EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I have mixed feelings on this.
I think that the Yanks are being very hypocritical on the oil sands. As PA9 pointed out, the alternates are buying oil from repressive Arab regimes linked to terrorist funding or good old Commy Hugo and corrupt African countries.
On the other hand big oil should be ensuring that the destruction to our ecology/environment is minimal. They have enough cash to do this and maybe our government should be legislating it so.
Most of the companies operating in the oilsands have tons of cash, because the Alberta government is only charging them 1% royalty fees for oil sands oil, while other jurisdictions commonly charge as much as 20% (including Texas and Alaska). Now while they don't get the market price for that oil (heavy oil is usually only worth about 2/3 of what light sweet crude is), with the low royalty rates, they are making a killing and are obligated to repair the environment.
However, the SAGD process that they use kills off all the micro-organisms in the soil, rendering essentially inert and lifeless, which makes remediation incredibly difficult. Research is working on a method to restore the soil to its former vitality, but they aren't there yet.
Still, while I agree that we should be researching renewable sources of energy, the most optimistic estimates I've seen for it are at least two decades away for a total shift from oil to something else, so we need something in the short term. While some may look at companies like Shell and BP starting up solar/wind/etc divisions as some PR move to make them look better in the eyes of consumers, I prefer to think that they see the end of oil coming and want to position themselves to survive that transition.
CKA Uber 
CKA Moderator 
