Find Out the Answer
take action NOW 
watch youtube videos 

Posts Tagged ‘Canadian oil sands’

« Older Entries

CEA Participates in Forum at State Dept, Lends Support to Keystone Pipeline

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

Last week Consumer Energy Alliance’s Michael Whatley participated in a public hearing at the U.S. State Department in Washington, D.C. on whether to grant a final permit in support of the Keystone XL pipeline project, which, upon completion, is slated to deliver 900,000 barrels of affordable Canadian energy a day to consumers in the U.S. who need it.  

The Keystone XL project will consist of three new pipelines spanning roughly 1,380 miles across the United States from Canada. Despite that reach, the actual environmental footprint involved in executing the project is minimal – with the total disturbed area for the project only expected to be 150 square miles. Because the pipeline originates in Canada and crosses into the United States, State Department approval is required.

As it stands today, we already receive about 2.5 million barrels of petroleum from Canada each day – 2.5 million barrels that we don’t need to buy from suppliers in the Middle East. The good news is our imports from Canada are slated to grow significantly in the coming years. Believe it or not, oil sands from Canada are expected to become America’s top source of imported oil this year, surpassing conventional Canadian imports and almost equaling the volume of crude received each day from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined.

Prior to the hearing, David Holt, CEA’s president, penned a column in the Washington Examiner,  titled, “Foggy Bottom Should OK Keystone Pipeline”  that highlighted many of the reasons why the U.S. needs the Keystone XL pipeline as part of our nation’s energy plan to take meaningful steps towards reducing America’s reliance on foreign, unstable energy. Here are key excerpts:

In Canada’s oil sands, we’re talking about an energy resource that’s expected to grow from a share of 1.34 million barrels a day of the American market to as many as 5.7 million by 2030 – or about 36 percent of U.S. oil imports by then. But for these opportunities to be fully realized, we need the infrastructure in place to actually get it here.

And, while a final decision by the State Department has not been made on the Keystone     Pipeline, what we’ve seen so far portends positive news for American consumers.  The Keystone is initially slated to carry 700,000 barrels of crude per day, eventually increasing to 900,000 barrels — significantly strengthening America’s energy and economic security, as well as creating more than 13,000 jobs in the project’s initial construction phase alone.

 

Echoing CEA’s support for the Keystone XL pipeline, Michael Whatley, provided comments and stated the following during the hearing (audio):

“The project has the potential to advance key national imperatives related to energy security, affordability and access for millions of Americans. The best part is: It has the potential to do all that without bringing harm to the environment. That’s why CEA supports the project, and that’s why we will continue to work with all stakeholders involved to ensure it happens swiftly and responsibly.”

In addition to CEA, a number of organizations representing consumers, organized labor, and state and local governments appeared at the hearing to provide testimony on why the Keystone project is so important to them and their constituents (Click HERE and HERE to listen to audio from two Montanans who traveled to D.C. to voice their support for the pipeline).

Russ Breckenridge, a legislative representative of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, stated the following to the officials at the hearing (audio):

“We came here today to show our strong support for the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline. Right now the construction industry is currently facing on average 20 percent unemployment, and in some areas our members are facing 40 percent. The TransCanada pipeline will begin to put our members back to work with high-quality jobs, with full benefits and worker protection.”

 

“Our organization wouldn’t be supporting this project if safety was any concern. … As President Obama has told our organization many times, his number one priority is creating jobs and turning the economy around. The Keystone project will achieve these two goals.”

Adding to the drumbeat of support for the Keystone XL pipeline, Richard Moskowitz, vice president and regulatory affairs counsel for the American Trucking Associations,  told the forum that the trucking industry supports the use of renewable and alternative fuels in the transportation sector, but “for the foreseeable future we will be dependent on diesel fuel to deliver virtually 100 percent of the consumer products in the United States.”

Moskowitz also addressed concerns related to the carbon output of fuels expected to be delivered by the pipeline: “The carbon required to transport that oil from Alberta down to Houston is going to be less than the amount of carbon required to transport that oil across Canada, load it on super-tankers, and bring it to China – which is what will happen if we don’t use that oil here in the United States.” (audio)

As the State Department continues to consider the application for the Keystone XL pipeline, CEA hopes that it remembers the economic and energy security benefits of Canada’s vital resources and the 2.5 million barrels of petroleum Canada sends the United States each and every day. It is clear that policymakers should continue to expand America’s access to safe, affordable energy supplies to help ensure improved energy security and stable prices for consumers. Please click HERE make your voice heard on this vital project.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

CEA, Labor, Local Gov’t Officials Turn Out at State Dept. to Lend Support to Keystone Pipeline

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

CEA’s Whatley on hand to participate in forum, submit comments in support of expanded Canada-to-USA pipeline

WASHINGTON – Is the U.S. government ready to take meaningful steps toward reducing America’s reliance on far-away, unstable energy while leveraging secure, proximate energy sources to create jobs and opportunity here at home? That’s the conversation that took place today at the U.S. State Department, as the agency held another in a series of public forums on whether to grant a final permit in support of the Keystone XL pipeline project, which, upon completion, is slated to deliver 900,000 barrels of affordable Canadian energy a day to consumers in the U.S. who need it.  

“Some might consider the State Department an unlikely setting for a discussion on energy in the United States,” said Michael Whatley, vice president of Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) and on hand today to provide comments in support of the Keystone project for CEA. “But actually, the Keystone pipeline project is right up State’s alley – especially since the project has the potential to advance key national imperatives related to energy security, affordability and access for millions of Americans. The best part is: It has the potential to do all that without bringing harm to the environment. That’s why CEA supports the project, and that’s why we will continue to work with all stakeholders involved to ensure it happens swiftly and responsibly.”

Once completed, the Keystone XL project will consist of three new pipelines spanning roughly 1,380 miles across the United States from Canada, with the capacity to deliver roughly 900,000 barrels of secure, affordable Canadian energy to American consumers over the long-term. Despite that reach, the actual environmental footprint involved in executing the project is minimal – with the total disturbed area for the project only expected to be 150 square miles. Because the pipeline originates in Canada and crosses into the United States, State Department approval is required.

In addition to CEA, a number of organizations representing consumers, organized labor, and state and local governments appeared at today’s forum to lend their unique perspectives on why the Keystone project is so important to them and their constituents.

“We came here today to show our strong support for the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline,” said Russ Breckenridge, a legislative representative of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada. “Right now the construction industry is currently facing on average 20 percent unemployment, and in some areas our members are facing 40 percent. The TransCanada pipeline will begin to put our members back to work with high-quality jobs, with full benefits and worker protection.”

Added Breckenridge: “Our organization wouldn’t be supporting this project if safety was any concern. … As President Obama has told our organization many times, his number one priority is creating jobs and turning the economy around. The Keystone project will achieve these two goals.” (audio)

Richard Moskowitz, vice president and regulatory affairs counsel for the American Trucking Associations – a CEA member – told the forum that the trucking industry supports the use of renewable and alternative fuels in the transportation sector, but “for the foreseeable future we will be dependent on diesel fuel to deliver virtually 100 percent of the consumer products in the United States.”

Moskowitz also addressed concerns related to the carbon output of fuels expected to be delivered by the pipeline: “The carbon required to transport that oil from Alberta down to Houston is going to be less than the amount of carbon required to transport that oil across Canada, load it on super-tankers, and bring it to China – which is what will happen if we don’t use that oil here in the United States.” (audio)

Additional resources and audio files available from today’s State Dept. event:

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | No Comments »

CEA joins Environment Minister of Alberta, Consumer Groups and Policy Experts for Boston Forum on LCFS

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

Last week the environment minister from the Canadian province of Alberta participated in a regional energy conference in Boston hosted by Consumer Energy Alliance, that examined the potentially adverse consequences of imposing a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) on the Northeast, an initiative supported by 11 Northeast and mid-Atlantic governors, and being pushed by the Boston-based group known as the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM).

If implemented in the region, an LCFS could prevent secure and affordable Canadian energy from reaching consumers in the Northeast, making refined products like home heating fuel hard to find – forcing New England states to increase imports from foreign, far-away suppliers to make up the difference. Massachusetts alone imports more than 2.8 million barrels of petroleum products from Canada a month – supplies that would be put in danger under an LCFS.

During the forum, Michael Whatley, CEA’s vice president and the emcee of the forum, explained what an LCFS is and the state of this policy in the Northeast and stated this about an LCFS to the participants:

“During this time of unprecedented economic uncertainty, instituting a region-wide policy designed to drive up gas and diesel prices and make essential energy commodities such as home heating oil a whole lot more scarce doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Maybe the more unfortunate reality of the LCFS, though, is that it won’t do a thing to reduce global concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But that’s the LCFS: All pain, no gain.”

 

Following these comments, Rob Renner, the environment minister of Canada provided participants with an overview of the latest technological advances being deployed to develop Alberta’s oil sands in an environmentally sensitive way. Renner also discussed why an LCFS will not reduce carbon emissions and highlighted that CO2 emissions from the production of oil sands has come down by an average of 39 percent per barrel since 1990. 

Reporting on this event under the headline, “U.S. emissions laws could backfire, Alberta minister warns,” Archie McLean in the Vancouver Sun reports:

New low-carbon fuel standards proposed in the Northeastern U.S. could actually slow the greening of the oilsands, Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner warned Monday. “We need to make sure that whatever we do doesn’t have the unintended consequence (of discouraging further investment) into technology that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” Renner said from Boston, where he was attending an energy forum.

A number of eastern and Midwestern states are weighing similar laws, which would force refiners to cut back on the amount of oilsands fuel or buy offsets or credits. They recently signed a memorandum of understanding urging the U.S. government to impose national standards but warning they could go ahead on their own if those don’t materialize.

 

According to a recent article in Diesel Fuel News by Jack Peckham on the LCFS forum, titled “Truckers Fear Huge Diesel Price Hike from Low-carbon Fuel Standard”:

Massachusetts Motor Transport Association Executive Director Anne Lynch last week told a Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) panel discussion in Boston about a proposed U.S. Northeast regional low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) that such rules potentially could cause a 90% cost increase for diesel fuel.  Any regionally-based LCFS mandate would put local truckers at a disadvantage to fleets operating in border areas outside the LCFS mandate, she added. What’s more, “there’s no [commercially competitive] powertrain that could handle these kinds of changes” contemplated by the proposed LCFS scheme, she said.

 

Peckham continues with an overview of how a broader LCFS could force a conversion of the U.S.light-duty vehicle fleet to electric power:

The problem is that relatively quick, massive conversion to electric power or high-level ethanol blends would require U.S. vehicle fleet turnover rates that far exceed historic turnover rates, expert panelists said. If the vehicle turnover rate (or ultra-low-carbon biofuels volume expansion) is “too slow” to meet LCFS “carbon reduction” deadlines, then forced, artificial restrictions on gasoline or diesel sales could result, causing huge fuel price increases, panelists warned.

CEA’s Michael Whatley said that a proposed Northeast region LCFS, patterned after the existing California LCFS, seems designed to favor electric vehicles, compressed natural gas (CNG) and certain types of supposedly low-carbon ethanol. However, much of today’s U.S. corn-based ethanol is produced at coal-fired, relatively high-carbon production facilities, according to California Air Resources Board calculations.

 

Following the myriad of concerns highlighted by the LCFS forum panelists, Northeasterners can only hope that the 11 governors from Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States currently considering an LCFS don’t follow the Golden State’s model. After seeing the potential economic harm that California may suffer through if they continue on their path implementing A.B. 32 and the law’s LCFS provisions, states would clearly be wiser to say no to the prescription laid out by an LCFS—higher fuel costs and increased imports from unstable regions of the world.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Bay State LCFS Could Prevent Secure, Canadian Energy from Getting to Mass.

Monday, June 14th, 2010

More than 2,100 miles separate the Canadian province of Alberta from the commonwealth of Massachusetts — and with no direct commercial flights connecting the two, it tends to feel even a whole lot further away than that.

But maybe the two are a lot closer connected than meets the eye. Consider that in March alone, Massachusetts imported 2.8 million barrels of petroleum products from Canada, including fuels derived from Alberta oil sands, the second largest known source of oil in the entire world. Resources developed, processed, refined and eventually delivered to the Boston Harbor – in the forms of gasoline, diesel fuel and home heating oil, upon which nearly one million Bay State residents depend to keep their homes warm during the winter.

Today, I have the privilege to be in Boston to participate in an energy summit with the environment minister of Alberta, on hand to discuss new ways that his province can partner with New England to achieve shared goals related to security, the economy and the environment. The one big challenge to that progress? The imposition of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), a policy being developed right here in Boston that would greatly reduce your state’s access to Albertan energy, while greatly increasing your reliance on suppliers half-a-world away.

Last December, Gov. Patrick joined 10 other governors in signing an agreement on an LCFS. Proponents argue it will improve the environment by lowering the carbon content of your fuels, all without costing consumers and motorists a thing. The reality, though, is that this issue is a lot more complex than those proponents suggest – with consequences that will significantly Bay State access to secure, affordable Canadian energy.

Under the LCFS proposal being considered, transportation and home heating fuels would be given a carbon value based upon emissions produced over their lifetime. All fuels require energy for their production — but so-called heavier crudes (such as those found in Alberta) receive higher scores because they require marginally more energy to produce. Under an LCFS, these are the fuels targeted for elimination.

But as study after study has shown, the carbon intensity of oil derived from Alberta’s oil sands is very much in line with the intensity found in a host of other crude sources, including in the United States – which is why study after study has also shown that greenhouse gas emissions aren’t actually lowered by the LCFS.

The reality is, the oil sands’ environmental footprint continues to shrink each and every year. Carbon dioxide emissions from the production of oil sands has come down by an average of 39 percent per barrel since 1990.  In some facilities, the reduction has been as high as 40-45 percent.

In 2007, the government of Alberta implemented greenhouse gas regulations requiring a 12 percent reduction in emissions per barrel. Emitters can meet the reduction target, acquire approved offsets, or pay $15 for every excess ton of emissions into a fund supporting research on improving the environment. As of 2009, over $186 million was paid into that fund, with many millions more expected to be deposited this year. Additionally, the Alberta and Canadian governments, along with industry, have invested over $10 billion in carbon capture and sequestration projects to reduce carbon emissions from energy production.

Alberta has taken significant strides to reduce the environmental footprint of oil sands production, and has the ability today to provide essential energy resources to the northeastern United States from a friendly, reliable trading partner. We’re hoping today’s energy forum brings some of those issues to light. For those in the area, we certainly hope you can find the time to stop by. For those who aren’t – we got you covered as well. Down below please find the call-in information you’ll need to join the conversation.

CALL-IN #:

713-337-8800

at the recording: Press 7

 PASS CODE:    2580#

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Help Secure America’s Energy Future! The U.S. Department of State Needs to Hear from You!

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

As issues related to energy and climate continue to be debated in the nation’s capital, policymakers would do well to keep top-of-mind the importance of reliable, affordable resources from Canada Given the 2.5 million barrels of petroleum that Canada sends our way each and every day, our neighbors to the north clearly play a unique role for the U.S. as our closest, strategic trading partner in the world.  In fact, every barrel of crude oil the United States imports from Canada is one less barrel being purchased from people and places in the world whose interests don’t align with ours.

Since IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) recently released a report highlighting that Canadian oil sands production is expected to grow from 1.34 million barrels a day to between 3.1 million and 5.7 million barrels a day by 2030  (which could make up as much as 36 percent of United States oil imports by 2030),  it is essential that we have the infrastructure in place to handle those volumes.

To build this needed expansion, Consumer Energy Alliance supports the proposed TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline project and the recently released U.S. State Department’s  Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) – a statement that confirms the delivery of secure, affordable supplies of Canadian energy to American consumers can be done without bringing harm to our environment. But wait: Don’t tell us you missed your chance to weigh-in on the proposed Keystone pipeline with Secretary Clinton? The deadline, after all, was June 1. Or at least it was. Good news is, this week it was announced the deadline will be extended to June 16, 2010 – and CEA is asking for your help to communicate your support for the project to the U.S. State Department by clicking HERE.

Securing stable and affordable energy from our North Aerican allies through projects such as the Keystone Pipeline is in our national interest. While a final decision by the State Department has not been made on the Keystone Pipeline, what we’ve seen so far portends positive news for American consumers. And here’s why:

The project will consist of three new pipelines – one from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska; another from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas; and the final one, from Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, Texas. The Keystone will initially carry 700,000 barrels of crude per day, eventually increasing to 900,000 barrels — significantly strengthening America’s energy and economic security, as well as creating thousands of family supporting jobs along the way. In fact, it is projected that during construction, Keystone XL will create more than 13,000 jobs funded with private investment, as well as additional revenue for local governments from the economic activity associated with construction and from pipeline property taxes.

Considering the economic and energy security benefits of Canada’s vital resources, policymakers should continue to expand America’s access to safe, affordable energy supplies to help ensure improved energy security and stable prices for consumers.

However, as CEA’s Michael Whatley recently mentioned at the Center for North American Energy Security’s energy summit, under a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), Canada would intentionally be singled out for exclusion. As a result, a nationwide LCFS would shut down projects like the Keystone XL and Alberta Clipper altogether – jeopardizing thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity.

Despite the State Department’s positive draft decision on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, CEA’s grassroots supporters and affiliates will continue to be active contributors to the ongoing debate about commonsense energy legislation can create jobs and help drive down prices at the pump, and how misguided LCFS proposals threaten our nation’s energy security. Please click HERE make your voice heard on this vital project.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | No Comments »

Message From the Husky State: Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Will Hurt Washingtonians

Monday, May 17th, 2010

The topic of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is heading up across Washington state. At the beginning of April, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) president David Holt sent a letter to the state’s governor, Christine Gregoire, urging her to fully consider the harmful effects that an LCFS could have on the state. And on the heels of CEA’s call for commonsense energy policies, a major organization from the Husky state recently emerged to voice its opposition to the implementation of a California-style LCFS which would effectively ban stable forms of Canadian energy from reaching Washington consumers.

Lea N. Wilson – executive director of the Washington Oil Marketers Association – recently penned a Bellingham Herald column entitled “Low-carbon fuel standard would hurt Washingtonians.” Here are key excerpts:

 

There’s a lot more than weather and wine that makes Washington different from California. But judging by Gov. Chris Gregoire’s recent legislative intentions, Washington may start to look a lot more like our coastal neighbor – and not to our benefit.

In short, an LCFS will only make the fuels in our tank harder to find and more expensive to purchase. And supporters of the initiative admit that if successful, an LCFS will make traditional energy sources so expensive that we Washingtonians will learn to favor those alternative sources that have yet to reach maturation and availability. Does your car run on hydropower? Mine doesn’t, and probably won’t for a long time.

 

Wilson continues:

 

And this will only hurt what has become a healthy and burgeoning trade relationship between Washington and our border neighbors to the north. Canada imports almost $6.6 billion worth of goods from Washington, including refined oil products. But with the burden of increased transportation costs lingering under LCFS provisions, we stand to lose much of that revenue.

Certainly our governor must know that Washington derives its energy from different places than California does – and further, that an LCFS scheme conjured up by consultants in Sacramento might not achieve its desired effect here in the Evergreen State. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear as if that knowledge is making a shred of difference.

Gov. Gregoire’s administration is charging toward its July deadline, when it is set to fully assess what an LCFS would bring to Washington. But what we outlined here leaves little to assess: an LCFS will increase the cost of fuel during an economically challenging time, and make us ever more energy dependent.


Wilson is correct in voicing concerns about Governor Gregoire’s fast approaching July deadline and the fact that Washington’s fuel supply would be threatened under an LCFS policy. While Washington’s economy, and its consumers and small businesses, does rely on oil from Saudi Arabia, Angola and Argentina, more than 25 percent of its crude comes from Canada. Therefore, over a quarter of the state’s secure, affordable oil supply would be threatened under an LCFS.

Additionally, about 10 percent of the state’s gasoline – refined in Montana, but derived from Canada’s oil sands – could be prevented from crossing its eastern border. The consequences are far greater and more profound for the state’s workforce. Discrimination called for under an LCFS against Canada’s energy could also impact many jobs in the state, since refiners in Washington directly employed more than 2,000 workers in 2007 (latest numbers), and indirectly supported another 20,000 – paying out more than $400 million in wages.

Regrettably, Washington isn’t the only state in the nation that is currently considering adopting a California-style LCFS – which would effectively ban stable and reliable forms of North American energy from reaching U.S. consumers. The American people oppose higher fuel costs and increased imports from unstable regions of the world. Unfortunately, the real-life outcome of an LCFS will lead to higher prices at the pump and a deeper and more dangerous dependence on unstable regions of the world to ensure that our economy continues to move and grow.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

On a Roll: State Dept. One Step Closer to Expanding US-Canadian Energy Partnership

Monday, April 19th, 2010

 Just as Reuters reported that China is snapping up resources assets across the globe — including a recent deal to buy ConocoPhillips’ stake in the huge Syncrude project in Canada’s oil sands for $4.65 billion – the U.S. State Department released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline project. The State Department’s report concludes that the delivery of secure, affordable supplies of Canadian energy to American consumers would have minimal impacts on the environment.

While a final decision by the State Department has not been made on the Keystone Pipeline, this is positive news for American consumers, and here’s why.

The project will consist of three new pipelines – one from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska; another from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas; and the final one, from Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, Texas. The Keystone will initially carry 700,000 barrels of crude per day, eventually increasing to 900,000 barrels — significantly strengthening America’s energy and economic security, as well as creating hundreds of high-paying, family supporting jobs along the way.

Last year, the U.S. imported 1.5 million barrels of oil a day derived from the Canadian oil sands. Projects like the Keystone XL present the potential to increase North American energy access for U.S. consumers to 4.3 million barrels a day over the next two decades – additional energy that we will no longer be forced to buy from far unstable, unfriendly OPEC nations.

Considering the economic and energy security benefits of Canada’s vital resources, state and national policymakers should work to expand America’s access to secure and affordable energy supplies to help ensure improved stabilize prices for consumers.

Unfortunately, under a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), Canada would intentionally be singled out for exclusion. In fact, a nationwide LCFS could shut down the Keystone XL and Alberta Clipper projects altogether – jeopardizing countless high-wage jobs and billions in economic activity. An LCFS would also be a major blow to U.S. energy security.

Despite the State Department’s positive draft decision on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, CEA’s nearly 260,000 grassroots supporters and 130 affiliates will continue to be active contributors to the ongoing debate about commonsense energy legislation can create jobs and help drive down prices at the pump, and how misguided LCFS proposals threaten our nation’s energy security.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Student Becomes Teacher: How the U.S. May Develop Its Own Oil Sands, And Face Denial By An LCFS

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

Here at Secure Our Fuels, we talk a lot about how America’s relationship with our friends in Canada helps further key national priorities related energy, security, and the economy. Few examples better illustrate this phenomenon than our continued partnership on the oil sands, a secure and abundant source of energy that policy initiatives such as the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) seek to destroy.

But Canada’s oil sands isn’t the only stuff that an LCFS is setup to demolish. It’s also no friend of energy resources produced and developed here. Turns out, Canada’s not the only country in the world blessed with the promise and potential of oil sands. Turns out we’ve got some of the stuff right here in America as well.

Here’s how the Salt Lake Tribune handled the story:

Utah is more willing to lease its state lands, and Earth Energy joins a neighbor on state lands, Salt Lake City-based Red Leaf Resources Inc., which is working on a small scale to develop the region’s oil-shale reserves. Red Leaf also is looking for investors to ramp up production.

Wringing oil from hard rock or oil sands is technically possible, but nobody has proven it economical on a large scale yet … Earth Energy Resources “wants to be the first to do it.”

There you go – that’s the spirit. Used to be a time when nations of the world commissioned the work of these explorers, financed it, hailed it, and held up those who proved successful at doing it as heroes. Today? Let’s just say that times have changed – the evidence of which can be seen with each new state embarking down the dangerous path of the LCFS. 

The good news, if there’s any of which to speak, is that an oil sands project in the United States may prove tougher to defeat than an oil sands project in Canada. But make no mistake: The LCFS doesn’t discriminate. And as we work together to advance the imperative of secure and affordable energy supply for American consumers, neither should we.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

We Hear Ya: Top Alberta Energy Official Says “We Need to Keep up the Campaign” For Secure, North American Energy

Friday, March 26th, 2010

Let’s face it, the U.S. and global economy are experiencing challenging and difficult times. With nearly 1 out of every 10 Americans still without work, and gas prices on the rise, glimmers of economic hope are too few. Many economists don’t expect the U.S. economy to grow substantially anytime soon, either.

But there is a rare economic bright spot up in Canada: Alberta’s oil sands.  In fact, the Edmonton Journal reports that, according to the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters (CME), the total value of economic activity expected over the next 10 years from the oil sands in Alberta is more than $1 trillion. That’s nearly 75 percent of Canada’s GDP! This is good news for the U.S., too, since more than 2.5 million barrels of oil derived from Canada’s sands are directed to American consumers each and every day in the form of secure and stable North American energy supplies.

This from the article:

In 2009 alone, energy companies poured $30 billion into the oilsands. About 60 per cent of that went into maintenance and supplies, the rest into new project development. Even that’s a hefty sum. CME president Jayson Myers says $30 billion exceeds the value of any government stimulus package for any given year in any state or province in North America.

“As Canadian companies look at new business opportunities and at reducing the risks they’re seeing in the U.S. market, and in their traditional supply chains, the oilsands remain a very attractive business opportunity — even more so as we see project investments begin to increase again,” he says.

And while the U.S. is unquestionably Canada’s strongest and most strategic trading partner, other nations from around the globe also understand the economic benefits associated with access to stable and reliable energy reserves. So it’s no wonder why Petrochina – the Chinese government-owned energy firm – has aggressively invested in Canada’s oil sands. In fact, Bloomberg reports this:

“PetroChina Co. Chairman Jiang Jiemin plans to step up overseas oil and gas acquisitions after teaming up with Royal Dutch Shell Plc to buy Australia’s Arrow Energy Ltd. for $3.2 billion this week. “We will take advantage of opportunities in developing oil, gas and energy sources in all areas of the world,” Jiang said at a media briefing in Hong Kong yesterday, after the Beijing- based company reported a 9.7 percent decline in full-year profit. The Arrow deal followed at least $5 billion of purchases in Canada, Kazakhstan and Singapore in 2009 to meet demand in the fastest-growing major economy. PetroChina last year purchased a stake in a Canadian oil sands project for $1.7 billion, a refinery in Singapore and spent about $1.4 billion on a stake in an oil venture in Kazakhstan.”

So as China – a top competitor in the global economy – continues to secure steady streams of affordable energy, like those produced from Canada’s sands, leaders in the United States are pushing for a one-size-fits-all Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which would effectively ban these secure, affordable, North American energy resources from reaching American consumers, middle-class families and senior citizens.

But not every nation – or groups of nations – share the belief that Canada’s oils sands can and must play a critical role in providing stable energy to those who need it most. Under the headline “Minister says EU was behind oil sands opposition,” Reuters gets Alberta’s energy minister, Ron Liepert, on the record in response to efforts from the European Union to erect trade barriers aimed at Canada’s oil sands:

The European Union is the organization he referred to when he asserted that some international groups were using the environment as a guise to erect trade barriers. … Canada has warned that draft EU standards to promote greener fuels are too unwieldy and would harm the market for oil sands crude.

The EU apparently noticed his warning, since they have now dropped references to oil sands. And just today, under the headline “E.U. may remove oil sands restrictions from environmental standards”, Climatewire reports this:

The European Union may weaken proposed environmental standards for fuel, responding to the Canadian government’s efforts to protect Canada’s oil sands. … Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert said he was pleased that the government’s efforts were having an impact. “We’ve managed to convince the New Democrats to quit calling it tar sands and start calling it oil sands. We’ve got the European Union starting to look at the need to reassess some of the initiatives they’ve taken, based on, I would say, not the best information, so we need to keep up the campaign.”

Canada’s not alone in working to get the facts out about its vast oil sands, and how essential these job-creating resources are to American consumers. Consumer Energy Alliance will continue to educate the public about the dangers of an LCFS, and tirelessly advocate for commonsense energy policies that aim to keep prices stable and affordable by promoting more energy of all forms, and using what we have more wisely at the same time.

Unfortunately, discriminating against Canada’s abundant and secure energy – the very core of an LCFS – would only deepen our energy dependence on unfriendly regions of world and hit struggling consumers in their pocketbooks at a time when they can afford it least.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Call of Duty? Greens Sling Mud (And Crude) at Canadian Leaders In New Online Game

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

Nerdy anti-energy activists of the world, unite! Thanks to a (crude) new video game created by some outfit calling itself the Polaris Institute, those with an animating passion for defaming secure and affordable energy resources from Canada (and avoiding all contact with girls) now have quite a forum to do it.

The only problem? Instead of engaging in a fact-based discussion on the economic and environmental record of the oil sands, guess what these folks decided to do instead? Create a video game that depicts themselves shooting oil in the faces of those with whom they disagree. The worst part of all? The game, candidly, sucks. Think Oregon Trail from 1984 without the “fording the river” part and getting rid of all those cool hunting sequences.

Anyway, the larger point here is that these groups seem to think that the safe and responsible development of the Canadian oil sands is single-handedly ruining the natural world. Never mind that carbon emissions from the sands account for 0.1 percent – 1/100th — of emissions worldwide. Or that of the 3.2 million square kilometers that constitutes the Boreal Forest in Canada, only 4,802 of them have actually been set aside for shale development – and the vast majority of those have yet to even be touched! And never mind that provincial and federal laws mandate that this land be fully reclaimed.

Nah, never mind all that – silly to let facts and figures get in the way of a video game. But just so you have the economic numbers handy, according to a recent CERI study, energy produced from the oil sands could someday contribute more than $780 billion to Canada’s GDP – all while creating jobs right here in America, and ensuring that American energy consumers continue to have steady access to safe, secure and affordable energy from our most important allies in the world.

The only thing that’s positioning itself to stand in the way of that future? The Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), naturally. And while it may be a policy that basement-dwellers like the Polaris Institute can get behind, for the rest of us, we’d be a lot better off if it never sees the light.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

« Older Entries

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