Canada has warned the US government that a narrow interpretation of new energy legislation would prohibit its neighbor buying fuel from Alberta’s vast oil sands, with “unintended consequences for both countries”.In a letter to Robert Gates, US defense secretary, Canada said that it “would not want to see an expansive interpretation” of the Energy Independence and Security Act 2007. A copy of the letter, from Michael Wilson, Canadian ambassador, and copied to Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, and Samuel Bodman, US energy secretary, has been obtained by the Financial Times.
Section 526 of the law limits US government procurement of alternative fuels to those from which the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are equal to or less than those from conventional fuel from conventional petroleum sources. CanadaÂ’s oil sands are considered unconventional fuels, and producing them emits more greenhouse gas than conventional production.
The Bush administration has, nonetheless, encouraged developing oil sands, given the USÂ’s favorable relationship with Canada and that it would reduce reliance on Middle East imports.
Amy Myers Jaffe, energy expert at Rice University, said cutting out the oil sands as a source of fuel would also limit global supplies further, forcing up the price of oil: “$106 a barrel is going to look cheap.”
Something about unintended consequences? Our Congress seems to generate a lot of these situations when dealing with alternative/green fuels (Bought any groceries lately?).