Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); }

Caterpillar trucks working in the oil sands in Alberta. In response to proposed European Union rules, a new Alberta government-sponsored study says oil sands crude is not significantly higher in greenhouse gas footprint than other crudes used in Europe.

Jim Dugan/Caterpillar/Jim Dugan/Caterpillar

The Alberta government has gone on the offensive against Europe's proposed fuel-quality directive with a new study that shows the oil sands production is only slightly more greenhouse-gas intensive than crudes already used in Europe.

Alberta and the federal government have lobbied aggressively against the European low-carbon fuel proposal, saying it would discriminate against Canadian-based crude producers with an unscientific approach to reducing greenhouse gases (GHG).

In a provincially sponsored study to be released Wednesday, Jacobs Consultancy concludes that oil sands crude is indeed among the most GHG-intensive sources of crude available, but that the difference is smaller than critics suggest.

Story continues below advertisement

Alberta insists it recognizes the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels, and does not oppose the European proposal in principle.

"But we object to discriminatory treatment by singling out oil sands-derived fuels without sound scientific justification as proposed in the EU fuel quality directive," said Bart Johnson, director of communications for Alberta Energy.

The European Union has postponed a decision on the directive until early 2013, but proponents continue to push for its adoption, and environmental groups worldwide continue to target Canada's oil sands as a particularly carbon-intensive source of "dirty oil."

Canadian producers are facing real economic challenges from international critics, including well-financed opposition to pipelines and pressure on European companies like Norway's Statoil ASA and France's Total SA to limit their investment in Canada.

Canada's governments and industry fear a European low-carbon fuel regulation would penalize the importation of oil-sands-based fuels to the continent, at a time when U.S. Gulf Coast refiners are expanding their exports of diesel and gasoline. There is also a concern the European approach – which copies one adopted by California – will spread to other key markets for Canadian producers.

In the Alberta-sponsored report, Jacobs says the EU has under-estimated the emissions of its current crude supplies, much of which comes from Russia, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, by neglecting to account for the unreported venting of natural gas that is common in those countries.

The proposed EU standard assigned a value for "well-to-wheels" emissions from crudes used on the continent of 87 grams of carbon dioxide per megajoule, taking into account extraction, processing, transportation and consumption. The EU officials established a value for oil sands crude a value of 107 grams per megajoule, or 23-per-cent higher than the standard for EU fuels.

Story continues below advertisement

The Jacobs report concluded Alberta crudes have a carbon intensity only 10-per-cent to 12-per-cent higher than several common crudes consumed in Europe, while 22 of the 26 crudes used in Europe had emissions above the standard assigned in the proposed EU regulation.

And it said that 10- to 12-per-cent gap is likely lower if issues like venting of natural gas are taken into account.

Alberta officials say Canadian producers are essentially penalized because they are forced to account for all emissions from their extraction and processing – including flaring and venting of gas – while foreign competitors are not.

"The EU numbers don't reflect the actual uncertainty about key data," said Christopher Holly, branch head for research and technology at Alberta Energy.

"The nature of the data in Alberta is significantly better than almost any other jurisdiction in the world."

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies