The crude oil from the "tar sands", (in Canada we call them oil sands, but whatever), is no more "dirty" in any way, CO2 emissions, extraction processes, etc. than any other of the heavy oils which the refineries in Texas specialize in processing, and which provide a large proportion of liquid fuels used trhoughout the UIS. Venezuela heavy is likely worse, Saudi Heavy is about the same. California heavy is about the same, and the extraction process is much more messy. See National Research Council document, esp. comparison graph near lower left

"Alberta is the first jurisdiction in North America with mandatory GHG emission reduction targets for large emitters across all sectors. As of July 2007, the Government of Alberta requires facilities that emit more than 100 000 tonnes of GHG emissions a year to reduce their emissions intensity by 12 percent. Companies that are unable to comply with the target through direct emissions reductions can use recognized offsets or pay a C$15 per tonne fee into a clean energy technology fund. This fund has collected almost C$200 million that is being invested in technologies and projects that will reduce GHG emissions."

The recovery processes being used in the oil sands are exactly the same, though on a larger scale, as would be used to clean up a large accidental oil spill anywhere on land in N. America. eg. see how sites of former gasoline stations are re-habilitated, at least here in Canada.

NRCan article on land reclaimation The reclaimation process takes about 40 years for open pit oil mines, so the results of the entire cycle are only just being seen in small patches.

"The Government of Alberta requires that companies remediate and reclaim 100 percent of the land after the oil sands have been extracted."

The Canadian Oil Sands production sites, due to all the negative publicity, are probably the most closely monitored oil production sites in the world. Is the Oxnard area in California as closely watched? California Tar Sands

"The Oxnard field contains a large quantity of tar sand, a type of bitumen which is categorized as an unconventional oil deposit. The average depth below ground surface of the tar sands – both the Vaca Sand, and the Pico Sand – is about 2,500 feet (760 m), and their thickness ranges from 0 to 600 feet (180 m), representing a total volume of 405,000 acre feet (500,000,000 m3), equivalent to approximately 565 million barrels (89,800,000 m3) of oil for both units, were it possible to recover their petroleum content.[1] Only a tiny fraction of this has been brought to the surface to date, although Tri-Valley Corporation is actively developing the unit by drilling horizontal wells through the sands and subjecting them to the cyclic steam process."

As long as that is allowed to continue, US citizens can please shut the heck up about Alberta's oil sands LOL.

1. The United States has lost thousands of young men and women in the Middle East to ensure that its oil supplies are secure. They have been blown up, shot at, killed in helicopter crashes and suffered all manner of untimely deaths and mutilation so we can drive our cars. Give each and every one of them a thought before you utter a word about the impact of the Canadian oil sands or Keystone. They paid for Middle East oil with their lives.

2. As we speak, dozens of US warships patrol the Straits of Hormuz to ensure that oil supplies are not disrupted which would throw the world into economic turmoil (yet again). I cannot think of a more environmentally unfriendly machine than a warship.

3. There is already a Keystone pipeline pumping well in excess of half a million bbl/day of Canadian crude oil into the USA. Canada will never cut you off - ever.

4. The Keystone XL pipeline is designed to move oil not only from Canada but also from the Bakken Oil shale to Texas refineries via the Bakken Market Link. This pipeline is as much about moving American produced oil to market as it is about Alberta oil.

5.We are friends of the USA and have much to gain from a growing US economy based on stable oil supplies.

6. Canadian oil is not shipped half way around the world in supertankers.

7. The Keystone XL pipeline has already been subjected to the most rigorous environmental assessment of any infrastructure project. TransCanada has at its own expense re-routed it to avoid water sources...even thoiugh it posed no risk to them.

8. The oil will be shipped one way or another. At the moment it IS being shipped by railcar which is far more likely to suffer spills than any pipeline.

9. A decision not to proceed will be viewed in Canada that free trade is really only a one-way street and will pursue markets for its oil outside the USA. If you want us to help build the Asian economies rather than yours as one of your fine actors Mr.Clint Eastwood once said "go ahead - make our day".

10. Using North American produced oil via pipeline is the most environmentally benign way to move oil and Keystone XL is the best of the best and far superior to many of the existing and ageing pipelines already installed in the USA (that no-one talks about).

11.There is no investment required from the USA. All the funds are provided by TransCanada. What is not to like about that.

and finally this has nothing to do with Global warming/CO2 or any of that nonsense but it has everything to do with finally making the USA (and Canada) completely independent of Middle East oil and all the carnage that has been associated with it.

No longer do we care about what Saudi Arabia does, or Iran, or Libya, or Iraq or Venezuela or any of the other countries and OPEC that have routinely held us to ransom.

Keystone oil is freedom. I will give you three guesses as to who is bankrolling the instant environmentalists...and it is not Canada.

If you don't approve it for good business reasons approve it for the sake of the servicemen and women that died making sure you can drive your Kia.

Malcolm

Along with the gigantic oil shale deposit near Coober Pedy in South Australia initially estimated at 233 billion and could be well over a trillion barrels the western world will finally be moving into a position where oil from traditional suppliers is no longer required. Imagine what that will do to the bank balances of some nations.

Of course there will be opposition but not at all environmental (that is a smoke screen) this is game changing politics on a world scale. You will soon see similar opposition in Australia once development at Coober Pedy gets underway.

Shale oil used to be expensive to extract but the cost is falling all the time as better methods and technologies are developed. The preferred method now is steam extraction as described by Len above.

These are changing times for the world's oil supply chain....and they are for once to the decided advantage of the USA, Canada and Australia.

Malcolm

Give me a break. The Midwest has all manner of buried pipelines and one more is nothing more than bug-dust. There are several not to many miles from where I live in Kansas.

What is actually going on is the stifling of our energy options by a bunch of leftist elitists hell bent on attempting to control the population. Furthermore, the whole "man-creating-catastrophe-by putting-CO2-into-the air" remains speculation that science is just not able to prove or disprove. One thing is certain however, the climate has changed in the past and will do so in the future, regardless of whether or not man is around.

As for Obama, he is merely paying back his leftist supporters and could care less about the "plants, animals and forests" or the common man for that matter. Incidentally, here in the Midwest we really do not have much in the way of "snow-capped mountains and forests". In fact, Kansas has no mountains or national forests.