|
An article in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen questioned how Bush was going to wean the US off its dependence on Middle Eastern oil. In his State of the Union speech, Bush said he would do it at least partly by putting money into green energy and ethanol. The Citizen article suggested that green energy and ethanol are possibilities in the longer run, but dont expect them in the next decade or two, or even three. Its the Athabasca Tar Sands that are going to play the major role. Pipelines are going to be built, one to parallel the existing line from Alberta to the American Midwest and another to take Alberta oil from Edmonton to Kitimat on the west coast to supply California (and perhaps China). These lines will be connected to the tar sands via an "Alberta Clipper" line from Fort McMurray to southern Alberta. Canada is currently the largest source of foreign oil to the US, accounting in 2002 for about 17% of American imports, or 1.6 million bbls. per day (Saudi Arabia accounted for about 13%). By 2025, our exports to the US will have risen to 2.7 million bbls. per day according to the Citizen article, and we will, so the story goes, have replaced a lot of Middle Eastern oil. What does not seem to be part of the American position is cutting back on its consumption of oil. Vice President Dick Cheney recently emphasized that shifting to other sources of energy and reducing dependence on the Middle East did not mean that the US government would interfere with consumers choices of how much fuel they wanted to use. Cheney, explaining Bushs intent in the State of the Union speech, said that if Americans want to fill their SAVs (Suburban Assault Vehicles) day in and day out, that was up to them. The consumer is king how much he wants, that much he gets. And as far as the military is concerned, if they need to fly planes to bomb hell out Iran or some other part of the world Americans find disagreeable, it would get all the fuel it needed to do that might makes right! Cheney will be visiting the tar sands soon as an indication of confirmation of the US position. Yet, growing dependence on Canadian oil could mean that we could exert some influence on American usage. If we were really concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, wars contrived by lies and deceit, and the growing scarcity of oil resources, we could take a position of willingness to sell the US enough to meet what we consider legitimate needs and no more. We could also consider using oil to resolve long standing disputes like softwood lumber. But this is Canada and taking such a stance is most unlikely. Canadian officials in Washington are doing their best to help Cheney have a good trip to northern Alberta and perhaps get some huntin an fishin in while up there, and Alberta already has an office in Washington to flog its oil and gas. You can bet itll be yes boss, just tell us how much you want boss. Well keep our noses clean and be good little beavers for Uncle Sam. Ed |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
