EU Oil Sands Fight: Stalemate In 'Dirty Oil' Vote A Temporary Reprieve For Canada's Oil Exporters

First Posted: 02/23/2012 4:30 am Updated: 02/23/2012 10:15 am

A European Union committee is set to vote today on controversial new fuel quality guidelines that have prompted criticism and concern from supporters of Canada's oilsands.

The EU's proposed new Fuel Quality Directive, which aims to curb emissions from transport fuels by 10 per cent, classifies oilsands crude as dirtier than conventional oil.

Canada has complained about the separate category for oilsands crude and has even threatened to take the matter up with the world's top trading body, the World Trade Organization.

If the directive is approved, it will go on to the full European parliament where it will either be vetoed or passed into law. If the document fails to get majority approval, it will be sent to the environment ministers of member states for further study.

The document assigns greenhouse gas emission values to different sources of fuel; Canada's key concern is that oilsands crude is placed in a separate category, with a value that's 23 per cent higher than conventional oil.

David Plunkett, Canada's ambassador to the EU, has written to the EU commissioner for climate action criticizing the directive, saying Canada will not accept oilsands crude being "singled out."

Plunkett has also pledged that Canada will explore "every avenue" to defend its interests.

The vote on the directive comes just days after an analysis by a Canadian scientist found emissions from Alberta's oilsands are unlikely to make a big difference to global warming and that the real threat to the planet comes from burning coal.

In a commentary published in the journal Nature, University of Victoria climate modeller Andrew Weaver, along with his colleague Neil Swart, found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about 0.36 degrees C — or half the total amount of warming over the last century.

When only commercially viable oilsands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only 0.03 degrees C.

Burning all the world's coal deposits, the paper concluded, would create a 15-degree increase in temperature.

Governments around the world have agreed to try to keep warming to two degrees.

Weaver's analysis only accounts, however, for emissions from burning the fuel. It doesn't count greenhouse gases released by producing the resource.

The EU directive takes into account the emissions that occur in the production of different fuel resources. Conventional oil is currently assigned the lowest emission value, followed by gas-to-liquid fuel and then natural bitumen, which can come from oilsands. Coal-to-liquid fuel has the highest emissions value in the directive.

Canada currently sells very little, if any, oil to Europe, but those in the industry fear a "dirty oil" label there could set a dangerous precedent.

Having Europe classify oilsands crude as a separate item — "natural bitumen" — would also be another setback to the Canadian industry, already reeling from the U.S. decision to delay the Keystone XL pipeline linking northern Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries.

Despite Canada's displeasure with the EU directive, a spokesperson for Trade Minister Ed Fast has made it clear that Canada isn't pulling out of free trade talks with Europe.

Fast has made reaching a comprehensive deal this year with the world's largest market a top priority.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA BUSINESS

A European Union committee is set to vote today on controversial new fuel quality guidelines that have prompted criticism and concern from supporters of Canada's oilsands.The EU's proposed new Fuel Qu...
A European Union committee is set to vote today on controversial new fuel quality guidelines that have prompted criticism and concern from supporters of Canada's oilsands.The EU's proposed new Fuel Qu...
Filed by Daniel Tencer  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 25
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
russell merifield
01:03 AM on 02/24/2012
The comments show that the writers have not done their job very well. Someone should write an article with a simple explanation of what the European legislation is about.
07:30 PM on 02/23/2012
Hey look who posted these comments. Greenpeace - a left wing anti everything organization, who has probably never visited the tar sands except to make cheap propaganda anti tar sands videos. Tell us Greenpeace, what is good oil? what and who pollutes the most? Isn't it burning Coal, in China, India USA.
05:42 PM on 02/23/2012
this conservative government does nt know if it is punched or bored ,,,,drilled or spun---

the gun issue vs internet spying

and they got their knickers knotted over wheat marketing boards---
then turn themselves into the marketing agency for the tar sands
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Warren Yuill
Jesus Built My Hot-Rod
03:04 PM on 02/23/2012
Let's call it "untidy oil" and call it a day.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:14 AM on 02/23/2012
EU is so obsessed with "green revolution" a specially old Communist countries.
Czechs wanted to have OBAMA-US antimissile military operation, right in the middle of Europe.
That's how green the are, ha, ha, ha.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:44 AM on 02/23/2012
so "green" "communism" "missiles" and "obama". You use some wonderful buzzwords but I dont really understand what you meant to say.
photo
Jay from Ottawa
sovereignty sale, 1.3T OBO
12:52 PM on 02/23/2012
I'll second your post.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:02 AM on 02/23/2012
EU"loves" our nature, our native people, our polar bears, our seals, our people of the north, etc..
BUT THEY WILL FREEZE WITHOUT OUR "dirty" OIL.
And know it!
HUMANOIDS and their double standards.
11:52 AM on 02/23/2012
we dont sell them any oil --not clean oil ,not dirty oil and not ethical oil-------not even olive oil
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:46 PM on 02/23/2012
not true... norway's statoil touts their "green-ness" at home but has no problem having a stake in the tar sands... and i'm sure there are others...
photo
Jay from Ottawa
sovereignty sale, 1.3T OBO
12:51 PM on 02/23/2012
You failed to notice that the the largest oil producers in the world (Russia @10,540,000 bbl/day & Saudi Arabia @8,800,000 bbl/day) are closer to Europe than Canada @3,289,000 bbl/day. Also, keep in mind that Norway @2,350,000 bbl/day is closer to Europe than anybody else.

I don't know why we're even bothering with this, they don't even need our oil, not to mention that if Canadian oil is shipped to Europe, it has to go through Ontario and Quebec, which currently obtain their oil from foreign nations (wouldn't it make sense to sell it to ourselves first ?)
01:52 PM on 02/23/2012
It's a global market so we're still going to pay the same price per barrel. The only difference is whether the oil from the West is shipped to Eastern Canada, or the Eastern offshore oil is brought to the mainland is that the overall shipping costs will be less(or should be) than the current method of importing oil to Eastern Canada.

The only thing I can think of is that when it comes to the retail end, there would be no way to play on supply fears or the normal long weekend price hikes.
10:39 AM on 02/24/2012
Why do you think Harper wants the Keystone pipeline? To ship oil to Europe! Via a Saudi Arabia-owned refinery in Texas. So much for "ethical" oil!

He wants the pipelines to traverse northern B.C. to ship to Asian markets. A Geddes gold mine was stopped in that region years ago because of earthquakes and the potential for pipelines carrying ore and slurry to be ruptured and seriously contaminate the Tatshenshini River. The last earthquake in that region raised a whole mountain by 50 feet. And never mind a repeat of the Exxon Valdez oil spill that B.C. is still recovering from.

I'm sure Harper can't wait for climate change to melt the Arctic and make Canada's northern borders ice-free - then dirty Tar Sands oil can be shipped out directly from Alberta (and wreck Alberta's shoreline instead of B.C.'s).

Eastern Canada imports oil from the Middle East. You are right to ask why Canada is not supplying itself before building these megaprojects to ship oil elsewhere.

I think it's all about Harper's massive ego. He's not here very much now, is he? Too busy playing the Big Man on the Big World Stage to bother with Canada?

PS Europe also gets quite a bit of oil from Libya (or at least used to before we vandalized it).
09:59 AM on 02/23/2012
Iran has cut oil to France and Britain. Let's see how long it takes them to change their tune.
10:06 AM on 02/23/2012
Britain hasn't taken oil from Iran since the revolution in 1979.
09:43 AM on 02/23/2012
Canada really does not want the oil labelled as "dirty"------they dodged a bullet -----

but i dont think there is any chance it will ever be labelled as "clean"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
09:39 AM on 02/23/2012
if war comes to the middle east the EU will be begging for this oil.
photo
Jay from Ottawa
sovereignty sale, 1.3T OBO
12:54 PM on 02/23/2012
Someone forgot that the largest oil producer in the world is Russia, which is right next to Europe. Also, Norway, just as close to Europe, has 2/3 of our daily oil production. Neither of those countries are in the middle east.
04:33 PM on 02/23/2012
I wuld not want to minly depend on Russia for my oil . Europeans already know that the Russians play politics with natural gas and would do the same with oil.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
05:01 PM on 02/23/2012
oh yeah Russia is real dependable look what the did with the natural gas they supplying Europe with a few years ago.If Norway is producing so much oil why does Europe import so much from Middle East and Africa?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Norma Ward
09:28 AM on 02/23/2012
Here is an article that quite clearly outlines how much we already know about the impact of industrial scale oil sands mining on the environment outside of the emission of greenhouse gases:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2012/02/monitoring-environmental-impact-of.html

As production ramps up, the impact on the Athabasca watershed will only increase making increased monitoring critical.
09:02 AM on 02/23/2012
Its is very sad to think that the EU is developing policy based on facts and our government is crying the blues. The only reason that the tar sands are being developed today instead of 50 years ago was not because they were just found, it is because it wasn't economically feasible to mine it when other sources of crude were just drill and pump. Since the easy stuff is gone, the tar sands become worthwhile even though its takes more energy to produce (strip mining).

I am so disappointed in my "no facts necessary" government on this issues and many others.