The fallout of the nearly three-month gushing of oil in the Gulf of Mexico is reverberating far beyond the body of water where it occurred.
One site of increasing consternation is the oil sands of Alberta, Canada. From the perspective of the U.S., the House energy committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D.-Calif., is doing its best to persuade Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to turn down a request by TransCanada
But to go forward, the project will require the approval of the State Department.
And with the BP tragedy on everyone's mind, concern has multiplied that a leak could occur on land from the line. It appears impossible these days to conduct a discussion of energy transportation that does not include environmental squabbling.
Fuel from the Alberta sands has long been subject to controversy. The area produces heavy crude called bitumen, which, as environmentalists point out, requires the destruction of large patches of land and uses huge amounts of water. In addition, it results in the daily dumping of 3 million gallons of sludge into tailings lakes. Beyond that, 50 members of Congress recently wrote to Secretary Clinton emphasizing the greenhouse gases that result from the creation of fuel from oil sands.
On the industry side, ConocoPhillips
One major difficulty with all this is the potential for stirring up hostilities between the U.S. and Canada. Our friends to the north have become our top supplier of crude. But responding to the current environmental recalcitrance in our country, Canadian authorities have said that their oil can just as easily go to China and other countries.
But not everyone is environmentally fearful of the oil sands. Indeed, Total