Sentences with phrase «of oil sands because»

If I take Keystone XL out of the mix, in my toy model, I haven't impacted the cost of the marginal barrel of oil sands because I haven't changed the cost of a barrel shipped by rail, I've simply reduced the profit on the barrels which would be shipped via KXL by forcing them to be shipped to market in a more expensive way.

Not exact matches

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.

And as the Bank of Canada noted in its policy statement, prices are higher in part because of supply disruptions, including the Alberta oil sands.

Environmentalists oppose the project because it will encourage the development of Canada's oil sands, a type of oil resource that requires more energy to tap than conventional reserves.

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.

The extraction and processing of a viscous oil called «bitumen,» excavated from vast formations of sand just below the surface of Alberta's northern region, has come under fire because it requires more energy than many other oil operations.

That can easily happen in a world of $ 100 oil, because such high prices offer enough incentive for producers to bring on new supplies from expensive sources such as the Bakken or Alberta's oil sands.

Meaning, if it is built, it is because the interests behind it likely do not believe the promise of the Notley government in Alberta that oil sands production emissions will stop at 100 megatonnes of GHGs.

The parables disclose with what pleasure and tolerance he surveyed the broad scene of human activity: the merchant seeking pearls; the farmer sowing his fields; the real - estate man trying to buy a piece of land in which he had secret reason to believe a treasure lay buried; the dishonest secretary, who had been given notice, making friends against the evil day among his employer's debtors by reducing their obligations; the five young women sleeping with lamps burning while the bridegroom tarried and unable to attend the marriage because their sisters who had had foresight enough to bring additional oil refused to lend them any; the rich man whose guests for dinner all made excuses; the man comfortably in bed with his children who gets up at midnight to help his importunate neighbor only because he despairs of getting rid of him otherwise; the king who is out to capture a city; the man who built his house upon the sand and lost it in the first storm of wind and rain; the queer employer who pays all of his men the same wage whether they have worked the whole day or a single hour; the great lord who going to a distant land entrusts his property to his three servants and judges them by the success of their investments when he returns; the shepherd whose sheep falls into a ditch; the woman with ten pieces of silver who, losing one, lights the candle and sweeps diligently till she finds it, and makes the finding of it the occasion of a celebration in which all of her neighbors are invited to share — and how long such a list might be!

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.

Oil sands extraction raises concerns among environmentalists because it generates more of the heat - trapping gases causing climate change than conventional oil drilling, among other thiOil sands extraction raises concerns among environmentalists because it generates more of the heat - trapping gases causing climate change than conventional oil drilling, among other thioil drilling, among other things

Regarding Keystone, I myself think it is clear that Obama should say no to Keystone, because it is something in his power to do, which would have some effect on retarding development of the tar sands (despite what the flawed State Department EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] said), and because we really wouldn't get any significant benefit from saying yes; no real oil security, few permanent jobs, and most of the money goes to Canada and to refiners in free - trade zones.

Pres. Barack Obama vetoed a bill to approve construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline on February 24 — not because of climate change, not because of low oil prices and not because of the risks from leaking diluted bitumen from the tar sands.

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.

Converting petroleum from tar sands into a type of oil is more costly because it requires strip - mining or the injection of steam to drain the petroleum.

Aerosols from the production of heavy oil is a growing climate and pollution concern because new tar sands developments are on the drawing board in Venezuela, Utah and elsewhere, the study says.

Tar sands, deep oil and fracking have severely blunted the oil peak, reduced fuel prices and have actually reduced CO2 because of the natural gas that comes with them.

He said, «I don't understand» — because what I was doing was I would make a painting and then I would let it dry and then paint over the whole thing; I wouldn't sand it down, therefore you would see all of these passages and the layers of gesso over oil paint, which, God knows what would happen now.

A tailings pond near Fort McMurray, Alberta, where the oil sands boom has faded because of low oil prices.

If the Canadian tar sands oil is not shipped to us it will be shipped elsewhere because the existence or nonexistence of the new pipeline will not affect demand.

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.

Well, because tar sand - extracted oils have a 2X + greater carbon footprint than «conventional oil,» operating margins for producing oil in Alberta will be roughly 1/2 as good as those of the competing state oil companies, once Cap & Trade is fully implemented.

Here's the tweet from @exxonmobil sent in response to critics who pointed out that, because of a major loophole that needs to be closed, bitumen is not considered crude oil, and therefore tar sands pipeline operators like Exxon aren't required to pay into the oil spill cleanup fund.

This is a critical element of the draft environmental review because while State determined that tar sands is dirtier than conventional oil, it concludes that Keystone XL would have little impact on the expansion of tar sands and therefore policymakers and the public needn't consider the impacts of that expansion.

Most of these high - price reserves (PDF) are on the industry's new frontiers — in the Arctic, deep ocean waters or unconventional sources such as the Alberta tar sands (PDF), where three major projects were deferred in 2014 because of falling oil prices.

She also noted that Oliver failed to mention that even his government's own reports from Environment Canada have said that Canada will not meet its climate - pollution targets because of oil sands expansion.

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.

Most of the oil shipped on the line will come from Canadian oil sands producers, which have been under from some U.S. environmental groups and legislators for boosting greenhouse gas emissions because of expanding production in the oil sands — a Florida - sized region of northern Alberta that contains the largest oil reserves outside the Middle East.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found in a survey of published literature that because tar sands oil is more carbon intensive than conventional crude oil, the Keystone XL pipeline would increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of «approximately 558,000 to 4,061,000 passenger vehicles» annually:

On the contrary, Figure 1 is a conservative estimate of potential emissions from tar sands because: the economically extractable amount grows with technology development and oil price; the total tar sands resource is larger than the known resource, possibly much larger; extraction of tar sands oil uses conventional oil and gas, which will show up as additions to the purple bars in Figure 1; development of tar sands will destroy overlying forest and prairie ecology, emitting biospheric CO2 to the atmosphere.

A dramatic reversal of fortune for Canada's tar sands oil industry has cheered environmental advocates, and it may also leave Prime Minister Stephen Harper vulnerable in the coming federal election because of the economic repercussions, some have predicted.

That's because although a high oil price of $ 50 - $ 70 is necessary to justify investing billions into a new oil sands project, the variable costs of getting a barrel of oil from existing operations are much lower (as low as $ 10 for steamed oil and low $ 20s for mined oil).

The spill presented a unique cleanup challenge, because 6B was carrying bitumen, a thick crude oil mined from Canada's tar sands region that is thinned with a cocktail of liquid chemicals to form diluted bitumen, or dilbit.

Open Pit Mining and Forest Destruction: Approximately 20 % of Alberta's oil sands are recoverable through open - pit mining, while 80 % require in situ extraction technologies (largely because of their depth).

: Approximately 20 % of Alberta's oil sands are recoverable through open - pit mining, while 80 % require in situ extraction technologies (largely because of their depth).

Critics say such spills raise questions about the safety and viability of in situ extraction, which by 2020 is expected to account for as much as 40 per cent of Canada's oil sands production, because many of Alberta's deposits can not be mined.

I've heard greens argue that we shouldn't even try to reach oil sands workers because they're just part of the colonial - settler assault on First Nations territory.

President Obama's decision in mid-January that he was not going to issue the permit because he couldn't determine whether it was in the national interest has caused a flurry of activity in Canada to start permitting an alternative pipeline from the oil sands to a port on the British Columbia coast, where the oil would be loaded on tankers bound for China and other Asian countries.

The report puts tar sands development lost revenue at $ 30.9 billion from 2010 through 2013, in part due to the changing North American oil market but largely because of a fierce grassroots movement against tar sands development.

And the reason that the oil and gas sector is increasing emissions so much is because of the expansion of the oil sands.

Sure, these tar sands assets were stranded because of low oil prices, and the infrastructure built to extract tar sands could be turned back on anytime, but that seems very unlikely.

As suggested in the article, the only way to stop the development of the oil sands (or any new oil development for that matter) is to address the supply side of the supply - demand curve, because as long as oil is at $ 90 bbl the producers will find a way to get their product to market.

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.

(But because extraction accounts for only a small portion of oil's carbon emissions, which primarily issue from the tailpipes of vehicles, the State Department calculates that oil sands oil is only 17 percent more carbon - intensive when the entire lifecycle is considered.)

Overwhelmingly, experts agree that oil mined from tar sands in Alberta, Canada is far worse for the climate than most of the oil currently produced and sold in the United States, because of the added pollution from extracting, refining, and delivering it.

But breaking the power of oil companies may be even harder because the sums of the money on the other side are so fantastic — there are trillions of dollars worth of oil in Canada's tar sands and the North Dakota shale.

Smaller, oil sands - only players such as MEG Energy are more vulnerable during a downturn because they don't have the cash cushion of larger companies and don't have refining operations to offset lost revenue from oil and gas sales.

The New Yorker's Elizabeth Kolbert recently published a comment entitled «Lines in the Sand,» arguing that President Obama should not approve the Keystone XL pipeline because of the climate impacts of using oil.

Because this oil is so different from conventional crude, a coalition led by the National Wildlife Federation is demanding a moratorium on building new tar sands pipelines — including the Keystone XL — until regulators update the rules regarding this type of oil.

Other countries with substantial potential for increasing production are Canada, largely because of its tar sands, and Kazakhstan, which is still developing its oil resources.