> This statement has some inaccuracies in it, it is true that it will literally result in more oil from other places, but, given supply and demand, it will resu

> This statement has some inaccuracies in it, it is true that it will literally result in more oil from other places, but, given supply and demand, it will result in less additional oil from other sources. Given strongly inelastic demand, I would say very marginally less. > Whenever a cheap source of a good is eliminated the average production price of that good is increased (assuming there is an exhaustible supply of that good at that price) so the removal, or even inconveniencing of access, to tar sands extract will cause an up-tick in prices overall and a likely unnoticeable dip in supply. I think we're saying the same thing? > Additionally, as a Canadian myself, the Alberta oils sands have recently contributed strongly to an economic crisis in Calgary as extraction profitability has sharply declined. There is a lot of oil still left up there but Alberta needs to act now, while it has the funds to do so, to transition their economy. It is not a feasible long term revenue source. Yes, they had better get serious about transitioning the economy away from oil before Calgary becomes a ghost town. People sure aren't there for the weather.