Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Good ol' Europe takes on Harper Cons
2 views
Skip to first unread message
ConsƦcons
May 5, 2013, 11:31:29 PM5/5/13
to
First the seal hunt and denying seal pelt products into Europe.
Now the 'dirty tarsands oil'. Ya gotta give 'em credit: the
environment is more important to Europeans than it is to the U.S. or Canada.
And they have 27 countries and 500 million people not liking the Alberta
tarsands crude very much. Or Harper and Co.
__________________________________
Reuters - Sun May 5, 2013
Canadian minister takes fight for oil sands crude to Europe
OTTAWA (Reuters) - A European Union plan to label crude from the Alberta
oil sands as dirty is unfair and could damage Canada's bid to find new
export markets, the Canadian resources minister said at the start of a
mission to lobby against the idea.
As part of a plan to cut greenhouse gases from transport fuel, the EU's
executive commission has developed a Fuel Quality Directive that would
single out oil from Alberta's tar sands as more polluting than
conventional crude.
Canada, whose oil sands are the world's third-largest proven reserves of
crude, strongly opposes the move.
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, speaking at the start of a
week-long trip to Paris, Brussels and London, said the directive should
be changed to ensure it does not discriminate against crude from the oil
sands.
"We think that's critical as an alternative to what we view as a flawed
and ineffective approach that's proposed by the commission," he told
Reuters in an interview from Paris.
Extracting crude from the clay-like Alberta oil sands requires more
energy than conventional oil production. Environmentalists say that
increases greenhouse gas emissions, making the oil sands a top target
for the green movement.
Ottawa is unhappy the directive would not penalize Russia, which both
burns and releases natural gas while extracting oil. Oliver said this
means Russian crude extraction produces at least as many emissions as
tar sands oil, if not more.
"If you're giving a free pass to a high emitter who happens to be one of
the biggest exporters into the Union, then how are you achieving your
objectives? This is all very logical, it's hard to argue against," he said.
Last year, amid heavy Canadian lobbying, the EU held an inconclusive
vote on the directive and then decided to assess the full impact of the
plan. That assessment is due in the next few months, paving the way for
another vote.
Although Canada sends almost no crude to the EU now, that could change
if proposals to create pipeline capacity from Alberta to Canada's East
Coast are successful.
"We're not exporting to the EU at the moment but we don't want to see
our crude oil stigmatized, which could possibly have implications
elsewhere," said Oliver, adding that Canada did not oppose the goals of
the fuel quality directive.
"What we want is a scientific fact-based approach that makes its
judgment based on the scientific realities and not sort of a
preconceived idea ... that our oil should be treated differently," he
told Reuters.
Canada sends 99 percent of its oil exports to the United States. But a
glut of supply and full pipelines are cutting prices, a problem that
underlines the Canadian industry's need to find new markets.
The EU vote on the directive last year ended in stalemate amid
misgivings from Britain and the Netherlands. Both nations have stakes in
Royal Dutch Shell Plc, which operates in the oil sands, as does France's
Total SA.
Oliver is meeting senior executives from both companies during his
mission, as well as officials from the European Commission and industry
groups. He declined to predict how successful his trip would be.
"I've got this great hand but the final results aren't yet in. We're
arguing from logic and we're arguing from equity, in all fairness. You
hope that prevails," he said.
Now the 'dirty tarsands oil'. Ya gotta give 'em credit: the
environment is more important to Europeans than it is to the U.S. or Canada.
And they have 27 countries and 500 million people not liking the Alberta
tarsands crude very much. Or Harper and Co.
__________________________________
Reuters - Sun May 5, 2013
Canadian minister takes fight for oil sands crude to Europe
OTTAWA (Reuters) - A European Union plan to label crude from the Alberta
oil sands as dirty is unfair and could damage Canada's bid to find new
export markets, the Canadian resources minister said at the start of a
mission to lobby against the idea.
As part of a plan to cut greenhouse gases from transport fuel, the EU's
executive commission has developed a Fuel Quality Directive that would
single out oil from Alberta's tar sands as more polluting than
conventional crude.
Canada, whose oil sands are the world's third-largest proven reserves of
crude, strongly opposes the move.
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, speaking at the start of a
week-long trip to Paris, Brussels and London, said the directive should
be changed to ensure it does not discriminate against crude from the oil
sands.
"We think that's critical as an alternative to what we view as a flawed
and ineffective approach that's proposed by the commission," he told
Reuters in an interview from Paris.
Extracting crude from the clay-like Alberta oil sands requires more
energy than conventional oil production. Environmentalists say that
increases greenhouse gas emissions, making the oil sands a top target
for the green movement.
Ottawa is unhappy the directive would not penalize Russia, which both
burns and releases natural gas while extracting oil. Oliver said this
means Russian crude extraction produces at least as many emissions as
tar sands oil, if not more.
"If you're giving a free pass to a high emitter who happens to be one of
the biggest exporters into the Union, then how are you achieving your
objectives? This is all very logical, it's hard to argue against," he said.
Last year, amid heavy Canadian lobbying, the EU held an inconclusive
vote on the directive and then decided to assess the full impact of the
plan. That assessment is due in the next few months, paving the way for
another vote.
Although Canada sends almost no crude to the EU now, that could change
if proposals to create pipeline capacity from Alberta to Canada's East
Coast are successful.
"We're not exporting to the EU at the moment but we don't want to see
our crude oil stigmatized, which could possibly have implications
elsewhere," said Oliver, adding that Canada did not oppose the goals of
the fuel quality directive.
"What we want is a scientific fact-based approach that makes its
judgment based on the scientific realities and not sort of a
preconceived idea ... that our oil should be treated differently," he
told Reuters.
Canada sends 99 percent of its oil exports to the United States. But a
glut of supply and full pipelines are cutting prices, a problem that
underlines the Canadian industry's need to find new markets.
The EU vote on the directive last year ended in stalemate amid
misgivings from Britain and the Netherlands. Both nations have stakes in
Royal Dutch Shell Plc, which operates in the oil sands, as does France's
Total SA.
Oliver is meeting senior executives from both companies during his
mission, as well as officials from the European Commission and industry
groups. He declined to predict how successful his trip would be.
"I've got this great hand but the final results aren't yet in. We're
arguing from logic and we're arguing from equity, in all fairness. You
hope that prevails," he said.
Barry Bruyea
May 6, 2013, 6:18:56 AM5/6/13
to
On Sun, 05 May 2013 15:31:29 -1200, Cons?cons <ConsRc�n...@cda.ca>
wrote:
>First the seal hunt and denying seal pelt products into Europe.
>Now the 'dirty tarsands oil'. Ya gotta give 'em credit: the
>environment is more important to Europeans than it is to the U.S. or Canada.
Given the tens of thousands of dead land in Eastern Europe this is
almost a bad joke.
wrote:
>First the seal hunt and denying seal pelt products into Europe.
>Now the 'dirty tarsands oil'. Ya gotta give 'em credit: the
>environment is more important to Europeans than it is to the U.S. or Canada.
almost a bad joke.
Canuck57
May 12, 2013, 11:00:50 AM5/12/13
to
On 05/05/2013 9:31 PM, ConsƦcons wrote:
> First the seal hunt and denying seal pelt products into Europe.
> Now the 'dirty tarsands oil'. Ya gotta give 'em credit: the
> environment is more important to Europeans than it is to the U.S. or
> Canada.
Europeans prefer middle east oil as it comes with blood in it.
> First the seal hunt and denying seal pelt products into Europe.
> Now the 'dirty tarsands oil'. Ya gotta give 'em credit: the
> environment is more important to Europeans than it is to the U.S. or
> Canada.
--
Liberal-socialism is a great idea so long as the credit is good and
other people pay for it. When the credit runs out and those that pay
for it leave, they can all share having nothing but debt and discontentment.
Canuck57
May 12, 2013, 11:04:20 AM5/12/13
to
On 06/05/2013 4:18 AM, Barry Bruyea wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 15:31:29 -1200, Cons?cons <ConsRcén...@cda.ca>
would have oil for electronic counterfeit money of depreciating value?
Its really what is going on with Iran too. Hundreds of billions in
depreciating Euro/USD it cannot spend and the idiots wonder why Iran
isn't shipping them oil.
So US policy, take our Bernanke electronic counterfeit for oil or we
bomb you. But to us, they spin propaganda to hide what is really going on.
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 15:31:29 -1200, Cons?cons <ConsRcén...@cda.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> First the seal hunt and denying seal pelt products into Europe.
>> Now the 'dirty tarsands oil'. Ya gotta give 'em credit: the
>> environment is more important to Europeans than it is to the U.S. or Canada.
>
> Given the tens of thousands of dead land in Eastern Europe this is
> almost a bad joke.
Agreed. How many innocent people died in Libya so Europe and others
>
>> First the seal hunt and denying seal pelt products into Europe.
>> Now the 'dirty tarsands oil'. Ya gotta give 'em credit: the
>> environment is more important to Europeans than it is to the U.S. or Canada.
>
> Given the tens of thousands of dead land in Eastern Europe this is
> almost a bad joke.
would have oil for electronic counterfeit money of depreciating value?
Its really what is going on with Iran too. Hundreds of billions in
depreciating Euro/USD it cannot spend and the idiots wonder why Iran
isn't shipping them oil.
So US policy, take our Bernanke electronic counterfeit for oil or we
bomb you. But to us, they spin propaganda to hide what is really going on.
Barry Bruyea
May 12, 2013, 11:14:54 AM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:00:50 -0600, Canuck57 <Canu...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>On 05/05/2013 9:31 PM, Cons?cons wrote:
>> First the seal hunt and denying seal pelt products into Europe.
>> Now the 'dirty tarsands oil'. Ya gotta give 'em credit: the
>> environment is more important to Europeans than it is to the U.S. or
>> Canada.
>
>Europeans prefer middle east oil as it comes with blood in it.
Europeans are in a stranglehold relation ship with Russia who is now
supplying the lion's share of their natural gas and a large part of
their oil.
wrote:
>On 05/05/2013 9:31 PM, Cons?cons wrote:
>> First the seal hunt and denying seal pelt products into Europe.
>> Now the 'dirty tarsands oil'. Ya gotta give 'em credit: the
>> environment is more important to Europeans than it is to the U.S. or
>> Canada.
>
>Europeans prefer middle east oil as it comes with blood in it.
supplying the lion's share of their natural gas and a large part of
their oil.
simplicity
May 12, 2013, 11:46:46 AM5/12/13
to
On May 12, 9:14 am, Barry Bruyea <damnthetorped...@duck.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:00:50 -0600, Canuck57 <Canuc...@nospam.com>
Makes me wonder if Canadian diplomats make this obvious point to
Europeans.
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:00:50 -0600, Canuck57 <Canuc...@nospam.com>
Europeans.
ConsRconž
May 12, 2013, 3:35:42 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/2013 8:14 AM, Barry Bruyea wrote:
> Europeans are in a stranglehold relation ship with Russia who is now
> supplying the lion's share of their natural gas and a large part of
> their oil.
Why is it a "stranglehold" when a country supplies the bulk of any
> Europeans are in a stranglehold relation ship with Russia who is now
> supplying the lion's share of their natural gas and a large part of
> their oil.
natural resource to another country needing it?
Does Canada have the U.S. 'in a stranglehold'?
Or are you just pissed off that Europe would get its natural resources
from countries closer to them than is Canada?
You might note that the U.S. doesn't need as much of Canada's oil as it
used to. They're turning to greener power alternatives, while Alberta
and Harper are left frothing at the mouth that they have no viable
alternatives as customers for their dirty oil?
David Johnston
May 13, 2013, 3:05:37 AM5/13/13
to
On 5/12/2013 1:35 PM, ConsRconž wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 8:14 AM, Barry Bruyea wrote:
>> Europeans are in a stranglehold relation ship with Russia who is now
>> supplying the lion's share of their natural gas and a large part of
>> their oil.
>
> Why is it a "stranglehold" when a country supplies the bulk of any
> natural resource to another country needing it?
>
> Does Canada have the U.S. 'in a stranglehold'?
Canada would only have the U.S. in a stranglehold if it could get away
> On 5/12/2013 8:14 AM, Barry Bruyea wrote:
>> Europeans are in a stranglehold relation ship with Russia who is now
>> supplying the lion's share of their natural gas and a large part of
>> their oil.
>
> Why is it a "stranglehold" when a country supplies the bulk of any
> natural resource to another country needing it?
>
> Does Canada have the U.S. 'in a stranglehold'?
with cutting off the flow. Which of course it can't.
Barry Bruyea
May 13, 2013, 6:22:19 AM5/13/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:35:42 -0700, ConsRconž <Con~Rcon~@cda.ca>
wrote:
>On 5/12/2013 8:14 AM, Barry Bruyea wrote:
>> Europeans are in a stranglehold relation ship with Russia who is now
>> supplying the lion's share of their natural gas and a large part of
>> their oil.
>
>Why is it a "stranglehold" when a country supplies the bulk of any
>natural resource to another country needing it?
Stupid question from an idiot. What a surprise.
so insignificant, it doesn't matter. If you knew anything on the
subject, you'd know that.
nothing to do with, but fracking and new discoveries of oil & natural
gas are increasing the oil supply in the U.S.
>
>
wrote:
>On 5/12/2013 8:14 AM, Barry Bruyea wrote:
>> Europeans are in a stranglehold relation ship with Russia who is now
>> supplying the lion's share of their natural gas and a large part of
>> their oil.
>
>Why is it a "stranglehold" when a country supplies the bulk of any
>natural resource to another country needing it?
>
>Does Canada have the U.S. 'in a stranglehold'?
Not yet.
>Does Canada have the U.S. 'in a stranglehold'?
>
>Or are you just pissed off that Europe would get its natural resources
>from countries closer to them than is Canada?
I don't give a damn how much oil Europe buys from Canada because it is
>Or are you just pissed off that Europe would get its natural resources
>from countries closer to them than is Canada?
so insignificant, it doesn't matter. If you knew anything on the
subject, you'd know that.
>
>You might note that the U.S. doesn't need as much of Canada's oil as it
>used to. They're turning to greener power alternatives, while Alberta
>and Harper are left frothing at the mouth that they have no viable
>alternatives as customers for their dirty oil?
You truly are ignorant on the subject, aren't you? "Green" has
>You might note that the U.S. doesn't need as much of Canada's oil as it
>used to. They're turning to greener power alternatives, while Alberta
>and Harper are left frothing at the mouth that they have no viable
>alternatives as customers for their dirty oil?
nothing to do with, but fracking and new discoveries of oil & natural
gas are increasing the oil supply in the U.S.
>
>
Mudge
May 13, 2013, 2:27:39 PM5/13/13
to
--
The Canadian Curmudgeon (in Calgary)
Fix the biosphere - eliminate people
ConsRconž
May 13, 2013, 5:56:50 PM5/13/13
to
On 5/13/2013 12:05 AM, David Johnston wrote:
Of course it can. NAFTA can be renegotiated anytime. Just takes a
government with Canadian balls to do it.
Canada is soon going to be a minor contributor of oil to the U.S.
We're exporting about 1,938,000 barrels per day to them.
MEXICO is exporting about 1,096,000 barrels per day.
And the U.S. is now developing more of its OWN resources and relying
less and less on imported oil. They're concentrating on ALTERNATIVE
energy, you see.
Obama understands the need to protect the environment. Harper only
understands 'oil profits' and 'the economy' - which are actually the
same terms.
government with Canadian balls to do it.
Canada is soon going to be a minor contributor of oil to the U.S.
We're exporting about 1,938,000 barrels per day to them.
MEXICO is exporting about 1,096,000 barrels per day.
And the U.S. is now developing more of its OWN resources and relying
less and less on imported oil. They're concentrating on ALTERNATIVE
energy, you see.
Obama understands the need to protect the environment. Harper only
understands 'oil profits' and 'the economy' - which are actually the
same terms.
M.I.Wakefield
May 13, 2013, 6:49:33 PM5/13/13
to
"ConsRcon�" wrote in message news:Akdkt.15409$Dd2....@newsfe29.iad...
> And the U.S. is now developing more of its OWN resources and relying less
> and less on imported oil. They're concentrating on ALTERNATIVE energy,
> you see.
No, actually they're pumping a lot more oil.
"With the emergence of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to
extract oil and gas from new sources, US oil production has increased from
five million barrels a day to 6.5 million barrels in 2012, and the US Energy
Information Administration anticipates production will hit 8.2 million
barrels a day in 2014."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/04/surging-u-s-oil-production-pushes-reserves-to-highest-levels-in-30-years/
That's more than a sixty per cent increase in the amount of oil being
pumped.
Then again, a picture is as good as a thousand words:
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2011/11/14/the-bakken-north-dakota-oil-field-from-space/
> And the U.S. is now developing more of its OWN resources and relying less
> and less on imported oil. They're concentrating on ALTERNATIVE energy,
> you see.
"With the emergence of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to
extract oil and gas from new sources, US oil production has increased from
five million barrels a day to 6.5 million barrels in 2012, and the US Energy
Information Administration anticipates production will hit 8.2 million
barrels a day in 2014."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/04/surging-u-s-oil-production-pushes-reserves-to-highest-levels-in-30-years/
That's more than a sixty per cent increase in the amount of oil being
pumped.
Then again, a picture is as good as a thousand words:
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2011/11/14/the-bakken-north-dakota-oil-field-from-space/
ConsRconž
May 13, 2013, 10:17:18 PM5/13/13
to
On 5/13/2013 3:49 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> "ConsRcon�" wrote in message news:Akdkt.15409$Dd2....@newsfe29.iad...
>
>> And the U.S. is now developing more of its OWN resources and relying
>> less and less on imported oil. They're concentrating on ALTERNATIVE
>> energy, you see.
>
> No, actually they're pumping a lot more oil.
Just not from Canada, fool. The 'dirty oil' is not wanted by the U.S.
> "ConsRcon�" wrote in message news:Akdkt.15409$Dd2....@newsfe29.iad...
>
>> And the U.S. is now developing more of its OWN resources and relying
>> less and less on imported oil. They're concentrating on ALTERNATIVE
>> energy, you see.
>
> No, actually they're pumping a lot more oil.
anymore than it's wanted anywhere else. Except
not-too-concerned-about-'clean', China.
David Johnston
May 13, 2013, 11:27:29 PM5/13/13
to
On 5/13/2013 3:56 PM, ConsRcon� wrote:
> On 5/13/2013 12:05 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 5/12/2013 1:35 PM, ConsRcon� wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2013 8:14 AM, Barry Bruyea wrote:
>>>> Europeans are in a stranglehold relation ship with Russia who is now
>>>> supplying the lion's share of their natural gas and a large part of
>>>> their oil.
>>>
>>> Why is it a "stranglehold" when a country supplies the bulk of any
>>> natural resource to another country needing it?
>>>
>>> Does Canada have the U.S. 'in a stranglehold'?
>>
>> Canada would only have the U.S. in a stranglehold if it could get away
>> with cutting off the flow. Which of course it can't.
>
> Of course it can. NAFTA can be renegotiated anytime.
And Canada can be crushed any time.
> On 5/13/2013 12:05 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 5/12/2013 1:35 PM, ConsRcon� wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2013 8:14 AM, Barry Bruyea wrote:
>>>> Europeans are in a stranglehold relation ship with Russia who is now
>>>> supplying the lion's share of their natural gas and a large part of
>>>> their oil.
>>>
>>> Why is it a "stranglehold" when a country supplies the bulk of any
>>> natural resource to another country needing it?
>>>
>>> Does Canada have the U.S. 'in a stranglehold'?
>>
>> Canada would only have the U.S. in a stranglehold if it could get away
>> with cutting off the flow. Which of course it can't.
>
> Of course it can. NAFTA can be renegotiated anytime.
Barry Bruyea
May 14, 2013, 6:29:05 AM5/14/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:56:50 -0700, ConsRcon� <Con~Rcon~@cda.ca>
wrote:
>On 5/13/2013 12:05 AM, David Johnston wrote:
future alternative, but at the rate of bankruptcy of Solar and
taxpayer subsidized wind programs, It will be a hell of a long time
before it becomes significant, especially given extraction cost
reductions in carbon based fuels.
wrote:
>On 5/13/2013 12:05 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 5/12/2013 1:35 PM, ConsRcon� wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2013 8:14 AM, Barry Bruyea wrote:
>>>> Europeans are in a stranglehold relation ship with Russia who is now
>>>> supplying the lion's share of their natural gas and a large part of
>>>> their oil.
>>>
>>> Why is it a "stranglehold" when a country supplies the bulk of any
>>> natural resource to another country needing it?
>>>
>>> Does Canada have the U.S. 'in a stranglehold'?
>>
>> Canada would only have the U.S. in a stranglehold if it could get away
>> with cutting off the flow. Which of course it can't.
>
>Of course it can. NAFTA can be renegotiated anytime. Just takes a
>government with Canadian balls to do it.
>
>Canada is soon going to be a minor contributor of oil to the U.S.
>We're exporting about 1,938,000 barrels per day to them.
>MEXICO is exporting about 1,096,000 barrels per day.
>
>And the U.S. is now developing more of its OWN resources and relying
>less and less on imported oil. They're concentrating on ALTERNATIVE
>energy, you see.
There you go, dreaming in colour again. Alternative energy may be a
>>> On 5/12/2013 8:14 AM, Barry Bruyea wrote:
>>>> Europeans are in a stranglehold relation ship with Russia who is now
>>>> supplying the lion's share of their natural gas and a large part of
>>>> their oil.
>>>
>>> Why is it a "stranglehold" when a country supplies the bulk of any
>>> natural resource to another country needing it?
>>>
>>> Does Canada have the U.S. 'in a stranglehold'?
>>
>> Canada would only have the U.S. in a stranglehold if it could get away
>> with cutting off the flow. Which of course it can't.
>
>Of course it can. NAFTA can be renegotiated anytime. Just takes a
>government with Canadian balls to do it.
>
>Canada is soon going to be a minor contributor of oil to the U.S.
>We're exporting about 1,938,000 barrels per day to them.
>MEXICO is exporting about 1,096,000 barrels per day.
>
>And the U.S. is now developing more of its OWN resources and relying
>less and less on imported oil. They're concentrating on ALTERNATIVE
>energy, you see.
future alternative, but at the rate of bankruptcy of Solar and
taxpayer subsidized wind programs, It will be a hell of a long time
before it becomes significant, especially given extraction cost
reductions in carbon based fuels.
Barry Bruyea
May 14, 2013, 6:30:29 AM5/14/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:17:18 -0700, ConsRcon� <Con~Rcon~@cda.ca>
wrote:
>On 5/13/2013 3:49 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>> "ConsRcon�" wrote in message news:Akdkt.15409$Dd2....@newsfe29.iad...
approval.
>
wrote:
>On 5/13/2013 3:49 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>>
>>> And the U.S. is now developing more of its OWN resources and relying
>>> less and less on imported oil. They're concentrating on ALTERNATIVE
>>> energy, you see.
>>
>> No, actually they're pumping a lot more oil.
>
>Just not from Canada, fool. The 'dirty oil' is not wanted by the U.S.
>anymore than it's wanted anywhere else. Except
>not-too-concerned-about-'clean', China.
70% of Americans support Keystone, giving Obama a hard choice on
>>> And the U.S. is now developing more of its OWN resources and relying
>>> less and less on imported oil. They're concentrating on ALTERNATIVE
>>> energy, you see.
>>
>> No, actually they're pumping a lot more oil.
>
>Just not from Canada, fool. The 'dirty oil' is not wanted by the U.S.
>anymore than it's wanted anywhere else. Except
>not-too-concerned-about-'clean', China.
approval.
>
0 new messages