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.

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

Source: EBS

The 2010 European Business Summit kicked off in Brussels on Thursday, 30 June and the Comment:Visions team was there to catch all the action.

The first day’s proceedings included the Presidents’ Debate which focused on Europe’s economic crisis and possible plans of action. It was panelled by Herman Van Rompuy, President, European Council; José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission; Jürgen R. Thumann, President, BUSINESSEUROPE; and Thomas Leysen, President, Federation of Enterprises in Belgium / Member, ERT. The debate culminated with a message of hope from President Barroso that the next G20 summit will be a bountiful platform for “concrete results” within economic reform.

The next day, the summit opened with the Energy for Europe: Fueling Growth panel which included Alexander Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Management Committee, Gazprom; Günther Oettinger, European Commissioner for Energy; Peter Voser, CEO, Royal Dutch Shell; Tom R. Walters, President, ExxonMobil Gas & Power Marketing ; and Vagit Alekperov, President, Lukoil. Coal fired power plants could have the capacity to be made CO2 neutral, Voser said. The energy demand that we are facing presently is expected to double by the year 2050, making the need for alternate renewable energy sources even more prevalent. “Gas is emerging as the energy source that allows the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere” Perov said. Natural gas was determined to be the most viable, cost effective and abundant of the renewable sources. Shale gas was also said to be an important component of the energy mix, but the problem was with European public acceptance. Energy Commissioner Gunther Oettinger reminded the panel that “Solar energy [is] equally as important”.

Source: Comment:Visions

During the summit’s gala dinner, Comment:Visions hosted a table for a few of our online contributors, including: Dr. Jeffrey Seisler, CEO of Clean Fuels Consulting; Jacques de Selliers Chairman of the Association for Electric Vehicles in Europe;  Marco Sorgetti, Director General of CLECAT; Brianna Sapp, Project Manager of PANGEA; Remi Gruet, Climate Change Advisor for EWEA; and

 Greg Arrowsmith, Policy Officer from EUREC Agency.

– Heather Nelson

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.

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.

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?

As nations gather to seek an agreement on solving climate change, many are working behind the scenes to create the innovations and protocols that will form the foundation of a new, emission-free society. The fossil fuels that are greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions also provide the majority of the energy that we rely on. Is it possible to create new clean sources of energy and a business environment that will help transform our planet without compromising our way of life?

At the beginning of the year, Euronews began a journey, travelling throughout Europe, seeking out scientists, engineers, researchers and entrepreneurs for their opinions. At the same time, European Voice held regular debates inviting delegates from politics, industry, government and science to take part in finding answers to the burning questions that confront us. Visions of Future Energy is a selection of the opinions expressed in the television programmes.

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.

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.