SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (22629)3/10/2012 5:51:15 PM
From: average joe  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
I recall some companies backing out of projects when oil went under $100 bbl.

America With No Plan for Oil Interruption Back
Ironically, As Price Per Barrel Drops, American Oil Supply From Canada Imperiled
November 3rd 2008



This continuing coverage on the supply arises from the just released book, The Plan: How to Save America When the Oil Stops—or the Day Before (Dialog Press). Buy it here.

Americans may be rejoicing about lower oil prices, but the law of unintended consequences and the vagaries of the global oil supply have begun to kick in.

Ironically, oil may become dramatically scarcer for Americans--not as a result of manipulations by the OPEC oil cartel, but due the fragile economics of Canadian oil.

America consumes some 20 million barrels of oil per day, about 70 percent of which is imported. But the number one supplier to the United States is close to home, our northern neighbor, Canada. The nation to the north sends some 2 million barrels of oil per day to the United States from Alberta in western Canada. This petroleum comes from a source commonly known as “oil sands.”

Oil sands are deposits of oily goop embedded in sand, and comprise about 95 percent of Canada’s massive petroleum reserve of approximately 180 billion barrels. That reserve was not globally recognized until 2003—near the time of the American invasion of Iraq. Prior to that, the environmentally threatening, water intensive, heavy industrial nature of oil sands extraction was considered too expensive to be considered economically viable. With oil prices telescoping toward $150 per barrel, the hyper-expensive oil sands process became viable, profitable, and the basis for a sudden American reliance on North American petroleum as a source of fuel.

However, many observers feel that petroleum from Canadian oil sands is not economically feasible when the price of a barrel sinks below $80. In recent days, the price of oil has crashed to below $65 per barrel. At press time, some spot oil markets were down to $60 per barrel. That cost ineffectiveness has collided with a colossal global credit collapse to create a perfect storm that is pausing and slowing the needed Canadian oil supply expansion to the United States.

Suncor Energy, a leading player in the oil sands, has already put the brakes on major plant upgraders and other expansion needed to satisfy the growing global market. For example, Suncor’s $16.2 billion Voyageur upgrader project, due to be completed by 2013, has now been postponed. Petro-Canada is likewise deferring some $10 billion worth of improvements scheduled for its Fort Hills enterprise. Multi-billion dollar cost overruns on Canadian oil projects have now become intolerable. In one case, a recent review of a Fort Hills oil project revealed a 50 percent cost overrun in a single year, costing almost $20 billion. . Petro-Canada CEO Ron Brenneman admitted, “We haven’t thought our way through what the economics might look like” with regard to continuing future expansion.

Among the Canadian headlines that rocked global oil circles was one in the Globe and Mail reading “Oil Sands Projects Slashed as Credit Crisis Hits Alberta” and one in Reuters, “Canada Oil Sands Slowdown May Halt Runaway Costs.” FirstEnergy Capital analyst, William Lacey, admitted, “The big guys have all suddenly drawn a line in the sand that wasn’t there before.”

Canadian oil supply is further complicated by a little-known reality. While Canada is a net oil exporter, pumping millions of barrels per week into the United States, it is also an importer in its eastern provinces of some 850,000 barrels per day from such countries as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt and Venezuela as well as the United Kingdom, Norway and other countries, Canadians have begun to ask why the nation sends the vast majority of its western oil product into the United States while Eastern Canada must import from overseas.

If Canadian oil flows are reduced by virtue of dollar dynamics, it may dramatically decrease the American availability and force ever more reliance on a Persian Gulf supply that is now ramping down. Indeed, in response to the dip in global demand, the cratering world economic structure and the rise in the American dollar, OPEC nations have decreased production by some 1.5 million barrels per day and are now discussing further cuts. At the same time, America’s number two source of oil, Mexico, is beginning to cap its wells and wind down its oil export business, which is likely to run dry within a decade. All these intertwined dynamics of global oil supply only serve to emphasize the volatility, unpredictability and tenuousness of the fuel that currently propels some 98 percent of all transportation in the United States of America.

Edwin Black is the New York Times bestselling investigative author of IBM and the Holocaust, Internal Combustion and his just released book, The Plan: How to Save America When the Oil Stops—or the Day Before (Dialog Press). More information about The Plan can be found at www.planforoilcrisis.com.



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (22629)3/10/2012 5:54:11 PM
From: average joe  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
PAUL EHRLICH'S BOOK, ON GAS PRICES: "The United States could start by gradually imposing a higher gasoline tax-hiking it by one or two cents per month until gasoline costs $2.50 to $3.00 per gallon, comparable to prices in Europe and Japan." (Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, The Population Explosion, 1990, pp. 219-220) On the dustcover of the book, Gore said, "The time for action is due, and past due. Ehrlich has written the prescription." "Higher taxes on fossil fuels. . . is one of the logical first steps in changing our policies in a manner consistent with a more responsible approach to the environment." (Al Gore, Earth in the Balance, 1993, p. 173)

groups.google.com



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (22629)3/10/2012 5:55:44 PM
From: average joe  Respond to of 69300
 
Just try and think of carbon tax as a kind of original sin for existing and then David Suzuki will come along and absolve you provided you donate hand over fist to his charitable foundation...

Carbon tax or cap-and-trade?



What is a carbon tax or carbon fee?Pricing carbon emissions through a carbon tax is one of the most powerful incentives that governments have to encourage companies and households to pollute less by investing in cleaner technologies and adopting greener practices. A carbon tax is a fee placed on greenhouse gas pollution mainly from burning fossil fuels. This can be done by placing a surcharge on carbon-based fuels and other sources of pollution such as industrial processes.

A carbon tax puts a monetary price on the real costs imposed on our economy, our communities and our planet by greenhouse gas emissions and the global warming they cause. A shift by households, businesses and industry to cleaner technologies increases the demand for energy-efficient products and helps spur innovation and investment in green solutions.

Under this system, the price to pollute sets the strength of the economic signal and determines the extent to which green choices are encouraged. For example, a stronger price on emissions will lead to more investment in cleaner energy sources such as solar and wind power. And although a carbon fee or tax makes polluting activities more expensive, it makes green technologies more affordable as the price signal increases over time. Most importantly, a carbon tax gets green solutions into use. Carbon taxes in actionMany industrialized countries have used carbon taxes to discourage fossil fuel emissions and promote clean energy. For example, Sweden has used a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions since 1991. Although a suite of other policies has also been used, the Swedish Ministry of Environment estimated the carbon tax has cut emissions by an additional 20 per cent (as opposed to solely relying on regulations), putting the country on target to achieve its commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. Sweden's carbon tax has been credited with spurring the innovation and use of green heating technologies that have significantly phased out burning oil for heating. Although some critics claim a carbon tax would damage the economy, Sweden's carbon tax is a hefty $120 per tonne of carbon pollution. Since the carbon tax was introduced, Sweden's economy has grown by more than 44 per cent, and the country recently ranking second in the world on economic competitiveness. In Canada, B.C. and Quebec use carbon taxes as part of their strategies to reduce emissions and encourage investments in energy-efficiency and renewable energy.

Our report Provincial Power Play details these and other provincial climate efforts.

What is a cap-and-trade system?In a cap-and-trade system, government puts a firm limit, or cap, on the overall level of carbon pollution from industry and reduces that cap year after year to reach a set pollution target. As the cap decreases each year, it cuts industry's total greenhouse gas emissions to the limit set by regulation, and then forces polluters that exceed their emissions quota to buy unused quota from other companies The government creates and distributes pollution quotas, most fairly through an auction. This creates an incentive for firms to reduce their emissions and be able to sell rather than purchase pollution quotas. Under this system the market determines the price of quotas.

In this way, the emission cap ensures that total pollution goes down and companies are given an economic incentive to find better ways to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and support clean energy.

Cap-and-trade in actionCap-and-trade has been used successfully in the U.S. to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide, two key ingredients responsible for acid rain. Since the early 1980s, this cap-and-trade system has reduced acid rain-forming emissions by nearly half, which has led to a healthier environment. The European Union has had a cap-and-trade system in place since 2005 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from about 10,000 large industrial emitters.

To reinforce global efforts and overcome inaction by Canadian and U.S. federal governments, seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces have formed the Western Climate Initiative, a regional effort to reduce emissions and grow the global clean energy economy. So far, California, Quebec and B.C. have signalled their intentions to move ahead with cap-and-trade regulations to reduce industrial greenhouse gas pollution in January 2012.

This provincial leadership could play an important role in determining Canada's success at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. With powerful partners like the State of California, the eighth largest economy in the world, it could also form the blueprint for North America's response to global warming.

Carbon tax or cap-and-trade?There is much discussion about whether a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system is the best way to put a price on greenhouse gas pollution. The simple answer is that it depends on how each system is designed. The design will determine the environmental and economic effectiveness. For example, how strong is the economic incentive (i.e., the carbon price) to reduce emissions and switch to cleaner energy? To which emission sectors does the system apply? And how are the revenues used? Are they invested in green infrastructure or corresponding tax breaks?

If both approaches are well-designed, the two options are quite similar and could even be used in tandem. The David Suzuki Foundation believes this price should be applied broadly in the Canadian economy, but that it can be done either through a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system or a combination of the two.

What's important is that the price on carbon pollution provides an incentive for everyone, from industry to households, to be part of the solution. Ultimately, the critical factor in reducing heat-trapping emissions is the strength of the economic signal. A stronger carbon price will kick-start more growth in clean, renewable energy and will encourage adoption of greener practices.

Pros and consBoth cap-and-trade programs and carbon taxes can work well as long as they are designed to provide a strong economic signal to switch to cleaner energy. However, some differences exist. Cap-and-trade has one key environmental advantage over a carbon tax: It provides more certainty about the amount of emissions reductions that will result and little certainty about the price of emissions (which is set by the emissions trading market). A carbon tax provides certainty about the price but little certainty about the amount of emissions reductions.

A carbon tax also has one key advantage: It is easier and quicker for governments to implement. A carbon tax can be very simple. It can rely on existing administrative structures for taxing fuels and can therefore be implemented in just a few months. In theory, the same applies to cap-and-trade systems, but in practice they tend to be much more complex. More time is required to develop the necessary regulations, and they are more susceptible to lobbying and loopholes. Cap-and-trade also requires the establishment of an emissions trading market.

A Carbon pricing solution for CanadaA groundbreaking study by one of Canada's leading economic and environmental firms shows that Canada's economy can still grow by almost 20 per cent over the next decade while the country dramatically reduces its greenhouse gas pollution by about half. The study shows that Canada could take decisive action and still continue to enjoy strong net job growth and other economic benefits. By 2020 Canadians would save more than $5.5 billion each year at the gas pump because of more efficient vehicles, more public transit and shorter commutes.