An observation worth noting … and pondering, from Nick Hodge.

For me, the scenario is plain and simple…
If there were ample amounts of crude oil and peak production wasn’t an issue, we wouldn’t be spending billions upon billions to find and try to extract the harder and harder to get stuff, some of which isn’t even oil, but an oil substitute made from bitumen or kerogen.
If there were ample amounts of crude oil, we wouldn’t need the tar sands.
If there were ample amounts of crude oil, we wouldn’t be fighting Russia for Arctic mineral rights.
If there were ample amounts of crude oil, Brazil wouldn’t be drilling holes in mountains of salt miles below the ocean’s surface.
But there aren’t.

So the consequences seem fairly self-evident, don’t you think?:

* we are spending more money to explore and produce over a longer period of time inferior qualities of substitutes in harder-to-reach places (we because oil exploration isn’t free, the industry isn’t Santa Claus, and we are the ones who in the end pay the price)
* and for what it’s worth: Canada’s environment and its citizens are suffering untold harm by the ravages of tar sand production [Google: “photos alberta tar sands” and check out the images)

So now what?

* My Photo: California Pacific Coast Highway – Sept 2004