Posted on 03/12/2008 11:15:38 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
Canada has warned the US government that a narrow interpretation of new energy legislation would prohibit its neighbour buying fuel from Alberta’s vast oil sands, with “unintended consequences for both countries”.
In a letter to Robert Gates, US defence secretary, Canada said that it “would not want to see an expansive interpretation” of the Energy Independence and Security Act 2007. A copy of the letter, from Michael Wilson, Canadian ambassador, and copied to Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, and Samuel Bodman, US energy secretary, has been obtained by the Financial Times.
Section 526 of the law limits US government procurement of alternative fuels to those from which the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are equal to or less than those from conventional fuel from conventional petroleum sources. Canada’s oil sands are considered unconventional fuels, and producing them emits more greenhouse gas than conventional production.
The Bush administration has, nonetheless, encouraged developing oil sands, given the US’s favourable relationship with Canada and that it would reduce reliance on Middle East imports.
Amy Myers Jaffe, energy expert at Rice University, said cutting out the oil sands as a source of fuel would also limit global supplies further, forcing up the price of oil: “$106 a barrel is going to look cheap.”
The three presidential candidates hoping to replace President George W. Bush are proponents of strong US policy to counter greenhouse gas emissions, which could lead to a narrow interpretation of the law. That could be why Canada wants the law interpreted now.
“The Canadians do, in fact, have something to worry about, particularly from a Democratic administration,” Ms Jaffe said.
Environmentalists say extracting a barrel of crude from oil sands results in five times the amount of greenhouse gas emissions than extracting conventional crude – a figure some energy companies dispute.
Tristan Landry, spokesperson at the Canadian embassy in Washington, said: “Classifying fuel from the oil sands as non-conventional fuel ... would unnecessarily complicate the integrated Canada-US energy relationship.”
The energy department said the US was “assessing any implication to the US federal fuel procurement practices arising from the bill and will work co-operatively with Canada”.
Greenhouse McCain/Lieberman might be another thing.
I wouldn't put it past "moderate Juan".
Regards
These environmentalist are bad news.
Already in the very liberal part of California where I live liberals are starting to say prices of gas and all other things are getting out of hand.
McGreen has teamed up with Alfred E. Lieberman on new greenie legislation. No Liebfraumilch on the ticket.
yitbos
McGreen has teamed up with Alfred E. Lieberman on new greenie legislation. No Liebfraumilch on the ticket.
yitbos
“No Liebfraumilch”
Hey! What do you have against my favorite German wine from the Rhine Valley?
Canada warning us about oil production is as empty as Chavez’s threats to cut it from us...
The other party needs our $$$ more than we need their oil. Besides, this is Canada we’re talking about LOL.
“Section 526 of the law limits US government procurement of alternative fuels to those from which the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are equal to or less than those from conventional fuel from conventional petroleum sources.”
I think this would apply to ethanol as well. It certainly requires more energy to make than it yields. If all that energy required for production comes from hydrocarbon sources it would definatly violate section 526.
l”George W. Bush doesn’t get much credit on this board...but we should be thankful that he has managed to do almost nothing about ‘global warming’. Something tells me that we will miss that when his term is up.”
BINGO!
We’ll be crying about ‘the good old days’!
The US should warn Canada that we secure North America not them. They could’nt oppose us anyhow is we were like russia or china. They should be thankful that we are such a benign superpower and have guarded their sorry ass for decades and that wont be stopping anytime soon. They cant even patrol their own territory against russian incursion and have pathetic naval and air force hardware.
You're "LOL"ing Canada over a legitimite concern? Show some bloody respect.
>>You’re “LOL”ing Canada over a legitimite concern? Show some bloody respect.<<
Hey buddy, here’s a shocker from you...I’m originally from BC, born and bred, moved to Hollywood 2 years ago after helping Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party win the elections, so if there’s someone here on FR who’s got a legitimate shot at showing “respect” for Soviet Canuckistan, it’s your truly.
Soviet Canuckistan
Heh, they must love you in Hollywood. Ever bump into Paul Haggis?
>>Ever bump into Paul Haggis?<<
Actually, I did. But here’s something a story a closet Republican told me weeks ago...
Haggis, just like a typical liberal loon, promotes “multicultralism” and “race understanding” with his film CRASH BUT when a buddy of his who ‘s a struggling actor asked him one time: ‘where do yo live, Paul?”
Haggis “in Beverly Hills”
buddy: “why won’t you move to Compton or East L.A....say Montebello?”
Haggis:”and why would I move there?”
Buddy:”well, Beverly Hills is full of white people right? Don;t tell me that you don’t practice what you preach..”
Haggis: “f*** you...”
That was a story that made the rounds a year ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.