Amid heavy lobbying from Canada, a committee of the European Union Parliament blocked passage of a proposed fuel quality directive that would label Alberta oil sands as the most highly polluting source of oil.
In a vote Thursday, proponents of the directive failed to win a majority of votes in favour, but neither was there a majority to kill the proposal. As a result, the directive will be taken up by a committee of EU ministers in the coming months.
Good news from Europe. In the summer, it seemed like it was going to pass for sure. However, countries like the UK, the Netherlands, and France have gotten invested into the Oilsands themselves and have become allies with Canada on this
Quote:
Britain, once critical of Canada’s climate policies, took Ottawa’s side last fall under Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron. The Netherlands opposes the EU proposal. On the weekend, France decided to abstain in the vote. France’s Total is planning a major oil-sands expansion,. That affects France’s view of its interests.
A note, Canada has no problem with the ranking systems that would place Oilsands at a higher rate than conventional oil. What it is fighting is that the the rating system isn't bias towards Canada when there are other sources of oil that are just as damaging.
Quote:
Alberta’s international affairs minister, Cal Dallas, said Alberta can accept the oil sands being rated at the high end of a spectrum: “What we can’t accept is that there are oils coming from jurisdictions where there are practices in place such that perhaps they would be viewed as higher on that scale or perhaps they should be viewed in the same light as oil sands.”
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
So, a question from a North American perspective: What is the carbon footprint of a ship carrying oil from the Middle East as opposed to the extra energy used in Alberta Oil Sands production?
I'm just thinking that sending oil on a 10,000 km journey must use a significant amout of power.
So, a question from a North American perspective: What is the carbon footprint of a ship carrying oil from the Middle East as opposed to the extra energy used in Alberta Oil Sands production?
I'm just thinking that sending oil on a 10,000 km journey must use a significant amout of power.
Found this for you, you might have to do a little digging on it, but it gives the carbon footprint for major Cargo and tanker vessels
I swear I don't have an agenda and I'm not an Oilsand lobbiest by posting these articles
Quebec group stalls Alberta oil pipeline
Quote:
The environmental group Equiterre and a citizen from Dunham, Que., have won a Quebec Court ruling that will temporarily stall the attempt by oil companies Enbridge and Suncor to ship oil from Alberta through Montreal to Portland, Maine.
The group opposes piping "dirty oil" through Quebec, claiming that it poses a significant environmental hazard and encourages the expansion of the oilsands, which is among Canada's largest greenhouse gas emitters
Enbridge had secured permission in 2010 from the Quebec Commission for the Protection of Agricultural Land to build a pumping station near the town of Dunham in the Eastern Townships.
But Equiterre argued in Quebec Court that the issues surrounding the pumping station were not fully aired at the commission. For instance, there was no discussion on whether the station could be constructed on land that was not agricultural.
The court agreed and sent the case back to the commission
I swear I don't have an agenda and I'm not an Oilsand lobbiest by posting these articles
Quebec group stalls Alberta oil pipeline
The bolded is completely false I believe.
Quote:
The group opposes piping "dirty oil" through Quebec, claiming that it poses a significant environmental hazard and encourages the expansion of the oilsands, which is among Canada's largest greenhouse gas emitters
China has lots of coal, but very little oil & gas. Their energy demands are excpected to increase 5x over the next several decades. China's plan is basically to cover most of this growth with coal. Compounding the issue, China may also turn to coal liquids processing to meet petroleum demands.
This quote is particularly sobering:
Quote:
The risk arises from the possibility that China’s energy demand growth will be satisfied by rapid growth in new pulverized coal (PC) plant capacity. Such growth entails significant ramifications that arise from three characteristics of PC power generation: (1) PC power plants are amongst the longest-lived energy system investments, operating for 50 – 60 years; (2) PC power plants are the most carbon intensive energy system investments; and (3) addition of carbon capture and storage technology at a future date is expected to be prohibitively expensive (Sun, 2005). However, despite these considerations, large numbers of new PC power plants are under construction today and are expected to be built over the next 25 years, especially in China and India, where PC is the dominant electricity generation technology due to its maturity, familiarity, and favorable economics (See Figure 9).
If built, these new PC plants will consume more coal during their lifetimes than all of industrial society to the present and will make any stabilization plans extremely difficult by absorbing a large portion of the global carbon budget.
