Posted on 10/30/2007 2:09:06 AM PDT by familyop
Canadian oil sands producers should brace for further bad news - this time from south of the border, as the U.S. government moves toward a national climate change policy that could target dirtier fossil fuels such as the oil sands bitumen, a former U.S. energy official said yesterday.
His warning was issued yesterday at a conference on Canada as an energy superpower, and came as a new poll suggests Canadians want to protect the country's natural resources from voracious U.S. demand for energy.
David Pumphrey, a former official in the Department of Energy and now a senior fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said that prominent U.S. environmental groups have identified the oil sands as "threat No. 1" in North America's growing battle against greenhouse gas emissions.
There are more than a half-dozen bills before Congress that would introduce a national system to cap greenhouse gas emissions and establish a market for emissions credits.
Mr. Pumphrey said he does not expect President George W. Bush to sign such legislation, but added the next administration mostly likely will.
Several of those bills would "penalize" energy sources like Alberta's oil sands, which produce far more carbon dioxide emissions than conventional, lighter crude, he said. (California has already announced a "low-carbon fuel standard" that would penalize refiners for using tar sands and other heavy oil.) Mr. Pumphrey said the Canada and U.S. governments should ensure that their climate-change strategies are complementary and that emissions trading can be carried on across borders in order to reflect the continental nature of energy markets.
Oil sands producers have recently faced new federal and provincial regulations that require them to manage their greenhouse gas emissions, but new projects face no set limit and existing ones only have to reduce their emissions per barrel of oil produced.
The climate change challenge is only one of several "above ground risks" facing the oil sands projects, which nonetheless represent a promising source of additional crude oil for North American markets, the conference heard.
Panelists pointed to Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach's decision last week to raise the royalty rates on oil sands and on conventional oil and gas production, and to federal and provincial tax changes that eliminated the lucrative tax incentive, the accelerated capital cost allowance.
Matthew McManus, an energy official in the State Department, said the U.S. perceives the Canadian oil and gas sector as one of "near zero political risk" and enormous investment opportunity.
He said the two governments are working to remove barriers that impede the efficient operation of the marketplace.
But 20 years after the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement enshrined that market approach, Canadians remain leery of the growing U.S. dependence on natural resources from its northern neighbour, pollster Greg Lyle said.
In a poll released yesterday, Mr. Lyle found that two-thirds of respondents agreed that Canada should use its vast oil and natural gas resources to protect consumers from world markets and keep domestic prices as low as possible.
More than three-quarters agreed with the statement that Canada must "protect its natural resources from the insatiable energy appetite of American consumers."
U.S. government moves toward a national climate change policy that could target dirtier fossil fuels such as the oil sands bitumen, a former U.S. energy official said yesterday.
Oil sand is the best thing energy-wise to happen to us. When the oil gets scarce oil sand will be our future.
a former U.S. energy official
Well at least a former. I sure hope this isn't for real.
Me, too.
But we just had Kansas deny a license for a coal-fired powerplant on the basis that it would contribute to global warming because of the carbon emissions, which is a similar thing.
A former afficial free to lobby for his new client.
yitbos
Meanwhile, China is building these coal-fired plants at a rapid pace and no one says boo.
I’m no techno oil whiz, but isn’t this what a refining process address’s?
And without stack gas precipitators and scrubbers.
Too bad the sun is causing our (minor) warming, so this won't do a damn thing. Besides, you would do more to reduce "greenhouse gases" by capping a single volcano (if that were possible).
CO2 causing global warming must be the biggest scam yet...
When the truth is finally learned none of the jerks who have perpetrated this fraud will ever be held to account. Makes one sick.
Are we de-evolving? ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In some way we apparently are! It is difficult to grasp all the mindlessness that is now being bandied about in a serious fashion, ideas that would have provoked howls of laughter from a group of mule-following, fourth grade-educated dirt farmers 70 years ago are now being presented as intelligent thinking.
"Wees like toos help you. You know? I myself just happen to work, until I retired, in that very same department. Matter of fact, I wrote the regulation. No one knows it better, and fortuitously I happen to have, now, a private 'consulting company' which, for a very reasonable, to me, fee will 'protect' you."
No, not correct. The total emissions of all volcanoes is a lot less than fossil fuels.
I agree. The vilification of CO2 will give capitalism terminal frostbite.
The Dems have spent the last 40 years throwing monkey wrenches into machinery of the GOP Administrations. This is just the next monkey wrench they have decided to throw in. If a Republican is elected, the Dems will ban oil from oil sands so as to create an economic obstacle to overcome. If a Democrat is elected, they won’t.
One way to throw them a loop would be to pass it before a Dem takes office, but since the GOP is not in control, that’s not likely to happen.
The total emissions of all volcanoes is a lot less than fossil fuels. Says who??
What challenge? I'll bet if you asked most Canadians, they would welcome a 1 or 2 degree increase in temperature up there. Then they wouldn't have to fly down to Palm Springs every winter to warm up.
12 to 27 gigatonnes per year (Gt/yr) from volcanoes and seafloor spreading
Human fossil fuel emissions are about 7000Gt/yr.
I’m already buying up property with the best caves. My next move is to corner the market on flint knives and spears.
China could drill of Fla. if they wanted to.
they always talk about peak oil and all the unsavory governments that we have to get oil from but if you include oil sand and shale canada has the worlds largest oil reserves and at this point they are untouched
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.