Alternate Energy Source
There exists an alternate energy source that is relatively economically available to us. It’s a source of crude that easily dwarfs the size of the Saudi oil fields, and requires no new technology. It’s in Canada and we don’t want it. At least, that’s what the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (passed with alacrity by the Democratic controlled Congress) says. More amazingly, Canada wants us to buy it. From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
The bill classified oil from tar sands as an alternative fuel, which places restrictions on its use. Unlike regular crude, the US government cannot buy alternative fuels unless they release less greenhouse gas. The tar-sands crude unfortunately doesn’t qualify, and it’s not even close; it produces much more of those emissions than regular crude. The Canadians, needless to say, are nonplussed over this action by Congressional Democrats. They want to sell us the crude, and our armed services could certainly use a reliable source of energy not dependent on mullahcracies and kleptocracies.
Counting the tar sands, Canada has the largest oil reserves in the world. To deliberately not count them is probably the most short-sighted energy policy I can conceive of, and leave it to our Congress to come up with that. And this, in the face of declaring that “energy independence” from mid-eastern oil is desirable.
What part of “energy independence” don’t they understand? Hum?
March 13, 2008 at 3:30 am
I am slightly confused to why the US wouldn’t want to use Canada’s oil supplies. I would probably lower the price of power as well as you wouldn’t need to bring it from the Middle East thus reducing the logistical expense of it all.
March 13, 2008 at 5:06 am
Nick, I’m confused too.
When I peruse sites such as Tar Sands Watch and Tar Sands – Hubbert Peak of OIl Production, what I find in the way of explanation is a short list of vague, unjustified statements like:
“Bitumen makes up about 10-12 per cent of the actual oil sands found in Alberta. The remainder is 80-85 per cent mineral matter – including sand and clays – and 4-6 per cent water.”
In other words, Alberta is fast creating an environmental disaster with the 88+% of water and minerals being exposed to the biosphere in the refining process.
Even in context, the second sentence has no relation to the first.
Now maybe there is some economic justification for no trading with Canada for use of this resource (I’m not an economist so that, I can’t say for certain). BUT I DOUBT IT. Maybe there’s a scientific reason – the energy density is too low or the damage done to mine it is unmanageable. I do have some training in both science and engineering management so I can say with some confidence I DOUBT IT!
As it stands, the politics of the situation has made this a lose-lose proposition.
NIck, thanks for reading and commenting.