Posted on 03/10/2008 3:01:29 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Canada warns US over oil sands
By Sheila McNulty in Houston
Published: March 9 2008 20:47 | Last updated: March 9 2008 22:12
Canada has warned the US government that a narrow interpretation of new energy legislation would prohibit its neighbour buying fuel from Alberta’s vast oil sands, with “unintended consequences for both countries”.
In a letter to Robert Gates, US defence secretary, Canada said that it “would not want to see an expansive interpretation” of the Energy Independence and Security Act 2007. A copy of the letter, from Michael Wilson, Canadian ambassador, and copied to Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, and Samuel Bodman, US energy secretary, has been obtained by the Financial Times.
Section 526 of the law limits US government procurement of alternative fuels to those from which the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are equal to or less than those from conventional fuel from conventional petroleum sources. Canada’s oil sands are considered unconventional fuels, and producing them emits more greenhouse gas than conventional production.
The Bush administration has, nonetheless, encouraged developing oil sands, given the US’s favourable relationship with Canada and that it would reduce reliance on Middle East imports.
Amy Myers Jaffe, energy expert at Rice University, said cutting out the oil sands as a source of fuel would also limit global supplies further, forcing up the price of oil: “$106 a barrel is going to look cheap.”
The three presidential candidates hoping to replace President George W. Bush are proponents of strong US policy to counter greenhouse gas emissions, which could lead to a narrow interpretation of the law. That could be why Canada wants the law interpreted now.
“The Canadians do, in fact, have something to worry about, particularly from a Democratic administration,” Ms Jaffe said.
Environmentalists say extracting a barrel of crude from oil sands results in five times the amount of greenhouse gas emissions than extracting conventional crude – a figure some energy companies dispute.
Tristan Landry, spokesperson at the Canadian embassy in Washington, said: “Classifying fuel from the oil sands as non-conventional fuel ... would unnecessarily complicate the integrated Canada-US energy relationship.”
The energy department said the US was “assessing any implication to the US federal fuel procurement practices arising from the bill and will work co-operatively with Canada”.
Ping!
This must be the same H.R. 5331 that Nancy P and the Dems passed last week that increases taxes on US oil companies, while giving Hugo Chavez’ Citgo a continued tax break.
Way to go Dimmies.
“Stop unfair trade. Outlaw buying Alberta oil.” LOL!
[Little irony there. Much higher freight fuel would result too quickly.]
Another Dem energy policy has failed.
Oil is fungible. This is a red herring.
Canada is going to sell it on the open market and it’s going to go mostly to us because no one is going to ship oil 1000’s of miles at extra expense.
If anyone was going to do it our new local tin pot Hugo C. He would have done it long ago.
There’s reality and then there is the BS you read in the paper.
Our legislators are traitors and the enemy of America and deserve what traitors traditionally get coming to them.
When will we wake up to the fact???????
That doesn’t mean it won’t end up costing more.
The enviro left are experts at using the courts to achieve their goals. It is easy to imagine a court order banning importation in accordance with the idiotic law. As for fungibility, don't be so sure that oil derived from tar sands cannot be identified.
The al-Qaeda supporters of the US House are trying hard to destroy our country.
We are using corn in place of sugar cane, A much less efficient base for ethanol, and no one is going to convince me that using corn is good, or that using corn is a net energy plus.
...and another thing. If anyone really believes that environmental activists truly care what the green house gas emissions are for a particular fuel substance, I have tropical beach front property that I will let go cheap.
Rarely do other Nations offer advise worth paying attention to.
THIS is the GREAT EXCEPTION!
Canada is correct in it’s warning.
This legislation is further proof that liberal enviro-whackos don’t want a solution to our foreign oil dependence.
Is it just me, or does it seem that congress is determined to 1) wreck the economy. 2) keep us on foreign oil imports. 3) keep us paying huge amounts of money to those that want to destroy us. 4) keep us from becoming energy independent.
Mark
Shiat, and we're all but guaranteed four years of this kind of thinking. The Presidency is lost ... work your arses off to preserve a blocking force in Congress.
Yes, oil is fugible, but the infrastructure is in place to export the oil right to the US midwest. Besides that, why would the US exclude tar sands oil? Does it make sense?
These deposits turn out to be everyone's hedge against the crazoids in the Middle East.
Recall that our current POTUS is an OIL MAN by profession. He, of all presidents, should know the peril we are in by being dependent on foreign oil. He should know how easily our enemies can manipulate this country & its economy by raising the price of oil.
This is not some great surprise to Americans. My Economics professor ranted & raved for weeks, during the 1973 oil embargo, about the damage we would suffer re. OPEC. It was all over the papers back then. Everybody with a brain knew we were dealing with the devil.
So, now we have $3.20/gal gas & $3.60 diesel, the 2 fuels that transport 99% of retail food & goods to our stores. And fuel prices are predicted to rise. Get ready for some big price increases & massive inflation.
A true story & analogy: My friend's ex-wife is a junkie. She has been on daily methadone maintenance for more than 10 years. Every day she goes to the “clinic” & takes her dose. Lately, she has been hospitalized, because methadone is bad stuff & ultimately destroys vital organs. My friend & I were talking about this the other day, & he said “If the clinic had very slowly reduced her dose over the 10+ years, she would likely be healthy & drug free today!” But that would cut into the “clinic's” profits, wouldn't it?
Also, Pilosi should be reminded that the air conditioners in California ar all run using electricity generated with Alberta natural gas.
Either we have an integrated energy market or we don't. If we don't then Canada is no longer obliged to abide the NAFTA requirement that obliges Canada to afford US citizens the same access to these products as Canadian citizens and at the same price.
That would let Canada sell its energy products to whomever is willing to pay for it regardless of US requirements.
It’s not just you.
This appears to deal only with government procurement of fuel for use by govenment agencies, ensuring that the government won't spend taxpayer dollars on fuel sources that will exacerbate "global warming".
I see nothing that would prevent those fuel sources from being used by the private sector, and if any politician seeks to so interpret that law so broadly as to further limit our energy options, he or she should be introduced to a tall tree and a somewhat shorter rope.
Hugo does.
Every time I read another provision of this POS so-called legislation, there’s another valid reason to reconsider the entire thing.
Followed by a fast trip into the nearest sh**can.
Americans have more to worry about from a Democrat Administration, but half of them are too stupid to realize that.
You are using logic and reason. Democrats do not understand those concepts just as “market economics” is a totally foreign concept to them.
We not only will not embrace the solution, we will make sure that we do not do so. What leadership!
McCain is on record as being against corn subsidies for ethanol production. He's against most farm subsidies.
“Environmentalists say extracting a barrel of crude from oil sands results in five times the amount of greenhouse gas emissions than extracting conventional crude ..”
But unfortunately environmentalists emit ten times the amount of bull$hit conventional people do... so the question becomes. Which is the greater danger? Oil sand or environmentalists?
I hear ya, the only way this could realistically be implemented is for the fderal government to contract with a particular petroleum distributor that doesn't deal with refiners using tar sands crude. It might even have to be handled region by region, as most petroleum distributors operate that way.
Waxman wrote this to eff with the DOD in its efforts to secure coal-based jet fuel. The language that he chose, however, casts a much wider net without offering any explanatory or limiting clauses to show how far this provision is intended to reach. I wonder how many billions it'll cost to implement this idiocy.
Ethanol also falls under Waxman's definition of "unconventional fuel", so this piece of legislation is already at odds with existing federal statutes and executive orders mandating use of ethanol-blended fuels.
Do you all know who’s really behind the bills against buying oil from the oil sands, yet? The Democrats don’t generally want more expensive fuel, and both parties have business constituents.
California and other coastal interests, including Arnold Schwarzenegger, were already working against oil sands production, ostensibly because it pollutes more.
The truth of the matter is that importers of Canadian products want a lower Canadian dollar and to cut other importers off. Remove the greatest prop to come for the Canadian dollar (oil sands), and there you have it: a lower currency and bigger margins on imports from there.
Most of those importers don’t have better choices, either, with freight fuel for overseas shipments going so high. They don’t like to change any of their practices anyway (extra work, uncertainties,...). They’ll have to buy Canadian and shrink margins in order to compete.
BTW, at least some of the merchants who own freighters also own hundreds of rigs (trucks).
Ping to 34
Paul Martin, and Maurice Strong, come to mind.
See this....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1979706/posts
Screw the damn gasses and get us some freakin price breaks already.
btt
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.