10
The Canadian answer to U.S. energy
Commentator David Frum.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Kai Ryssdal: Here's the quirk about American energy policy, most specifically the part about oil. It's one big global marketplace, so we're not isolated from what's happening elsewhere. Domestic affairs in other countries play a big part on oil prices and in our debate over what to do here. Expand exploration in places like Alaska, invest more in offshore oil drilling.
Case in point, Canada. Our neighbor to the north is our number one source of crude. Commentator David Frum says Canada's recent election is good news for us.
David Frum: The United States cannot drill its way to energy independence. But Canada can.
While the U.S. landmass is relatively poor in oil resources, it's estimated that the Canadian province of Alberta contains more fuel energy than all of Saudi Arabia. Alberta's oil is mixed with sand, a fact that until recently pushed its cost prohibitively high.
But improving technology and rising global oil prices have burst the old constraints. Canada has surged into first place among U.S. oil suppliers. Good news for Americans concerned about where their oil comes from and how oil dollars are used: for Canada also ranks first among world purchasers of American products.
Environmental concerns are real, especially the greenhouse gas emissions associated with extraction. But the industry has made great progress reducing water pollution, to the point where the Royal Society of Canada has determined that oil sands development is not a threat to aquatic ecosystems.
Yet Alberta oil faces one remaining economic challenge: its location. Alberta is about as far from open water as it gets in North America. So Alberta oil must move by pipeline. One existing pipeline already carries about 600,000 barrels of oil per day.
A proposal has been advanced to expand capacity to nearly 1.3 million barrels a day: one-seventh of all U.S. consumption. Canada has approved it. On May 2, Canadians emphatically reelected the most pro-pipeline party as their government for the next four years.
The next decision rests with the Obama administration. And has rested and rested and rested.
On the plus side: secure oil, a responsible producer, no risks of oil spills at sea.
On the negative side: well, it's still oil. And some people think we shouldn't be burning it all. Fair point. And maybe someday we won't. But for now the question is not: shall we buy oil? The question is: from where? It should be an easy call. Why is it taking so long?
Ryssdal: David Frum was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush. Today he's the editor of Frum Forum. Next week in this space, Robert Reich. Your views whenever you like. Send us your comments -- click on this contact link.
Mr. Frum fails to mention several facts that I hope will stall this project forever.
1. The hot thick tar sand oil would be pushed through a new pipeline made of Chinese & Indian steel which is only 75% as strong as American steel & thus more prone to leaks.
2. The original Keystone Pipeline has already leaked, and the new Keystone XL Pipeline would be constructed through Nebraska's Ogallala Aquifer, a vast, pristine source of drinking water for 85% of Nebraskans. As potable water becomes more scarce, it will be the world's next most precious resource, and we dare most not risk polluting it.
3. Currently Nebraska has no laws regulating pipeline companies, and landowners are already being threatened by TransCanada with eminent domain, even though the company has no permit to begin construction. 4. Even if the oil gets to Texas refineries, it will be sold to the highest bidder, and that may not be America. 5. According to Creighton University Professor Joh Schalles, Americans could save 43% of the energy we use. Mr. Frum wants us to take all the risks for the possibility of getting a little oil, instead of conserving energy & developing renewable sources.
Mr. Frum should probably do his homework before producing these kinds of commentary. The Canadian government itself, which is attempting to promote the tar sand oil, states that Alberta has the world's 3rd largest proven crude reserves, BEHIND Saudi Arabia and Venezuela: http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OurBusiness/oilsands.asp
Only a conservative with his head in the (oil)sand can suggest that Canadians "emphatically reelected" the Conservatives. Stephen Harper obtained a majority of seats, not a majority of votes. In fact the real stories are the surge of the long time pro-environment New Democrats, the historic election of the first ever Green party candidate, and the self-destruction of the other traditional forces of Canadian politics.
I don't recall any pipeline being an issue. More to the point, I'm sure pipelines were ** not ** an issue, in accordance to the habitual deceitful Tory doublespeak that we've grown accustomed to over the past few elections.
Boooo to Mr. Frum for using similar distortion tactics in his attempt to suggest that the result of the last elections were somehow an endorsement of or support for the Conservatives position on oil sands.
Two points:
First, as others have noted in this comment section, Alberta shale and tar-sand oil is both absurdly dirty and extremely expensive to extract. Mr. Frum has chosen to bury this 800-pound gorilla in a sea of tarry crude.
Second, implicit in this argument is the fallacious assumption that oil prices are rising owing to market forces. This is emphatically not the case. Neither supply nor demand has much changed during the current price run-up. What's driving prices is not supply and demand, it's speculation, which Matt Taibbi credits to the lifting of FDR-era limits on commodities speculation (and Goldman's and Morgan's exploitation thereof) and which Wilbur Ross says accounts for $10 to $20 of the price of every barrel of oil.
It's nice to see Canadian conservative David Frum shilling for Canadian energy and pushing for more economic integration between our countries. But this proposal makes no sense at all.
Mr Frum might hold that the Conservatives were 'emphatically' re-elected in Canada, but no-one to his left---that is, nearly everyone sane---should be fooled by this. Mr Harper's party won 40% of the vote; Canadians emphatically _rejected_ Mr Harper, but the Canadian electoral system, characterised by first-past-the-post nonsense and 'rotten' ridings in the West and rural East, gave him his majority.
Mr Frum might hold that the Conservatives were 'emphatically' re-elected in Canada, but no-one to the left of him (or his mother Barbara) should be fooled by this. Mr Harper's party won 40% of the vote; Canadians emphatically _rejected_ Mr Harper, but the Canadian electoral system---characterised by first-past-the-post nonsense and 'rotten' ridings in the West and rural East---gave him his majority.
Mr. Frum seems to softball the negative sides of Alberta oil. He mentions higher greenhouse gas emissions associated with extraction but doesn't say why. The reason is that it must be extracted by strip mining and then cooking the oil out of the sand, and then upgraded for the refinery which takes enormous amounts of energy and necessarily ruins all of the terrain that overlies the oil sand. Think of mountaintop removal spread out over hundreds of square miles, but stickier. This is far from being a problem-free energy source. It wouldn't be a stretch to call it environmentally catastrophic. We're far better off in the long run planning now for the post-petroleum economy, which is on the way regardless of how ready we are for it.
