Deep sea mining puts $560 billion in land extraction at risk — report
Even in optimal scenarios, the activity would generate only $6.25 million in tax revenue for countries involved, says Planet Tracker.
Oil sands development in Northern Alberta.
The European Union is withdrawing its proposal to label Canada’s oil sands as “dirty” in a decision that would open the European market to fuel generated in Alberta.
As the old continent’s worries over its dependence on Russian energy imports increases, EU members are softening their stance on Canada’s oil sands. Last year, they said that Alberta’s oil was the source of highly polluting gasoline — something like 23% more than the one derived from conventional crude.
The forthcoming EU legislation to promote cleaner transport fuels would have set hefty penalties on those made from Canada’s oil sands crude, because of the higher level of carbon dioxide emissions associated with its production.
But under the new draft proposal, European oil refiners would only have to report an EU-wide average of the emissions for the feedstock they use, rather than single out the oil sands.
The policy change would represent a much-needed win for Canada’s oil sands sector, which has been forced to defend its operations and environmental record against a number of critics.
But Greg Stringham, vice-president for oil sands and markets at the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), told Financial Post the new approach take by the EU still falls short.
“From what we have heard … while it doesn’t discriminate against Canadian oil to the degree it initially did, it still doesn’t encourage transparency,” the industry’s main lobby group leader was quoted as saying.
Canada’s federal government has campaigned aggressively against the EU proposal to the point it even threatened to take the case to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The country’s natural resources minister Joe Oliver presented in November a report arguing the methodology used by the EU to create its fuel quality directive (FDQ) was deeply flawed. That document is believed to have triggered the EU recent change of heart.
The new fuel quality directive, likely to be published in July, will need approval from the EU member states and the parliament.
Image by Christopher Kolaczan | Shutterstock.com
7 Comments
nobody24
the Euro elites should just bow to Putin, it’s more their style, Canada should NOT allow them to buy our oil or allow their national oil companies to explore for it here. Last month Putin annexes the Crimea, this week the French sell him warships. Nuke powered of course… The Euro green movement, the European Union itself is all about $. As long as there is $ to be made they’ll make pacts with the Devil, we should not allow them energy, let them hang on Putin’s word.
There IS such a thing as ethical oil, and WE have it.
Rod M. Kerr
Putin Is a smart cookie and not as bad as you might think.
big bud
well put, nobody24! Canada must not export and ounce of fossil fuel to the European Oil Junkies who cannot be facilitated any longer, they need to clean up and stop depending on all mighty fossil fuels, where’s their eco balls?
I'm_a_Miner
Let Europe put up all the windmills they want and farm algae in order to satisfy their idealism. Frankly Western countries produce natural resources cleaner, safer and more efficiently than Russia and its former Satellites.
rich1299
Dilbit is far more toxic than any other fossil fuel and there is no known way to clean it up yet its still being piped across a 40 year old pipeline that goes over aquifers and rivers that provide millions of Canadians with clean drinking water. When this pipeline leaks, and it already has been, espsecially if it destroys the drinking water of millions of Ontarians I expect Alberta will pay for whatever mitigation costs to find new drinking water fast and to clean up the dilbit. wit a minute there is no known way to clean it up. Oh well I’ve little doubt the Harper Cons and Albertans care as much about other Canadians affected by their filth as they do the First Nations people dieing of cancer at a vastly higher than normal rate downriver of the tar sands developments.
patentbs
Do not ever think oil is going away. We need to come on with all of the energy options we have. Wind, solar, nuclear, and all of the minor technologies. Several problems – 1- it is not just the energy from hydrocarbons that will need to be replaced. Hydrocarbons are the building blocks of many materials. -2- Our world growth increases the demand for energy. -3- the nitrogen for fertilizers to feed a growing world comes mainly from hydrocarbons.
See the problem? We need hydrocarbons to meet the shortfall from new energy sources until they are ready to cover world needs. I expect this will be about 40 to 50 years. Then hydrocarbons will still be used for lubricants and some of the chemical supply.
I do believe there will be advances that will release us from the need for hydrocarbons but even if we were to outlaw oils today we would not be able to cover our shortfall for many decades.
Preaching hate for a particular region will NOT help in any way.
Harry Gatley
It’s nice to see folks getting along so well over oil! Maybe if the dilbit could be chocolate flavored we could begin to ‘curry’ some favor towards oil sands. When I was with AECL in 1980 we designed an organic cooled reactor for the then dubbed ‘tar sands’. Little ‘Peter Waterhole’ however made the Fed’s cut so big(40%) the oil was distasteful to the developers. (Reminiscent of the recent Aussie gov’s bite out of mining it was not rewarded either when China slowed down its economy). Now I am finishing up the Al Jazan Refinery in Saudi so the Petro Dollar can be killed…Hooray for oil! 😛