Oil sands on track to be biggest source of U.S. oil imports

[CHIMO]

Source: Globe and Mail Update

Canada’s oil sands will become the largest single source of imported oil to the United States this year, and could supply more than a third of America’s foreign oil by 2030, under an aggressive growth scenario that would have to overcome labour shortages and environmental concerns, an influential U.S. think tank said Wednesday.

The growing volume of Canadian oil sands imports “emphasizes the importance they have attained as a supply source for the United States,” Daniel Yergin, Cambridge, Mass.-based chairman of energy research firm IHS CERA, said in releasing a new report on the controversial Alberta oil projects.

Canada is already the largest source of imports for the U.S. market. But as conventional Canadian production declines and oil sands volumes grow, those non-conventional supplies are becoming increasingly critical.

In the third quarter of 2009, oil sands imports to the United States hit one million barrels a day for the first time, of total Canadian exports of 1.9 million. This year, IHS CERA expects oil sands producers to average 1.08 million barrels a day in sales to the U.S., eclipsing imports from both Mexico and Saudi Arabia, which will be declining or flat.



Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/oil-sands-on-track-to-be-biggest-source-of-us-oil-imports/article1574854/

[Oregone]

1. Yay! Outsource environmental destruction

See...it doesn't count if its not in America (or the Middle East)

[iandhr]

2. I am sorry...

I would rather send my money to Canada then Saudi Arabia.

The sands would be used regardless. If not by us then India and China.

[Oregone]

3. "I would rather send my money to Canada then Saudi Arabia"

If oil produced in either place was on par for environmental destruction, then I could easily agree.

The tar sands are some nasty shit. It makes the question far more complicated when you look at the actual harm on a dollar for dollar basis.

Id rather see people rapidly move away from this fuel source if we are doing "id rathers"

[liberation]

4. It is not about where you send your money to.

The extraction of oil from those sands means the environment in that area has to be pretty much destroyed: the extraction requires large amounts of water run off which is highly toxic (thus rendering large amounts of water and land pretty much contaminated). Plus the energy required for the process is also not trivial.

It makes oil well extraction look down right moderate in terms of its ecological impact. This is like advocating jumping off a frying pan in order to fall into the open fire. You still get fried in the end.

I find dangerous the arbitrary reasoning/sensibilities many Americans come up in order to justify our unsustainable life styles.

[nodehopper]

9. you may want to read up on Athabasca sands

if you want to finance that kind of energy from Canada, there is a lot of information out there.

[Nihil]

7. You've got that right! (n/t)

:banghead:

[CLANG]

5. Can't we be on clean energy by 2030? This is fricking ridiculous!!

[terrapinwelcher]

6. What About Our Oil Sands?

Don't we have them on the Gulf coast now?

[Strelnikov_]

8. The tar sands are barely an energy source

EROEI<3 gross, probably not much better than break even considering exergy.

All that destruction for 1 Mbbl/dy.

Be a hell of a lot better off, for liquid fuel needs, with wind powered ethanol and biodiesel production.