EU vote on oilsands as harmful ends in stalemate


mentalfloss
#1
EU vote on oilsands as harmful ends in stalemate

European Union experts stopped short Thursday of supporting a motion to label the Canadian oilsands as significantly more harmful to the environment than other kinds of oil -a bid that Canada had said could spark a trade war.

The vote by government representatives from the 27-nation EU has resulted in at least a temporary stalemate over the controversial Fuel Quality Directive.

The motion will now be passed from the civil servant level of government to the ministerial level, where EU ministers could vote on the matter later this year.

EU vote on oilsands as harmful ends in stalemate
Last edited by mentalfloss; Feb 24th, 2012 at 09:02 AM..
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#2
It's going to be very interesting to see the outcome of this motion in light of the discord in the Middle East... As it stands, the EU sources less than 1% of their oil from Canada so I'm left wondering why this issue was brought up in the first place.
 
petros
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

It's going to be very interesting to see the outcome of this motion in light of the discord in the Middle East... As it stands, the EU sources less than 1% of their oil from Canada so I'm left wondering why this issue was brought up in the first place.

It looks good on the news. I wonder how much oil sands the EU buys from Madagascar and Venezula? Were those two producing oil sands plays up for labelling too?
 
mentalfloss
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

It's going to be very interesting to see the outcome of this motion in light of the discord in the Middle East... As it stands, the EU sources less than 1% of their oil from Canada so I'm left wondering why this issue was brought up in the first place.

They're voting on qualifying different types of petrol based on the environmental impact. Since we're running low on crude, a number of countries (including Canada) are mining tar sands. The science already shows that bitumen is worse for the environment than crude so this is just the policy that will inevitably be enacted once the vote comes to pass.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It looks good on the news. I wonder how much oil sands the EU buys from Madagascar and Venezula? Were those two producing oil sands plays up for labelling too?

I think that the EU is playing politics in response to Harper lecturing them on fiscal responsibility. Regardless, they are not in a position to begin this ridiculous bun-fight considering that they are poised for hardships due to their poor planning and decisions - if they want to exclude themselves from Canadian oil and natural gas; well, fill yer boots.
 
mentalfloss
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It looks good on the news. I wonder how much oil sands the EU buys from Madagascar and Venezula? Were those two producing oil sands plays up for labelling too?

Yes, this was a labeling initiative for all the bitumen in the world.

Looks like they'll be going back to the drawing board despite the wasted efforts of Canada's oil lobbying on the backs of taxpayers.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The science already shows that bitumen is worse for the environment than crude so this is just the policy that will inevitably be enacted once the vote comes to pass.

From what I have read on the 'analysis process' of assessing enviro impact, I am not familiar with any of those docs that recognize the exploration element AND take into account the enviro cost of failures (ie: didn't find oil).

In my eyes, that is a skewed analysis

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Looks like they'll be going back to the drawing board despite the wasted efforts of Canada's oil lobbying on the backs of taxpayers.

How do you feel about Greenpeace, Sierra Clube, et al; that also are political lobbies that are subsidized by the Federal gvt?
 
petros
#8
It's fine by me if the label it. They won't care for the higher uranium prices but such is life.
 
mentalfloss
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

How do you feel about Greenpeace, Sierra Clube, et al; that also are political lobbies that are subsidized by the Federal gvt?

We've already gone through this. No lobbies should be funded by us as taxpayers.
 
petros
#10
Who are are funding?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It's fine by me if the label it. They won't care for the higher uranium prices but such is life.

Maybe Canada can engage a program of using refined oilsands products for the agri and mining sectors - you know, like purple gas programs.. We could remind the EU to apply the penalty-tax onto their end users.
 
petros
#12
Gladly. The synthetic crude is awesome for super low sulfer diesel which is easier on the high efficiency two stroke diesel engines.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

They're voting on qualifying different types of petrol based on the environmental impact. Since we're running low on crude, a number of countries (including Canada) are mining tar sands. The science already shows that bitumen is worse for the environment than crude so this is just the policy that will inevitably be enacted once the vote comes to pass.

Enacted until we are truly out of normal oil. Then they will take it from anywhere regardless of environmental impact.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#14
I'm just thinking that considering that the EU doesn't really buy any Canadian crude, let alone oil sands crude, we ought to let them know that the products they buy from Canada are produced with energy from the sands. Hell, maybe we can incorporate a special enviro tax on every drop of oil that leaves North America and put the $$ into researching better oil sands extraction methods.

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

Enacted until we are truly out of normal oil. Then they will take it from anywhere regardless of environmental impact.

I'd wager that is the reason that there was a split on this last vote.. The ME is having their own problems and that is impacting/threatening their supply
 
petros
#15
Didn't you know all they have to do is flip a switch and oil will magically flow from Russia and Saudi Arabia?
 
mentalfloss
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

Enacted until we are truly out of normal oil. Then they will take it from anywhere regardless of environmental impact.

Well, who knows when "normal oil" will run out. I would suspect that we will seriously deplete most crude within 100 or so years. Put into perspective, that's not much time and if we fall into some sort of conflict in between (knock on wood), that would accelerate the extraction of those resources and hinder development in other sectors.

There's no simple way to put this, but if we want the best outcome, we need to make a pretty sizable investment in "green jobs" and make sure that investment pays off as we gradually wane off oil.
 
petros
#17
100 years? How do you plan on pumping out of the ground so fast?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Well, who knows when "normal oil" will run out. I would suspect that we will seriously deplete most crude within 100 or so years. Put into perspective, that's not much time and if we fall into some sort of conflict in between (knock on wood), that would accelerate the extraction of those resources and hinder development in other sectors.

You have to look at this in terms of 'economic oil'.

Will oil run out? Of course it will - some day, but as the price of crude gets higher, companies are motivated to extract the deeper, more difficult and more expensive petroleum.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

There's no simple way to put this, but if we want the best outcome, we need to make a pretty sizable investment in "green jobs" and make sure that investment pays off as we gradually wane off oil.

This needs to happen, but (my opinion) is that is will evolve very slowly, to the point that it will not be attractive for a number of years to some.

You can't force the tech simply by throwing money at it.
 
petros
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

You have to look at this in terms of 'economic oil'.

Will oil run out? Of course it will - some day, but as the price of crude gets higher, companies are motivated to extract the deeper, more difficult and more expensive petroleum.

It's getting easier to reach with everyday that passes and there is **** loads down there. Oil will be around for a long long time.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#20  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It's getting easier to reach with everyday that passes and there is **** loads down there. Oil will be around for a long long time.


I agree. My point is that the expression that "we are running out of oil' is entirely dependent on the economic argument.

At some point in the future, the renewable-options will be able to compete (economically) and that is when you'll see the more wide spread use of that tech.

That said, I believe that day is decades into the future
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#21
And there is this perspective.

2012 Hopi prophecy a perspective on life - YouTube

!
 

Similar Threads

1
3-D TV could be harmful
by Praxius | Apr 22nd, 2010
94
Abortion is harmful to the economy
by Liberalman | Jul 17th, 2008
no new posts