Sentences with phrase «tar sands does»

On the eve of President Obama's first foreign visit to Canada, a group of over 50 prominent Canadians have signed an open letter telling Obama that the tar sands don't fit in the new energy economy.

Not exact matches

«The cost of actually doing deep - sea drilling, the cost of doing fracking in North Dakota, the cost of tar sands, the cost of Arctic drilling is way, way, way higher than anyone admits,» Shah said.

BC doesn't need the tar sands and in fact has the potential to power much of Western Canada with clean renewables in perpetuity.

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.

TransCanada's detection system didn't pick up a 2016 leak in the Keystone pipeline in South Dakota, allowing at least 168,000 gallons of dilbit (diluted tar sands) before a landowner noticed the problem.

Tar sands producers don't need more pipeline capacity to maintain current production levels, only to enable even further expansion.

Tar Sand Oil pipeline: No big issue there, anglo and franco and Natives in QC don't really want it and the ROC (mostly Alberta and Saskatchewan).

It might be possible to impose some kind of fee on imported tar sands oil (though that would have to be done in such a way as to not trigger problems with GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade]-RRB-.

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.

Does Tar Sand Oil Increase the Risk of Pipeline Spills?

Erickson and Lazarus say the DoS failed to account for the effect of a flood of tar sands oil hitting the market through Keystone XL.

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.

They say the DoS study failed to account for the effect of a flood of tar sands oil hitting the market through Keystone XL.

But it's important to understand that Canada is going to be moving forward with tar sands, regardless of what we do.

What you do see is a lot of oil shale and tar sands use.

Here is a new question for you: can the tar sands operations burn, and what happens if they do?

When more energy is spent getting at the oil than the energy you extract, you stop drilling, so I don't see much future for tar sands, deep sea wells, etc. once the conventional sources get too expensive.

12 % of US Daily Crude Imports Done by Enbridge Enbridge Energy is intimately connected with expanding production of oil from the Alberta tar sands and delivering it to the United States — their 2009 annual report states that they transport 71 % of western Canadian crude exports, satisfying 12 % of US daily crude oil imports.

What the CTL folks are doing — just like the oil shale and tar sands folks are doing — is trying to find a way to keep supplying energy to a business - as - usual model in a world of rapidly rising energy demands.

While options remain open (the possibility of doing more upgrading in Alberta and the use of existing pipelines and rail transport to the US) nixing KXL will be a significant impediment to accelerated development of the tar sands in the medium term and an increase in the chance that the Athabasca bitumen will stay in the ground for ever.

Michael Levi (and others) argue that the tar sands oil will be developed regardless of what the U.S. decides on Keystone XL — if we don't use, it someone else will — but this overlook the very serious opposition to other pipeline proposals in Canada.

Geophysics reveals the requirements: phase out coal, leave tar sands in the ground, do not pursue the last drops of oil.

But it is unlikely we will do significantly more to slash oil demand if we deepen our dependence on tar sands by building the Keystone XL pipeline.

Not only does Q fail to consider the carbon to be released by burning coal but he also totally ignores the tar sands, oil shales, and heavy oils that are being targeted to supplement remaining oil supplies.

Accomplishing that will do three things: It will mean industry can charge higher prices for these resources; it will give the industry first - time access to an international export port; and it will send a market signal upstream that the game is on for expanding tar sands exploitation.

House Republican leaders are planning to accelerate approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline by adding it to a bill that has nothing to do with the pipeline.

In another Ipsos Reid poll from 2009 found that overall, 64 % of Canadians say development of Alberta's tar sands should be halted until a clean method can be found, as do 47 per cent of Albertans.

Moreover, we should avoid now economically (but not ecologically) feasible widespread use of CO2 dirty technologies: coal - to - liquid, gas - to - liquid, oil shales or tar sands... nice said, worse done...

How am I, with relatively more education and money (though no more influence), to tell BP that a.) using Canadian tar sands is a really bad idea and b.) I don't like the fact that refining said tar sands will throw 40 % more CO2 into the Midwestern air in coming years, so stop it already?

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.»

Even after decades of increasingly dire warnings, the US has still not passed comprehensive federal legislation to combat global warming; Canada has abandoned past pledges in order to exploit its emissions - heavy tar sands; China continues to depend on coal for its energy production; Indonesia's effort to stem widespread deforestation is facing stiff resistance from industry; Europe is mulling pulling back on its more ambitious cuts if other nations do not join it; northern nations are scrambling to exploit the melting Arctic for untapped oil and gas reserves; and fossil fuels continue to be subsidized worldwide to the tune of $ 400 billion.

[3] A recent report by the U.S. - based Natural Resources Defense Council shows that if Europe does not act, its imports of tar sands, one of the dirtiest fossil fuels, would likely skyrocket from about 4,000 barrels per day in 2012 to over 700,000 bpd in 2020.

«The fossil fuel industry and its shills are willing to exploit any crisis and go to any lengths in their effort to extract more dirty fuels and dismantle critical climate policies,» said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth U.S. «Rather than promoting dirty fossil fuels like tar sands and fracked natural gas, Obama and Barroso should be doing everything they can to keep these fuels in the ground and help avert climate catastrophe.»

«Although the [research] project appears to seek a sustainable approach,» Schwabe said, «this is done only to make a deeply problematic, highly environmentally damaging business a little less problematic in order to justify strengthening and expanding the tar sands industry.»

«Nearly three years after the Kalamazoo river spill, tar sands pipeline companies are pushing ahead with major expansion plans without doing due diligence of the risks associated with tar sands diluted bitumen transport on pipelines....

Alberta's tar sands industry took a couple of major hits over the last two weeks, in large part because of the great job clean energy advocates have done raising the profile of the problems and risks associated with the dirty energy project.

Little birds from around the world are telling ECO that this promise - breaking probably has something to do with those vast pits of tar sands you are so hooked on, the same ones that are undermining all of your domestic climate goals.

Shutting down the Oil Sands (tar sands) is so simple I don't understand why no one has thought of it before now.

With tar sands project, Canada looks like a scientifically illiterate high poverty desperate country trying to go after the dirtiest forms of energy when it does not have to.

2) A trail is revealed that leads from Carlin to Gregory who is something to do with anti-climate science lobbying and is based in Alberta (the tar sands connection?

Canadians are not dying to work on the tar sands project, it is mainly for the 1 % who are taking environment and people for granted and are using propaganda to convince the 99 % that they are doing good for the society.

In its analysis, State relies on statistics that pertain to rail transport of shale oil from North Dakota but that do not apply to Alberta's tar sands.

To increase supplies, most companies are looking to tar sands in Canada or converting coal or natural gas into liquid fuels, technologies that emit far more carbon dioxide than conventional oil does.

Invoking the likes of Alexander Pope and Charles Mackay, Nikiforuk decried Canada's «slavish [tar sands] promoters for omit [ing] the troubling facts as hawkers do.

Environmentalists did compliment Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's team for acknowledging this time around that oil mined from tar sands has significantly higher heat - trapping gas emissions than conventional oil used in the United States.

Refining a barrel of tar sands crude contributes 3 - 5 times as much global warming emissions as does refining traditional crude.

For example, the victims of massive tar sands exploitation (immediate victims who are sick and dying, and having their food sources tainted) need advocates, and she has used her best abilities to do what she can.

Big Oil has made tar sands development a global enterprise and will do whatever it takes to get mining equipment in, and the oil out, to foreign markets.

And that figure didn't include unconventional sources like tar sands, oil shale and methane hydrates»

The counter-argument made by the State Department in its environmental assessment made public Friday is that this concern isn't relevant, because no matter what the United States does, Canada will fully exploit the tar sands anyway: