Sentences with phrase «which oil sands development»

The report does envision scenarios in which oil sands development is curbed by a combination of lower oil prices and a lack of pipeline capacity.

Not exact matches

«In light of growing trends, and following the decisions made today, the government of Canada has determined that foreign state control of oil sands development has reached the point at which further such foreign state control would not be of net benefit to Canada,» Harper said.

From a strictly legal perspective, the relevant question is not whether there is a sufficient connection to any particular existing or proposed oil sands development or other production activity, and certainly not whether such projects or activities were included in the Terms of Reference (ToR), but rather simply whether the GHGs associated with the production of bitumen that will be transported by the NGP are an «environmental effect» of that project (see NGP Report, Volume II, Appendix 4, Terms of Reference, which defines «environmental effect» very broadly to mean «any change that the project may cause in the environment.»

Oil sands development is a matter of provincial government policy: in a government policy paper (the Mineable Oil Sands Strategy) issued a few years ago (and since recalled), the core area of the oil sands resources in Alberta was designated a «sacrifice zone», within which it was acknowledged that significant and irreversible environmental impact would be permitted to occur, to enable the realization of the significant economic benefits such development promisOil sands development is a matter of provincial government policy: in a government policy paper (the Mineable Oil Sands Strategy) issued a few years ago (and since recalled), the core area of the oil sands resources in Alberta was designated a «sacrifice zone», within which it was acknowledged that significant and irreversible environmental impact would be permitted to occur, to enable the realization of the significant economic benefits such development promisOil Sands Strategy) issued a few years ago (and since recalled), the core area of the oil sands resources in Alberta was designated a «sacrifice zone», within which it was acknowledged that significant and irreversible environmental impact would be permitted to occur, to enable the realization of the significant economic benefits such development promisoil sands resources in Alberta was designated a «sacrifice zone», within which it was acknowledged that significant and irreversible environmental impact would be permitted to occur, to enable the realization of the significant economic benefits such development promised.

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.

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.

The alternative pathway, which the world seems to be on now, is continued extraction of all fossil fuels, including development of unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands, tar shale, hydrofracking to extract oil and gas, and exploitation of methane hydrates.

I would agree though that one of the more effective ways (if not the most effective) to limit the growth of Oil sands development is to limit the rate at which it can be delivered to its primary consumer, the US.

Environmentalists argue that the U.S. president needs to take a stand against further development of tar sands oil, which is more carbon - intensive than conventional crude oil, and will put the world on what they call an unsustainable energy path.

Canada - based Suncor Energy Inc., which pioneered commercial development of the Athabasca oil sands in 1967, plans to increase production to more than one... Read more →

Opponents say it will foster the development of Alberta's oil sands, which will in turn emit more heat - trapping carbon dioxide when burned and thus exacerbate global warming.

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.

The alternative pathway, which the world seems to be on now, is continued extraction of all fossil fuels, including development of unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands, tar shale, hydrofracking to extract oil and gas, and exploitation of methane hydrates.

Norway, which along with the other Scandinavian countries has been among the most ambitious and successful of all nations in reducing its emissions, nevertheless approves expanded oil drilling in the Arctic and development of tar sands as a majority owner of Statoil [258]--[259].

Research underscores that continued development of Canada's oil sands, which the pipeline would facilitate, is critically important to North American supply and U.S. security.

Such an approach would be a sea change from the approach currently pursued by Stephen Harper's government, which has pressed ahead with oil sands development and gutted environmental protections of Canada's lakes and rivers, all the while gagging federal scientists to stop the release of data that may contradict the Conservatives» agenda.

Alberta, which is home to virtually all of the country's oil sands development, has also worked to defend — and insulate — its biggest industry against greenhouse gas legislation.

Promoters of the pipeline were overjoyed; they could now switch their argument from claiming that the pipeline was an essential element in developing the oil sands to one in which the pipeline would make negligible difference to the development of the oil sands and therefore have little or no effect on climate change.

This may be due more to the nature of the oil sands development contaminants vs those found in the other rivers??? I'm guessing O&G contaminants which tend to be nasty carcinogens amongst other things... I have to read if the evaluations of what constitutes poor or good water quality what it is based on (which contaminants etc.)... I will look at your details... Any water pro's out there that can put the details above into context?

Are EC's concerns specifically related to the nature of the contaminants in the oil sands development vs the other polluted rivers which may be contaminated different things?

The mandate of the joint review panel ensured that it focused on risks which can be mitigated without harming the pipeline or the prospect of future of oil sands development while ignoring the larger risks that can't be so easily mitigated.