Pas certain que la position de cet auteur plaise ici, mais sa réflexion n'est pas dénuée d'intérêt! L'auteur,Robert Samuelson, écrit pour le Washington post et ses chroniques paraissent également dans plusieurs autres journaux.
"When it comes to energy, America is lucky to be next to Canada, whose proven oil reserves are estimated by Oil and Gas Journal at 175 billion barrels. This ranks just behind Saudi Arabia (260 billion) and Venezuela (211 billion) and ahead of Iran (137 billion) and Iraq (115 billion). True, about 97 percent of Canada's reserves consist of Alberta's controversial oil sands, but new technologies and high oil prices have made them economically viable. Expanded production can provide the U.S. market with a growing source of secure oil for decades.
We would be crazy to turn our back on this. In a global oil market repeatedly threatened by wars, revolutions, and natural and man-made disasters -- and where government-owned oil companies control development of about three-quarters of known reserves -- having dependable suppliers is no mean feat. We already import about half our oil, and Canada is our largest supplier with about 25 percent of imports. But its conventional fields are declining. Only oil sands can fill the gap."
Will we encourage this? Do we say "yes" to oil sands? Or do we increase our exposure to unstable world oil markets?
Those are the central questions posed by the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline connecting Alberta's oil sands to U.S. refineries on the Texas Gulf coast. The pipeline requires White House approval, and environmentalists adamantly oppose it."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/08/29/say_yes_to_oil_sands_111106.html
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire