Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Canada – an energy superpower?
Larry Hughes, Globe and Mail
Prime Minister Harper has fallen into the trap of believing that because Canada is one of the world’s few remaining net energy exporting countries, it is an “energy superpower” (PM brands Canada an ‘energy superpower’, Globe and Mail, 15 July). Admittedly, when looking at national statistics, Canada is undoubtedly a major exporter of energy (almost exclusively to the United States); however, at the regional or provincial level, this is not necessarily the case.
In Atlantic Canada, almost all of the energy from megaprojects such as Churchill Falls (hydroelectric), Hibernia (crude oil), Sable (natural gas), and Point Lepreau (nuclear) is exported, either to neighbouring provinces or the United States. Despite these energy riches, most of the demand in Atlantic Canada is met from imported coal (for electricity) and imported oil products (for transportation, heating, and electricity).
In a time of rising world energy prices, declining energy stocks, and suppliers that are willing to cut off supplies with little notice, Mr. Harper should ensure that his “energy superpower” meets the energy security needs of Canadians before those of his major client.
Larry Hughes
Professor, Energy Research Group
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
(17 July 2006)
PM’s vision of Australia as energy superpower
Misha Schubert, The Age
A PUSH to increase publicly funded mapping of the seabed to narrow the hunt for new oil deposits in the remote reaches of Australia’s oceans is being considered by the Federal Government.
As Prime Minister John Howard yesterday declared Australia was poised to become an “energy superpower” as a supplier to an increasingly energy-hungry world, fresh incentives to expand deep-sea quests for new petroleum deposits were in development.
Mr Howard told business leaders that he would look at further measures to expand high-cost, high-risk “frontier” exploration more than 100 kilometres offshore.
“While known oil reserves are declining, Australia remains relatively unexplored, particularly for petroleum in frontier offshore areas,” he said, speaking at the Centre for Economic Development of Australia in Sydney.
…With war in Iraq and hostilities in the Middle East having a major impact on petrol prices, Mr Howard said, the influence of energy in global politics was likely to grow.
“Man’s hunger for energy, and all this involves, will profoundly shape geopolitics this century, perhaps even more so than last century,” he said. Petrol prices are edging nearer to the $1.39 a litre all-time high reached last month.
Two years after the release of his energy white paper, Mr Howard made the case once again for nuclear power, and flagged the potential for Australia to convert black and brown coal to transport fuels such as diesel and hydrogen.
…But Labor and green groups attacked Mr Howard’s “backward looking” vision, that they said failed to give the nation a real alternative to oil and coal.
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley attacked Mr Howard’s rejection of carbon trading schemes. “John Howard has no plan for the future, he has attitudes,” he said.
Greenpeace spokeswoman Catherine Fitzpatrick said the speech was a reflection on “10 years of inaction … with an energy speech that harks back to the 19th century. He’s stuck in the past and addicted to coal.”
Mr Howard also pressed for a revolution in Australia’s approach to water policy, talking up water recycling and storm water catchment.
Calling on the states to put forward proposals for major “transformative’ water projects, he said water restrictions were unacceptable.
“Having a city on permanent water restrictions makes about as much sense as have a city on permanent power restrictions,” he said. “We would not tolerate it with electricity. We should not tolerate it with water.”
(18 July 2006)
Contributor SP writes:
I think the PM is angling for a new wedge issue in the upcoming election. The last quoted paragraph sounds like a test run of blame it on the greens/labour/environmental restrictions, as they stand in the way of “development”.
As to Australia becoming an “energy superpower”, given the probable future that’s a bit like the proverbial one eyed man being king in a room full of blind men. Also, I note that the PM shares the same vision as the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), see the about/policy page.
See also related article below.
UPDATE from SP: Letter to the editor in response to this article. It begins:
Is Mr Howard typifying Western short-term thinking when he seems to find restrictions on water and electricity use intolerable and senseless? If so, does he find profligate use of resources more “sensible”? Does he find it “intolerable” that many rural people must be careful of their tank water use? Is he just speaking for Australians or does he think all people should have unrestricted access to electricity and water and does he think the Earth could sustain this?
Australia: PM powers ahead with bold plan
Editorial, The Australian
But in Victoria, Steve Bracks just blows with the breeze
—
JOHN Howard and Steve Bracks agree on the need to address the world’s energy needs in the context of climate change. It’s just the scale of their visions that differs. On the weekend, the Victorian Premier detailed his strategy for reducing carbon emissions at the same time as underpinning energy needs into the future. On Monday, the Prime Minister followed with a plan of his own. The contrast was stark. Mr Howard’s vision is optimistic, upbeat and outward-looking. He offers Australians security of energy supplies and enhanced prosperity as energy exporters. Mr Bracks’s vision is the opposite: it is based on a pessimistic plan that assumes existing power sources are suspect. Where the Premier’s vision is insular, the Prime Minister is acting locally because he is thinking globally…
It is all very well for environmental activists to argue that much of the energy we are able to export produces unacceptable amounts of greenhouse gas and that the solution is not for us to increase our sales but for people all over the world to use less power. But this is not an answer China and India will accept. Nor should they. And with Australia having 30 per cent of the world’s coal export trade, the potential to become the globe’s second-largest liquefied natural gas producer in just a decade, plus 40 per cent of the planet’s low-cost recovery uranium, it is in neither our economic nor diplomatic interests to see energy exports as evil.
(19 July 2006)
This article is structured in such a way that a whole lot of emotive adjectives are employed before any facts or analysis are given. That should set off alarm bells. Victorian State Premier Steve Bracks is labeled ‘insular’ for pursuing renewable energy targets and treating ‘existing power sources are suspect’, the Prime Minister praised for planning to pursue increased coal production. This is from Australia’s only national newspaper, owned by Rupert Murdoch.
-AF
Europe’s suppliers could decide to just save their energy
Carl Mortished, UK Times
What if they leave the oil and gas in the ground? That unwelcome prospect emerged as the world’s leaders tiptoed round President Putin last weekend, like postmen negotiating their way past an irritable alsatian.
Efforts to coax the Kremlin into ratifying the Energy Charter, a commitment to free energy markets, are losing momentum. Mr Putin berated the West on Sunday for demanding access to Russian export pipelines while offering no better access to Europe’s makets in exchange. He sees no energy crisis; oil revenues are bursting the Kremlin’s coffers. Why open the door to multinationals and flood Europe with more fuel?
While Mr Putin barked, the G8 leaders failed to notice the sound of a door shutting in Algeria, the second-largest importer of gas into Europe. President Bouteflika is reversing a liberal reform of Algeria’s oil and gas laws and is giving Sonatrach, the state energy company, a commanding role in oil and gas development as Algeria’s Gazprom and Rosneft rolled into one.
… these nations want to keep tighter control on the pace of new investment since they see danger in today’s oil and gas boom. There is ample evidence that Europe will switch from gas famine to gas bubble over the next two to three years.
(19 July 2006)
Crisis prompts Japan to cut heavy reliance on Middle East oil
Shingo Ito (AFP), Petroleumworld.com
The latest Middle East crisis has re-awakened Japan to the need to reduce its heavy reliance on oil from the volatile region and should spur it to step up efforts to secure alternative energy suppliers.
Energy security is high on the agenda at this year’s of Group of Eight summit, being held here amid mounting anxiety over record high oil prices and fears that Israeli military offensives in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip will trigger a wider conflict.
Leaders of the world’s most powerful nations pledged Sunday to promote “open, transparent” energy markets, while vowing to pursue development of alternative energy sources, including nuclear power.
“The Middle East crisis has again called Japan to reconsider its heavy reliance on crude oil from the region,” said John Kirton, director of the G8 Research Group.
Tokyo relies totally on oil imports, 90 percent of them from the Middle East.
(17 July 2006)
