Natural Resources committee  It would be an issue, really, for Alberta, but it does impose constraints on the ability to develop the oil sands, because if you don't have roads and sewers, you don't have houses, and if you don't have houses, you don't have workers, and if you don't have workers, you're not go

Natural Resources committee  The answer to that is people started with the part that was easy, and I use “easy” in quotation marks, because none of it is absolutely easy, but the most accessible resource was the mineable resource. The technologies one would use for in situ are all of relatively recent develo

Natural Resources committee  Actually, I have an answer to an earlier question, so I'll add that to the list and provide the answer to the earlier one. We'll keep the inventory of things we have to get back to you on. I don't know what proportion of Alberta production it would be, but it's about 1% of total

Natural Resources committee  I'm sorry, a thousand cubic feet.

Natural Resources committee  The 174.5 billion barrels, to be precise, is what is estimated to be economically recoverable with current technologies.

Natural Resources committee  I understand the question, but I don't know the answer off the top of my head.

Natural Resources committee  Of course, yes.

Natural Resources committee  I can promise you that it's much less than that.

Natural Resources committee  If I could just complete my answer on the question about two barrels in for one barrel out, that of course is quite possible in a centrally planned economy. Indeed, there are many examples in the Soviet Union where the production in the centrally planned economy actually wound up

Natural Resources committee  No, I think the steam actually is recycled. Under in situ projects, the steam is formed underground and either comes out as a mix with the bitumen or is recycled underground. That's why it has to happen at a certain depth. It has to be deep underground; otherwise, as Dr. Hamza wa

Natural Resources committee  Absolutely. The figure that sticks in my mind is 90%. What I don't remember is whether 90% is the average or best practice, but we'll undertake to provide the committee with those numbers.

Natural Resources committee  I'd be delighted to do that. I will qualify my answer, though, by saying that this is my personal belief. I'd be glad to get hard figures for you. On the question of carbon capture and sequestration, we may have a slight difference in the way we view the world, but I view this a

Natural Resources committee  I would be delighted to table the sustainable development report of the department. Absolutely.

Natural Resources committee  I think the factual response to that is that to the very best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the legislation or in the Constitution that requires the Government of Canada to centrally plan the use of energy resources or any other resources in the country. I understand that

Natural Resources committee  I don't mind being put on the spot about whether there should be a moratorium or whether development should be slowed down. Actually, I already answered that question. I believe I said that—