U.S. carbon bill could put squeeze on oil sands
The U.S. climate change bill, which is currently being debated in the House energy and commerce committee, includes a measure modelled on low carbon fuel rules just approved in California. It would set a baseline standard for the amount of carbon produced during production of transportation fuel throughout its life cycle.
Under the draft bill, refineries would be required to reduce annual life cycle emissions from their fuel to 2005 levels between 2014 and 2022, and then cut them by at least another five per cent between 2023 and 2030.
In effect, the rules would force U.S. refiners to measure carbon intensity of a fuel from ‘wells to wheels.' Because the life cycle emissions from oil sands crude is up to 30% higher than in conventional oil, Canadian officials are worried the country's energy industry would be devastated by a national low carbon fuel standard in the U.S.
Canada's concerns about the U.S. climate bill follows "the same logic" as objections Ottawa raised last week in a failed bid to derail the California measures, Mr. Prentice said following two days of meetings in Washington.
This could be bad for Alberta and all of Canada. Funny how the environmentalists fail to mention "blood" oil from the Mideast, and given that Obama bowed to the Saudi King, we know how he feels. What can Alberta do? Glad you asked!
CN idea a winner for oil sands
The energy and geopolitical ramifications of Canadian National Railway's "Pipeline on Rails" initiative is a game-changer for Canada. As I revealed in Thursday's Financial Post, the railway has developed a transformative strategy to move oil sands production more quickly and cheaply to markets in North America or Asia.
This project, in its early stages, will eliminate three barriers to the development of Canada's vast oil sands: the cost, delays and financial risks involved in building multi-billion-dollar pipelines; the politics of obstruction south of the border from environmentalists and the danger of selling oil to monopoly buyers in the United States which has, in the past, resulted in contracts being ripped up when times were tough.
It also allows Canada to decouple from the American economy when it comes to its most important commodity, which is oil products. This is because all the oil sands production can be routed to the west coast for shipment to Asia or anywhere, thus avoiding monopoly pricing and bullying by the Americans.
Now that's what I call a great idea! If the Americans put up trade barriers, we can stop the flow using their own policies against them, and if Obama doesn't think losing 20% of their energy supplies isn't going to hurt, the guy is dreaming.
Notice how Minister Day was in China lately, could oil be something the Chinese need? How about India? Both countries would love a secure supply of "dirty" oil and if the US doesn't want it, so be it. Enjoy your $10 a gallon gas. If the US breaks the terms of NAFTA, it frees Canada from supplying oil to the US.
The Democrats are dumb enough to think they can slap a tariff/carbon tax on our oil like they did with softwood lumber, in the guise of a cap and trade tax. It's time to turn off the tap for a few days, and see what happens. It's also time for Quebec to be forced to buy Canadian oil, no more "blood" oil for Quebec, not when they get $8 billion from Alberta a year.
Turn off the taps, just for a few days, see what happens!
9 comments:
Right on!
Yes!!! Just one more way to lessen our dependency on exporting into the US.
Will American's wake up to the fact that it will cost THEM more to buy dirty products?
It's a tax on American's.
Obama doesn't need Alberta oil any more, now that he's cozied up to Uncle Hugo.
When 'Special Ed' was in Washington late last fall meeting with big business and government mucky-mucks, some of the lefty political types said they weren't crazy about buying Alberta's 'dirty oil'. Ed fired back saying China would take all we could supply them, implying it would be a shame for the US to lose one fifth of thier oil supply literally overnight because of such ill-conceived political posturing.
So long as Obama continues to burn thousands of gallons of jet fuel on 'earth day' and receives enviromental advice from the likes of Al Gore, who's made hundreds of millions in green snake oil, he is nothing but a hypocrite.
Since 2006, the Conservative Government of Canada has been working hard to broaden Canada's trading partners.
Not found on the CPC website, but is on the Govt website:
http://www.international.gc.ca/consultations/closed-anterieures.aspx?lang=eng
Here is a list of FTA and Inititives with other countries,
Jordon
Caribbean
Panama
European Union
Brazil
Columbia
Peru
Chile
Bahrain
Mongolia
Indonesia
Tanzania
Dominican Republic
India
Kuwait
Madagascar
CARICOM: Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago.
Vietnam
Indonesia
China
I would hate to see CN tanker trains headed to Prince Rupert on the west coast, but only because of their safety record. Rupert could very easily ship oil and it is closer to "far east" than Vancouver. China has tried to buy major interests in the Sands but as far as I know has not been too successful but that could change.
"Oil feeds my family and pays my taxes"
Great idea! Isn't Igatieff calling for an east-west energy grid? Looks like everyone is in agreement.
Note that the article consistently refers to "oil sands production", not "oil".
I suspect they are not referring to the standard synthetic crude oil that goes in conventional pipelines, but rather raw or partially upgraded bitumen. So then we get to export jobs from Alberta along with the bitumen?
I suspect this because the article says the train cars would likely be heated or something added to the "production" to make it less viscous. A pipeline capable of handling such material would be much more expensive than a conventional crude line.
Well that's one to lessen your dependence on foreign oil. Now to figure out how to cut consumption by 20%....
East-West energy grid - this is an idea with which I completely agree. Quebec and Manitoba have hydro to spare and, pre-Bob Rae, the government was in talks with both provinces to build a horizontal grid to supply Ontario with power and things were going fairly smoothly. The Bob Rae became premier and his government's interference eventually caused both provinces to walk away.
So, today, we have McGuinty introducing a two-tier, seasonal rate structure, introducing smart meters which will eventually be used to gouge us even more. TOD billing is a crock because it is clearly intended to be a cash grab and not an environmental effort.
Think about it - no matter the price of gas, electricity, or gasoline...we all complain at first and then adjust and return to our old habits.
Thanks to Bob Rae, we do not have a horizontal grid with Quebec and Ontario. One more reason to NOT vote for a party of which Bob Rae is a member - on top of McGuinty being the prime reason.
TOD billing is a crock because it is clearly intended to be a cash grab and not an environmental effort.I've never heard of time of day billing being an environmental effort. Though it can reduce the rate at which the generation and distribution has to grow, by "peak shaving"
The "base" load (minimum power consumption) is about 30-40% of the "peak" load. The distribution wires have to be sized for the peak load, so if you can reduce the peak load, you don't have to put up new towers and wires as soon as you would otherwise. Reducing peak load means increasing the base load, since you are just time shifting the energy usage.
Nuclear power generation has the problem that you can't quickly ramp up or down (other than emergency shutdown) so it is best for base load. Hydro power, on the other hand, can be controlled by diverting water in seconds, so it is ideal for peak load. Coal is more easily varied than nuclear but still best for base load. Diesel, oil and natural gas fired can be quickly ramped up and down, though not as fast as hydro. Operating costs are lowest for nuclear and coal, highest for diesel or oil.
If time of day billing could shift major loads to the off peak hours, such as charging your electric car someday, or running washing equipment at off hours, the grid would last much longer, and the generation costs would be shifted to cheaper nuclear and (preferably clean) coal.
The time of day billing has to be visible, something like your heating thermostat, so you know when the rate changes. Similar to gas price fluctuations affecting when people buy gas, visible time of day will affect power consumption patterns.
Post a Comment