European Commission vote worries proponents of the oilsands

EDMONTON - The Alberta government and oil industry will be looking across the Atlantic Thursday as a European Commission committee votes on a new fuel measurement some believe unfairly discriminates against products from the oilsands.

The issue, set to be debated by the European Union’s fuel quality committee, revolves around a proposed fuel quality directive that is part of the EU’s larger green house reduction efforts.

European countries agreed in 2008 to cut the carbon intensity of its transport fuels by six per cent as of 2020. To help accomplish that, the fuel quality directive includes the equivalent of a yardstick measuring the greenhouse gas impact of different types of fuel.

For Canada, the main source of contention is that “natural bitumen,” a term to describe oilsands, is given a higher carbon intensity rating than conventional oil. Provincial, federal and industry officials have mounted a campaign to dispute that measure at the same time as environmental groups urge European countries to adopt the change.

Alberta currently supplies almost no fuel to Europe. But Cal Dallas, Alberta’s Minister of Intergovernmental, International and Aboriginal Affairs, said the province is worried about the precedent of the different greenhouse gas values and the potential hit to the reputation of the oilsands.

The province does not dispute the EU’s right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, Dallas said. “It’s the manner in which the oilsands are singled out and given a value when other crudes are given a default value we know is not correct,” he said Wednesday.

Alberta’s United Kingdom office has pushed hard against this proposal, as has the federal government. In October, Alberta’s UK office sent a letter to all 27 EU states outlining its “grave concerns” over the language of the fuel quality directive and arguing Alberta’s oilsands industry should not be penalized for having its greenhouse gas data available.

“The difficulty in obtaining accurate information about others is not an excuse to discriminate against those for whom information is easy to obtain,” Alberta-UK managing director Jeffrey Sundquist wrote. “Alberta feels that it is being punished by the current proposal for our very openness, whereas other jurisdictions that are not so forthcoming are in turn rewarded for their lack of transparency.”

This week, the federal government threatened to challenge the decision at the World Trade Organization if the EU adopts the fuel directive. Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver told Postmedia last week that he can’t predict the results but believes the federal government’s message is resonating with EU members.

The issue is complicated enough that the Pembina Institute, an environmental think-tank focused on energy solutions, released a primer on the subject.

Unlike the federal and provincial governments, Pembina does not believe the fuel directive singles out Canada’s oilsands, Institute spokesman Dan Woynillowicz said.

The EU’s directive could be improved by having more categories distinguishing different types of oil, but the measures as proposed do not constitute a ban on oilsands or unfairly sully its reputation, he said.

“There is concern within the oilsands industry and the Canadian government that this is a black eye for the sector because it labels it as dirtier than conventional oil,” Woynillowicz said.

“Canada would be better suited to take more aggressive action to drive down those carbon emissions.”