1

Alberta’s oil for Alaska’s natural gas?

New York Times op-ed advocates ‘package deal’


 

The Obama administration’s move earlier this year to delay approval—or rejection—of the proposed Keytone XL pipeline, which would link Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the American Gulf Coast, rocked the Canadian energy industry. The decision on Keystone won’t now be made until after next year’s U.S. presidential election. Into the policy void steps Gregg Easterbrook, author of Sonic Boom: A Guide to Surviving and Thriving in the New Global Economy, with a proposal for an entirely new pipeline strategy. In this New York Times commentary, Easterbrook argues Washington’s strategic priority should be shifting its energy economy from heavy reliance on imported oil to more consumption of American natural gas. That includes huge Alaskan natural gas reserves. His proposition: “American consent for moving Canadian oil-sand products across the Midwest should be tied to Canadian consent for an Alaskan natural gas pipeline across British Columbia.” This “package deal” would satisfy the Alberta oil patch and the growing U.S. lobby for a made-in-America energy strategy. As well, Easterbrook points out that natural gas contributes considerably less to global warming than oil or coal.

The New York Times


 
Filed under:

Alberta’s oil for Alaska’s natural gas?

  1. ..and who`s going to pay for and finance this 60 billion boondoggle gasline from Alaska through Canada to a market glutted with shale gas for 150 years? Alaskans were already suckered into kicking a half a billion to this now dead market.  I thought all these free enterprisers used basic economics! The US balance of payments would be far better off by letting Alaska export it`s gas as LNG from Valdez, to it`s closest Western Pacific neighbor, who just happens to have a dire need for that gas long term, and is willing to pay fairly for Alaska gas.. if we can keep from having it extorted to the wrong market, as this article supports doing.

Sign in to comment.