• Citizens for Space Exploration
    • Newsletter
    • Publications
    • Radio/Podcast
    • Photos
    • Videos
  • Search
Menu

Colorado Business Roundtable (COBRT)

4100 Jackson St
Denver, CO, 80216
303-394-6097

Your Custom Text Here

Colorado Business Roundtable (COBRT)

  • About
  • Partners
    • Citizens for Space Exploration
  • News
    • Newsletter
    • Publications
  • Media
    • Radio/Podcast
    • Photos
    • Videos
  • Search

Canada And North America's Economic Recovery

July 6, 2011 Guest Author

Paving the Way through Energy Security & Clean Energy

These days a lot of people talk about how we live in challenging times. They’re not kidding, especially when by “challenging” they mean a freeze in international credit markets and a synchronized world economic slowdown. It’s no secret, we are in the middle of a global financial crisis, and when it comes to helping get the world economy back on track, Canada is all aboard.

Like the United States, Canada has already taken a number of actions to protect its own economy, which the International Monetary Fund predicted will continue to lead the G7 in financial growth in 2009. Canada is also committed to help stabilize global financial markets, restore credit flow and renew economic prosperity around the world. It will address these challenges by continuing to work closely with its G7, G8 and G20 partners, especially its neighbor, ally and number one trading partner the United States.

As part of this economic recovery strategy, Canada has made energy security and climate change top priorities. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama recently discussed these key issues and vowed to tackle them together during their meeting in Ottawa on February 19, 2009.

President Obama and Prime Minister Harper Establish Clean Energy Dialogue

Noting the long and productive history of bilateral cooperation on continental environmental protection and energy trade and technology, the President and the Prime Minister agreed that environmental protection and the development of clean energy are inextricably linked and announced plans to work together to build a new energy economy as a key element of broader economic recovery and reinvestment efforts.

The two leaders also discussed ways Canada and the United States could encourage the development of clean energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change. These talks resulted in the establishment of a senior-level Canada-U.S. Clean Energy Dialogue that will cooperate on several critical energy science and technology issues. Priority initiatives identified include: expand clean energy research and development; develop and deploy clean energy technology; and build a more efficient electricity grid based on clean and renewable generation. In the weeks following the meeting, Canadian and U.S. officials will meet and officially launch this new Canada-U.S. initiative. (See “Canada-U.S. Initiative for Tackling Climate Change & Energy Security” for more details).

Canada - Number One Supplier of Energy to the United States

For a deeper understanding of how Canada fits into the energy and environment equation for North America, it’s important to know the role that Canada plays today. First, Canada is the largest energy supplier to the United States including oil, natural gas, uranium and electricity. In fact, the United States imports more oil from Canada than it does from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined. And in 2007, Canada’s oil exports to the United States totaled more than $55 billion U.S., representing 2.4 million barrels per day.

Aside from its conventional oil and gas reserves, Canada’s oil sands in northern Alberta total an estimated 175 billion barrels of oil, which represents one of the largest sources of recoverable oil reserves in the world - second only to Saudi Arabia. Yet as technology and recovery techniques advance, the total oil reserves in Alberta’s oil sands are estimated to reach 1.7 trillion barrels, approximately four times the size of Saudi Arabia’s total reserves.

Roughly half of Canada’s crude oil exports to the United States are derived from Alberta’s oil sands, which provide a secure, dependable and long-term supply of oil for the North American market.

Canada’s Oil Sands and Sustainable Development Practices

Development of one of the world’s largest oil deposits brings both opportunities and issues. With such a huge energy resource come environmental challenges. To deal with these issues in a responsible and proactive manner, Canada is working with both provincial governments and the private sector to address how to secure the energy future in a way that is environmentally sound and sustainable. This involves balancing economic development with environmental and social responsibilities.

Production from Canadian oil sands is undertaken on a commercial basis in the context of transparent environmental regulatory and royalty regimes on greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide capture and storage, water use and land reclamation, as well as water and natural gas use. U.S. companies are among the leading firms engaged in oil sands production, and project proposals to develop oil sands deposits are subject to extensive environmental and regulatory review. These permits are only granted once environmental issues and First Nations’ concerns have been addressed.

Canada’s Commitment to Environmental Stewardship

Canada understands that economic prosperity cannot be sustained without a healthy environment, just as environmental progress cannot be achieved without a healthy economy. It has committed to reducing Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and by at least 50% by 2050. Meeting those goals will ensure that Canada’s ongoing actions remain comparable to those our partners in the United States, Europe and other industrialized countries undertake.

In support of this ambitious national goal, Canada will continue to provide support for biofuels, wind and other energy alternatives and will also bring in legislation to ban all bulk water transfers or exports from Canadian freshwater basins. Canada will work with all parties in Parliament to introduce sensible policies that can help consumers and improve our environmental well-being, such as increasing incentives for energy-saving home retrofits.

In addition, Canada will work with the provincial governments and our partners to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and an effective international protocol for the post-2012 period. Canada will set an objective that 90 percent of its electricity needs to be provided by non-emitting sources - such as hydro, nuclear, clean coal or wind power - by 2020.

In early 2009, Canada’s Minister of the Environment Jim Prentice gave an address to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives reaffirming Canada’s commitment to environmental stewardship. During the speech, Minister Prentice stated that the Government of Canada has resolved to make national environmental policies positive instruments of economic renewal and of national development during this period of economic uncertainty. He also said that Canada is committed to helping achieve an effective multilateral climate change agreement for the years ahead. Canada will also continue working with the United States to pursue coordinated approaches to energy and environmental challenges that both face, which was further discussed during Prime Minister Harper’s and President Obama’s meeting.

Achieving these objectives will not be easy. But progress is being made on three concurrent tracks, including the previously mentioned Climate Change Policy that Canada introduced in 2007. As stated, this strategy sets a target to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions in Canada in 2020 by 20 percent from a 2006 starting point, also known as the minus 20 by 2020 approach.

While ambitious, Canada believes these target reductions in greenhouse gases are achievable - a promise to the global community that we think Canada will be able to keep. It’s a commitment that requires a greater effort of Canadians than the one proposed by the E.U. 27.

Going forward, Canada is developing a regulatory regime with mandatory targets that will apply to major industrial emitters

President Barack Obama spoke with clarity and determination about his commitment to environmental issues. The United States is re-engaging on multilateral climate change negotiations, creating the opportunity for a North American regulatory regime and a level playing field.

The Canadian Government looks forward to working with the Obama administration on energy security and environmental sustainability.

We will seek to ensure our federal policies are coordinated. We want federal climate change regulation to work in tandem with tax, tariff and technology policies, as well as all other policies that promote timely domestic investment.

Canada is also working to coordinate and harmonize federal and provincial governments and policies.

Concurrent with such measured movement in Canada, we hope to make progress internationally. In 2009, we will work with other countries to negotiate an effective multilateral climate change accord for the years ahead. Key meetings will take place in Bonn in early April and June, as well as in Italy at the June G-8 meeting. Finally, all roads will lead to the Copenhagen Conference in December 2009.

It is Canada’s hope that future climate change agreements will be effective. Climate change is a global problem and requires a global solution, which means all major emitters, developed and developing nations, need to be part of any new accord

Industrialized nations, to be sure, must be prepared to lead the charge provided all major emitters agree to follow, because if industrialized countries exercise leadership without emerging economies countries coming on board, real progress will not be made.

Climate change is a global problem and requires a global solution, which means all major emitters, developed and developing nations, need to be part of any new accord.

Moving forward, we need to ensure comparable efforts from all industrialized nations. We also need to secure meaningful participation from all emerging economies led by the “Big Five” of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and our NAFTA partner Mexico. We need to focus as well on the development and deployment of transformative clean technology and a concerted effort to produce and transmit a greater percentage of cleaner base-load power.

These are principles that Canada believes could and should form the basis of one shared commitment between Canada and the United States similar to the collective commitment of the European Union. A bilateral agreement could have shared targets and shared timetables, a common carbon market and price standard, and mandates that are based on science and common sense. But we think that the two countries need to go further and talk in terms of concrete action plans. Actions that will reduce not just greenhouse gas emission levels but North America’s dependence on foreign oil, such as the soon-to-be-launched Clean Energy Dialogue, established by President Obama and Prime Minister Harper.

Forty years ago, imported oil accounted for about 10 percent of the American market with Americans producing approximately 90 percent of their own consumption. Today that 10/90 ratio has become 60/40. By 2020, it will likely be at 80/20, because at current rates of production and exponential increases in consumption—SUVs and plasma TVs for example—proven U.S. oil reserves, like those of Mexico, are on course to be depleted just one decade from now. This means that by 2020, the United States will be as dependent on imported oil as E.U. nations.

So while Canada already plays a major role in the North American energy equation, we have the capacity to play an even larger role in the North American energy solution. We believe that working together we can reconcile energy and the environment and still have a secure and environmentally sustainable energy future for both our nations.

It is increasingly important that Canada plays a larger role in the North American energy security solution, when one considers the implications of oil scarcity and the political situations in Russia, Venezuela or the troubled Middle East. Considering these factors, Canada’s status as the world’s most reliable supplier of energy becomes not just an economic opportunity but also an obligation to our international partners and perhaps the single best way that we can contribute much-needed stability in an uncertain world.

Opportunity and obligation are why Canada needs to work with the United States in developing cooperative bilateral action plans. These joint strategies could include bringing northern gas to southern customers; clean technology roadmaps that would optimize the considerable expertise of both countries in areas such as carbon capture and storage; plans to expand clean power generation and transmission capacity here in North America or to interconnect the eastern and western regional power grids in North America; and actions that will help North America and the world make the transition from a high carbon present to a low carbon future while avoiding a disruptive and dislocative period involving no carbon en route.

Finally, as Canada gains traction domestically on approaches to dealing with energy security and environmental stewardship, we are able to make a credible commitment to the international community that Canada will play a key role in the effort to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions. Canada will achieve this by also working with our neighbor and closest ally, the United States, in order to devise and execute a coordinated plan of action that will advance our environmental and our energy objectives and, at the same time, renew the North American economy.

Ambitious? Perhaps it is.

Achievable? We think so.

But of this I am certain: as North Americans, this is an agenda that is worth our very best efforts in the days ahead.

Dale Eisler (BA in Political Science at the University of Saskatchewan, Regina Campus; MA in Political Science at Vermont College, Union Institute & University).

Prior to joining the Canadian Federal Government, Mr. Eisler had an extensive career in journalism, including daily newspapers, weekly newsmagazines, syndicated opinion columns, radio and television. He was also a sessional lecturer in journalism at the University of Regina.

In addition, Mr. Eisler was involved, at an ownership level, in private business for 13 years.

In 1998, he was appointed Assistant Deputy Minister for Consultations and Communications with the Department of Finance in the Government of Canada. In 2004, he was appointed Assistant Secretary to Cabinet (Communications and Consultations) at the Privy Council Office, which was the most senior communications position in the Canadian Government.

In 2006, Mr. Eisler was the recipient of the Saskatchewan Commemorative Medal in recognition of his contributions to the province and society. He is the author of two books, most recently False Expectations: Politics and the Pursuit of the Saskatchewan Myth, published by the University of Regina in 2006. Recently, he was awarded the University of Regina’s distinguished alumni award for professional achievement.

Dale Eisler and his wife Louise took up residence in Denver in November 2007. They have one daughter and one granddaughter.

In Magazine, Mexico Tags Climate Change, Energy, Environment, Issue4_2009, Oil sands

Down Deep: Unearthing the Truth about Hydraulic Fracturing

February 5, 2014 Emily Haggstrom

Over the past few years, the controversial process of hydraulic fracturing has divided our nation. Nevertheless, the wildly successful method of oil and gas extraction continues to gain momentum, as the public stands resolute in its desire for cheaper, cleaner fuel sources. But the public’s misguided understanding of where that cleaner, cheaper fuel comes from does not match its growing negative opinion on what has unconstructively been labeled as “fracking,” the essential means of procuring oil and gas from unconventional resources. In addition to the backlash, there’s also been a barrage of films; graphics and op-eds supporting the process of hydraulic fracturing that is performed by our friends, neighbors and fellow Americans from California to Pennsylvania. Down Deep, the next iteration in fracturing documentaries was commissioned by WPX Energy based out of Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The company, which has a self-interest in ensuring the public understands the process of hydraulic fracturing, commissioned a third party to produce the film, which talks to WPX executives, landowners, community members and experts. The documentary, like those before it, highlights and restates proper well casing and drilling techniques, what perforations are and how large they are, supplemented with conversations and opinions from people who’ve had direct experiences with the oil and gas industry.

The 30-minute documentary, which appears to be directed at individuals still deciding their stance on hydraulic fracturing, offers great information and reiterates the industry’s connection to economic development and jobs with great neutrality. While the film communicates directly with individuals in cities and towns where drilling takes place, it falls short, as do the majority of films advocating for hydraulic fracturing, to speak to the general public in large urban cities where the biggest dissention lies.

WPX Energy Media Relations spokesman Kelly Swan said, “We understand people are going to make their own decisions on where they stand with hydraulic fracturing, what we wanted to articulate was that drilling and hydraulic fracturing go hand-in-hand.” WPX Energy, who operates oil and gas rigs in five basins throughout the country, has been recognized over forty times for technology, innovation, efficiency, reclamation, water management, best practices and community involvement. The company has also made great strides to be transparent, registering over 1,100 wells on the FracFocus.org website.

“We know that reputation is a daily responsibility and what we do is an industrial activity that has risk associated with it,” continued Swan. “So we’re accountable every day as a company for managing and mitigating those risks properly. We feel like we’ve been able to build a good reputation and we know that reputation is on the line every day, and that we have to continue to be a good steward and operator or that reputation can change. It’s not something we take for granted, we know that we have to earn that respect every day that we are drilling and fracturing,” Swan repeated.

As the film draws to an end and the bows draw on the violins in the background, the narrator begins with the most resounding and resonating monologue of the film, opening with, “Like others in controversial industries, bad news and bad press travels around the world at lightning speed, but the truth that follows tends to take forever”: a statement that is not lost on an industry that is largely criticized and misunderstood, but an industry that continues to press forward with honest discourse in an attempt to connect with communities across America.

“We have put feet on the ground where we are drilling to be available and accessible to these local audiences, and that’s very important to us,” said Swan. “Down Deep isn’t supposed to win a bunch of converts; what we wanted to do was provide a piece that’s informative and educational. We wanted to articulate that drilling and hydraulic fracturing go hand-in-hand and that the combination of the two procedures are what is developing these abundant supplies of both oil and natural gas domestically.”

Since this article was posted, WPX Energy has since removed its Down Deep documentary. Media Relations spokesman, Kelly Swan cited a staffing issue with a company representative that appeared multiple times through out the film as the primary reason for it's removal, but said that they would consider putting it back up in the future. Down Deep received almost 40,000 visits on the film's website. Swan went on to state that WPX would, "remain engaged in thoughtful dialogue about fracking, and we think the film helped further that effort in a creative way."

In Energy, Industry, Magazine Tags Climate Change, Earthquakes, EPA, Peak oil, Q42013, regulations
Comment

Short and Sweet: A Q&A with Energy Author Robert Bryce

February 5, 2014 Guest Author

On the heels of his latest book, Power Hungry, author, journalist and speaker Robert Bryce is back, gearing up to get back on the circuit with his upcoming May 2014 book release titled, Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper: How Innovation Keeps Proving the Catastrophists Wrong. ICOSA was able to catch Bryce and get his two-cents on energy resources and why the public has a “fundamental problem” understanding what they are. ICOSA: Why do you believe understanding energy is so important as we move into the future?

BRYCE: Energy is the master resource. The energy sector is the world's biggest and most important business. Every industry depends, directly or indirectly, on energy. We need policies aimed at making energy cheap, abundant, and reliable, in that order. Fortunately, the U.S. now has an advantage, thanks to the shale revolution, over nearly every other country in the world with regard to energy prices.

ICOSA: When some people think of energy they think of the future and not the intrinsic costs, positive and negative. How have these hurt populations over the last century and how can we fix our frame of reference moving forward?

BRYCE: The fundamental problem in understanding energy is that the general public, as well as the political class, are innumerate and scientifically illiterate. People don't understand numbers and they have essentially no concept of basic physics. The combined ignorance has led to some colossally bad policies, including, for instance, the corn ethanol scam.

If we are going to have good energy policy, we need better understanding of the scale of global energy use. We also need an elected class who understands basic metrics like energy density and power density. That would not solve everything, but it would be a start.

ICOSA: We’ve developed many ways to harness energy but we lack the comprehensive technology for enhanced power storage, modernization of the power grid and fuel-efficient infrastructure and construction. Do you believe we are suffering more from inefficient and incomplete systems or the energy needed for those systems? Are we currently focused on the wrong fight?

BRYCE: Electricity storage has been the holy grail of the energy sector since the days of Volta and Edison. Our batteries today are better than what Edison had, but they aren't orders of magnitude better. Our power grid, despite its many flaws, is working pretty well. Yes, it needs more investment, but much of that investment is being made.

ICOSA: What are the inherent differences between our energy needs and our energy resources?

BRYCE: Well, Africa has huge energy needs. It also has huge energy resources. The problem is that the continent, in general, lacks the capital (and civil societies) needed to convert those resources into reliable flows of energy. I'm convinced that we have no shortage of energy resources. What we lack, and here I'm talking about the royal "we," is the commitment to convert our limitless energy resources into usable power.

ICOSA: Where do you believe green energy would be most beneficial?

BRYCE: I am bearish on wind energy and bullish on solar. Wind energy requires too much land and the resources are generally too far away from major population centers. Rooftop solar has great promise, if we can reduce the costs dramatically. All of that said, both wind and solar are incurably intermittent, and that poses a host of other challenges.

ICOSA: How do you think energy deployment at the generation level will change over the next 20 years?

BRYCE: On a global basis, it's clear that the world is moving toward coal in a major way. The International Energy Agency just released a report, which predicts global coal use will eclipse global oil use by 2018 or so. That's a staggering development. In the U.S., natural gas is going to be the big winner. It will steal market share from coal in electric generation and from oil in transportation. But the shale gale that has happened in the U.S. will be difficult to replicate in other countries.

ICOSA: Do you think nuclear energy can revive its image and overcome people’s misunderstanding of the fuel and its future, especially as Thorium and small modular reactors are introduced?

BRYCE: I'm bullish on nuclear. It's a major theme of my next book, Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper: How Innovation Keeps Proving the Catastrophists Wrong, which will be published on May 13. I'm hopeful for small modular reactors, but the main problem facing nuclear is its cost.

Yes, nuclear instills fear in people. But that's largely because of fear mongering that's been done by irresponsible groups like Greenpeace. The public doesn't understand nuclear energy or radiation. Greenpeace feeds on that ignorance.

All of that said, over the long term nuclear will prosper. It will be particularly important if we are going to agree on carbon dioxide emissions. The hard truth is this: if you are anti-carbon dioxide and anti-nuclear, you are pro-blackout.

ICOSA: You’ve said that you are bullish on solar, so what makes you so hesitant on wind?

BRYCE: The power density of wind—1 watt per square meter—is too low. Thus, the land requirements are absurd. The U.S. has about 300 gigawatts (that's 300 billion watts) of coal-fired capacity. Just to replace that capacity with wind would require setting aside a land area the size of Italy.

This isn't rocket science. It's elementary-level math. And yet the Green Left and Big Wind have succeeded in deceiving the public by claiming that wind energy is a solution to climate change. It's not. Wind turbines are nothing more than climate-change scarecrows.

ICOSA: American’s have an out-of-sight-out-of-mind relationship to carbon. How can people in the energy industry change this conversation?

BRYCE: I don't have a good answer for that. What is clear is this: the U.S. is leading the world in reducing its carbon dioxide emissions. That's not my opinion, that's data from the International Energy Agency. And the U.S. is leading the world largely because natural gas is displacing significant quantities of coal in the power generation sector. The way of the future is N2N, natural gas to nuclear.

ICOSA: Do you think we need to re-evaluate how we approach renewable energy? What more could be done and how much more do we need to understand about it?

BRYCE: We have to quit romanticizing renewable energy. We humans relied on renewables for millennia. And for that entire time, humans lived on the ragged edge of starvation and disease. Hydrocarbons liberated us from the drudgery of relying on the wind and the sun.

Renewable energy is viable in some locations. Solar, in particular, is great for extremely rural locations and island economies that get lots of sun. But we need to get real about renewables. Wind energy isn't new. It has been in use for 1,000 years. Solar? The photovoltaic effect has been known since 1839. Solar panels have been around for 60 years. Biomass? There's simply no way we can produce enough biomass to power the global economy. For millennia we've used draft animals to do our work.

Today, we have gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel. And yet, we are told that the way forward is by returning to the olden days. No, it's not. We need to quit romanticizing the past and start appreciating how wondrous our lives are now thanks to our ability to harness hydrocarbons and the incredible power of the atom.

For more on Robert Bryce, including articles and shows that he’s appeared in, or to check out his books, visit http://www.robertbryce.com.

In Energy, Industry, Magazine Tags Climate Change, Peak oil, Q42013
Comment

EPA Seeks 30 Percent CO2 Cut by 2030

June 3, 2014 Keenan Brugh

Coal is responsible for 74% of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S., according to 2012 data.  The Environmental Protection Agency is now proposing state-specific emissions standards for existing and reconstructed power plants.  The impact is expected to be a 30 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. The EPA will be accepting comments on the proposed rules for 120 days. While optimistic reactions have been enthusiastic, some others have been defensive and claim the proposal would cause damages. Still others, such as The Onion, responded skeptically:

New EPA Regulations Would Force Power Plants To Find 30% More Loopholes By 2030 http://t.co/W001fh9v3X pic.twitter.com/Qoqod8mZdm

— The Onion (@TheOnion) June 2, 2014

 

UPDATE: Just today, China has followed the U.S. and announced their commitment to cap CO2 emissions. Previously in stalemated negotiations, these two global leaders appear to have both made a serious commitment to reducing carbon pollution. This comes just before a UN-sponsored global meeting on climate change in Germany. Starting Wednesday, representatives from 190 nations will begin setting the stage for the next global climate change talks in December 2015.  The objective of the conference is to achieve a universal agreement from all nations of the world.

What do you think of the potential impacts for the world's economy and environment?

In Blogs, Energy, Featured Stories, Industry Tags Climate Change, EPA, obama, pollution
Comment