UK secretly helping Canada (Harper) with oil sands

[Topaz]

So I guess now we know why the PM of Britain was over here but please the following article and have your say on this. The world does need the oil but at what cost? The destruction happening to the environment and the people being affected in Northern Alberta and then what is it going to look like? Probably like the movie Mad Max? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/27/canada-oil-sands-uk-backing

[olp1fan]

Use it or lose it Topaz, U.K is our brother, we share the same mother (the queen) so of course they should be helping us

Why is this even a topic?

[fellowtraveller]

The world does need the oil but at what cost?

That's easy: as much as we can get for it.

[Topaz]

Use it or lose it Topaz, U.K is our brother, we share the same mother (the queen) so of course they should be helping us

Why is this even a topic?

NOT us or Canada, its the CRAParty and Harper, most Canadian do care about the environment, but as usual, money talks.

[olp1fan]

NOT us or Canada, its the CRAParty and Harper, most Canadian do care about the environment, but as usual, money talks.

Is there a tree you could be hugging right now?

Good fuzzy feelings doesn't keep our economy running

Edited November 29, 2011 by olp1fan

[blueblood]

So I guess now we know why the PM of Britain was over here but please the following article and have your say on this. The world does need the oil but at what cost? The destruction happening to the environment and the people being affected in Northern Alberta and then what is it going to look like? Probably like the movie Mad Max? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/27/canada-oil-sands-uk-backing

The people in northern Alberta are going to be affected by a sore ass because the wallet they are sitting on is too stuffed with cash, that's how.

[waldo]

Use it or lose it Topaz, U.K is our brother, we share the same mother (the queen) so of course they should be helping us

Why is this even a topic?

uhhh... because, over the last several years, the EU has been undertaking an initiative to upgrade its now dated, '1998 Fuel Quality Directive'

=> "The 1998 Fuel Quality Directive sets EU-wide specifications for petrol, diesel and gas-oil used in cars, trucks and other vehicles - including inland waterway barges, tractor locomotives and machinery - in order to protect human health and the environment."

the tarsands isn't being singled out; rather the proposed new EU standards encompass greenhouse gas (GHG) default value designations for a grouping of described unconventional sources such as:

- oil shale with a proposed GHG value of 131.3 grams CO2 equivalent per megajoule (CO2eq/MJ)

- coal-to-liquid with a proposed GHG value of 172 CO2eq/MJ

- bitumen derived (tarsands) with a proposed GHG value of 107 CO2eq/MJ

as compared to crude oil with a GHG value of 87.5g CO2eq/MJ

[waldo]

the tarsands isn't being singled out...

Montreal Gazette: Europe denies fuel-quality rules aimed at oilsands - Parliamentarian here to meet politicians and set record straight on legislation

[Wild Bill]

Whatever the claims of the EU, they are not buying any oil sands oil at the moment anyway! They seem totally dependent on the middle east.

That being the case, things will be "hunky-dory" unless and until the balloon goes up and that region is engulfed in war. At that point the EU may be desperate for alternative supplies.

By that time, Canada should be exporting a goodly amount to the USA and perhaps China and Japan. If so, I hope our politicians will remember the EU's actions when it comes time to decide about selling them any oil sands product and at what price.

This is not meant to be a threat. It would simply be good business! What has the EU done for Canada lately?

[olp1fan]

The E.U is nothing but a thorn for Canada, really do not want a free trade agreement with them

[waldo]

Whatever the claims of the EU, they are not buying any oil sands oil at the moment anyway! They seem totally dependent on the middle east.

That being the case, things will be "hunky-dory" unless and until the balloon goes up and that region is engulfed in war. At that point the EU may be desperate for alternative supplies.

By that time, Canada should be exporting a goodly amount to the USA and perhaps China and Japan. If so, I hope our politicians will remember the EU's actions when it comes time to decide about selling them any oil sands product and at what price.

huh? Even if Canada never directly sells a drop sludge to the EU, the issue is the glaring intervention by Harper Conservatives attempting to influence EU standards on updating non-conventional sources, particularly the higher CO2 levels associated with tarsands extraction... of course, these same standards would reflect upon any country that indirectly chose to sell purchased tarsands product to the EU.

are you stating it's acceptable for Canada to stop the EU from updating it's standards to properly reflect upon the CO2 levels associated with non-conventional sources (like tarsands, shale oil, etc.)?

[blueblood]

Whatever the claims of the EU, they are not buying any oil sands oil at the moment anyway! They seem totally dependent on the middle east.

That being the case, things will be "hunky-dory" unless and until the balloon goes up and that region is engulfed in war. At that point the EU may be desperate for alternative supplies.

By that time, Canada should be exporting a goodly amount to the USA and perhaps China and Japan. If so, I hope our politicians will remember the EU's actions when it comes time to decide about selling them any oil sands product and at what price.

This is not meant to be a threat. It would simply be good business! What has the EU done for Canada lately?

As uncle Kevin says, if the eu wants to play trade games, they can go freeze in the dark.

[Wild Bill]

huh? Even if Canada never directly sells a drop sludge to the EU, the issue is the glaring intervention by Harper Conservatives attempting to influence EU standards on updating non-conventional sources, particularly the higher CO2 levels associated with tarsands extraction... of course, these same standards would reflect upon any country that indirectly chose to sell purchased tarsands product to the EU.

are you stating it's acceptable for Canada to stop the EU from updating it's standards to properly reflect upon the CO2 levels associated with non-conventional sources (like tarsands, shale oil, etc.)?

Well, your concern is carbon standards, I guess. Me, I have moral qualms about middle east oil. This stems from having moral differences with the morals and cultural values of so many of the leaders of those nations.

More simply, when I hear the term "blood oil" I agree with it!

If I were a customer in Europe, I would feel better about accepting oil products from Canada's oil sands than Saudi oil. I would be even happier if Canada worked a bit harder to clean up its production process.

Then again, I realize you might consider me an anomaly. Not only do I hold these views on middle east oil but when I shop I read the labels to discover the country of origin. If possible, I don't buy products from countries like China,India or Russia, who spend diddley squat on anti-pollution measures. I'm not totally a fanatic about it, since often it's all but impossible to find an alternate source, or one that's even close to as cheap, but I do what I can.

Especially with food! The Chinese already killed a number of our pets with contaminants in dog and cat food. They also had a problem with baby foods. I really don't want to eat anything that comes from that country. Again, some things are almost impossible to source from somewhere else. Canned fruit for example. Or canned mushrooms. In those cases I buy fresh unless the price is too high for being out of season. I prefer domestic product, as local as possible but for citrus and such of course that is impossible, so I buy only products from a short list of countries. I even shun bulk raisins, as they usually come from Iran. Sometimes I have to hunt a bit but usually I can find California raisins elsewhere on the shelf.

As I said, we likely have quite different priorities and values. You're entitled to yours, as I am to mine.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Wild Bill

[waldo]

As uncle Kevin says, if the eu wants to play trade games, they can go freeze in the dark.

whoever "uncle Kevin" is... he (or you) can't tag this issue as a free-trade bargaining chip. For several years, the EU has had an ongoing initiative to upgrade it's significantly dated Fuel Quality Directive standards. The EU standards changes would simply reflect upon the very nature of the tarsands bitumen-derived fuel extraction process that has a higher carbon-emissions value than conventional oil. As for "freezing in the dark", perhaps you're unaware the EU presently imports none of it's oil from Canada... in any case, your isolationist bent is noted.

[waldo]

Well, your concern is carbon standards, I guess. Me, I have moral qualms about middle east oil. This stems from having moral differences with the morals and cultural values of so many of the leaders of those nations.

More simply, when I hear the term "blood oil" I agree with it!

As I said, we likely have quite different priorities and values. You're entitled to yours, as I am to mine.

clearly, you've bought into the Levant/Velshi marketing re-branding exercise... their "ethical oil" rhetoric was eclipsed only by the rantings of Levant as he attempted to quantify "blood oil" in relation to the number of Darfur genocide killings per barrel of Sudan exported oil. You speak to accepting Canada selling oil to China; accordingly, you've also aligned with the inherent hypocrisy of that silly Levant/Velshi marketing re-branding charade that, somehow, makes no distinction between the described "moral failings" of their targeted oil producing nations versus Canada selling to any/all purchasing nations, regardless of their perceived "moral fabric".

by the by, it looks like the re-branding charade has run it's course... apparently Levant has sold enough books and there won't be another publishing run! So, now we have Velshi on his way back to the PMO as Harper's, "director of planning". Talk about a charade!

[fellowtraveller]

the tarsands isn't being singled out; rather the proposed new EU standards encompass greenhouse gas (GHG) default value designations for a grouping of described unconventional sources such as:

- oil shale with a proposed GHG value of 131.3 grams CO2 equivalent per megajoule (CO2eq/MJ)

- coal-to-liquid with a proposed GHG value of 172 CO2eq/MJ

- bitumen derived (tarsands) with a proposed GHG value of 107 CO2eq/MJ

as compared to crude oil with a GHG value of 87.5g CO2eq/MJ

Of course the EU has carefully not offended any of their own suppliers like North Sea oil, Norway or any of the Arab states- all of whom produce conventional oil. I wonder if the EU will boycott all North Sea oil too, knowing that a big ofshore spill there would be devastating for numerous EU states? Fat f***king chance.

[Wild Bill]

clearly, you've bought into the Levant/Velshi marketing re-branding exercise... their "ethical oil" rhetoric was eclipsed only by the rantings of Levant as he attempted to quantify "blood oil" in relation to the number of Darfur genocide killings per barrel of Sudan exported oil. You speak to accepting Canada selling oil to China; accordingly, you've also aligned with the inherent hypocrisy of that silly Levant/Velshi marketing re-branding charade that, somehow, makes no distinction between the described "moral failings" of their targeted oil producing nations versus Canada selling to any/all purchasing nations, regardless of their perceived "moral fabric".

by the by, it looks like the re-branding charade has run it's course... apparently Levant has sold enough books and there won't be another publishing run! So, now we have Velshi on his way back to the PMO as Harper's, "director of planning". Talk about a charade!

Well Waldo, with this one issue I agree with Ezra but from your POV I guess I'm worse! I held these views for years now!

In my whole life I have only bought $2 worth of PetroCanada gas, since I was aware from its inception that there was never a drop of Canadian oil or gasoline in their pumps! When the company was first formed they bought from Libya and Venezuela. Later sources may have changed to favour more from the middle East. That only made me MORE uncomfortable! I couldn't afford an electric vehicle, even if one was available. Especially since I was an outside salesman with a large territory. Despite sources I didn't respect, I had no choice but to keep buying.

So I just gritted my teeth and resented it!

The $2 came from being up in northern Ontario on a fishing trip and I was riding on fumes while driving a 1980 Rabbit VW convertible! Gas stations up there were sparse so I had no choice but to pull into a PetroCan and buy just enough to get me to the next gas station.

That was about 1981 or so, which predates Ezra by a fair bit.

My consumer goods policy started in the early 90's as a reaction to how the Northern Telecom deal to export our electronic manufacturing business and jobs to China was affecting my own personal area of income. I could see the day when everything in the stores came from China and no one earned enough money to buy anything.

My aversion to anything from China, India or Russia started about the same time, when I became aware that these countries had not only taken our manufacturing jobs but they also spent ZERO on anti-pollution measures! Later, when Kyoto was signed and I downloaded and read it I was disgusted with the hypocrisy being shown by the environmental movement and lost almost all faith in them. Clearly, they truly didn't give a damn about "saving the planet". It was just warmed over Marxist wealth re-distribution masquerading as environmentalism.

I started paying attention to my groceries in 2007, after the pet food poisoning Chinese scandal. Obviously, that country had as much respect for food inspection as they do for intellectual property rights with selling pirate CDs and DVDs. Since Canada for years has accepted "inspection at source" I felt I had virtually no protection until "after the fact". IOW, after pets or even babies start dying then and only then does Canada react.

I'm an older guy, Waldo. I've been paying attention to this for a LONG time! Ezra is just a johnny-come-lately, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm afraid your worst fears about me are confirmed!

[waldo]

the tarsands isn't being singled out; rather the proposed new EU standards encompass greenhouse gas (GHG) default value designations for a grouping of described unconventional sources such as:

- oil shale with a proposed GHG value of 131.3 grams CO2 equivalent per megajoule (CO2eq/MJ)

- coal-to-liquid with a proposed GHG value of 172 CO2eq/MJ

- bitumen derived (tarsands) with a proposed GHG value of 107 CO2eq/MJ

as compared to crude oil with a GHG value of 87.5g CO2eq/MJ

Of course the EU has carefully not offended any of their own suppliers like North Sea oil, Norway or any of the Arab states- all of whom produce conventional oil. I wonder if the EU will boycott all North Sea oil too, knowing that a big ofshore spill there would be devastating for numerous EU states? Fat f***king chance.

offended? Conflating this standards issue with offshore oil spill potentials is a blatantly obvious non sequitur on your part.

have another read of the 3 examples of non-conventional sources I mentioned... there are significant shale oil reserves in EU countries like France, Germany, Sweden and Estonia... notwithstanding the shale oil reserves within those non-EU countries that the EU imports conventional oil from, most particularly Russia. Will you carry your nonsensical "offended" premise over to these noted EU and non-EU countries... because of the EU proposal to update the greenhouse gas (GHG) default value designation for oil shale?

[waldo]

I'm afraid your worst fears about me are confirmed!

not at all... the more detail you provide, the more I recognize you as a self-avowed principled consumer, whether you actually are, or not. I will only add that I question your 'breakout logic' and rationalization in terms of oil imports. Given Canada imports more than half of its crude oil requirements, that approximately 55% of those imports come from such countries as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Algeria... and that we have recently been shifting to new sources like Russia and African countries, I'm not clear just how you can ever be sure/confident of the oil source that you're pumping.

[Wild Bill]

not at all... the more detail you provide, the more I recognize you as a self-avowed principled consumer, whether you actually are, or not. I will only add that I question your 'breakout logic' and rationalization in terms of oil imports. Given Canada imports more than half of its crude oil requirements, that approximately 55% of those imports come from such countries as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Algeria... and that we have recently been shifting to new sources like Russia and African countries, I'm not clear just how you can ever be sure/confident of the oil source that you're pumping.

You're quite right Waldo, I can't! As I said in my earlier post, I have no other option so I just grit my teeth and resent it!

I'm well aware that I likely represent a virtually non-existent demographic but every meme is born somewhere! I was heartened a year or two ago while shopping, when I was examining the label of Heinz can of beans. Nowhere did it say the country of origin, just that it was "Union Made". I didn't think this was very helpful. It could have been a Chinese union, for all I could tell. I emailed Heinz and I got a reply that ALL their products were made in Leamington, Ontario from Canadian beans. I then asked why they didn't promote that on the label but never got an answer.

Anyhow, while I was perusing the can I noticed an old gentleman beside me, doing the same thing. I asked him "Checking to see where it came from?". "You bet!" he replied. "After some of the things in the papers you can't be too careful!".

I have a very low income and it hurts to take this attitude sometimes. If you read the labels of all the house brands in the supermarkets they are mostly Chinese. So I'm costing myself a bit extra money. Still, I can afford to lose a few pounds and I sleep better at night.

[sharkman]

Chalk me up as another with the same mind set. Checking the groceries to see where it's made I noticed that Del Monte Peaches are made in China when sold in those plastic disposable cups, but made in the USA when sold in cans. There is no way in hell that I'm going to eat something that may be grown in a country with such bad polution(why don't the enviro nuts go over there to protest about chemicals being dumped in the water supply and such, Canada has some of the best regulations in the world) and quality control. I'll pay more for food harvested in countries with actual safety regulations every time.

As for oil, I'd rather have tar sand oil than dictator oil any day. The last thing this world needs is to be enriching and empowering Iran other countries that view us as possible enemies.

[waldo]

As for oil, I'd rather have tar sand oil than dictator oil any day. The last thing this world needs is to be enriching and empowering Iran other countries that view us as possible enemies.

further to my earlier emphasis on the Levant/Velshi marketing & re-branding "ethical oil" charade, best you get after our own 'Dear Leader' to tweek the current/shifting import sources. Hey sharkman, further to the overall hypocrisy of the "ethical oil" re-branding charade, does your personal hypocrisy level accept the export of tarsands oil to any ole country, particularly given your selective railing against China... under your expression, wouldn't selling oil to China, as you say, "enrich and empower" it?

Given Canada imports more than half of its crude oil requirements, that approximately 55% of those imports come from such countries as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Algeria... and that we have recently been shifting to new sources like Russia and African countries...

[sharkman]

You assume too much Waldo. I am making my own distinction, not this Ezra fella's. But as far as China goes, Clinton never should have opened up trade with them in the early 90's. It was a short sighted strategy that will yield long term pain.

China should have been kept isolated with their human rights violations and total lack of sanctity towards life. I'm sure you feel the same?

Edited December 1, 2011 by sharkman

[waldo]

You assume too much Waldo. I am making my own distinction, not this Ezra fella's.

take the blustering Levant out of the equation... you express a discriminating concern favouring the import of tarsands oil as compared to what you labelled as "dictator oil". I'm simply asking if you're just as discriminating in terms of selling that same tarsands oil, particularly to a country you expressed reservations over (China). Just how distinct is your own distinction?

[sharkman]

Well what I'm saying is now that China has been a growing part of the world market system for almost 20 years, it's too late for questions like whether we should sell oil to China. We have no choice, we have to sell to whomever will buy it. They have economic muscle that can hurt us in a big way. They are too intertwined in the world economy to do anything about it.

The time to consider whether selling anything to China in a big way was back in the early 90's. The wrong decision was made and now we are paying the consequences. One such consequence is trade with China or shrink our economy, which means a recession or even depression.

But if I have the choice I avoid anything made in China, not only for the health issues that have arisen in everything from wallboard making people sick to products with lead in it.

Again, what are your views on these issues, or do you have any yet.