I have reviewed the manuscript American Empire and the Canadian Oil Sands. While it presents an interesting topic, I recommend that the author revise the manuscript. The manuscript needs more substantive research and additional analysis ahead of publication.Let me comment on the manuscript''s strengths. The manuscript is potential the first (and only) book-length scholarly analysis of hydro-fracking and the role of the Canadian tar sands in the development of U.S. energy policy. It is a timely topic and it builds upon previous work by this author in the broader field of environmental policy.

The book is well organized and readable (without excessive jargon) and, therefore, it would be accessible to both specialists and non-specialists in energy policy. The current manuscript is in almost perfect condition insofar as it has few typographical errors. Nevertheless, the manuscript needs additional work and should undergo a second read upon submission.First, the introduction to the manuscript has weaknesses and should be improved in several ways. The introduction needs to clearly articulate the book''s thesis. The author needs to step back from the details of the manuscript and think about the overall structure of the book and how the various chapters build toward general conclusions. The introduction should also provide some theoretical insight into the book''s implications for state theory (and energy policy analysis), since these are major themes that surface later in the manuscript. The introduction should situate this manuscript relative to other major works on energy policy and state theory.

Second, the author''s theoretical framework needs some revision. Political economy and state theory have both superseded the author''s state autonomy/business dominance dichotomy. The author''s barely references the expansive new literature on American Empire, the internationalization of the state, and the emergence of a trans-Atlantic or transnational capitalist class. The author needs to provide a greater systematic review of that literature, its implications for this research, or how it frames the interpretation of the oil sands issue. The most notable and most relevant work in this regard would be Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin, The Making of Global Capitalism (although many other authors could be added to this list, including Robert Cox, Leslie Sklair, William I. Robinson and Jerry Harris, Michel Aglietta, Martin Shaw, and Bob Jessop, to name a few). The author needs to specify what he means by ''Empire'' and how his deployment of that term is similar to, or different from, that of other authors working in this area.Third, the project needs greater emphasis on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

NAFTA was explicitly adopted to create a North American free trade zone that would join American capital with Mexican labor and Canadian land (i.e., natural resources such as oil and gas, gold, timber, hydropower, and other minerals). There were various working groups before and after NAFTA and I would be surprised if at least one of those working groups did not deal explicitly with energy resources. Simply put, this manuscript should probably devote an entire chapter to NAFTA, its relevant provisions, and the importance of energy to the development of a North American market.The author may want to consider focusing on other fracking areas outside the Canadian oil sands. There is hydro-fracking fossil fuels revolution is not confined to Canada. There is extensive hydro-fracking in the United States - New York, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, and Texas (and probably many other states too).

There is also extensive development of deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico with much of that activity now opened up to private development as a result of recent changes in Mexican energy policy (a la NAFTA). Even Cuba is opening off-shore oil drilling to private oil companies. In this respect, the focus on the Canadian oil sands is really too narrow if one is to address the fossil fuels revolution (which also includes so-called ''clean coal'').Finally, the manuscript relies too heavily on journalistic sources. It needs to draw more extensively on the literature by think tanks, government agencies (Canada, US, Mexico), and policy planning groups. The manuscript makes a gesture in this direction, but it would also benefit from some original archival research instead of basing the bulk of the argument on secondary sources.