Proposed EU Policy on Oil Sands Discriminatory Canada Says

Oil sands, the source of oil for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, took another hit to its image this week when the European Commission proposed that oil derived from the sands should be declared a quarter more carbon dioxide-polluting than crude oil.

The fuel directive was welcomed by environmentalists, but heavily criticized by Canada, the world’s biggest producer of this kind of oil. Meanwhile, representatives of the oil sand industry feel that their constant progress in making this energy form cleaner and more sustainable is being ignored.

Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver called the actions “discriminatory” and said that Canada will defend its interests and appeal to the World Trade Organization if necessary. But the problem is not Canada’s negligible oil exports to Europe; rather it has to do with the worldwide credibility of oil sands oil.

“The concern for us is one of principle and precedent. To be clear, we are not opposed to policies designed to lower carbon emissions, but they should not be based on the principle of discrimination,” wrote Greg Stringham, Vice President Markets and Oil Sands, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) in a statement.

The industry and the Canadian government argue that the commission lacks scientific basis for singling out oil sands, and implies that it can do so just because it imports its oil from elsewhere and thus has nothing to loose.

Environmentalists disagree, however, and welcome the commission’s decision. Matt Horne, director of the climate change program at the Pembina Institute, said in a phone interview with The Epoch Times that he had two reactions to the commission’s proposal and the aftermath.

“It’s encouraging that the commission recognizes that oil sands is a dirty fuel. At the same time, it is frustrating that the Canadian government put their efforts into lobbying for the oil industry instead of taking necessary steps to clean up the industry,” he said.

Oil sands, also known as tar sands, is a subject of heated debate. Portrayed by some as the dirtiest fossil fuel around, it is no doubt struggling with an image problem. To surface mine the bitumen-rich sand and refine it into crude oil, enormous amounts of water and energy is consumed, and the mining areas, where large forests have been cleared and toxic so-called tailing ponds litter the landscape, are not a pretty sight.

Greenpeace calls it “a literal hell on earth,” and although many other organizations are not as drastic in their description, it has become something of an unwilling poster child for rampant, greenhouse gas-producing and destructive fossil fuel extraction, although it is still a rather small scale operation.

According to industry website cdnoilsands.com, only an area of about the size of Toronto has been disturbed, and the area of minable sands in total makes up only 0.2 percent of Canada’s boreal forest. A 2010 report by the Royal Society of Canada’s Expert Panel says that although oil sands are the fastest growing greenhouse gas emitter in Canada, it still only makes up 5 percent of the country’s total emissions.

But here again, there is the question of principle, and the fear of a “slippery slope.” A common argument is that the oil sands is just the first “gate-opener” to a number of increasingly worse extraction methods for fossil fuels to follow.

The Royal Society report focuses on what is currently known, and admits that there are problems to be solved and investigated, such as the feasibility of reclaiming the mined land. But it is relatively careful in its analysis of environmental and health impacts.

This is the approach that Travis Davies, media manager of CAPP would like to see. In an email to The Epoch Times, he pointed to the billions of dollars that the industry is investing in technology to make the mining more sustainable, but that this has little effect on the debate.

“Group’s like Greenpeace are in no way interested in responsible, balanced development of the oil sands in the national public interest (environment, economy, and energy supply). For that reason they are not interested in solutions to the challenges we face, challenges industry is addressing and will continue to do so,” he wrote.

Matt Horne agreed that the oil sands industry has indeed made improvements when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of oil, but the point is that they still don’t meet the standards.

The EU commission’s proposal will need approval of the EU Legislature and member states before it can take effect.