up to 35,000 feet below the surface, the EROEI of oil production is now rarely as high as 20:1, and for new oil fields much less.

«In our case study of Canada's oil sands, we find a less than 5 % probability that oil sands investments, and therefore new oil pipelines, would be economically viable over the next three decades under the 2 °C carbon budget.»

In - situ partial combustion of Canadian tar sands allows the energy return on energy invested to be less than unity because it can be burned by pumping oxygen to the oil.

The Parkland Institute, a left - leaning Edmonton - based research network, reported that the government has received less than 20 per cent of the wealth generated by oil sands production since 1997 even though its original target was 35 per cent.

Indeed oil - sands production currently accounts for less than one - tenth of 1 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.