Sentences with phrase «oil sands crude not»

Imagine a twinned Kinder Morgan pipeline that sends oil sands crude not to its current Burnaby export terminal but to one in northwestern Washington instead.

Not exact matches

The U.S. can produce as much shale oil as it wants, but its Gulf Coast refineries are geared toward heavier kinds of crude that can easily process oil sand bitumen but aren't geared toward the lighter crude coming out of, say North Dakota's Bakken play.

While all this sounds reassuring, the State Department also writes elsewhere in the report that «a focused, peer - reviewed study of the potential corrosivity / erosivity of oil - sands derived crude oils relative to other crude oils has not yet been conducted.»

First, I want to look at how the changes not just in oil prices, but also changes in diluent costs, discounts for oil sands crude relative to light crude and, in particular, the fall of the Canadian dollar have changed the outlook for new oil sands projects — for those under construction, and for those currently operating.

Recovering crude from the oil sands is a massively capital - intensive business and there aren't enough deep - pocketed Canadian companies capable of making the necessary investments.

State owned Chinese energy companies are not pouring billions of dollars into developing Alberta's oil sands so more synthetic crude or bitumen can be sent to refineries in Cushing Oklahoma.

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.

Canada would not deliver control of its oil sands — the world's third - largest proven reserves of crude — to a foreign government, Harper insisted.

In a world of falling prices, however, it will be high cost production from shale formations and the oil sands, not the low cost conventional crude from places such as Saudi Arabia and Iran that will be hit the hardest.

It is time to not only ban fracking, but halt new investments in fossil fuels and related infrastructure, including pipelines, gas - fired power plants, fracking waste dumps, fossil fuel storage depots in the salt caverns by Seneca Lake, LNG exports at Port Ambrose, crude oil «bomb trains,» and a tar sands oil heater at the Port of Albany.

We still don't know enough about tar sand oil, or bitumen, which takes longer to break down due to its high viscosity, but doesn't spread, we also don't know much about the behavior of oil from a blowout, such as the Deepwater Horizon BP blowout, and we know little of how crude oil behaves in the Arctic Ocean, where there is ice, or how to remediate it,» said Michel Boufadel, director of NJIT's Center for Natural Resources Development and Protection and a member of the panel of experts charged with evaluating the impact of spills in Northern waters.

But on the Keystone XL pipeline — which, if not blocked by President Obama, would carry the crudest form of oil from Canadian tar sand deposits to Gulf Coast fuel refineries — it seems there's little room for varied stances, at least according to some protesters.

The key issue here — far larger than the debate over a 17 % or an 84 % excess emissions per [barrel] of tar sands oil vs. light sweet crude — is highlighted by, [but] not put into full energy and climate context by, the compelling and depressing Charles Homans Foreign Policy article [link].

that aimed to spin away some of the criticism they have been facing in the aftermath of this spill, including claiming that the oil is conventional crude, not tar sands oil and that they are not benefiting from the Oil Liability Trust Fund loophole that exempts tar sands ooil is conventional crude, not tar sands oil and that they are not benefiting from the Oil Liability Trust Fund loophole that exempts tar sands ooil and that they are not benefiting from the Oil Liability Trust Fund loophole that exempts tar sands oOil Liability Trust Fund loophole that exempts tar sands oiloil.

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.

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

According to a thirty - year - old law in the US, diluted bitumen coming from the Alberta tar sands is not classified as oil, meaning pipeline operators planning to transport tar sands crude across the United States are exempt from paying into the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fuoil, meaning pipeline operators planning to transport tar sands crude across the United States are exempt from paying into the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust FuOil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

Although he did not name China, Mr. Gerrard was clearly referring to warnings that, in the absence of the Keystone XL pipeline, Canada will build alternative export routes to the West Coast to ship oil sands crude to the booming Chinese market.

But bitumen and diluted bitumen aren't actually a kind of crude oil (the IRS actually relieves tar sands streams from some taxes for this very reason), they're a different beast altogether, as the spill responders at the Kalamazoo River learned the hard way.

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which promises to deliver 700,000 barrels of Canadian crude to U.S. markets a day, isn't based in Saskatchewan (though economic spin - offs from the oil sands bring jobs and help fund social services across the entire country).

Perhaps not so ironically, the House vote on Terry's bill happened on the one - year anniversary of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan being fouled with 800,000 - plus gallons of heavy crude from oil sands.

Transporting toxic crude oil — and tar sands in particular — is inherently dangerous, more so because oil companies care about profit, not public safety.

Michael Levi, author of a Council on Foreign Relations study of the Canadian oil sands, told the Washington Post that, with the decision, «the Obama administration made clear that it's not going to go about its climate policy in a crude, blunt way».

Both were shocked during yesterday's testimony by TransCanada (the company who wants to build the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline across the US) officials who said, «Diluted bitumen [tar sands oil] is not any more corrosive than conventional crude.

This tar sands crude is not just regular oil.

Despite the rapid growth of the oil sands industry, and plans to build or expand more than 10,000 miles of pipelines in the next few years, federal pipeline regulations don't distinguish between dilbit and conventional crude oil.

Dilbit — the heavy, solvent - laced tar sands crude that oozed into the Kalamazoo River in 2010 and across Mayflower, Ark., in 2013 doesn't count, technically, as «oil.»

«The IRS has classified tar sands as different from conventional oil, and thus the tax levied to fill the liability trust fund is not levied on tar sands crude.

«Don't pick winners and losers among all the heavy oil being produced in the world: Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela, not to mention California heavy crude that has a higher greenhouse - gas footprint than our tar sands oil.»

That doesn't make oil sands unimportant for the climate — and their importance will grow over time — but it does suggest that avoiding oil - sands crude isn't among our most useful strategies for keeping emissions low.

If coal power suddenly disappeared, it would revolutionize the climate picture, but if the oil sands vanished, we'd replace much of their crude with oil from somewhere else, and our global climate challenge would remain largely, though not entirely, unchanged.