SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Oil Giants Demand Open Market for World's Dirtiest Fuel
Oil Groups Mount Legal Challenge to California's Tar Sands Ban
Feb 15, 2010
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.
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".
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
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.
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".
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.
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".
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.