Archive for September, 2009

Dispatches from the Heartland

Friday, September 4th, 2009

Sure, a nationwide Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) imposed on high from Washington would be bad news for the entire nation – at least for the parts of the country where people heat their homes, drive to work, and, as of today, have the luxury of having a place at which to work.

But for some parts of the country, the impact could be even more severe. We’re talking in particular about regions that rely on secure, affordable supplies of Canadian crude to power their local economy. Places like Montana, for instance – where Canadian energy accounts for 93 percent of the oil Montanans use, oil that would be banned under an LCFS. Minnesota (83 percent) and Illinois (53 percent) are a few other prime examples.

Given all that, it’s nice to see media outlets in the area getting up to speed on CEA’s Secure Our Fuels campaign, and apprising their readers of the serious consequences for them and their families if a federally-imposed LCFS scheme is attached to the climate bill moving through Congress. This piece, filed by reporter Leslie Brooks Suzukamo, appeared this morning in the St. Paul Pioneer Press in Minnesota:

This week, Consumer Energy Alliance launched an ad campaign in the Dakotas, Montana and Tennessee opposing low carbon fuel standards. The group says a national low carbon fuel standard would raise the cost of gasoline by 60 cents a gallon and make Canadian [oil] sands oil so expensive that U.S. refiners would switch to lighter oil from the Middle East.

David Holt, the group’s president, said more states are talking about low carbon fuel standards. “It does nothing for the environment, and it restricts North American energy supplies and leaves us more dependent upon (overseas) imports.”

Minnesota refiners support the alliance’s campaign. “Minnesota’s access to Canada is an advantage,” said Jake Reint, spokesman for Flint Hills Refinery in Rosemount. A low carbon fuel standard “would turn that on its head, and instead of being on the front end of the pipeline, we’d be on the back end.”

Few states stand to lose more of their current energy supply under an LCFS than Minnesota. But no state stands to lose more of its future supply than South Dakota. Indeed, in the extreme southeast corner of the state, an extraordinary project is underway that will deliver the United States its first new refinery built from the ground up since the Garyville, La. facility in 1976. It’s called the Hyperion project, and estimates suggest it will generate 1,800 new (and permanent) jobs, $13.7 billion in local economic activity, and $50 million in annual state tax receipts. That is, as they say, some serious cheese.

Hyperion is scheduled to open its doors in 2014, and when it does, it’s expected to receive and process more than 400,000 barrels of secure Canadian crude a day. Naturally, a nationwide LCFS would shut that proposition down cold – in one fell swoop, canceling thousands of high-wage jobs and zeroing out billions in area economic development.

News and views related to the Hyperion project have been closely followed by the state’s largest newspaper, the Argus Leader. But no paper has covered this issue closer, better, and with more staff resources than the Sioux City Journal – whose newsroom, although based in neighboring Iowa, is only about a 20 minute drive from downtown Elk Point, S.D., home of the Hyperion project.

We’re talking about a paper that live-blogged a Hyperion-related air permit hearing from the steps of the South Dakota capitol – a six-hour drive from Sioux City. (Actually, the hearing was held in a nearby hotel conference room [capitol wasn’t big enough], but you catch what we’re saying here).

Late last night, Sioux City Journal business editor Dave Dreeszen posted CEA’s South Dakota TV ad on his website, and followed it up with this dispatch:

New environmental regulations for transportation fuels being considered in Congress would deal a “devastating” blow to U.S. projects like the proposed Hyperion Energy Center in Union County, according to a coalition of business groups.

Some majority Democrats back legislation that would lower carbon emissions in U.S. vehicles. The so-called Low-Carbon Fuel Standards, or LCFS, would unfairly penalize heavier … oil such as the crude from the Alberta, Canadian oil sands that Hyperion plans to process.

Last month, Hyperion secured a state air quality permit for its $10 billion refinery, which would process of 400,000 barrels per day.

“No permit in the world is going to save this project if LCFS is put in place,” said Chris Tucker, a spokesman for the Consumer Energy Alliance, a 125-member group that includes oil companies, retailers, trucking and transportation groups and business organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Sad, but true. Air, water and land permits aside, the success of the Hyperion project – and the continued health and well being of the South Dakota economy – depends on the LCFS threat being neutralized in Washington. That’s what this campaign is all about. Won’t you join us?

Thousands of Jobs, Billions in Economic Development Await South Dakota … Unless an LCFS Becomes Law

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

The last oil refinery built in America was Marathon’s Garyville, La. facility in 1976. But thanks to a recent decision by the South Dakota Dept. of Environment Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to grant a critical air permit to the Hyperion project in Elk Point, S.D., that streak may finally be coming to an end.

Sure, that’s great news for the country, but it’s even better news for the residents of southeast South Dakota – who came out in record numbers last summer to overwhelmingly support the referendum tied to the project. And who can blame them? We’re talking about a shot in the arm for their local economy to the tune of 4,500 new jobs, and $10 billion-plus in economic investment and development.

A recent article in the Prairie Business Magazine details the “massive economic impact” that the Hyperion refinery would have:

While it has not received all the required approvals, the estimated $10 billion project would have a major economic impact on South Dakota and the region.

During construction alone, Hyperion would employ approximately 4,500 workers in the four years that it will take to build. At full production, 1,800 full-time jobs would be available at the plant. “Those will be good-paying jobs,” Williams adds.

The company would also need access to a rail line and has already contacted at least one South Dakota railroad company about the project. The rail line would be used primarily to receive materials and export products once the facility begins operations.

Estimates call for the project to contribute $13.7 billion annually to the state’s economy.

The article even quotes the governor’s top economic development aide:

Kim Olson, the director of the South Dakota Governor’s Office of Economic Development, says the state is looking forward to the project’s economic impact on South Dakota.

“Approximately $1.2 billion of that would go to salaries,” Olson says. “That provides a substantial means for wealth creation in the state and can lead to development of additional jobs.”

Many of these good-paying jobs would be created in the South Dakota’s southeastern Union County. According to the state’s labor department, as of January 2009, Union County 7,815 South Dakotans were employed. Potentially, this energy investment could provide an employment uptick of more than 50 percent in Union County alone.

However, there are legislative threats looming in Washington that could dramatically hinder – if not outright eliminate – these jobs and the untold billions in economic growth and revenues. The policy in question is the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, and if implemented, it would have the effect of banning Canadian energy supplies from crossing the U.S. border. Worse still is that it has the support of President Obama, and other powerful member of Congress, including South Dakota’s senior U.S. senator Tim Johnson.

In a column last January, U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson wrote this:

It is important that Congress support the continued development of low carbon renewable fuels because in the United States, the transportation sector accounts for approximately 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Replacing high carbon content oil with low carbon renewable fuels must fit within an economy-wide plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This means adopting a low carbon fuels standard and transitioning to a fuels policy based on its carbon content.

We have to act prudently so that any new policy does not pick winners and losers and remains technology neutral in developing biofuels.

So, given the “massive economic impact” that South Dakota stands to gain from its new, pending energy refinery, Sen. Johnson should, at the very least, clarify his position for a policy that could undercut these jobs and energy security advancements. We know where China is on the issue of Canadian energy, shouldn’t we know where our elected officials are too?

Manufacturers: To promote LCFS is to reject U.S. energy security

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

Sen. Alexander, other LCFS-backers, have some explaining to do

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), one of CEA’s nearly 120 member affiliates, highlighted the threat posed by a low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) on its Shopfloor.org blog today.

Under the headline “Low-Carbon Fuels: Are We Serious About Energy Security or Not?,” Carter Wood – NAM’s one-man blogging savant – wrote this:

One of the many campaigns the environmentalist left has organized to cripple U.S. energy production and consumption is an attack against high-carbon fuels, i.e., fuels that are derived from heavy crude that requires additional refining. In the brave new world we live in, carbon is bad because it contributes to global warming/climate change/doom.

In simpler terms: The American greens hate the success of Canada’s oil sands and they want to prevent any similar development in the United States, including shale oil.

Wood adds:

To promote low-carbon fuel mandates is to reject U.S. energy security, plain and simple.

Unfortunately, some members of Congress continue to disregard the fact that an LCFS would increase prices at the pump for every single American consumer, threaten our energy security and good-paying jobs during a time of economic downturn. Not to mention that an LCFS may actually increase global greenhouse gas emissions.

Take for example U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), the third-ranking Republican in the Senate. Here’s just a sample of some of his statements about an LCFS:

“A low-carbon fuel standard is a more effective way to deal with carbon from fuel than economy-wide cap-and-trade, which would only raise prices and might not reduce carbon.” (“Alexander Pushes Nuclear Power As ‘The Cheap, Clean Energy Solution,’” The Chattanoogan, 7/7/09)

“[Sen. Alexander] also called for a low-carbon fuel standard, which he argues would not raise the price of gasoline.” (Kate Sheppard, “How will key senators vote on a climate bill?,” Grist, 7/29/09)

“Alexander wants Congress to put in place a ‘low-carbon fuel standard,’ which he said would “not deliberately raise the price of gasoline.” (Kate Sheppard, “Tennessee Republican comes out swinging against cap-and-trade bill,” Grist, 7/14/09)

“I would rather put caps on power plants and a low-carbon fuel standard on fuel. Again, that is the kind of government action that doesn’t pick and choose winners.” (Senator Lamar Alexander’s Speech at the Banquet Dinner of the Brookings Institution’s Plug-In Electric Car Conference, 6/11/08)

“Another bill [Sen. Alexander] introduced would have established a low carbon fuel standard.” (Herman Wang, “Alexander defends environmental record,” Chattanoogan Times Free Press, 7/29/09)

“If you put in a low carbon fuel standard today on fuel, you deal with 30 percent of the carbon, without this whole contraption of taxes and mandates, and you gradually lower it and you shift people to what is probably lower fuel costs, which is electric cars or maybe biofuels.” (Kevin Walker, “AFBF exec criticizes climate change bill at Senate hearing,” Farm World, 7/22/09)

“In the hearing the other day we had on climate change, I proposed and the committee adopted, a low -carbon fuel standard.” (U.S. Senate floor debate on the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, Congressional Record, 12/12/07)

“I will now broaden my legislation to include two other major sectors of the economy, one, a low carbon fuel standard for the fuels used in transportation–transportation produces another one-third of America’s greenhouse gases.” (U.S. Senate floor debate, Congressional Record, 10/18/07)

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), who has push for a job-killing LCFS in his state, has even applauded Sen. Alexander’s LCFS efforts:

“Governor Schwarzenegger issued the following statement today after the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee adopted the amendment by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) to establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (NLCFS).

I applaud today’s action by the Environment and Public Works Committee in adopting an amendment to establish a national version of California’s groundbreaking Low Carbon Fuels Standard. By adopting our approach of enforceable standards and market competition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this amendment to the Lieberman-Warner legislation, if passed, would dramatically increase low carbon fuels, expand consumer choice and reward innovation.’” (“Governor Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on Adoption of National Low Carbon Fuel Standard Amendment Modeled after California’s Policy,” Release, 12/5/07)

Some politicians view an LCFS to be a safe alternative to cap-and-trade, and from everything we’ve seen, it appears Sen. Alexander is properly assigned to that category. But just like there’s no such thing as a safe cigarette, a safe LCFS doesn’t exist either. Any way you slice it, a plan that seeks to undercut one of America’s most important strategic allies and deny entry to one of its most secure sources of energy is bad policy for the Untied States, and even worse policy for American consumers.

That’s the message of Secure Our Fuels, and with your help, it’s one will be able to carry far and wide.

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?

Tuesday, September 1st, 2009

The prevailing view among many U.S.-based advocates of a national Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is that the exportation of Canadian oil sands is a one-buyer market; that the “one-buyer” is the United States; and that if Congress were able to deny American consumers access to those Canadian resources, the market would fall down, shrivel up, and cease to exist within a matter of months, not years.

And while a situation like that would have serious (and adverse) implications for the U.S. – higher prices at the pump, a threat to good-paying jobs, increased dependence on unstable regions of the world for our energy — at least, the thinking goes, we’d be killing off a major source of so-called “heavy” hydrocarbons – oil that’s never to be found, produced or used again.

It’s time to think again. It turns out the Canadians have a lot more options than LCFS proponents had ever thought possible.

And option #1 may soon be China — a nation of 1.3 billion, and starting in 2009, the world’s largest purchaser of gasoline-powered vehicles. News out of Alberta this week suggests that relationship is already well cultivated and very much underway, with state-owned oil giant PetroChina inking a $1.7 billion USD deal to develop Canada’s MacKay River and Dover oil sands projects. From a Bloomberg piece filed by John Duce and Gene Laverty:

PetroChina Co. has agreed to pay C$1.9 billion ($1.7 billion) for a stake in a Canadian oil sands project in its biggest North American acquisition, widening the search for energy resources overseas. …

The transaction is part of the “long-term, strategic development of the company,” PetroChina spokesman Mao Zefeng said today. The purchase is also the first time PetroChina has invested in an oil sands project in the continent.

Part of a “long term, strategic” plan, all right – to snap up secure, affordable energy resources that had previously been earmarked for consumers in the United States. And who can blame either party? While the United States continues to sit on its hands, locked in a furious debate with itself over whether to engage this critical market, and even actively pursuing legislation aimed at banning those shipments from crossing the border, Canada continues to engage new buyers. And China continues to gobble up every single energy asset on which it can get its hands.

Don Martin of Canada’s National Post puts a finer point on it:

Canadian oil sands exports are increasingly encountering U.S. political resistance at federal, state and municipal levels as low-carbon fuel standards move through the legislative process to erect barricades against an energy with an extraction problem.

But it is delusional because there is no post-refining difference between conventional and non-conventional oil and banning it in one state or city merely moves it to another, with no corresponding reduction in carbon emissions. …

If America doesn’t want to use [the oil sands] on environmental grounds, they’re only one pipeline away from losing it to someone else.

One pipeline away – from Alberta’s oil fields to the Canada’s west coast. And from there? Hundreds of thousands of barrels of secure, affordable energy a day loaded onto tankers the size of football fields, transported across 6,000 miles of ocean, unloaded in Chinese ports, processed in Chinese “refineries,” and burned by the same gas-powered vehicles we have here in the U.S.

But at least we’re reducing CO2 emissions, right? Hardly. We’re just outsourcing our energy supplies to the China. Suits China just fine. Canada too. And apparently: the pro-LCFS crowd in the United States.

DOCUMENT CENTER

INTERACTIVE MAP

Find out the fuel profile of your state – and what a one-size-fits-all national fuel mandate might mean for jobs, gas prices, and security.

image