Immediately after Obama announced that he would be attending the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper mimicked the move, and with good reason. If the climate change measures currently under discussion in Congress prove to be a good indicator of what’s to come, then Prime Minister Harper is on solid ground to gear-up for a political skirmish with the U.S. that will wholly transform energy relations between the two countries. If Obama enacts environmental legislation targeting Alberta’s carbon-intensive oil sands, he should be prepared to lose the many corresponding political and economic benefits his country has long enjoyed as a result of historic energy trade with Canada.
All too soon, Washington may find that if it pushes too hard or too fast with carbon cutting legislation targeting the oil sands, its friendly neighbor might finally grow tired of being taken for granted when it comes to oil. Canada can, and likely will push back, especially because China is more than happy to step-in and purchase oil north of the 49th parallel if the U.S. chooses not to.
Why Canada Matters
Canada, not Saudi Arabia, Mexico or Venezuela, is the single largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States. A sizeable 17 % of total U.S. oil imports come from Canada, and according to the most recently disclosed official statistics from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), imports of Canadian crude oil totaled a formidable 1.9 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in September of this year alone. This figure was nearly double the imports from the next largest supplier, Mexico. In fact, Alberta, Canada’s oil-producing province, currently exports more oil to the U.S. than any other country in the world. Reflecting general yearly trends, in the month of September, Canada provided more petroleum to the U.S. than Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and Russia combined. With its proven oil reserves totaling 174.2 billion barrels, Alberta boasts the second largest reserves in the world, next only to Saudi Arabia. Last year, Alberta’s crude oil exports to the U.S. totaled an average of 1.5 million bbl/d and despite a temporary slowdown in international demand for oil in months prior, in September 2.4 million barrels of petroleum products per day continued to enter the US from Canada, doubling the level of imports from Saudi Arabia.
Gas Guzzling in the United States
Contrary to the notion that the thirst for non-renewable energy is decreasing in the United States, oil consumption is actually on the rise. Reliance upon Canadian petroleum products remains a daily reality. According to recent data, the U.S. produces a meager 10% of the world’s petroleum, but consumes a sizeable 24%. As long as demand is greater than domestic supply, oil imports will remain critical to the survival of the U.S. economy, and the maintenance of its energy security. According to the EIA, September gasoline consumption in the US climbed by 4.7 % (400 thousand bbl/d), compared to last year, a number which reflects rising overall consumption. This was the fourth month in a row that gasoline demand increased from the previous year, a trend that will likely reappear in the upcoming months.
“Oil Sands” Shouldn’t Be a Dirty Word
While much of Canada’s aforementioned oil reserves come from conventional wells, the oil sands make up a significant percentage of the cache. Like Venezuela, the oil sands have contributed greatly to Canada’s known reserves, and have played a large part in ranking it above other countries as an energy supplier. Most of the public is at least familiar with the term “oil sands” (also called tar sands). In recent months many environmentalist groups like Green Peace have done everything in their power to reduce the popularity of this namesake to an all-time low. By executing brash public smear-campaigns, the anti-oil sands movement in the U.S. reached its peak this September when Prime Minister Harper came to Washington to speak with President Obama. Harper was met by angry activists and lobbyists alike, who had one message: “stop the tar sands.” Despite their robust allegations that the oil sands contribute greatly to global warming, it is commonly acknowledged that the oil sands make up a meager 5 % of Canada’s overall carbon emissions, and on a global scale, they account for less than one-tenth of one percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. To put this number into perspective, oil sands emissions only equal about ½ of what New York City emits each year.
Oil from the oil sands cannot be extracted using traditional drilling techniques, and instead much of it requires in-situ (or in-place) extraction, which occurs underground. While it is true that currently it takes more energy to extract a unit of oil from the oil sands than it does from other conventional deposits, as extraction technology improves, this will not always be the case. Generally speaking, per barrel of oil, carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced by 45 % since 1990, and progress continues today. If investment in the oil sands continues to rise, so too will the efficiency of the associated technology. With time and without restriction, the oil sands will likely become less carbon intensive by their very nature. Enhanced oil recovery technology (EOR) unlocks oil from the oil sands, and has made tremendous progress and has had astonishing results since its inception. According to Leonardo Maugeri of the Wall Street Journal, “when new exploration technologies do take root, the results are remarkable.” Given that to date legislation to cut emissions has not made EOR technology uneconomical, Maugeri emphasizes that, “In the past few years, the industry has succeeded in striking oil at depths below 10,000 feet of water and 20,000 feet below the seabed—as in the Gulf of Mexico and the Brazilian offshore[...]Fifteen years ago, all this was simply unthinkable.” If the oil sands are allowed to grow naturally, then extraction technology will continue to advance, ultimately reducing the carbon-intensive nature of the industry.
The Truth About Alberta
While popular media typically prefers to avoid reporting on international success stories, it becomes especially important to note that in 2007, Alberta became the first place in North America to legislate mandatory greenhouse gas reductions for large industrial facilities. Alberta’s carbon capture and storage program hopes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 % from expected 2050 levels, and will lower emissions to an equivalent of 14 % below 2005 levels. Carbon capture and storage is an initiative supported by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, and has even been endorsed by Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Al Gore. In July of 2008, the Alberta government committed CND $2 billion (USD $1.9 billion) to kick-start its carbon capture and storage projects, and by 2015 it is expected that the initiative will store up to 5 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. What Alberta has done on its own to reduce carbon emissions in its oil and gas sector is unprecedented in North America, and one could even say the Western hemisphere.
Because the extraction of bitumen from the oil sands does involve processes which are technology, water, and carbon intensive, Alberta has chosen to develop strong legislation to protect water supply and air quality. As a matter of fact, in comparison to other provinces, Alberta has some of the highest environmental standards in Canada. Currently, in the oil sands region of Alberta, there are over 100 water quality stations in place, and the Alberta government works in partnership with industry, First Nations (Native Americans), and community members to monitor local air quality. Furthermore, it has enforced provincial legislation aggressively in order to mitigate the industry’s environmental damage. Fines and environmental protection orders are routinely given by regulators if oil sands sites are not meeting standards, and funds are then reallocated to environmental reclamation projects. Before any pundit chooses to judge Alberta’s management of the oil sands over critically, it is necessary to put Alberta in the context of other oil producers. While it is obvious that Alberta must continue to strengthen its legislation, comparatively speaking, it has done a better job at enacting and enforcing environmental protection than other countries boasting comparable oil sands reserves. Countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia have far less accountable legislative and judicial branches of government, and thus do not hold their oil sands industries nearly as culpable for environmental degradation.
Because the province of Alberta has shown that it is willing to develop the oil sands in a responsible way, its opinion and input should be welcomed as part of the dialogue being pursued in the U.S. to cut carbon emissions. As a major consumer of Alberta’s oil sands, the U.S. must respect Canada’s needs when considering its environmental legislation. Alberta’s government has consistently voiced that it will gladly continue reducing its own carbon footprint, but insists that a U.S. framework affecting its oil sands must be framed by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA.) Given that many lobbyists on Capitol Hill have demanded an unconditional “halt to oil sands development,” it would be a welcome gesture if U.S. public figures emphasized that responsible growth of Canada’s oil sands is both valuable and acceptable to the United States.
What’s Happening in the U.S. House of Representatives?
Despite the many benefits derived from Canada/U.S. oil trade, Washington has chosen not to highlight the importance of its historically unique relationship with Ottawa. Instead of working closely with its neighbor, key U.S. legislators have framed the energy discussion in unfriendly terms that hint at reducing U.S. emissions at Canada’s expense. Since the emergence of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, otherwise known as the Waxman-Markey bill, the wheels have been set in motion for mandatory green house gas (GHG) controls. Fathered by both the Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, the bill seeks to reduce US emissions by 17% below 2005 levels, by the year 2020. According to The Economist magazine, the bill’s reduction targets are low compared to those of other rich countries; however, they mark a sharp departure from the status quo in the U.S.
What’s Happening in the U.S. Senate?
Meanwhile in the U.S. Senate, a similar bill has emerged. The Kerry-Boxer bill promises to put the United States “back in control of [its] energy future.” Titled the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, the title alone foreshadows sizeable increases in U.S. governmental control over the energy industry, which would obviously carry international implications for oil trade, especially for Canada. In many ways, the wording of both bills seeks to breeze over their potential to violate international free-trade agreements, including NAFTA and World Trade Organization (WTO) provisions.
Introducing a National “Low-Carbon Fuel Standard”
Most agree that a final climate bill would likely employ a national low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS). So far, California and eleven Northeastern states have already signed agreements to implement LCFS, and many more are considering it. In sum, a LCFS aims to reduce emissions by requiring that transportation fuels sold to cars or trucks be composed of only a limited amount of carbon-intensive fuels. Basically, a LCFS seeks to reduce gasoline usage in favor of bio-fuel usage. Bio-fuels are considered “non-carbon intensive,” and include a range of fuels from vegetable oil to ethanol. Currently the production of bio-fuel in the U.S. is mainly made up of maize (corn) production, and has lately come under severe scrutiny by economists and policymakers alike. Even though the industry has absorbed millions in U.S. government subsidies, the production of bio-fuels in the U.S. has been far less efficient than in other countries like Brazil, which uses sugarcane to make its unique brand of bio-fuel.
According to some analyses, oil derived from the oil sands would need to be blended with low-carbon bio-fuel on a one-to-one ratio, in order to attain a life-cycle carbon count acceptable under LCFS rules. If this analysis is accurate, it would theoretically cut demand for the oil sands in half. Basically, a life-cycle carbon count measures the amount of energy needed to extract one unit of output. For instance, extracting one unit of output from the oil sands requires several more units of natural gas than are needed to extract oil from conventional reserves, thus contributing to the oil sands having a higher carbon life-cycle. If enacted, a national LCFS would disproportionately target Canada’s oil sands sector.
While at first glance it may seem like a good idea to enact legislation incentivizing the consumption of low life-cycle carbon fuels, these policies carry with them negative consequences for U.S. energy security. Under a national LCFS program, all vehicles would be required to fill-up with a blended fuel. As the production of bio-fuel in the U.S. is not currently enough to satisfy a one-to-one ratio blend with gas coming from the oil sands, in the short-term the blend will likely favor conventionally extracted oil, at Canada’s expense. Due to Canada having less conventional oil reserves than oil sands reserves, a shift in U.S. demand toward conventional oil would redirect trade away from Canada. If the U.S. comes to depend less on Canada’s oil sands, it will surely come to depend more on conventional oil reserves from less dependable countries overseas.
Kerry, Boxer, Waxman & Markey: The New Bullies on the Block?
Ottawa has apprehensively watched over U.S. environmental legislation, holding its breath in the hopes that Congress might spare its oil sands industry. According to the Premier of Alberta, Ed Stelmach, “Canada depends on Alberta’s oil-rich economy to fuel prosperity,” while, “any shut down in the province’s oil industry would be felt across the country.” His comments have been consistently reinforced by Prime Minister Harper, and Canada’s Federal Minister of the Environment, Jim Prentice, who both emphasize the importance of Alberta’s oil sands to the country’s overall economic well-being.
If upon its ratification, U.S. environmental legislation is not flexible enough to allow for Canada’s oil sands industry to stay afloat, the effect on the Canadian economy overall will be devastating. Any U.S. legislation that either directly or indirectly restricts the free trade of Canadian oil would be a low blow, and should be swapped in favor of bilateral agreements, negotiated with an equal investiture of oversight by both parties. So far, the Canadian government has remained amenable to enacting a framework of carbon cuts in conjunction with the U.S., but only at a reasonable cost to their industry. Minister of the Environment Jim Prentice recently stated that, “ultimately, the only effective environmental policy is one that takes into account the competitiveness of the Canadian economy – and the preservation of Canadian jobs– now and in the future.”
Relying on Canada’s Oil, Not Bad Given the Alternatives
By now, it should be clear that it is in the best interests of the United States to work very closely with Canada in developing a North American energy strategy that gracefully balances the need to continue developing the oil sands with the need for comprehensive carbon cuts. Given its profound socioeconomic stability and thriving liberal democracy, Canada remains the perfect trading partner for the U.S. It plays by the rules, and its only request is that its partners do the same. Canada is, as Stephen Harper reminds us, a “stable, reliable producer in a volatile, unpredictable world.” Furthermore, Canada’s oil is cheap, and requires the least amount of political capital and international maneuvering to secure. As aptly put by Alberta’s Envoy to Washington Gary Mar in an exclusive interview with the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “Oil from Alberta flows into the United States through a secure pipeline, and there is no need for American soldiers to be put in harm’s way protecting it.”
Canada Has Options
Because of the long-lasting friendship it has developed with its easygoing Northern neighbor, the United States will likely expect Canada to continue quenching its perpetual thirst for oil, without taking into account the harm their legislation could do to overall relations with the country. It remains to be seen if Canada will be willing to swallow the bitter cost of heavy U.S. regulations which disproportionally harm the oil sands. Historically, it has been both easy and reasonable for Canada to do business with the U.S; however, who is to say that under less amenable terms of trade, Canada won’t turn to someplace else? Given that in today’s world “black gold” holds its value better than most currencies, it would be foolish to forget that Canada has options in choosing its trading partners. This month, Stephen Harper embarked on a landmark trip to China (the first in years), and his message could not have been clearer. Advertising Canada as one of the most “welcoming environments for foreign investment in the world,” Harper emphatically insisted that his country boasts “the resources to meet China’s ever-growing needs.” Harper’s underlying sentiment has been echoed by Alberta’s Gary Mar, who warns that “in the event that America is not interested in Alberta’s energy supplies, then we will work on markets elsewhere in the world.”
There’s More Yen to Come
Quickly and aggressively, Chinese sovereign wealth funds and state-run companies are becoming large-scale investors in Canada’s natural resources. In 2005, long before Harper’s visit to Beijing, China’s Sinopec purchased a 40 percent stake in the Northern Lights Oil Sands Project through its Canadian subsidiary. Earlier this year, it purchased an additional 10 % share, upping its ownership to 50%. The project is located northeast of Fort McMurray, Alberta, and has a production capacity of 5 million tons of synthetic crude oil annually. In August of this year, state-owned Petro-China claimed an even larger stake in Alberta’s oil sands, purchasing a 60% share of the Athabasca Oil Sands Corporation’s Mackay and Dover projects, for a staggering CND $1.9 billion (approx USD $1.8 billion). The land covered under the Mackay and Dover projects alone has been independently assessed to contain approximately five billion barrels of oil, which is considerable taking into account other reserves in the area. Looking beyond the billions of barrels known to constitute the deposit, the most meaningful part of the Petro-China purchase is that it signaled China’s largest ever stake in Canadian oil. Given that the U.S. has enjoyed virtually unchallenged trade hegemony with Canada up until this point, large Chinese investments mark a sharp departure from business as usual.
A New Pipeline in the Works
In addition to these investments, plans are currently underway to construct a pipeline that would ship oil from Alberta (a land-locked province) to the Pacific Coast. Presently the only existing pipeline infrastructure goes North-South, and if the new pipeline moves ahead, it will eliminate the monopoly the U.S. has on access to Canadian oil. Not only will the pipeline ease Chinese access to the Canadian oil market, but would also open up Canada’s energy sector to a variety of other Asian markets, most of which are desperately seeking oil of any kind to meet their expanding population’s thirst for energy. According to Gary Mar, the new pipeline would allow oil to be exported “to India, China, or even Japan.”
Looking Ahead
All things considered, it is clearly in Washington’s best interests to carefully reconsider any environmental legislation that targets Canada’s oil sands. Due to the profitability of the oil sands and their contribution to the overall strength of Canada’s economy, it would be foolish to underestimate the lengths that Canada will go to in defense of their industry. While currently the U.S. enjoys unchallenged and unrestricted access to Canada’s oil, this might not be the case in the future. With China knocking at Ottawa’s door, Prime Minister Harper need only open it a crack before floods of Yen replace lost U.S. dollars. If Obama’s environmental legislation goes too far, Canada will be forced to develop the western-bound pipeline, and by then it will be too late for the U.S. to regain its lost energy security. Fortunately, there is still time for the U.S. to once again demonstrate its respect for Canada by reforming legislation to accommodate the modest desire to keep the oil sands alive.
An excellent article. This is the first in depth piece I have seen about Canada/US energy relations and the oil sands. Hopefully COHA will continue to include Canada in its future research.
I must say, the timing of the release of this article couldn’t have been better. With the oil sands and Canada’s carbon emissions being blasted around the globe by different groups including the Yes Men, and the three environmental activists in London, who climbed the wall of the Canadian High Commission building and cut down the Canadian flag, Canada's oil sands are getting nothing but bad press. I am glad that you took a stand against all the criticisms surrounding the oil sands Shantel, good article!
The regularity with which COHA has been putting out high-school calibre analysis is disappointing.
It is perfectly clear that Ms. Beach has next to no idea about how the tar sands are extracted or their environmental impact — or the dismal record of Alberta authorities.
The piece reads like your associate got punked by someone in the Alberta government.
Mining the tar sands and converting the tar sands to gasoline and other carbon-emitting fuels is just abut the worst energy policy currently on the table anywhere. I am surprised at this article’s ignorance about the tar sands’ environmental issues; the report just passes along the oil industry’s unsubstantiated arguments and propaganda without question. Tar sands production will always cause more carbon emissions than conventional oil production, it uses up valuable natural gas supplies, and it severely pollutes local environments (And here we thought Canada cared about its native populations!). Furthermore, carbon sequestration is a completely unproven technology that, so far, has failed in the few small-scale applications where it has been tried.
Given what we know about climate change and our responsibility to future generations of all life on Earth, the world must reduce GHG emissions. The policies to reduce GHG emissions will, no doubt, heavily impact Canada’s tar sands development given its exceptionally high carbon emissions. If Canada takes offense at being challenged about the global environmental damage they are preparing to impose on the world, so be it. That’s what Canada gets for electing its own version of George Bush to promote the interests of the corporate oil industry ahead of all other concerns.
In the meantime, this piece of “research” seriously discredits COHA. If COHA permits its researchers to use oil industry propaganda to fill in some glaring gaps in their environmental knowledge, one cannot help but wonder what other forms of industry or political propaganda COHA is allowing into its reports.
I don't think there is anything ignorant going on here. I think Ms.Beach knows perfectly well how the tar sands work, but she has cleverly chosen to take a different stance than what we usually see. It doesn't look like she's defending the sands, more so I think she's explaining why the U.S. should deal with the sands better than asking to "hault" them.
It's an opinion piece- and a refreshing one at that. There are facts on both sides, and I think that Ms. Beach knows a lot more about tar sands than the comments so far are giving her credit for.
From what I'm reading here, the article takes the modest stance that the it isn't a great idea for the U.S. to mess things up with Canada by targeting an industry that while it may not be good for the environment- has relatively low emissions (what was it a half of one percent), and means a lot to the Canadians.
Oh- and to Hendrik- from my very limited knowledge of Canada's politics :being "Conservative" in Canada, which Harper is, doesn't make him akin to our Republicans. Harper, like any leader, struggles to keep his economy afloat. Obama is doing the same!
After reading this I am not convinced the tar sands are friendly to the environment, but I am convinced that a demand to "hault" them will be a big problem for us later on. I'm glad COHA has been able to advocate for a rational US policy on this.
Everyone seems to be missing the main point of this COHA article. It's more about energy security for the U.S., not about the tired rhetoric of the Copenhagen enviroterrorists on how the oil sands of Canada are bad for the enviroment, but make no mention of Venezuela's oil sands. COHA needs to dedicate more bold articles such as this to U.S / Canada relations. Shantel Beach has courageously gone against the norm to write this opinion piece and I applaud her! I hope someone in the U.S and Canadian governments reads this article and takes note.
The comments from those who proclaim substantive oil sands related environmental impacts continue to be based not on evidence and research, but on what these writers read in some media and the newsleters and web sites of some ENGOs. The article appears to be based on reasonably solid research. The only thing, I would suggest, that the writer has missed is the growing body of research pointing out that in fact the full carbon footprint of oil sands production and use is only about 10% greater than the average 'conventional' crude in use in North America.
The spurious assumptions made in this article are almost too numerous to count. Firstly, US oil demand is universally acknowledged to have peaked. Of course it has risen in recent months compared to 1 year ago. It dipped substantially 1 year ago because of the high price of oil and the recession. The high price of oil, by the way, was in no way softened by the tar sands boom that was occurring simulteanously. During 2004-2008, global oil demand lept by 8 million b/d and the tar sands industry spent $50 billion dollars raising production capacity by 350,000 b/d. This did nothing to stop oil prices reaching $147 a barrel.
Tar sands is a symptom of high oil prices not an answer to them.
Tar sands oil is not cheap. For producers it is has the highest costs of almost any oil on the planet. It sells to refineries cheaper because its harder to refine requiring more energy and spewing out more pollutants, including CO2. When the price of oil dropped all undeveloped tar sands projects were shelved.
There is no real choice between importing oil from Venezuela, Saudi or Canada or elsehwere. The market is global and the US buying oil from Canada does nothing to undermine the power of those other countries. Canadian imports have risen because the north American oil industry sees it as in its interest to integrate. There was a premium to be made refining the cheaper, dirtier heavy oil from Canada when the WTI price was high. That margin has been affected by the recession and now refiners are struggling. US consumers don't benefit, they pay the going rate for gasoline based on global oil prices no matter where the refineries are getting their oil.
Alberta may have the world's first GHG legislation but it is weak and ineffective. Producers pay a mere C$15 a tonne for exceeding their limits and in many cases pay less royalties as a result. there is no real incentive to cut the pollution. The industry has made all the big efficiency leaps its going to make and will struggle to imporve further without Carbon Caprture and Storage. CCS can only be fitted to upgraders and will therefore only cut a fraction of the emissions and at great cost. The absolute level of emissons is set to rise with production growth. Tar sands emissons are the biggest source of emissons growth in Canada and are undermining Canada's ability to do what its fellow industrialised countries should all be doing, cutting emissons. Its less about the level of emissions today and more about what the level will be in the future if production grows.
I coud go on and on. But the crux is this:
“…every time that the United States or non-OPEC production increases OPEC decreases
its production accordingly (…) So, we'll drill more, they will drill less. It won't affect the
price. It won't affect the amount of oil in the market. (…) it's not going to break the
monopoly of oil in transportation (…) it’s a short-term solution and it essentially keeps
oil as the only game in town and, therefore, it doesn't move us closer to energy
independence really because energy independence is not about autarchy. It's not about
not importing oil from other countries. It's about breaking oil's monopoly. It's about
stripping oil of its strategic status. That's what energy independence is….
Gal Luft, Executive Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security
(10/15/2009).
REAL ENERGY SECURITY DOES NOT COME FROM OPENING UP NEW OIL SUPPLIES IT COMES FROM REDUCING CONSUMPTION. THE US HAS STARTED ALONG THAT ROAD AND CAN AND MUST DO MORE. IT CAN CUT OIL DEMAND IN HALF BY 2030 AND BY DOING SO WILL NOT ONLY BECOME MORE SECURE BUT WILL ENJOY CLEANER AIR, BETTER LIFESTYLES AND A HEALTHIER ENVIRONMENT AS WELL AS CUTTING CARBON. OIL COMPANY INTERESTS ARE NOT ALLIGNED WITH THE NATION'S INTERESTS.
I disagree. I think the author makes a better point than you do, mostly because the US can do something in its legislation to avoid disproportionately harming the oil sands. That's the point.
Ms. Beach isn't writing as an oil specialist or a financial expert, or this article wouldn't be coming out of COHA. She's writing as analyst of international relations. Energy security involves international relations. You take you point, and say that it discredits all of the points in the article, but it doesn't. You're missing the point, like the econuts a few comments above you.
THE NATIONS INTEREST IS HAVING FRIENDLY INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS!
WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THAT CARBON CUTTING IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE "NATION" ANYWAY? IF YOURS ISN'T A "SPURIOUS ASSUMPTION" I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.
There is nothing worse for international relations than the USA's profligate inefficienct use of oil. Continuing to focus on supply instead of demand perpetuates America's oil dependence. This dependence exacerbates oil's role as a global strategic commodity that opens the country up to myriad vulnerabilites.
My points is that tar sands oil is not making America any more secure for the reasons Gal Luft discusses in the quote.
So sure, the author is not an oil or finance expert and her role is to make a point about keeping cosy with the Canadians. I'm all for freindly neighborly relations.
But still many of the statements she has made about tar sands are wrong. Her analysis of US oil demand is wrong and therefore much of the basis of her argument is wrong.
The USA's relations with many nations would be much better if it didn't need to worry about oil supply. The only way to ease its oil supply worries is to cut demand. Making a special case in its environmental legislation for Canada won't do it.
Carbon cutting is clearly in the interests of the nation as global warming will hit America really very hard. It's not a spurious assumption its global scientific consensus.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Watch your use of the word "wrong."
Not only do I think you're analysis is wrong- but the word is very cocky and destroys any credibility you might have had.
Your analysis is underpinned with an opinion that is no more valid than Ms.Beach's, yet you arrogantly say it is the a "global scientific consensus" which it is obviously not.
Furthermore, in your analysis you say oil is the reason for our energy dependence. I am NOT AT ALL CONVINCED that alternative energy sources will reduce our energy dependence. Ms. Beach is right to take a stab at America's bio-fuel industry. It is an absolute joke!
I don't really know what all the commotion is about, this piece doesn't come close to some of the rhetoric about the oil sands that is out there on both sides. From an economic standpoint it is obviously in neither the US or Canada's best interest to halt work on the oil sands. US companies are heavily invested, and the demand will always be there as the worlds supply of oil continues to dwindle.
But that is the sad factor in the equation. The development of the oil sands is predicated on an increased demand for petroleum based products worldwide. Petroleum based products produce green house gases, which contribute to global warming. Contrary to the article, I don't really think most people believe the U.S.'s thirst for non-renewable energy sources is decreasing, and it's obvious the demand from places like China and India will only go up. That being said, they're going to get it where it's cheap, like the Sudan, and where the U.S. won't or can't touch, so the overly pricey production of the oil sands probably isn't too high on their list.
While organizations like Greenpeace may go a step beyond the logical, you can no more stifle their attempt to bring awareness to the issue than you can tell someone working in Fort McMurray to shut up when they remind everyone that their livelihoods depend on the continuing growth of the oil sands. The Alberta government has been pushed to make the changes they have for the very fact that people are aware of the situation with the oil sands, which would not be possible without the help of independent environmental organizations. Canada won't run out of oil too quickly or go broke, and it certainly isn't an unstable dictatorship or anything like that so in many respects it is the most qualified country on the planet to actually do something about it's greenhouse gas emissions, which is why I think a lot of people see it as an easy target.
The oil sands are just one of many examples of our inefficient and shortsighted dependence on oil, and as one of the most prosperous countries on the planet, Canada can afford to take some action to try and make it better, so I wouldn't go too far in trying to undermine the arguments of people who are trying to do that, just to protect Canada's economic position, which is unquestionably strong and stable in this respect. Politically Canada will undermine itself by trying to make it a non-issue, as public opinion reigns supreme in places like the U.S., and will win over good relations with Canada any day. Sure, maybe the oil sands gets a worse rap than it should, but it still pollutes, and Canada continues to be pretty belligerent about people attacking it, which will only intensifies focus on it. This is an opportunity to save face and build stronger relations, rather than a time to become more defensive about a resource that from a pragmatic economic standpoint is a sure-fire goldmine.
Wow! I can't believe the diverse readership of COHA's news releases. From eco nuts like Eric van der Booben and Tar( cry) baby to sensible thinking readers such as Vida and Peter. This piece has stirred the pot.
Read more about LCFS, oil sands here: http://www.secureourfuels.com