Mullahs or Mounties: Which do we prefer?

posted at 5:00 pm on March 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Energy independence — it has become the buzzword for the 2008 presidential election.  We want to move away from Middle East oil, at the very least, in order to keep from being held as economic hostages by hostile governments in the region.  We can avoid that by increasing importation from Canada, whose tar sands in Alberta have deep reserves that our friends would like to sell to us.  Problem solved, right?

Wrong:

Quick — what country has the world’s largest oil reserves? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Nigeria? Venezuela? Wrong on all counts. The answer is Canada. And our neighbor to the north is worried we don’t want it.

Canada has an estimated 1.6 trillion barrels of oil on its territory, much of it locked in tough-to-excavate tar sands in the province of Alberta. By comparison, oil-rich Saudi Arabia has an estimated 270 billion barrels left. It isn’t even close.

Yet, according to the Financial Times of London, Canada’s government recently sent U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates a letter of warning that it might not be able to sell the U.S. any of its oil, which the Pentagon desperately needs for national defense.

For that, you can thank the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, passed with great gusto and self-righteousness by the Democratic Congress.

The bill classified oil from tar sands as an alternative fuel, which places restrictions on its use.  Unlike regular crude, the US government cannot buy alternative fuels unless they release less greenhouse gas.  The tar-sands crude unfortunately doesn’t qualify, and it’s not even close; it produces much more of those emissions than regular crude.

The Canadians, needless to say, are nonplussed over this action by Congressional Democrats.  They want to sell us the crude, and our armed services could certainly use a reliable source of energy not dependent on mullahcracies and kleptocracies.   However, even though we already have reliable and friendly trade with Canada on oil for commercial purposes from these tar sands, the US military will take a pass and stick with the Nigerians, Venezuelans, and Saudis.

Does that make any sense at all?

Canada will find buyers for its Alberta tar-sands product.  American energy companies have already signed up for sales and development, of course, but that’s not where the big sales will go.  The Chinese, who are much less picky about where they get the energy supplies for its military, will almost certainly leap at the chance to get in line ahead of the US for the product.

It’s precisely this lack of strategic long-term thinking that makes people nervous about putting Democratic leadership in Congress together with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the White House.  Congress needs to revisit these restrictions ASAP.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

this makes absolutely no sense.

trailortrash on March 11, 2008 at 5:05 PM

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Still, the pic on the front page looks like he’s holdin’ a giant turd.

lorien1973 on March 11, 2008 at 5:09 PM

What about our own shale oil reserves? How do those stack up?

NeoconNews.com on March 11, 2008 at 5:09 PM

“Morons, your bus is leaving…”

29Victor on March 11, 2008 at 5:11 PM

GRRRRRRRRRRR

MarkoMancuso on March 11, 2008 at 5:11 PM

It seems to me we refine and burn our crude more more efficiently than the chinese likely do. Therefore, if we do not buy it and it goes to china MORE greenhouse gases will enter the atmophere than if we did buy it and china did not.

allrsn on March 11, 2008 at 5:11 PM

wow, this makes me sick to my stomach

SoCalInfidel on March 11, 2008 at 5:11 PM

Don’t forget, AllahP, the U.S. has an ample supply of oil in the form of shale oil centered around Utah, Wyoming and Colorado (ranging anywhere from 800 billion to 1.5 trillion barrels of oil, the economically accessible areas that is, which is several times more than Saudia Arabia) and then we have 200 billion barrels of oil (not the tar sand or shale oil kind) up in North Dakota.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

The $100+ barrel of oil is only but an incentive to go after unconcentional oil (tar sands and shale oil) where profitability starts at around anywhere over $30 barrels of oil. Plenty of oil all around and the U.S. and Canada could stand the chance to earn some real killing and provides jobs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120459389654809159.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Kokonut on March 11, 2008 at 5:13 PM

The thought of Canada (my home) selling oil to be used by the PLA gives me cold sweats.

Call your congresscritters and get this fixed! STAT!

Frozen Tex on March 11, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Don’t forget about the massive amount of Tar-Sands right here in the good ol’ USA, but the Democrats won’t let us use that either.

Think of that when you are paying $5.00/gal this Summer for gas and are eating mac & cheese everynight.

Seven Percent Solution on March 11, 2008 at 5:14 PM

The bill classified oil from tar sands as an alternative fuel

HAHAHHAHHHAAAA **snorts** HAHAHHAHHHAHAAA!

OMG I about peed my pants!

Alternative energy? WTF does congress think we get our oil from? The Moon?

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Democra…socialists at work.

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Sir Winston Churchill

jukin on March 11, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Congress needs to revisit these restrictions ASAP.

Congress needs to be dismantled, from top to bottom, and rebuilt again, ASAP.

emailnuevo on March 11, 2008 at 5:14 PM

WTF does congress think we get our oil from? The Moon?

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Actually, the Venusians. Ask Kucinich.

emailnuevo on March 11, 2008 at 5:15 PM

It seems to me we refine and burn our crude more more efficiently than the chinese likely do. Therefore, if we do not buy it and it goes to china MORE greenhouse gases will enter the atmophere than if we did buy it and china did not.

allrsn on March 11, 2008 at 5:11 PM

Just what I was thinking.

txsurveyor on March 11, 2008 at 5:17 PM

Oh, and the picture on the front page does look like a big fresh cow patty.

txsurveyor on March 11, 2008 at 5:17 PM

The long term strategic action are in the form called Bush’s “Energy Act of 2005″
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/hl1015.cfm

Kokonut on March 11, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Seven Percent Solution on March 11, 2008 at 5:14 PM

What do you have against mac and cheese?

Dead Hand Control on March 11, 2008 at 5:20 PM

So our Congress has ensured that our money continues going to enemy nations, instead of our long-time ally Canada.

Wonder-fricken-ful.

amerpundit on March 11, 2008 at 5:22 PM

Here if anyone is interested is learning about resources.. around the world…

It is also interactive but does not show the US.

Here is a Map for the US.

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 5:22 PM

The most ethical obtuse, short sighted, onanist congress, evuh!

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, passed with great gusto and self-righteousness by the Democratic Congress, classified oil from tar sands as an alternative fuel, which places restrictions on its use.

But it’s all the boooshitlerDarthCheneyChristianistaBloodyoil Kabal’s fault.

locomotivebreath1901 on March 11, 2008 at 5:23 PM

And that fresh cow patty needs to be put on the front door of Congress and hopefully Nancy Pelosi and her cronies will be the first to get their shoes dirty, as if they aren’t already!

txstar on March 11, 2008 at 5:23 PM

emailnuevo on March 11, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Anything from Venus would be more of a sulfer dioxide gas… know what you do with that?

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 5:24 PM

You guys dont get it Big oil is evil we are all gonna get our own manbearpigs to rid.

William Amos on March 11, 2008 at 5:24 PM

William Amos on March 11, 2008 at 5:24 PM

Manbearingpig? Oh do tell us what you really mean!

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 5:25 PM

That “cow patty” is tar sand which has the consistency of putty. It took Canada about 30 years where it cost them about $30 a barrel (and losing money when it first started) to extract oil out of tar sand and now are able to do it at around $5 barrel of oil through better technology and trial and error processes.

Kokonut on March 11, 2008 at 5:25 PM

That’s impressive. Why the hell aren’t we doing that?

txsurveyor on March 11, 2008 at 5:28 PM

Pelosi will go in the history books (depending on the political ramifications) as probably the worst speaker alive. I wish she would go to Alberta and see the interesting machines that have to “cook” the tar out of the sands to make it into the oil we all love and use daily.

Also why not bar the ONLY good country (even if it is occationally backwards) that we get oil from and call their methods alternative… so we can buy more from.. DA DA DA DAAAAAAAAAA The Middle East! Hmmm Someone look into the ethical and interesting background of PIGLOSI and find out what her and her husband are up too.

Besides… we use COAL that has just as many supposed “greenhouse” gases as one would speculate concerning emissions. But no.. cooking oil out of rocks is WRONG!

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Kokonut on March 11, 2008 at 5:25 PM

You know that “tar” is only from the south end of Alberta. Most of the “tar sand” is actually rock, more like a shale coalish like consistancy. They aren’t cooking as much of the mud as they are the harder stuff at the moment.

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Does that make any sense at all?

Three words: Archer Daniels Midland…

elgeneralisimo on March 11, 2008 at 5:31 PM

“…..are able to do it at around $5 barrel of oil through better technology and trial and error processes.

Kokonut on March 11, 2008 at 5:25 PM”

Hmmmmmmm……….. $5/barrel vs $108+/barrel, $5/barrel vs $108+/barrel, $5/barrel vs $108+/barrel??????

I just can’t make up my mind, I think I will let Nancy Pelosi make it up for me.

Seven Percent Solution on March 11, 2008 at 5:33 PM

If somebody scream “global warming” in the same breath with “carbon dioxide” then remind gently the little ignoramus that 99.96% of all greenhouse in the atmosphere are other than carbon dioxide (meaning CO2 makes up .04% or .0004 of the atmosphere) and that water vapor makes up as much as 4% of the atmosphere and has a greater impact on global warming and cooling than CO2 can ever do.

Kokonut on March 11, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Oh, and the picture on the front page does look like a big fresh cow patty.

txsurveyor on March 11, 2008 at 5:17 PM

I’m going to guess that was intentional….

firefoxy on March 11, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Don’t blame it ALL on the Democrats. About 1/4 of the Republicans are against us ACTUALLY doing anything sensible about energy independence…..

Including the guy that most of you are saying we HAVE to support for President to protect us from Hilobama. A guy who completely buys into “GoreBull Warming”.

LegendHasIt on March 11, 2008 at 5:34 PM

Kokonut on March 11, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh you are giving the secret away!

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 5:35 PM

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Actually, the tar sands are mostly to the northeast of Edmonton.

C’mon folks! Get the word out! Ft. McMurray hookers hafta earn a livin’ too, you know!

Frozen Tex on March 11, 2008 at 5:35 PM

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Sir Winston Churchill

jukin on March 11, 2008 at 5:14 PM

That is one of the most true statements I have ever read…socialist has been shown to not work time and time again. Why do people keep getting lured into it thinking its a good thing?

SoCalInfidel on March 11, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Looking at this link : American Oil Sands

lots of it is in eastern utah. And from living there, trust me the population is very scarce. One point on I-70, they have a sign telling people that there are no services (gas station, anything) for 100 miles or something. It also is not the pretty part of the state. We used to call it a “lunar landscape” If they can get past the hippies that live in Moab, that is prime for mining.

disco on March 11, 2008 at 5:37 PM

When I say “$5 dollars a barrel” I meant that it cost the company in terms of production cost it take to extract oil from sands at around $5 dollars a barrel. Actually it should be around 10 or 15$ per barrel of oil, and not $5 but I was trying to make a point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Tar_Sands

Kokonut on March 11, 2008 at 5:38 PM

Kokonut on March 11, 2008 at 5:33 PM

You are pretty knowledgeable about this process. Do you run one of these tar-cookers?

txsurveyor on March 11, 2008 at 5:38 PM

Frozen Tex on March 11, 2008 at 5:35 PM

F.T.

No I said northern Alberta due to a little looking in that area. Lets say I went on a feild trip and Northern Alberta next to the N.T. boarder has some Tar viens. Much like how Coal is.

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Notice how the price of oil is almost $110/barrel and NO ONE from the government is doing a thing. NO ONE! Food prices are up because we put corn (animal feed) in our gas tanks. oil at all time highs and congress is more interested in fighting with Bush about presidential powers. Bush is more interested in spending more money in Africa. Both congress and Bush are pandering for votes by this farcical tax rebate BS. Where or where are our leaders?

Wade on March 11, 2008 at 5:41 PM

disco on March 11, 2008 at 5:37 PM

As one other HA blogger said and I totally agree cause we have both been in this situation. The Ugliest areas have the best Natural Resources!

Parts of UT, CO, WY, OR, AK, CA, WA and ID are a few. But I am talking Oil, Coal and Natural Gas.

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 5:42 PM

Notice how the price of oil is almost $110/barrel and NO ONE from the government is doing a thing. NO ONE! Food prices are up because we put corn (animal feed) in our gas tanks. oil at all time highs and congress is more interested in fighting with Bush about presidential powers. Bush is more interested in spending more money in Africa. Both congress and Bush are pandering for votes by this farcical tax rebate BS. Where or where are our leaders?

Wade on March 11, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Aint that the truth…I need to take a couple weeks off of the blogs and news websites….it just makes me so mad and angry at what is going on and how stupid people are…..grrrrrrrr

SoCalInfidel on March 11, 2008 at 5:44 PM

The tar sands are not “rock” by the way. It’s oil mixed with mud. It costs about $15 per bbl to extract. There is an environmental problem to be worked on, for sure, however, if the USA wants to limit it, or not take it, don’t worry the Chinese are already making moves to get at that supply big time.

Sounder on March 11, 2008 at 5:45 PM

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Sir Winston Churchill

jukin on March 11, 2008 at 5:14 PM

This really is not about green house gases, man made global warming, or big oil.

This is about the socialist leadership destroying our economy thru oil prices (big oil did it) taxes (bush did it), indoctoration at schools (free enterprise is hate) and man is destroying the planet and you will die (again big oil and american greed did it to you).

This is all based on the concept “desperate people do desperate things,IE: accept socalism.” Make what advances as we can then make the population hungry and desperate.

We cannot drill for oil off our coasts, but china can. We cannot use certain alternative envegy, but china can.

Hillery has stated she will ‘go after’ big oil and the medical industry.

Burn our food supply (ethonal) which will double the cost of food or maybe worse.

The list goes on and on.

Give it some thought. Is this possible?

allrsn on March 11, 2008 at 5:46 PM

Good grief. It’s time we got all of these knot-heads out of office – immediately!

jdawg on March 11, 2008 at 5:46 PM

Let’s continue to use corn.

Let’s continue to let the sierra club run the country

Kini on March 11, 2008 at 5:52 PM

Still, the pic on the front page looks like he’s holdin’ a giant turd.

lorien1973 on March 11, 2008 at 5:09 PM

Heh, Mullah’s and turds…same thing!

Liberty or Death on March 11, 2008 at 5:53 PM

No I said northern Alberta due to a little looking in that area. Lets say I went on a feild trip and Northern Alberta next to the N.T. boarder has some Tar viens. Much like how Coal is.

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 5:40 PM

You know that “tar” is only from the south end of Alberta. Most of the “tar sand” is actually rock, more like a shale coalish like consistancy. They aren’t cooking as much of the mud as they are the harder stuff at the moment.

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Sorry, dude, but whether you meant to or not, you said south.

And here’s another map; it’s more than just veins, it’s close to a quarter of the province.

Frozen Tex on March 11, 2008 at 5:58 PM

I will take the Mounties! I always liked a man in uniform, especially that Mounty hat they wear – wide brim, nicely pressed uniform, tall, handsome………is it getting hot in here?

txstar on March 11, 2008 at 5:58 PM

Yep, they finally figured out how to separate the sand from the oil in the Alberta Flats. Matter of fact, there is oil just about everywhere if you dig hard and deep enough. The only problem, the cost of extraction really nullifies the savings we get from its locality. If anyone can figure out how to drill through granite and ice somewhat cost efficiently, our problems are TEMPORARILY solved. Just don’t tell the Saudi’s, if they find out they might just start acting somewhat civil again. shhhhhhh

Thanks ED again for running another valuable story, that no one in the mainstream media wants to talk about. The separation of the sand from the oil has been happening for about three years now. Good to see some coverage of it, finally.

THE CHOSEN ONE on March 11, 2008 at 6:06 PM

Frozen Tex on March 11, 2008 at 5:58 PM

Dudette actually. And I admit I said I get backward. . Walking the middle of Canada is like walking the North Slope.. after a while North and South, East and West are the same since the sun never seems to move until late. Did I mention it was also HOT and the mosquitos can give where I live a run for their money.

The field trip was a exploration on how and where the viens go, and length not so much depth at that time. As I only did a couple days I will tell you it was interesting, But with that said, the map you linked is a map holdings… leasing areas and Units with who is in holdings of what areas and land.

Does Canada/Alberta have a website on bidding areas for land? Does it go by provience or national?

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 6:07 PM

I will take the Mounties! I always liked a man in uniform, especially that Mounty hat they wear – wide brim, nicely pressed uniform, tall, handsome………is it getting hot in here?

txstar on March 11, 2008 at 5:58 PM

Hey, if you like the red serge look, come to any little town in Canada; high school graduations, mall openings, sporting events, all those and more will usually feature a mountie or two in dress uniform.

sarcasm aside, if anyone ever gets a chance to see the Musical Ride, go. It’s quite a show!

Frozen Tex on March 11, 2008 at 6:08 PM

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 6:07 PM

Well, Dudette it shall be. Yeah, I get al ittle confused about compass points around here, too. It doesn’t help that the town is laid out at an angle relative to a small peninsula, rather than roads going north/south, etc.; that and the sun moving all over the damn place all year..

Alberta has most control over the oil, and jealously guards its wealth from Ottawa, doing its best to keep the feds from grabbing it all for redistribution to the poor provinces.

Frozen Tex on March 11, 2008 at 6:12 PM

And this nmight be of help as far as finding out about ownership, mineral rights, etc.

Frozen Tex on March 11, 2008 at 6:14 PM

posted at 5:00 pm on March 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Mullahs or Mounties: Which do we prefer?

Energy independence — it has become the buzzword for the 2008 presidential election.

I think we should take the example of the Arab nomads who substitute gas with a fuel-efficiency mix of Camel Urine and Goat Manure.

It gives a better mileage and it smells good.

Indy Conservative on March 11, 2008 at 6:15 PM

Thank you F.T.

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 6:15 PM

Why let Canada have all the fun? Utah, Wyoming and Colorado have just as much oil as Canada does, both in tar sands and oil shale.

Look at what this problem is doing for Alberta’s economy: they can’t import workers fast enough. If the Enviro’s would get out of the way, we could do the same here. We in Utah ARE trying; we’ve filed to build the first refinery in the US since Carter. Of course, the environmentalists are having a hissy fit.

Utah alone is simply swimming in natural resources: over a trillion barrels of oil; the cleanest coal in the world (but Clinton locked it all away in the Escalante wilderness area, to pay off an indonesian friend, the slime)… I toured last year one of the biggest producing coal mines in the US. There’s been an oil boom around here, if you can stop tripping over the Sierra Club martyrs.

Just get the tree huggers out of the way, and Utah could solve the US oil problem all by ourselves. Plus the clean coal, salt…. heck, most of the Uranium in the US came from here too, I think.

It’s so frustrating!

Vanceone on March 11, 2008 at 6:16 PM

I might have to stop reading this blog. I might be better off not knowing.

WHY ISN’T HIS FRONT PAGE NEWS?!!!! ARGHHHHHHH

JustTruth101 on March 11, 2008 at 6:20 PM

Still, the pic on the front page looks like he’s holdin’ a giant turd.

That is a picture of our future under the Democrats.

trigon on March 11, 2008 at 6:21 PM

It’s so frustrating!

Vanceone on March 11, 2008 at 6:16 PM

And shall we all discuss ANWR? like Dennis Miller said, I can’t believe we gave a whole state over to some reindeer that couldn’t cut it with Santa.

Frozen Tex on March 11, 2008 at 6:21 PM

For once South Dakota is leading the nation … today we ly approved a pipeline from Alberta to run through our state and final approval is near to build a 6 billion dollar refinery for the Canadian crude. No hurricanes here folks!!!
Try and get that accomplished in Californication.

trs on March 11, 2008 at 6:39 PM

What do you think would happen to the price of oil if tomorrow morning Bush signed a bill OKed by congress to drill in Alaska and the Gulf and begin construction on 5 new refineries in the USA? I thing the price would drop faster than Clenis’s drawers.

Wade on March 11, 2008 at 6:45 PM

YOU CAN’T TOUCH THE PRISTINE WILDERNESS AND I’LL USE ALL CAPS TO PROVE I’M RIGHT !!!!!!!

If they can get past the hippies that live in Moab, that is prime for mining.
disco on March 11, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Problem is, you’re not going to get past those hippies, because they’re the same hippies that are on K Street from the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, etc. To them “energy independence” means only solar and wind – and an absolute end to oil, coal, and nukes.

eeyore on March 11, 2008 at 7:25 PM

sorry…they’ll allow switchgrass

eeyore on March 11, 2008 at 7:28 PM

The thing that I wonder about is what kind of crude can they get as the squeezings? Will it be sweet or sour? How expensive will it be compared with just pumping it out of the ground?

Also, it is important to realize that oil is a globally traded commodity. Increased supply in Canada will lower the price for everyone, all other things held constant. While being able to pipe it in from adjacent Canada would be more cost effective, we can still benefit by paying less for our oil from Mexico and other nearby sources as the global commodity price for oil goes down due to the increased supply.

Viscount_Bolingbroke on March 11, 2008 at 7:29 PM

There is always this deposit.

Bakken Formation

Of course you will need some serious arm twisting to get environmental permission to drill it!

Jim708 on March 11, 2008 at 7:30 PM

eeyore on March 11, 2008 at 7:25 PM

Funny thing… Moab wouldn’t even be there if it was not for Uranium mining…

Nice restraunt there that overlooks the town… was built in the house the Geologist built after he made his millions… got a good bit of history in it… and really good food.

Romeo13 on March 11, 2008 at 7:44 PM

will take the Mounties! I always liked a man in uniform, especially that Mounty hat they wear - wide brim, nicely pressed uniform, tall, handsome………is it getting hot in here?

txstar on March 11, 2008 at 5:58 PM

They call it the Stetson ;) The wive’s club (probably long since dead) used to be called the Stetsonettes………

Jim708 on March 11, 2008 at 7:54 PM

If the U.S. government was really concerned about greenhouse gases, why then are all U.S. military vehicles not required to comply with any emmissions regulations? The U.S military still has diesel engines that are mechanically governed in use. For those not mechanically inclined, if you want a cleaner running engine that engine has to be controlled by a computer, which most military tactical vehicles currently are not.

Same old song and dance, someone is getting rich off this farce and someone in government has a job waiting for them as a consultant for which they will not have to consult waiting for them.

Hog Wild on March 11, 2008 at 8:12 PM

On the other hand, this could be a blessing in disguise. If the military, banned from using cheap oil substitutes, goes in for hydrogen powered vehicles, their quick maturation of that technology could cause it to trickle down into the general public and we’d all get off oil much faster. Then, the Chinese can have all the ME oil they want. Hmmm, I would what would have happened if bin Laden had flown planes into buildings in Beijing?

Kafir on March 11, 2008 at 8:27 PM

Oh yes, Jim708,I remember the commercial – “Every woman (likes or wants) a Stetson man”! But I do not remember it being a hat commercial. Perhaps cologne? Ha!

txstar on March 11, 2008 at 8:53 PM

I’m wondering if anyone has stopped to consider that the Democr@ps knew exactly what they were doing? Seems it’s the Democr@ps that have also –in concert with their Green buddies (Commies in disguise)– tied our hands with regard to producing and using our own petroleum resources.

I think the Democr@ps are long over due for some rough justice.

First the traitors, then the enemy!

traderdfw on March 11, 2008 at 9:03 PM

Give it some thought. Is this possible?

allrsn on March 11, 2008 at 5:46 PM

Possible? It’s the plan! All this is deliberate, and you can expect the assault on us by our so-called leadership to be stepped up after the election.

First the traitors, then the enemy!

traderdfw on March 11, 2008 at 9:24 PM

On the other hand, this could be a blessing in disguise. If the military, banned from using cheap oil substitutes, goes in for hydrogen powered vehicles, their quick maturation of that technology could cause it to trickle down into the general public and we’d all get off oil much faster. Then, the Chinese can have all the ME oil they want. Hmmm, I would what would have happened if bin Laden had flown planes into buildings in Beijing?

Kafir on March 11, 2008 at 8:27 PM

Kafir, nice thought, but the US Military fuel choices are dictated by our NATO alliance, to ensure interchangability of vehicles and fuel supplies. Thus are we moving away from gasoline, and are even buying diesel scout motorcycles now. Diesel/kerosene/jet fuel are fairly interchangable, and very energy dense. I love the idea of hydrogen, but the military can’t do it, and I don’t want to see our forces suffer to develop it.

We really need to develop our own resources, and work with our neighbors, which means ditching Pelosi and the other reality-deniers and simply growing up as a nation. We are making such a mess for ourselves.

Maquis on March 11, 2008 at 10:01 PM

If the U.S. government was really concerned about greenhouse gases, why then are all U.S. military vehicles not required to comply with any emmissions regulations? The U.S military still has diesel engines that are mechanically governed in use. For those not mechanically inclined, if you want a cleaner running engine that engine has to be controlled by a computer, which most military tactical vehicles currently are not.

Mechanically governed diesels will keep running right through an electromagnetic pulse. The electronics in a tank can be shielded without adding a lot of weight to the thing, but putting enough shielding on a truck or similar vehicle will put lots of weight just where you don’t want it, and it will be protecting the engine compartment, not the passenger space.

njcommuter on March 11, 2008 at 10:25 PM

WTF does congress think we get our oil from? The Moon?

upinak on March 11, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Uh…actually, the libs in the Dem caucus want to pretend that if we simply don’t use oil, everything will be sweetness and light. They don’t want the stinking oil from Canada, or anywhere else.

They want to power the military with windmills and solar power. They’re morons.

Jaibones on March 11, 2008 at 10:50 PM

Viscount_Bolingbroke on March 11, 2008 at 7:29 PM

Beyond the thought of it being a global commodity, I just detest the very idea that any of our petro dollars make it to the hands of those who advocate our destruction and attack our troops. For that reason alone, we should be doing all we can (new refineries, ANWR and Gulf drilling, etc.) to get away from ME and Venezuelan oil.

IrishEyes on March 11, 2008 at 10:54 PM

Kokonut on March 11, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Water vapor does not remain in the atmosphere long enough, 3-10 days, to have any impact on “global warming”. So while water is a strong infrared absorber it does not reach the region of the atmosphere where it would contribute to “global warming”. See Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics by Seinfeld and Pandis.

As for the Canadian tar-oil, would they take the thrashers, hurricanes, stars, panthers, lightning and/or predators in exchange for a few barrels?

jdkchem on March 11, 2008 at 11:13 PM

Kafir on March 11, 2008 at 8:27 PM

It sounds really cool until you discover how incredibly inefficient the process is. Contrary to popular myth two probes and an enrgizer/duracell don’t cut it. Are hydrogen-fueled cars pie-in-the-sky?

jdkchem on March 11, 2008 at 11:35 PM

Simultaneously fulfills two goals dear to the Dems’ hearts: hampers oil production in North America, and causes problems for the military. Perfect.

Now if they can obstruct the military from buying metal, kevlar, and gunpowder they’ll really be cookin’.

Gaunilon on March 12, 2008 at 12:14 AM

What is this madness?! Can the campaign be used to bring this issue up?

Tzetzes on March 12, 2008 at 1:12 AM

We do have quite a bit of traditional oil removal (pump-jacks) all around the province as well.
I was explaining this to a guy in New York the other day, in that he should be nice and arrange someone to pick me up at the airport or I’ll pick up the phone and cut off the oil tap (just kidding).
The reality is the oil will be sold to someone, so it might as well be you guys cuz your kinda like our goofy cousins down there.

Western Canadian on March 12, 2008 at 5:51 AM

From the article above:

However, even though we already have reliable and friendly trade with Canada on oil for commercial purposes from these tar sands, the US military will be forced by the Dems to take a pass and stick with the Nigerians, Venezuelans, and Saudis.

There, fixed it for ya.

Miss_Anthrope on March 12, 2008 at 10:03 AM

Seriously, this is just too easy to fix. All Bush has to do is implement an Executive Order stating that, because of the War on Terror, Executive Priviledge allows him to override the sand tar alternative fuel portion of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

In addition, he can also rescind E.O. 12123, which Carter installed a moratoria on the East and West Coasts from offshore drilling by US companies (of course, that hasn’t prevented foreign companies from doing so).

Miss_Anthrope on March 12, 2008 at 10:10 AM

Energy Independence and Security Act

Bwhahahahahahaha!!! How did we get so stupid???

labrat on March 12, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Good luck on getting the oil shale in Utah. Recall that when billy bob was president, he used an executive order to make a huge chunk of that land a wildlife refuge, forestalling any mining or resource extraction, just to keep us out of the business.

Think_b4_speaking on March 12, 2008 at 11:19 AM