Sentences with phrase «needed for oil sands»

Former Conservative Minister Jim Prentice admits that pipelines are needed for oil sands growth:

Michael Levi says, «slash oil demand and the need for oil sands goes away.»

Not exact matches

In order to understand the impact of the oil price crash on oil sands, you need to look at the implications for each of these categories.

Alberta's new emissions regulations, just unveiled by the province's fresh NDP government, are a welcome step towards tailoring environmental policy for the needs of an expanding oil sands sector.

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.

Matt Ridley, for example, in his recent book, The Rational Optimist, argues that the oil sands are a much more sane solution to current energy needs than things like wind (too unreliable and too little output) and biofuels (wasteful use of land).

If there's a bright spot for the province, however, it's that the ongoing disruption of Alberta oil sands production — estimated by the Conference Board of Canada to be about 1.2 million barrels a day, comprising nearly $ 1 billion in economic activity — has contributed to a rally in global oil prices that could give producers, and therefore the Alberta economy, a badly - needed lift once production is finally back on - line (assuming, of course, the fires are eventually extinguished and oil sands operations escape serious damage).

Oil Change International, «Reconsidering the need for new pipeline capacity in Canada» Oil Change International, «Reality check: the end of tar sands growth»

She cited applications like providing power for metal mining or oil sands development where «temporary baseload, heavy - duty power» is needed, as ideal for the technology.

The need for the BOC to act was created by sliding inflation, weaker crude prices (which threaten domestic sand oil production), and lagging employment growth.

But the oil industry is pushing as hard as ever for their pet project, and we need to show the president the connection between decisions to import tar sands and a future full of Sandys.

We might not then need the tar sands and oil shales, and this would be a better overall solution because we would be able to reduce emissions and re-stabilize the climate more quickly, and thus avoid the need for some of the more extreme adaptation measures.

The reason greater depths are not needed is because geothermal in the context of oil sands production isn't necessarily for power generation, which requires high temperatures.

All the people who are active against the additional carbon release from the processing of oil sands, should be required to drive their propane or CNG fueled hydraulic hybrid automobiles at the most efficient speed for the miles traveled and to live in the smallest houses needed for shelter and eat the simplest food and never take aircraft trips. . .

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

Our case was bolstered by the statements made by the industry, banks, and investors on the need for the pipeline to keep tar sands oil flowing.

I look at the forecast growth for oil sands output, do the math and come to the conclusion that to move the incremental output to market we need the Keystone AND the Kinder Morgan expansion AND the Northern Gateway AND a pipeline to Eastern Canada.

Moreover, a new environmental review is needed to account for the dramatic changes in the outlook for the tar sands industry, as lower oil prices and a global movement to address climate change has led Exxon to write down billions of barrels of tar sands reserves and companies like Statoil and Total to pull out of the tar sands entirely.

This means that oil sands oil has overall (well to wheels) emissions some 17 % greater than for typical crude oil and most of these extra emissions are due to energy needed to extract bitumen from the ground.

On that basis, the report concludes that while continued oil sands production will make it very hard for Canada to meet its national emission reduction targets — which again it's worth pointing out, are in line with those of the US and far far below what science says is needed to minimize the impacts of climate change — on a global basis «elimination of oil sands GHG emissions will not eliminate or substantially lessen the immense challenge facing the world to reduce GHG emissions.»

According to the oil industry, tar sands oil is oil when the oil industry needs oil spill cleanup funds, but it isn't oil when it comes to paying for that cleanup fund.

In any case the environmental degradation imposed by tar sands extraction is severe, and certainly I would personally be very opposed to doing more than extract enough oil for vital needs, which in any case seems to be it's realistic capacity.

But because the stakes aren't as high as so many have claimed, policymakers don't need to choose either to press for a halt to oil - sands production or to advocate a climate - policy exemption for oil - sands fuel.