Reliance on Canadian Tar Sands Threatens U.S. Energy Security

authordefault
on

This is a guest post by Glenn Hurowitz, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. It originally appeared on Grist.org, and is reprinted here with permission.

Everything youโ€™ve heard about the tar sands and energy security is wrong
by Glennย Hurowitz

If thereโ€™s a single idea that the oil industry has peddled to persuade the Obama administration to approve the controversial Keystone XL tar-sands pipeline, itโ€™s this: Tar-sands oil might be more polluting than even dirty old regular oil, but itโ€™s better to get our energy from our ally Canada than from unstable oil suppliers in the Middle East orย elsewhere.

In practice, the opposite is true: Drilling in North America is the single greatest threat to our nationโ€™s energy security.

Hereโ€™s the reality: Protecting the United Statesโ€™ energy security means keeping our continentโ€™s oil in the ground for when we need it in an emergency. The United States and Canada combined hold less than 5 percent of the worldโ€™s proven oil reserves. Thanks in part to expanded domestic drilling during the Obama administration, weโ€™re depleting those reserves at a high rate. That means we have far less oil to fall back on in the event of true emergency, like an oil embargo or a major war when access to foreign oil supplies becomes difficult or even impossible. If weโ€™re really concerned about security, tar-sands oil should be a last-gap, man-the-barricades option โ€“ something we as a society hope we never have to use. Thatโ€™s true to an extent for our domestic supplies of oil in general, whether offshore Arctic oil or the dregs left over at the bottom of the โ€œstripper wellsโ€ that dot the Great Plains. We should leave them aside now, and hope that by the time we get into a serious security pickle, weโ€™ve created a 100 percent clean energy economy that avoids the awful choice pundits seem to love to imagine between security, growth, and a livingย planet.

To understand how urgent it is that we curtail domestic drilling, consider this: If the United States were cut off today from all sources except Canada, weโ€™d have only eight years left at current consumption levels. And that amount gets lower every day as the government issues additional domestic drillingย leases.

Looking at domestic production as a threat to national security rather than something that boosts it may seem to turn conventional wisdom on its head, but in fact itโ€™s how domestic oil drilling was viewed almost as soon as large Middle East supplies came online in the post-World War II years.ย 

Following this โ€œconservation theory,โ€ the federal government and others pushed hard to tap new Middle Eastern oil supplies, primarily so we wouldnโ€™t deplete our own. โ€œIf we ever got into another World War it is quite possible that we would not have access to reserves held in the Middle East, but in the meantime use of those reserves would prevent the depletion of our own, a depletion which may be serious within the next fifteen years,โ€ wrote powerful World War II Navy Secretary James Forrestal, summarizing the postwar securityย consensus.

Itโ€™s important to contrast this depletion reality with the old canard that the oil industry and its backers continue to push: that drilling domestically somehow reduces the flow of money to the Middle East and other unstable oil suppliers. In practice, basic oil-industry economics show the opposite. Because Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil is so much cheaper to produce and more plentiful than remaining domestic oil reserves, those countries can almost always outcompete domestic U.S. competitors and still maintain their enormous profit margins and high levels of production. Saudi and Iraqi oil, for instance, costs just $4-$6 per barrel to produce with another $2-$3 tacked on for transportation costs (costs are similar for Iranian oil). Production costs for tar-sands oil clock in at a minimum of $30 per barrel

Of course, thereโ€™s no doubt that our addiction to oil props up petrocracies and funds terror groups. But expanding domestic production, especially through carbon-intense tar-sands development, will do little or nothing to change that even as it imposes serious environmental damage on our continentโ€™s great natural treasures and worsens climateย change.

What we need to do instead is move as rapidly as possible to get off oil entirely by fully implementing and further tightening the Obama administrationโ€™s strong fuel-efficiency standards, putting a price on carbon pollution, ending oil subsidies, electrifying our vehicle fleet with clean energy, boosting mass transit, and using the full force of our diplomacy to get other major consuming countries like China to do theย same.

That will create true American energy security without setting off a carbon bomb that threatens the entire planet, USA very much included.ย ย ย ย 

Related Posts

Analysis
on

Right wing YouTuber Tim Pool is the latest to own โ€˜climate peopleโ€™ with fake facts spouted by a grizzled TV oilman.

Right wing YouTuber Tim Pool is the latest to own โ€˜climate peopleโ€™ with fake facts spouted by a grizzled TV oilman.
on

Critics say the controversial GWP* method โ€“ which New Zealand appears close to adopting โ€“ is โ€œopen to significant abuseโ€.

Critics say the controversial GWP* method โ€“ which New Zealand appears close to adopting โ€“ is โ€œopen to significant abuseโ€.
on

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, who holds shares in Shell and TotalEnergies, called the green transition a โ€œchildrenโ€™s crusadeโ€.

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, who holds shares in Shell and TotalEnergies, called the green transition a โ€œchildrenโ€™s crusadeโ€.
on

Carrboro, N.C., accuses Duke of knowingly fueling the climate crisis for decades with harmful emissions, deception, delay, and "greenwashing."

Carrboro, N.C., accuses Duke of knowingly fueling the climate crisis for decades with harmful emissions, deception, delay, and "greenwashing."