Energy Security

It is an inescapable fact that the world needs energy to keep moving, manufacturing and developing. With the global population increasing to 9bn by 2050 – and changes in lifestyle as we become more affluent – energy demand will only increase.

With conventional oil production near its peak and the political climate in much of the world’s supply fields increasingly volatile, new ways need to be found to securely meet demand as we search for a viable alternative to oil.

Discussion: What role should oil sands play in the world's future energy mix?

Related Content:

Live Debate - Oil sands – where next for EU energy policy?

Subject: Will unconventional gas become conventional?

Subject: Mutual dependence: securing Europe's energy supply

Background
High oil prices and technological advances have turned oil sands into a commercially-viable source of fuel. A number of energy companies have invested heavily in expanding oil production from oil sands in Canada, which is home to close to half the world’s oil sands reserves. The European Union imports very little oil derived from Canada’s oil sands, but fuel from oil sands has recently become a point of contention.

The European Union’s fuel quality directive, which was agreed in 2009, requires oil companies operating in Europe to cut the greenhouse-gas emissions of their products by 6% between 2010 and 2020. The EU was supposed to adopt emission footprint values for all types of fossil fuels by 1 January 2011. But this technical decision has been postponed repeatedly.
The European Commission is considering whether to assign a higher emission footprint value to oil sands because of the energy-intensive techniques used in the extraction process.

Environment groups are opposed to production of oil from oil sands on the grounds that extraction takes place in untouched forest areas and can produce considerable amounts of toxic waste. They also argue that putting oil sands on an equal footing with conventional oil would send out a wrong signal about the EU’s commitment to de-carbonising its economy, and would encourage the exploitation of oil sands in other parts of the world, which are less democratic and regulated, instead of encouraging the world towards the use of cleaner energy sources.

The Canadian government and European energy companies investing in oil sands point out that CO2 emissions from oil-sands production have been reduced by nearly 40% since the 1990s. They argue that the carbon intensity of oil sands, taken along the entire production chain, is within the same range or lower than other crude oils and that technological innovation can deliver further reductions.

As worldwide oil-sands reserves are equivalent to more than twice the current reserves of conventional oil, the stakes are high. EU member states appear undecided. The European Commission is still pondering its final decision, and independent studies diverge on the actual carbon footprint of oil sands.

Is it justified for the EU to adopt specific measures on the oil sands? How should other high carbon crudes be treated? What is the actual carbon footprint of oil sands? How does this compare to other fossil fuels? Can technology help to mitigate it? What about other environmental impacts of oil sands development? How compatible is it with EU climate change policy? Would an EU decision to penalise oil sands affect the world’s use of fossil fuels?

—————————————————————————-

Timing

18.00-18.30 Welcome of participants and registration

18.30-18.35 Introduction of participants by Simon Taylor, news editor, European Voice

18.35-19.05 Panel discussion

- Satu Hassi MEP, co-ordinator for the greens in the environment committee, European Parliament

- Jeanette Patell, second secretary, economic and trade policy, Mission of Canada to the European Union

- Samantha Gross, director, integrated research, IHS CERA

- Nuša Urbančič, policy officer, fuels and electrification, Transport & Environment

- Pierre Noël, senior research associate, Cambridge University

19.05-19.55 Debate (audience participation strongly encouraged)

19.55-20.00 Conclusions by John Abbott, senior vice-president heavy oil, Shell

20.00 Networking reception

—————————————————————————-

Location

Museum of Natural Sciences
Rue Vautier 29
B-1000 Brussels

Related Content:

None...

The 2010 European Business Summit was 30 June - 1 July and included the Presidents' Debate, a high-level energy panel, and a gala dinner.Read more

The issue: The COP15 conference was widely seen as a setback for the EU. The agreement that was reached fell short of the global deal to replace the Kyoto protocol that the EU had sought.

What lessons should the EU draw from Copenhagen? Can the EU still be a driving force in global climate politics? Should the EU continue to push for a global agreement, or should it consider other options, such as bilateral agreements? Should it even take unilateral action, as advocated by some European stakeholders, and increase its emissions reduction target from 20% to 30% without waiting for the US and China to follow? Is a global deal still possible, and when might it be reached?

These are just some of the questions that Comment:Visions invites you to debate with a panel of senior EU decision-makers and stakeholders.

Discussion: After COP 15, who or what will drive the push towards developing clean energy?

Related Content:

Live Debate - After Copenhagen: the next steps

The COP15 conference was widely seen as a setback for the EU. The agreement that was reached fell short of the global deal to replace the Kyoto protocol that the EU had sought.

The summit also revealed the limits of EU influence. The EU, which had been instrumental in getting the Kyoto protocol agreed, was unable to shape a deal in Copenhagen, outmanoeuvred by the US and China.

What lessons should the EU draw from Copenhagen? Can the EU still be a driving force in global climate politics? Should the EU continue to push for a global agreement, or should it consider other options, such as bilateral agreements?

These are just some of the questions that Comment:Visions invites you to debate with a panel of senior EU decision-makers and stakeholders.

Related Content:

Programme - After Copenhagen, the next steps

The Earth’s atmosphere is the result of billions of years of geological activity and interaction with living organisms. Until recently, the stability of its composition has been something we have taken for granted.

The climate change conference in Copenhagen ended without a binding global agreement on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

So, if governments cannot agree on measures to mitigate climate change, who then will provide the incentives and initiatives and perhaps more importantly the finances, that are needed? A growing number of leaders are beginning to look to the private sector to provide solutions. With regard to climate change, is it business to the rescue?

Discussion: Are commercial partnerships between science and industry the best way to reduce GHG emissions?

Related Content:

Live Debate - After Copenhagen: the next steps

Live Debate - Can Europe de-carbonise transport?

Discussion: As the first decade of the 21st Century closes, can we be pleased with the progress we have made in the development of energy efficiency and the mitigation of climate change?

Related Content:

None...

The emission of greenhouse gases has been the heart of the matter in environmental discourse throughout its growth and development. For as long as the science has told us that the levels of greenhouse gases in the earth atmosphere are damaging the planet, political attempts to reach agreement on a reduction of emissions have been ongoing.

In this month’s Comment Visions we travel to Norway to talk to a man whose career has involved studying the changing nature of our planet. Dr Pal Prestud is an ecologist and serves as the Director of the Centre for Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo. His work has focused on the Polar Regions, which have acted as an early warning system for the sort of climatic changes greenhouse gases are driving.

Discussion: How must society adapt to rapid climate change to minimise severe upheaval?

Related Content:

None...

Discussion: What can we do to ensure that generations to come have a sustainable future?

Related Content:

None...

This, the latest in the Comment:Visions series of debates, is dedicated to a topic that many Europeans were made all too physically aware of this January: energy (in)security. The dispute between Russia and Ukraine, which left parts of Europe without gas in the middle of a harsh winter, was a reminder of just how dependent Europe is on the outside world for its energy.

Can Europe actually afford to do without supplies of Russian gas? Are there alternatives, and if so, what are they? What legal guarantees should the EU seek in international agreements? What infrastructure projects should the EU support? Should the EU ease foreign companies’ access to its energy market in order to build confidence with supplier countries? Is interdependence the solution to securing Europe’s energy future?

These are just some of the questions that the panel and a select audience of politicians, officials, businesspeople and experts will have an opportunity to discuss on 27 April in the European Parliament in Brussels.

Related Content:

Programme - The road to global energy security