The United States under Barack Obama, has given the Tar Sands nothing but grief and the "cold shoulder" in his never ending crusade and impugning of petroleum based energy. As a US citizen, I believe the conviction of Obama in this respect is not only naive, but potentially designed to harm the prosperity and life style of the United States. Not to mention the welfare of a trading partner. Namely, Canada!

Alternative energy such as hybrid automobiles and fully electrics will serve to relieve stress on gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles. However, to believe that in any realistic sense, that these technologies will serve to replace petroleum based fuels is fanciful and naive in the extreme. At maximum production the US automotive industry is capable of producing approximately 18 million cars per year. If we assume that the United States can produce this quantity of cars per year and if we assume that all production of automobiles were switched over to such technologies effective today, then we can turn over the entire automobile fleet of 300 million vehicles in approximately 15 years. That is assuming the entirety of the productive capability is dedicated to producing such vehicles exclusively and starting tomorrow never produces a fossil fueled vehicle again. Clearly an impossibility from virtually every conceivable scenario. Firstly, as a fully electric car has a range under current technology, of perhaps forty miles, such a vehicle would be impractical as every forty miles, it would be required to stop and plug it in for a couple of hours prior to continuing your voyage. Lord forbid if you wish to visit your family which lives hundreds or thousands of miles away!

This does not mean we do not ramp up production of such powered vehicles. It simply means that we need be realistic regarding the potential for alternative to internal combustion powered vehicles.

Given the facts above and given the ensuing total impracticality of attaining such an objective, even if we could start today and dedicating our full automotive productive capability to such an endeavour, ( see I do know the Canadian spelling), I then question the establishment of national policy that so fully dedicates itself to such an objective. Not only is such policy impractical but, would likely leave the US population in dire and untenable transportation straits. Frankly, the wisdom of any such approach is so incredulous that I must question the intentions of any individual or group proposing it.

To then utilize such an approach to threaten a neighboring nation which produces automotive fuel from such a process with deprivation of the market place, is deserving of having the access to such fuel denied to them as other markets which welcome the fuel without a lot of complaining and extraneous requirements are served. It is called as I recall, functioning in your own best interest and "caveat emptor". Additionally, as nation "A" obviously does not wish to buy the product which nation "B" has to offer, there should be no regrets or remorse from either party. Merely a business deal which makes sense from the perspective of both partys. As I recall from my experience of forty years in marketing, such is called a good deal for both partys. Of course, subject to future availability of product, in the future if desired, then other arrangements can be made at the then free market price!

Brian