Abstract
The Canadian oil (or tar) sands is at the center of a debate over US energy policy. The oil sands, located in the province of Alberta, are a high-carbon substitute for crude oil. The continued/expanded development of the oil sands (i.e., bitumen) portends substantially higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.1 The specific focus of the debate over the Canadian oil sands has been the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have connected Alberta to the petroleum refining infrastructure in Texas (Houston). The pipeline would have presumably accelerated the extraction of the oil sands. As the New York Times notes, “even if President Obama rejects the pipeline, it might not matter much.” This is because “oil companies are already building rail terminals to deliver oil from western Canada to the United States.”2 Similarly, another observer explains that “what is often overlooked is that Keystone XL is only one of 13 pipelines completed or proposed by the [Canadian] Harper government—they would extend for 10,000 miles, not just to the [G]ulf [of Mexico—i.e., Houston], but to both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans.”3 The need for greater petroleum production from the oil sands is the result of high petroleum demand in the North American (especially US) market, and broad concerns about existing supplies of conventional crude.4