It is possible the Deepwater Horizon debacle will put the same kind of damper effect on offshore oil output that 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl had on nuclear energy.
The spill has everyone looking at alternatives, including Canada's environment minister, Jim Prentice, who said, "I think it's always been clear that the oil sands provide a safe, stable, secure supply of energy, and they need to be developed in an environmentally responsible way. The risks associated with the oil sands, the environmental risks, are significantly different than and probably less than the kind of risks associated with offshore drilling."
However, it is not clear that the consistent greenhouse-gas emissions and impact on water resources from the Alberta oil sands are any less damaging than that from an occasional major oil spill.
But we can expect to hear calls for more output from these large, land-based, low-grade deposits, including the oil sands of Alberta and Venezuela and the so-called oil shale in the Green River Basin. Using any of these resources has significant environmental impact.
The other option, biofuels, will certainly get renewed emphasis because of the Gulf oil spill. But biofuels have their own issues with fertilizer runoff, water consumption and soil degradation. In addition, even if aggressive federal production targets could be met, biofuels would provide just a single-digit percentage of the energy we get from petroleum.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Ay, there's the rub," said Hamlet, summing up our current dilemma.
Rolf Westgard
St. Paul
