Posts Tagged ‘OPEC’

Canada’s Top US Diplomat: U.S. mustn’t discriminate against Canadian oil sands

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

Canadian Ambassador Gary Doer amplified Canada’s concerns – shared by CEA – with a federal, one-size-fits-all Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), as well the number of states considering similar measures late last week. In an interview with Reuters, Ambassador Doer said that the United States should not discriminate against Canadia’s secure oil sands supplies that help keep energy prices affordable for American consumers, warning that trade restrictions could cause Canada to pursue other markets for these job-creating, North American resources.

In a Reuters article by Ayesha Rascoe under the headline, “U.S. mustn’t discriminate against Canadian oil sands,” Doer says this about an LCFS:

“We absolutely want states and provinces to not discriminate against one sector without looking at the big picture,” Doer said. With an estimated 173 billion barrels, Canadian oil sands are the largest source of crude [for the US] outside the Middle East.

Doer continued:

Ultimately if the United States becomes less open to oil sands, Doer said the fuel can go elsewhere. “This is a commodity that can sold somewhere else. It’s not as if the United States is the only country interested in purchasing oil,” Doer said.

Plans are already in place to build a multibillion-dollar pipeline to Canada’s West Coast, where tankers could ship oil sands-derived crude to refineries in Asia, although the industry has said it could supply both markets.

Ambassador Doer brings addresses an important point: Do US consumers want to continue our strong energy trading partnership with Canada to keep our economy moving, or do we want to deepen our dependence on unstable region’s of the world – who just happen to have oil reserves that score better under a convoluted LCFS scoring scheme? An LCFS, after all, favors energy produced nations like Nigeria over Canada. The answer to that question should be clear for all Americans.

Interestingly, similar concerns were echoed by Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, who recently wrote this about an LCFS on National Journal’s energy blog, under the headline “Consumers Benefit from Free Markets”:

Many independent experts – including a top U.S. Energy Dept. advisor – have determined that global greenhouse gas emission would increase under a one-size-fits-all LCFS. An LCFS, of course, aims to ban heavier forms of secure, North American energy reserves from entering the United States.

Unfortunately, the real loser is the American economy, struggling families and small businesses, which rely on Canada’s oil sands to meet nearly 20 percent of our nation’s daily fuel needs. Other winners? OPEC nations, who produce lighter forms of crude, which scores favorably under a convoluted LCFS scheme.

Each week, more and more policymakers and organizations are recognizing the host of dangerous consequences associated with LCFS schemes. In fact, a recent  Deutsche Bank report determined that America’s strong energy trading partnership with Canada is not only an economic winner but that it’s imperative for US security.

While many Americans still have never heard of an LCFS, Consumer Energy Alliance will continue to educate the public about this terrible misguided policy that could lead to higher prices at the pump, fewer good-paying jobs for Americans and expanded dependence on dangerous, unstable region’s of the world to keep our economy fueled.

Energy Security 101: University Profs Highlight the Importance Oils Sands, Unconventional Energy Forms

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

As the Senate kicks off hearings today on cap-and-trade, university professors from Oklahoma to Illinois are taking to the opinion pages of local newspapers to lay out, chapter-and-verse, commonsense solutions that will help put the nation on a path toward affordable and reliable energy security.

Chief among their suggestions – rooted in straightforward academic analysis, not politics – was that the US must embrace all forms of energy, especially affordable and reliable reserves right here in our own backyard.

C. John Mann, geology professor (emeritus) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, writes this in a column entitled “Nation must use oil from unconventional sources” in today’s Springfield State Journal-Register, the Land of Lincoln’s oldest newspaper:

If the Obama administration is really interested in reducing U.S. reliance on foreign energy supplies, then it should recognize the value and validity of unconventional oil made from liquefied coal, Canadian oil sands and Western oil shale.

Using these vast resources to meet America’s energy needs would be a boon for U.S. consumers and this country’s energy security. And everyone would benefit from well-paying jobs and revenue that come from producing, processing and refining liquefied coal and oil sands.

A recent decision by the U.S. State Department to support oil-sands production offers at least a glimmer of foresight and flexibility.

Canada’s oil sands formations hold an estimated 173 billion barrels of recoverable oil, making Canada second only to Saudi Arabia in the size of its reserves. The International Energy Agency has said that with future advances in technology as much as 1.7 trillion barrels of Canadian oil sands could be extracted.

Despite protests from environmental groups, the State Department approved a permit for a 1,000-mile-long pipeline that would carry oil from Canada’s oil sands formations in northern Alberta to refineries on Lake Superior in Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper pipeline will be capable of carrying 800,000 barrels per day of crude oil, shoring up Canada’s position as America’s No. 1 source of foreign oil.

Mann emphasizes the economic and national security risks associated with hampering supplies of affordable and reliable Canadian energy from reaching American consumers, which would be required under a national, one-size-fits-all low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS):

California and Oregon have banned use of oil sands, oil shale and liquefied coal, and several northeastern states reportedly plan to follow suit. At the same time, the U.S. House of Representatives is considering legislation that would impose a national ban in the guise of a low-carbon fuel standard. House members who are pushing for its passage seem heedless of economic consequences.

Quite simply, lawmakers should steer clear of regulations that discriminate between conventional and unconventional fuel sources, as they would exacerbate energy security problems without delivering compensating climate benefits. Imposing greater costs on oil sands producers and the liquefied coal sector will only benefit OPEC and would have little impact on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Given this country’s increasing rate of unemployment, we can ill-afford to turn our back on unconventional fuels.

The geology professor closes strongly with this:

As the administration works with Congress to develop energy policies, those who shape legislation need to wake up and realize that our country cannot afford to forego the use of unconventional oil. A misguided push to prevent its use can only succeed in undermining our economy.

And David Deming, a University of Oklahoma geologist and associate professor of arts and sciences, writes this in The Oklahoman under the headline “Plenty of oil out there”:

North America contains huge unconventional petroleum resources in the form of tar sands and oil shale. The western U.S. alone is capable of producing at least 2 trillion barrels of petroleum from oil shale. At a current U.S. annual consumption rate of 7 billion barrels, that represents a 286-year supply of oil, none of which would be imported. The value of this resource is $120 trillion, 10 times the size of the national debt.

We should follow Canada’s example. Starting in the 1960s, Canada began to aggressively develop its tar sand resources. As a result, Canadian production is now more than a million barrels per day, and its oil reserves are the second-largest in the world.

Oil is the lifeblood of our industrial economy. The U.S. economy will remain stagnant and depressed until we begin to aggressively develop our native energy resources. We have the technology to produce petroleum from oil shale in a manner that is efficient, economic and environmentally friendly. What’s stopping us is ignorance and bad public policy.

Canadian Resource Minister to US: LCFS Would Lead to “More Reliance on OPEC Nations”

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

As the Senate continues work on its climate change legislation, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chief co-sponsor of the bill and the powerful chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, told the Associated Press this week that “it’s possible Congress will pass a bill aimed at slowing global warming before international talks on a deal to limit climate change in Copenhagen in December.”

And while the draft climate change legislation does not contain a low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) mandate, this proposal – which would effectively ban our nation’s most affordable and reliable energy forms from reaching American consumers – continues to grab headlines.

In yesterday’s Globe and Mail, one of Canada’s largest newspapers, reporter Shawn McCarthy conducted an in-depth analysis on Consumer Energy Alliance’s efforts to raise public awareness about the threats an LCFS poses to consumers. Under the headline “U.S. advocates for oil sands tout security of supply,” McCarthy – who interviewed CEA president David Holt – wrote this:

For its part, the Consumer Energy Alliance has launched a public relations and media blitz that directly challenges the environmentalists’ attacks on the Canadian oil sands.

The campaign is part of an aggressive, multi-pronged effort by the oil industry – backed by other leading business organizations – to oppose the climate-change agenda favoured by President Barack Obama as well as the Democratic leadership, and even some Republicans, in Congress.

The Consumer Energy Alliance is leading the fight against the low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS), the most direct assault on the oil sands to emerge in the U.S. debate.

It recently sent a letter to U.S. National Security Adviser Jim Jones, urging him to protect American strategic interests by ensuring there are no impediments to the flow of Canadian oil across the border.

In the letter, Alliance president David Holt said Americans have long expected to import the bulk of the additional supply generated by oil sands expansion, and that it is a critical secure source of energy. “News of China’s involvement in the development of those resources, coupled with renewed talk of constructing an east-west pipeline for exportation of this oil to Asia, casts serious doubt on that expectation,” Mr. Holt wrote.

“So too does the advancement of a nationwide LCFS policy in Congress – which, if enacted, would deny millions of Americans access to Canadian energy without materially affecting global emissions of greenhouse gases.”

Holt is quoted saying this about a low carbon fuel standard:

“It would actually increase imports into the United States from nations that don’t necessarily have our interests at heart and certainly aren’t our good friends.”

The Globe and Mail report also highlights the series of radio and television CEA has run in an effort to educate the public on threats associated with an LCFS:

A federal low-carbon fuel standard – similar to one passed by California – would block access to Canadian oil sands, killing the refinery and the accompanying jobs, while increasing gasoline prices for motorists, the ads say.

Other major news outlets are weighing the facts of an LCFS, too. Today, Daniel Fineren of Reuters, under the headline “Canada oil sands help U.S. energy security,” reported this:

Several U.S. states are considering introducing low carbon fuel standards which would make fuels that emit the highest levels of climate-warming carbon dioxide more expensive.

U.S. President Barack Obama has expressed support for the idea but his administration has not taken a tough stance against carbon-intensive Canadian oil sands.

Fineren underscores Canadian Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt’s expert opinion on what an LCFS would mean to US energy security, as well:

“Canada’s oil sands are an incredibly important part of energy security for the United States,” Raitt told Reuters at a carbon capture and storage (CCS) conference in London.

“If you don’t purchase from Canada, who are you going to purchase from? It’s going to be more reliance on OPEC nations,” she said.

“The government will be involved in the promotion of the oil sands … it is a great asset, it is imperative to energy security in North America and it is being developed in a responsible manner and will continue to do so,” Raitt said.

As the Senate continues to wrestle with details, carve-outs and amendments to its global warming bill, American consumers – and their elected officials in Washington – should take Minister Raitt’s word to heart: an LCFS would deepen our nation’s dependence on unstable regimes to power our economy.

Send Congress a loud and clear message that North American energy should not be discriminated against to favor oil from Nigeria, Libya and other unfriendly regions of the world.

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