Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Oil Giants Demand Open Market for World's Dirtiest Fuel
Oil Groups Mount Legal Challenge to California's Tar Sands Ban
A lobby group that includes BP and Shell in its membership has launched a legal challenge against low-carbon legislation in California that in effect rules out the use of oil from Canadian tar sands. The action by the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) comes amid growing political, investor and consumer pressure on US oil companies not to participate in the carbon-intensive tar sands of Alberta.
Californian low-carbon legislation 'unconstitutional' says NPRA oil lobby group. Above, Syncrude oil sands project in Alberta, Canada. (Photograph: Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images) A NPRA statement
said the legislation was unlawful for a number of reasons, including
the imposition of "undue and unconstitutional burdens on interstate
commerce".
It claimed the legislation would also have "little or no impact" on greenhouse gas emissions nationwide and would harm US energy security "by discouraging the use of Canadian crude oil and ethanol produced in the American midwest".
The refiners are joined by the American Trucking Associations and the Centre for North American Energy Security in their attempt to overturn legislation from California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who wants to cut C02 emissions from transport by 10% by 2020.
Shell's chief executive, Peter Voser, recently announced plans to slow investment in Alberta, though he denied this was anything to do with environmental issues, saying it was a reaction to lower oil prices and a reduction in Shell's profitability.
The company distanced itself from the NPRA legal action but did not express its opposition to it. "Shell is not represented on the committees of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association that made the decision to legally challenge the rules," said a spokesman in The Hague. "We continue to work with the California Air Resources Board as they refine rules and address outstanding issues."
BP also claimed it was not associated with the court challenge. A spokesman for the oil company in London said: "BP's membership in NPRA is limited to specific issues related to the chemical industry."
BP has started to spend tens of millions of dollars restructuring two US refineries so that they can process tar sands crude imported from its operations in Canada. There were reports over the weekend that BP is in $1.2bn talks to buy a Canadian company called Value Creation, which has substantial tar sands reserves.
Tony Hayward, chief executive of BP, told the Guardian in an interview this month that he was confident tar sands would play a major role in future US energy security. He played down suggestions that the US army, one of the biggest single users of oil products in the world, might be prevented by politicians from using fuel derived from tar sands.
Tar sands have risen fast up the political agenda since the Copenhagen climate change conference last December.
The issue will also be discussed at the forthcoming annual general meetings of Shell and BP. On the agenda are resolutions from the Co-op and other investors questioning the wisdom of continuing their controversial tar sands operations in Canada.
John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said he was pleased that investors were putting the oil company on the spot, adding that exploitation of the tar sands would become "a campaign battleground for years to come".
32 Comments so far
Show AllThe use of Canadian crude oil and ethanol produced in the American midwest are both crimes against humanity.
So is overpopulation.
Ha ha ha!
Overpopulation is a crime against humanity.
Didn't Sarte say "Hell is other people"?
:)
Does Canada have no environmental protection laws and/or laws that protect the indigenous peoples living downstream from the tar sands extraction area?
This mess arose from a backroom deal among the Bush/Cheney bunch, Canada and Mexico. From what I read somewhere, Canada is not allowed under this agreement to unilaterally stop extraction. Could it not, however, ask an international court to consider forcing them to stop because of the damage it is doing?
The backroom NAFTA deal was signed by Mulroney and Clinton if I remember correctly.
As for Environmental Regulations protecting downstream First Nations peoples from the toxic effluent form the Tar Sands operation, forget it. Just as in the US, environmental regulations are vetted by the Oil Companies so they are not too onerous.
Besides, there has been an unofficial genocidal pogrom against the First Nations for as long as Europeans have been in Canada. As long as the White Canadians have their techno-toys and high lifestyle, they don't care if the Cree, Iroquois, Inuit,or Haida-gwai are dying from mercury poisoning, rampant alcoholism, or serial killers. Out of sight, out of mind.
Galenwainwright, when I saw the headline, my first thought was about NAFTA too, but the article does not mention it. Probably because the companies involved are BP and Shell - from outside North America?
It is unbelievable that there is a provision under NAFTA that allows a corporation to legally challenge any regulation or bylaw brought about by a local, state or national government in public interest - if it can be shown that this particular law or regulation impinges on the corporation's profit. Unbelievable because a whole lot of people were sleeping when this provision (like so many other things in life) got in.
People don't realize why it's important to pay attention to such things, by tuning out of mindless entertainment - including corporate sporting events. This is why.
The NAFTA comments about us sleeping are not correct. After Mulroony's sleight of hand; why do you think we kicked the dumb b****** out. What we have done in northern Alberta is criminal on many levels apart from being just plain stupid. We use more energy - natural gas - to drive the process than the energy recovered from refined petroleum. As one of my early flight instructors wa prone to say, "B F B" - Brilliant F****** Brilliant - just about sums it up.
If we are silent, even stones cry out.
spinwing
"We use more energy - natural gas - to drive the process than the energy recovered from refined petroleum."
Spouting the nonsense put forward by critics destroys the credibility of those opposing the tar sands. If this were true there would really be no point in using this resource. The EROEI is at least 5.0 according to credible sources.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839
I agree on the need to be careful with numbers. But the fact remains that the tar sands operation involves burning the cleanest fossil fuel (natural gas) to produce a dirty fuel - basically crude oil of low quality - which then needs to be refined to produce other products such as gasoline, requiring more energy. And when this gasoline is finally burned in an internal combustion engine, the energy efficiency is only of the order of 35%, and the vehicular efficiency itself will be much less - depending on how big and heavy the thing is. So, the overall efficiency of this whole cycle is going to be really small. There are natural gas-burning engines readily available. Or the natural gas itself could be put to better use in so many applications - there are countries that have no gas sources. So, no need to be harsh about some wrong numbers, I guess - but a warning to use correct numbers is useful, no doubt - so as to remain credible.
There are landless poor people in some countries who go into the forest, cut down the trees, turn it into charcoal to sell it in the nearby town to eke out a living. Terrible way to make a living, but they are poor, landless. But why do this thing in an advanced country that's part of the G7? The wonder of capitalism, I suppose.
"It is unbelievable that there is a provision under NAFTA that allows a corporation to legally challenge any regulation or bylaw brought about by a local, state or national government in public interest - if it can be shown that this particular law or regulation impinges on the corporation's profit."
Believe it. Canada was sued by Ethyl Corporation when the government tried to ban MMT in gasoline.
That's the problem with identity politics. I survive on less than $14,000.00 a year but I am supposed to tighten my belt for my overconsuption and pay for sins of a system that destroys more lives every year than all the socialist revolutions in the history of human kind. Us left-wing lunatics are fringe but right wing miltary junta's and death squads get a free ride. Let's join across class lines to defeat our common enemy which will use any wedge issue it can from women's to gay to native rights...which can be accomodated, while the eliminating class will eliminate the system which is oppressive to all, including the one's who gain the most from it.
RR
Hang in there California, just say "no".
Oh Canada. When did you get so goddam mean?
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
Canada mean? If so, she's like the whip-handling partner in a sado-masochistic relationship -- but definitely not the dominant partner in setting the rules of the game.
Bernice's post below about backroom deals is slightly off the mark in terms of the individuals involved, but it's certainly true that NAFTA effectively deprives Canada of the possibility for an independent energy policy.
Canadian tar sands are a blight on humanity. They are emitting over 40% of all Canadian CFC discharge and destroying the Aboriginal First Nations communities and North American eco-system. An area greater than Florida and New Jersey combined has been devastated completely and contaminated with cyanide and other toxic waste. The whole watertable in Northern Alberta is now toxic. It is a sheer disgrace as a corrupt government in the pockets of big oil, pillages the land and destroys living habitat.
to globalsoul
You are absolutely right. Canadian tar sands are a blight on humanity. I am Canadian and I would like to see a permanent, irrevocable ban on any and all development of the Alberta tar sands. My government is a disgrace. Corporate greed will kill us all.
When will the long-term needs of humanity take priority over short-term greed?
Restrict or cut back Alberta tar sands production?
Fuhgedaboudid!!
The insatiable US demand for oil is now totally reliant on the tar sands production to contribute a very significant portion of its total usage.
Where would the replacement oil come from if the tar sands were shut down?
I doubt that most Americans are even aware that their largest petroleum supplier is not any Middle Eastern country, but Canada (about two million barrels per day) followed by Mexico (about one million barrels per day).
Latest USEIA figures at http://www.eia.doe.gov/
John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said he was pleased that investors were putting the oil company on the spot, adding that exploitation of the tar sands would become "a campaign battle ground for years to come".
Investors won't let a little thing like a polluted water table get in their way.
Despite that they may have green and sustainable magazines laying around the house and think they care about changing the ships direction, they won't let a few pesky locals cut into their petroleum based portfolio profits.
What no one demands is that the veil of free energy be lifted for all humanity to enjoy.
We spend billions and billions digging holes in the ground to gather the Precious, but not a word spoken outside of fringe circles on completely different ways to power this world.
Tens of thousands of brilliant scientists and engineers graduate from University every year and nothing ever comes out aside from building a better mousetrap.
Just the way the curators of the Precious like it.
Nothing can be allowed to see the light of day if it cannot be marketed and sold in definable, measurable, chargeable quantities.
Planned scarcity has kept these people in power for 100 years.
Will the human race ever evolve?
We DID evolve -- into lemmings and vermin.
Gary
“All energy prices have gone up, and wind is a pretty hot commodity right now. There is more demand than there is supply right now.”
-- Michael Sloan
let's give BP/EXXON/SHELL the rights to the Sun in perpetuity
there would be a solar panel of every exposed surface within five years
Maple 1:41 -------- Good one.
I was following the developement of residential fuel cells in Troy NY and just when they were ready for market General Electric bought all the franchise rights for the whole world( except Michigan).
Walla no residential fuel cells avaiable.
At least California can put it up for a binding referendum where the public is likely to reject it even though some of it's past referendums were corrupted by Big Money propaganda ads and super-majority requirements. This would be the threat of a good example for the oiligarchy, particularly when applied to the nation. It would prove the referendum to be the democratic answer to the pressing issues of our time.
And and the Canadian people don't see the benefits of all of that oil money generalized either, unlike our Saudi brethern.
RR
The market is already wide open to oil giants. The oil market needs to be closed and a new market needs to be open to renewable energy.
So... the "Oil Sands" and the "Ethanol Lands" all over the planet are owned by "your" Wall St. Corps., which your spineless Prez bailed out according to the "Bush-Cheney Plan".
What more do you need to know?
Preaching to the converted, and online hand-wringing don't mean shit.
Get off your ass and actually DO something about it.
Can't figure out what?
You're part of your bigger problem.
I wonder if UC Berkeley (CAL) will take a principled stand and return the $200 Million (or was it $800 Million !!) grant from BP. My guess is new research will be sponsored and funded that will eventually, somehow justify using oil from tar sands. After all nothing can come between the Regents and $$$.
Crazy_ writes:
"Oil is mostly all Saudi Arabia has - once that goes, they will be in trouble economically. So, their dictatorial regime - if it doesn't want to risk being toppled! - is going to have to ration the oil to keep prices high, even before peak oil kicks in."
Not exactly.
First, they are imbedded in international financial markets through investments from earlier oil profits.
Second, they probably do not have as many oil reserves as they claim. Given secrecy on oil reserves generally, "peak oil" as a matter of relative cost of extraction has already occurred.
Third, they probably have the most sophisticated air force in the Mideast other than Israel, both supplied by the U.S.
Fourth, the price of oil is totally artificial and depends upon global corporate manipulation. There is no "free market" in oil. The Saudis are integral to this system and the bastards know it.
Fifth, ElfinArcher hits the nail in observing that "Planned scarcity has kept these people in power for 100 years." Planned scarcity creates peasant fear and drives up profits.
Climate change? Who cares. The rich will survive. Robots will replace puny human labor and Jefferson will, metaphorically at least, keep screwing his slaves until hell freezes over. So it is written.
-30-
Part of the answer is conservation. Electric and 40+ mpg gasoline cars are about to hit the market, not to mention all the hybrids already out. California is hopefully getting into mass transit too.
If we all better insulate our homes and replace oil furnaces with better efficiency or natural gas, take the bus, and only purchase the highest mileage cars... the price of oil will fall to the point that they will shut down the tar sands and the ethanol companies will go bankrupt. (I believe the ethanol companies would all close the day federal subsidies end.)
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
I'm sure many of you who've posted on CD for a few years have noticed that since the Dims lost Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat in Massachusetts the Obama/DLC apologists have deluged CommonDreams with their presence and their utterly failed DLC-dependent "stay the course" nonsense. It's almost like the DLC and their cronies and others blessed by their patronage are worried about some upcoming elections.
To all the apologists: The DLC misled Democratic Party had 30 years to reform itself to reflect the real needs and interests of its traditional (long abandoned) core constituencies. For 20 years real progressives have listened to every DLC excuse in the book about why the Dims couldn't move this piece of legislation or sign that piece of legislation because of Republican opposition. Well, Obama had a once-in-40-years golden majority in both Houses of Congress handed to him on a silver platter to show what the Dimocrats could do with such a majority--and what they did with it is sell the entire country down the river to the richest Wall Street plutocrats and military-industrial/petroleum complex war profiteers.
You DLC members and coddlers have been given your last chance as far as many millions of former Democratic voters are concerned and it's time the failed DLC and its Party were consigned to the dustbin of history. Either we will have a truly progressive movement take its place or we won't. Either way, the American people will get what they've earned and that's just as well.
STOP BUYING SHELL OR BP'S FRIGGING GASOLINE ...THEY ARE MURDERING PEOPLE FOR THE CORPORATE MACHINE
The corruption of Shell and BP of so many places, including the US means...stop buying their frigging gasoline. How hard is that? And maybe a few signs at your local stations to protest what they are doing in the world, maybe a few fact sheets handed out on the sidewalk so you don't get booted out. How hard is that an hour a week? Maybe put a small classified in your paper that might cost 10 bucks in a small town. One person at a time could do SO MUCH.
FROM THE FISHING VILLAGE OF IRELAND
"To be sure, this is not Nigeria, where Shell regularly massacres those opposed to the oil drilling which is destroying the environment and the livelihoods of so much of the population. Shell doesn't run Ireland in the way it controls Nigeria. But at the same time, much like my own country, the Irish government has proven itself to be far from free of corruption.
No, Ireland isn't Nigeria. The outside agitators get harassed, not shot. The community organizers have their boats sunk by thugs and are regularly imprisoned, they're not hanged. But in Ireland as in Nigeria, Royal Dutch Shell lies about their safety record, lies about their intentions, while making obscene profits off of the poisoning of the environment while most of the local people have less than nothing to show for any of it." D.R. direct from Shelltosea camp, Rossport, Ireland Thank you for the info
www.shelltosea.com please visit and support
Stonepig:
"...No, Ireland isn't Nigeria. The outside agitators get harassed, not shot. The community organizers have their boats sunk by thugs and are regularly imprisoned, they're not hanged. But in Ireland as in Nigeria, Royal Dutch Shell lies about their safety record, lies about their intentions, while making obscene profits off of the poisoning of the environment while most of the local people have less than nothing to show for any of it."
So true, but the situation is escalating. Israel is now doing assassinations in third countries to kill off the Palestinian intelligentsia (not an oxymoron although the idea is foreign to Amerkins), the U.S. is kidnapping clerics off the streets of allies and using drones for assassinations, then apologizing for the deaths of "innocents," etc.
The language of violence is changing much for the worse. How we interpret and NAME violence changes how we do it. And changes how it is done to us.
Is it possible that the United States is becoming Neo-con, neo-Liberal Anarcho-Syndicalist? There is a whole genre of old science fiction suggesting this. At least it used to be fiction...
-30-