"Most of the oil produced in the U.S. fields in Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere is light and sweet, compared to what comes from the Middle East and Russia. The p

"Most of the oil produced in the U.S. fields in Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere is light and sweet, compared to what comes from the Middle East and Russia. The problem is that for many years, imported oil met most of the U.S.’s energy needs, so a large percentage of the refining capacity here is geared towards dealing with oil that is heavier and less sweet than the kind produced here." Canada, Alberta specifically, produces precisely this kind of oil. In his speech announcing the ban, Biden listed several alternatives to Russian oil that the U.S. would rely on, including Saudi Arabia, but pointedly left Canada out. This is after one of his first acts as President was to scrap a (heavily politicized) pipeline that would have transported heavy Alberta oil to U.S. refinery centres. It's worth asking what is going on here. Why does the U.S. seem to prefer relying on oil from regimes that are as morally questionable as Russia while snubbing a long-time stable supplier that is right next door? Politically, Biden is committed to green energy and, of course, is not going to want to reverse his decision on a pipeline that Trump backed. However, reality is a thing. The U.S. needs heavy oil and isn't getting it as efficiently or environmentally friendly as it could because, as in Canada, infrastructure approval processes have become heavily politicized. Oil will indeed flow from Alberta to U.S. refineries, but mainly via tanker cars. This increases transportation costs and, hence, fuel costs. It also makes spills and accidents, such as occurred in Lac-Mégantic, more likely. It may be time to look at ways to free long-term infrastructure planning and approval processes from the short-term needs of politicians looking for a quick boost in the polls before an election.