In lies the problem. In the oil crunch of the 70's, folks rushed out and cranked alternate energy projects. Shale oil for one. They lost their shirts! Turns out there was/is enough cheap oil for the producers to lower the price and drive them out of business. Unless government is going to guarantee $65 to $100/barrel price, private investors will not take the risk.
If the WSJ article is correct, then it seems the government could guarantee a price. Here's my modest proposal:
The US Federal gov't contracts with private firms that are going to develop the Canadian tar sands. The agreement is to buy X barrels of crude per year, for Y years, at a fixed price of $50 per barrel. The private firms fund their capital investment by issuing bonds denominated in US dollars, so they aren't taking a currency risk.
When the oil is delivered, the gov't auctions it off to the highest bidder.
If the auction price is above $50, the profit is rebated to US taxpayers through an FIT credit.
In that case, we're paying a lot for gasoline, so the rebate brings our actual cost down to the $50.
If the auction price is below $50, the loss is recoverd from US taxpayers through an FIT surcharge.
In that case, gasoline is cheap, and the surcharge brings our actual cost up to the $50.
We've essentially hedged the price of crude with a huge futures contract, with a strike price of half the current market.
The fact that nobody has suggested this indicates either a lack of imagination, or a belief that the $15 quoted in the WSJ article isn't representative of the full cost (including environmental impacts) of massive developments of the Canadian tar sands.