Energy sources are really all about the price it costs to get the energy needed to do something. The economics of supply and demand are big feature of energy prices. A low supply means a high price, a high price means more people looking for supply to meet that demand.
There are constant concerns about the idea of peak oil, that we will run out of available oil and that society will suffer for it. This analysis ignores several important factors.
As the price of oil rises the amount of oil in the ground that is economic to recover rises - an increase in supply
As the price of oil rises, other energy sources become more affordable - a change in energy source
As the price rises more people spend more money on finding cheaper ways to extract more oil.
A rising price of oil will make the market conditions for the globe to use less oil.
The Tar Sands in Canada are the one major source that increases constantly. As the price rises the amount oil they can afford to recover increases. Also each year through innovations the cost to extract oil goes down. Canada's oil reserves are going to grow ever faster. As they grow, investment win the tar sands will rise.
The only answer to the demand for the tar sands oil is for other energy sources to become significantly cheaper and reduce the global demand for oil. The idea that one can stop it through boycotting or regulation is not realistic and takes time and energy away from the real solution.
The change will come when motor vehicles are driven by electrical power and electricity is produced from green sources. Society was dependent on biomass (wood, peat, charcoal) as a primary energy sources for thousands of years, the only other one available was human and animal energy. When coal came about these older energy sources no longer provided the main energy for human society.
Oil will fade when we adopt something cheaper and better, that is when the tar sands will fade away
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Some thoughts about Site C
Original version published in 24 hours on April 22nd
Recently the government announced the go ahead for the Site C dam on the Peace River. This is the first new major dam in North America in a generation, large scale dam building is something from the time when cars had fins and TV was black and white..
Site C is put forward as the great answer for power self sufficiency in BC. Certainly 4600 GWh per year is good, enough to provide power to over 400,000 houses. But there are downsides, the biggest of which is the flooding of close to 14000 acres of land along the Peace River. How big is that? Imagine 14 Stanley Parks. Site C also means the citizens of BC will be on the hook for at least $6.6 billion in new BC Hydro debt.
Site C is not the only option we have in BC, there are better private sector answers available. How does Site C compare to a private green energy project?
The Plutonic Power Bute Inlet project will produce 2900 GWh per year, about 2/3s the capacity of the Site C. This project will directly impact less than 50 acres of land, which is good because more flooded land means more CO2 from a reservoir. The roads needed are already there because of logging, though they will need new transmission lines. The Plutonic project will cost $3.5 billion and citizens will not be on the hook for a penny of it.
Site C is not the best option for BC, but will it even manage to go forward?
The first hurdle is the environmental assessment. This process is rigorous and demands a lot from proponents but is is a process misunderstood by the public. Of the roughly 200 projects that have entered the EA process it is true only one was refused a certification, but that does not mean every other project was approved. The reality is that proponents either withdraw from the process or stop if the environmental requirements become too expensive. About 40% of projects that enter the EA process do not get approval. The process is certainly not a rubber stamp.
The EA process assesses environmental impacts and then sets goals to mitigate the impact of the project. The Achilles heel of the Site C dam is the loss of close to 14,000 acres of land in the Peace River area, of which 8000 is some of the best farmland in BC. How do you mitigate that damage? What action can BC Hydro take to remove this one huge impact on the environment? The loss of this land would be the biggest loss of agricultural land since 2000. Would the Agricultural Land Commission North Panel even allow the land to be removed from the agricultural land reserve?
Even if through some improbable miracle Site C were to manage to get EA certification, I am not sure how any government would be able to weather the political storm that would come from North America wide opposition to building the dam. It will end up costings us hundred of millions to plan and consult about a dam that will never be built.. The time to stop this waste of money is now.
Recently the government announced the go ahead for the Site C dam on the Peace River. This is the first new major dam in North America in a generation, large scale dam building is something from the time when cars had fins and TV was black and white..
Site C is put forward as the great answer for power self sufficiency in BC. Certainly 4600 GWh per year is good, enough to provide power to over 400,000 houses. But there are downsides, the biggest of which is the flooding of close to 14000 acres of land along the Peace River. How big is that? Imagine 14 Stanley Parks. Site C also means the citizens of BC will be on the hook for at least $6.6 billion in new BC Hydro debt.
Site C is not the only option we have in BC, there are better private sector answers available. How does Site C compare to a private green energy project?
The Plutonic Power Bute Inlet project will produce 2900 GWh per year, about 2/3s the capacity of the Site C. This project will directly impact less than 50 acres of land, which is good because more flooded land means more CO2 from a reservoir. The roads needed are already there because of logging, though they will need new transmission lines. The Plutonic project will cost $3.5 billion and citizens will not be on the hook for a penny of it.
Site C is not the best option for BC, but will it even manage to go forward?
The first hurdle is the environmental assessment. This process is rigorous and demands a lot from proponents but is is a process misunderstood by the public. Of the roughly 200 projects that have entered the EA process it is true only one was refused a certification, but that does not mean every other project was approved. The reality is that proponents either withdraw from the process or stop if the environmental requirements become too expensive. About 40% of projects that enter the EA process do not get approval. The process is certainly not a rubber stamp.
The EA process assesses environmental impacts and then sets goals to mitigate the impact of the project. The Achilles heel of the Site C dam is the loss of close to 14,000 acres of land in the Peace River area, of which 8000 is some of the best farmland in BC. How do you mitigate that damage? What action can BC Hydro take to remove this one huge impact on the environment? The loss of this land would be the biggest loss of agricultural land since 2000. Would the Agricultural Land Commission North Panel even allow the land to be removed from the agricultural land reserve?
Even if through some improbable miracle Site C were to manage to get EA certification, I am not sure how any government would be able to weather the political storm that would come from North America wide opposition to building the dam. It will end up costings us hundred of millions to plan and consult about a dam that will never be built.. The time to stop this waste of money is now.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The Green Energy Taskforce Report
I have to say underwhelmed is the best I can muster for the Green Energy Taskforce Report. They had a mandate to provide recommendations on all aspects of green energy production in BC and they produced a document that is more platitudes and motherhood statements than any sort of detailed recommendations.
Here is one of the recommendations:
Where does one start with this? First of all the recommendation is "Increase Clean Electricity Demand in BC" and not attract greener industries. The two parts do not connect. The only way to increase the demand for clean electricity is to remove the BC Hydro monopoly of sales of power so that consumers can choose where they get the power from. The short paragraph and recommendation there make no sense in the context of green energy. They do not say who should attract these business to locate in the interior BC or the other impediments to being there.
There are very few clear concrete recommendations within the taskforce report. A number of the ones verging on having a clear direction are things that are already going on.
Here is a list of the somewhat more clear recommendations I could find are:
Even this list find is full of statements that are really not offering much. What I was looking for was something with a lot more specifics. I was looking for detailed background on each recommendation including deadlines and how the recommendation should be implemented. All in all, the report is short enough on details that it could be used to justify almost any action in relation to green energy in BC.
There are other recommendations that many will say have specific actions for government, but I would argue they are too vague or they are not realistic in BC.
The submission I made to the taskforce had some very specific recommendations with details of what should be achieved and by when. It also contained a lot more details with respect to scope and scale of power production now and in the future, prices for power here and elsewhere, specific issues with the grid, and where new green power could accessed without building any significant infrastructure. I am only one person and working on that on the side of my desk. They taskfroce report does not impress me.
Here is one of the recommendations:
2. Increase Clean Electricity Demand in B.C.
Growing a low-carbon economy means attracting new investment to B.C. that can be supplied by B.C.’s clean electricity. Clean technology industries, like data centers, could be incented to locate in B.C. to take advantage of data networks.
Recommendation 4: Bring the load/business/jobs to the electrons–actively recruit and attract new low-carbon industry (such as server farms for the Interior).
Where does one start with this? First of all the recommendation is "Increase Clean Electricity Demand in BC" and not attract greener industries. The two parts do not connect. The only way to increase the demand for clean electricity is to remove the BC Hydro monopoly of sales of power so that consumers can choose where they get the power from. The short paragraph and recommendation there make no sense in the context of green energy. They do not say who should attract these business to locate in the interior BC or the other impediments to being there.
There are very few clear concrete recommendations within the taskforce report. A number of the ones verging on having a clear direction are things that are already going on.
Here is a list of the somewhat more clear recommendations I could find are:
- Complete Revelstoke and Mica dam capacity for power generation
- Move forward on Site C and Site E
- Move procurement, generation operations, and export outside of BCUC regulation.
- Develop a Lowe Carbon Transition Plan (though dates for when)
- By September 30, 2010, and using existing data and information layers, develop a renewable energy zoning map for the Province that identifies where development of renewable energy and transmission is appropriate and inappropriate.
- Direct BC Hydro to amend bioenergy electricity purchase agreements (EPAs) to transfer the biomass fuel price risk through to BC Hydro so that if biomass fuel prices increase, BC Hydro will correspondingly adjust the purchase price of electricity. (I do not like this one)
- Establish a B.C.-owned Biomass Fuel Aggregator to access and aggregate woody biomass from provincial forest land, and supply fuel to bioenergy project developers.
- Increase the Innovative Clean Energy (ICE) Fund from $25 million to $50 million with a commitment to review funding levels every two years. Restructure the ICE Fund with an expanded team of investment professionals and consider moving it outside of government as a separate, stand-alone organization.
- Implement a royalty credit and/or tax credit program to provide the necessary incentives to industry to use clean energy technologies at remote installations in B.C., such as mining, natural gas operations and communities.
- The Province should develop a regional green energy planning process
- The Province should expand the current revenue sharing model to include the sharing of revenue collected by the Province with First Nations on all types of green energy.
Even this list find is full of statements that are really not offering much. What I was looking for was something with a lot more specifics. I was looking for detailed background on each recommendation including deadlines and how the recommendation should be implemented. All in all, the report is short enough on details that it could be used to justify almost any action in relation to green energy in BC.
There are other recommendations that many will say have specific actions for government, but I would argue they are too vague or they are not realistic in BC.
The submission I made to the taskforce had some very specific recommendations with details of what should be achieved and by when. It also contained a lot more details with respect to scope and scale of power production now and in the future, prices for power here and elsewhere, specific issues with the grid, and where new green power could accessed without building any significant infrastructure. I am only one person and working on that on the side of my desk. They taskfroce report does not impress me.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Where we sit one third of the way through 2010
I have to say that I am convinced that there is clearly something going with respect to climate, that there is a warming trend happening that is occurring very quickly. I am also convinced that human activity is having an impact on this and that if there were a reduction in green house gases the warming trend would be slowed and the climate would be more stable.
I did not jump on this bandwagon in some sort of fear of an impending Armageddon. What ever happens, the world will survive, it has survived much worse in the past. The issue really is what will it cost to mitigate climate change and is that expense worth it? Can we afford to make changes? Can we afford not to?
Climate change has been in the headlines for two decades now. There is clear evidence of the rising CO2 levels and the source of the CO2. But the world is acting as if it is not happening or freaking out as if the world is going to end. There is very little serious long term thought and planning happening with respect to the issue. The issue has also been high-jacked by the left as a way to attack the capitalist system and by the right as a way to galvanize their supporters against the left.
I am going to look at the social and economic aspects of climate change in the context of where we are now and what is likely to happen. I am not going to focus on the environment as the majority of the public shows over and over again that in financial terms they are unwilling to part with much money for the environment.
So here in early April 2010 where can go?
Do nothing - this would seem to indicate increased temperatures and over time some major economic and social dislocation. It is survivable and ultimately the most dislocation would be felt in regions near the equator. In the case of Northern Europe, Russia and Canada, for generations to come the net impact of global warming will be positive for the economy. Ultimately there is no way this direction will be allowed to happen.
Dramatically restrict parts of the economy - Prying people out their cars is not going to happen. Getting people to own less stuff is not going to happen. Adding large costs to industry is not going to happen. The anti-capitalist left approach to the issue is doomed to failure as an approach and will mean a delay of action of any sort.
Government regulation - This is what we seem to be doing the most of at the moment and the law of unintended consequences is hard at work. Cap and Trade is not having any effective impact on CO2 levels being emitted, in fact I would argue it is slowing the movement in the direction of any success in dealing with CO2 levels. The bio-fuel bonanza caused food prices to skyrocket.
The IPCC - they exist, but they remind me of the worst aspects of committee decision making. The reports they issue leave a lot to desired and take much too long to write, though they have been the source of much good data. There are areas that the IPCC is not looking at that it should be considering, biggest of these is economics. The IPCC needs to have their reports include the economic costs of actions and no action. The central question that no one is answering - is it economically better to act now or in the future?
To date there has been very little done to actually reduce CO2, and other green house gas, emissions. There may have been some slowing, but there is no reduction in green house gases. What we have been doing for the last 20 years has not been working, it has been effectively a waste of time and energy.
In a rational world we would make long term goals and create plans to meet them, but the problem with this is that there is that tendency to put off to tomorrow. Goals are not the right direction, there needs to be some other mechanism. Ideally any mechanism would be a price based mechanism that need little or not government regulatory input. The simplicity of a market based price seems to be the only way something significant could happen.
The goal of cap and trade is to set a price for CO2, but it is much to heavily influenced by government regulatory mechanisms and a lack of ways to monitor if it is really working. The pricing mechanism has to be one that is clearly included early on in the decision making process of any business venture. The simplest method would seem to be a carbon tax.
Carbon taxes are being resisted in many places and the political backlash has been severe enough to make governments think twice before going down that path. A tax the public can see is unpopular even if it is cheaper and better than an alternative pricing mechanism. The problem is how do you get the public to demand a carbon tax?
As we are going at the moment, there is almost zero chance that any concrete reduction of emissions will occur within the next ten to twenty years. Being able to change this is going to hard and is not served at all by people saying we should not drive, we should live in a smaller house, we should not aspire to be wealthy. Change will happen when we can show businesses will make more money through being carbon neutral, that the public will be able to travel more cheaply in the future, and that more goods will be available at a lower cost.
Change is also not served by ignoring the rising emission levels in Asia and Africa. BC could build all of the planned, proposed and possible green energy projects in the province and it would still not equal what China is adding each year in coal power. Why should Canada bother if Asian economies will not reduce their green house gases as well?
I would say the UN needs to deal with the issue, but I have little faith in them being able to do anything quickly or effectively. There needs to be some sort of statement of values from the largest economies with respect to climate change, things like setting a price for emissions through taxes or affirming higher wealth and consumption by the public. They need to be statements that allow the public to understand there are ways to manage climate change and be better off for doing it. The public needs to know that they have a brighter future and are not going to have to do with less and flagellate themselves.
I did not jump on this bandwagon in some sort of fear of an impending Armageddon. What ever happens, the world will survive, it has survived much worse in the past. The issue really is what will it cost to mitigate climate change and is that expense worth it? Can we afford to make changes? Can we afford not to?
Climate change has been in the headlines for two decades now. There is clear evidence of the rising CO2 levels and the source of the CO2. But the world is acting as if it is not happening or freaking out as if the world is going to end. There is very little serious long term thought and planning happening with respect to the issue. The issue has also been high-jacked by the left as a way to attack the capitalist system and by the right as a way to galvanize their supporters against the left.
I am going to look at the social and economic aspects of climate change in the context of where we are now and what is likely to happen. I am not going to focus on the environment as the majority of the public shows over and over again that in financial terms they are unwilling to part with much money for the environment.
So here in early April 2010 where can go?
Do nothing - this would seem to indicate increased temperatures and over time some major economic and social dislocation. It is survivable and ultimately the most dislocation would be felt in regions near the equator. In the case of Northern Europe, Russia and Canada, for generations to come the net impact of global warming will be positive for the economy. Ultimately there is no way this direction will be allowed to happen.
Dramatically restrict parts of the economy - Prying people out their cars is not going to happen. Getting people to own less stuff is not going to happen. Adding large costs to industry is not going to happen. The anti-capitalist left approach to the issue is doomed to failure as an approach and will mean a delay of action of any sort.
Government regulation - This is what we seem to be doing the most of at the moment and the law of unintended consequences is hard at work. Cap and Trade is not having any effective impact on CO2 levels being emitted, in fact I would argue it is slowing the movement in the direction of any success in dealing with CO2 levels. The bio-fuel bonanza caused food prices to skyrocket.
The IPCC - they exist, but they remind me of the worst aspects of committee decision making. The reports they issue leave a lot to desired and take much too long to write, though they have been the source of much good data. There are areas that the IPCC is not looking at that it should be considering, biggest of these is economics. The IPCC needs to have their reports include the economic costs of actions and no action. The central question that no one is answering - is it economically better to act now or in the future?
To date there has been very little done to actually reduce CO2, and other green house gas, emissions. There may have been some slowing, but there is no reduction in green house gases. What we have been doing for the last 20 years has not been working, it has been effectively a waste of time and energy.
In a rational world we would make long term goals and create plans to meet them, but the problem with this is that there is that tendency to put off to tomorrow. Goals are not the right direction, there needs to be some other mechanism. Ideally any mechanism would be a price based mechanism that need little or not government regulatory input. The simplicity of a market based price seems to be the only way something significant could happen.
The goal of cap and trade is to set a price for CO2, but it is much to heavily influenced by government regulatory mechanisms and a lack of ways to monitor if it is really working. The pricing mechanism has to be one that is clearly included early on in the decision making process of any business venture. The simplest method would seem to be a carbon tax.
Carbon taxes are being resisted in many places and the political backlash has been severe enough to make governments think twice before going down that path. A tax the public can see is unpopular even if it is cheaper and better than an alternative pricing mechanism. The problem is how do you get the public to demand a carbon tax?
As we are going at the moment, there is almost zero chance that any concrete reduction of emissions will occur within the next ten to twenty years. Being able to change this is going to hard and is not served at all by people saying we should not drive, we should live in a smaller house, we should not aspire to be wealthy. Change will happen when we can show businesses will make more money through being carbon neutral, that the public will be able to travel more cheaply in the future, and that more goods will be available at a lower cost.
Change is also not served by ignoring the rising emission levels in Asia and Africa. BC could build all of the planned, proposed and possible green energy projects in the province and it would still not equal what China is adding each year in coal power. Why should Canada bother if Asian economies will not reduce their green house gases as well?
I would say the UN needs to deal with the issue, but I have little faith in them being able to do anything quickly or effectively. There needs to be some sort of statement of values from the largest economies with respect to climate change, things like setting a price for emissions through taxes or affirming higher wealth and consumption by the public. They need to be statements that allow the public to understand there are ways to manage climate change and be better off for doing it. The public needs to know that they have a brighter future and are not going to have to do with less and flagellate themselves.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Electrical Production in BC
BC is consistently needing to import electrical power. In 20 of the last 25 months BC has had to import power to meet the demand in BC. We seem to about 4,000 GW/h short per year of the power that we need.
The imported power is a mix of gas fired, coal fired and nuclear power. By not being able to even meet our own needs, we are increasing the demand for CO2 source electrical power. The power we had to import added 2.5 million tonnes in CO2 emissions in 2009, this does not count the need to run Burrard Thermal in the lower mainland.
The scope of scale of what we need in BC is larger than the Plutonic Energy Bute Inlet project, the biggest green project currently contemplated. The Bute Inlet project will only bring in 2900 GW/h per year. We are not only short, but we are falling further behind each year as our population grows.
Growth in demand will add the need for about 1500 GW/h per year. We need to build a Bute Inlet scale project every other year just to keep up with demand. If we want to get ahead of the the problem and become one of the major sources of a climate change solution we need to dramatically increase the speed at which more green power is brought online.
The opposition to green power production in BC does not seem to be related to any quantifiable environmental issues, it seems to be related to the fact that a Green Economy means businesses are going to be making money from saving the world. The opposition to green power in BC is harming the environment.
If I did not believe in conspiracy theories I would think that the opposition to green power in BC was some sort of funded campaign by the coal business. I find it crazy that the opposition to green power seems to be willing to ignore all the evidence in favour of environmental harm. The data is in, BC does not come close to producing enough power to meet our needs.
I continue to read all the websites and all the reports that relate to non storage hydro and I have to find anything that indicates a measurable environmental harm form non storage hydro. If anyone out there knows of a report that shows environmental damage, please send it to me.
The imported power is a mix of gas fired, coal fired and nuclear power. By not being able to even meet our own needs, we are increasing the demand for CO2 source electrical power. The power we had to import added 2.5 million tonnes in CO2 emissions in 2009, this does not count the need to run Burrard Thermal in the lower mainland.
The scope of scale of what we need in BC is larger than the Plutonic Energy Bute Inlet project, the biggest green project currently contemplated. The Bute Inlet project will only bring in 2900 GW/h per year. We are not only short, but we are falling further behind each year as our population grows.
Growth in demand will add the need for about 1500 GW/h per year. We need to build a Bute Inlet scale project every other year just to keep up with demand. If we want to get ahead of the the problem and become one of the major sources of a climate change solution we need to dramatically increase the speed at which more green power is brought online.
The opposition to green power production in BC does not seem to be related to any quantifiable environmental issues, it seems to be related to the fact that a Green Economy means businesses are going to be making money from saving the world. The opposition to green power in BC is harming the environment.
If I did not believe in conspiracy theories I would think that the opposition to green power in BC was some sort of funded campaign by the coal business. I find it crazy that the opposition to green power seems to be willing to ignore all the evidence in favour of environmental harm. The data is in, BC does not come close to producing enough power to meet our needs.
I continue to read all the websites and all the reports that relate to non storage hydro and I have to find anything that indicates a measurable environmental harm form non storage hydro. If anyone out there knows of a report that shows environmental damage, please send it to me.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Energy in the Throne Speech
The throne speech was read today and it highlights some energy issues.
I am encouraged by the clear support for more green power. I am also happy to see continued support for the Highway #37 powerline. The government is placing itself at the forefront of clean energy production in North America, this sets us up to gain a lot of jobs, reduce CO2 emissions and add to government revenues. All pluses.
I am looking forward to see the what comes out of the Green Energy Taskforce and what the new Clean Energy Act will look like. We are at the forefront of a paradigm shift here in BC with respect to energy.
Here is the section of the Throne Speech
Clean energy is this century's greenfield of opportunity.
British Columbia is blessed with enormous untapped energy potential.
We can harness that potential to generate new wealth and new jobs in our communities while we lower greenhouse gas emissions within and beyond our borders.
Clean energy is a cornerstone of our Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one‑third by 2020.
Building on the contributions of the Green Energy Advisory Task Force, your government will launch a comprehensive strategy to put B.C. at the forefront of clean energy development.
We have enormous potential in bioenergy, run‑of‑river, wind, geothermal, tidal, wave and solar energy. We will put it to work for our economy.
A new Clean Energy Act will encourage new investments in independent power production while also strengthening BC Hydro.
It will provide for fair, predictable, clean power calls.
It will feature simplified procurement protocols and new measures to encourage investment and the jobs that flow with it.
New investment partnerships in infrastructure that encourage and enable clean modes of transportation, such as electric vehicles, hydrogen‑powered vehicles and vehicles powered by compressed natural gas and liquid natural gas, will be pursued.
We will support new jobs and private sector investment in wood pellet plants, cellulosic ethanol production, biomass gasification technologies and fuel cell technologies.
Bioenergy creates new uses for waste wood and beetle‑killed forests and new jobs for forest workers.
A new receiving license will give bioenergy producers new certainty of fiber supply, while a new stand‑as‑a‑whole pricing system will encourage utilization of logging residues and low‑grade material that was previously burned or left on the forest floor.
Government will optimize existing generation facilities and report on the Site C review this spring.
It will develop and capture B.C.'s unique capability to firm and shape the intermittent power supply that characterizes new sources of clean energy to deliver reliable, competitively‑priced, clean power — where and when it is needed most.
New conservation measures, smart meters and in‑home displays will help maximize energy savings. New smart grid investments and net metering will provide more choices and opportunities for reduced energy costs and more productive use of electricity.
New transmission investments will open up the Highway 37 corridor to new mines and clean power.
New transmission infrastructure will link Northeastern B.C. to our integrated grid, provide clean power to the energy industry and open up new capacity for clean power exports to Alberta, Saskatchewan and south of the border.
We will seek major transmission upgrades with utilities in California and elsewhere.
If we act with clear vision and concerted effort now, in 2030, people will look back to this decade as we look to the 1960s today.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Orinoco Oil Sands
While everyone is jumping up and down about the Athabasca Tar Sands, few people are making much fuss about the Orinoco Oil Sands in Venezuela. The estimates of how much oil could be recovered at today's prices and technologies is between 235 billion barrels to 513 billion barrels. This is significantly more than the Athabasca Tar Sands
At the moment there is about 600,000 barrels a day coming from this source and at a cost that is much lower than the cost of the Canadian tar sands. This about half of what is produced in Canada. I find that fact interesting because of the gap between Canadian per capita CO2 emissions and those in Venezuela. I think that the numbers for Venezuela are not correct because on a per capita basis the Canadian tar sands are only 55% larger than the Venezuelan oil sands.
The problem is that this oil source is in Venezuela and therefore under a government that is immune to local or global public opinion. Further complicating this will happen if the Chinese express an interest in getting oil from this source. Without a free press or a public that is allowed to speak out, it is very likely that we will see a huge environmental disaster happen in Venezuela as these oil sands are developed. Odds are we will not find out about this till long after it has happened.
Canada has serious first world environmental standards. Venezuela has the environmental standards of a dictatorship, which is to say there is nothing that will be enforced if they had anything on the books to start with.
Venezuela claims to have 35% protected areas, but these areas are logged and mined. Hugo Chavez should be the global poster child for environmental disaster.
At the moment there is about 600,000 barrels a day coming from this source and at a cost that is much lower than the cost of the Canadian tar sands. This about half of what is produced in Canada. I find that fact interesting because of the gap between Canadian per capita CO2 emissions and those in Venezuela. I think that the numbers for Venezuela are not correct because on a per capita basis the Canadian tar sands are only 55% larger than the Venezuelan oil sands.
The problem is that this oil source is in Venezuela and therefore under a government that is immune to local or global public opinion. Further complicating this will happen if the Chinese express an interest in getting oil from this source. Without a free press or a public that is allowed to speak out, it is very likely that we will see a huge environmental disaster happen in Venezuela as these oil sands are developed. Odds are we will not find out about this till long after it has happened.
Canada has serious first world environmental standards. Venezuela has the environmental standards of a dictatorship, which is to say there is nothing that will be enforced if they had anything on the books to start with.
Venezuela claims to have 35% protected areas, but these areas are logged and mined. Hugo Chavez should be the global poster child for environmental disaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
