John, I have to agree with Keith.
I've spent considerable time experimenting with the GREET model, and in my opinion it's about as good as any energy lifecycle model gets. Meaning, the farther we dig into any model the more arcane and arbitrary the factors get, until eventually we can deliver any result we like by by making favorable assumptions for one, or several, of the input's impact.
We probably agree on the uselessness of "carbon credits" - but they're useless for the exact reasons you make in your argument for tar sands oil. Experts can be found who will argue any point to their advantage to death. The more money that's at stake, the more experts sprout like trees, until we're left with not a jury of the most sound reasoning but one with the deepest pockets.
No matter where fossil fuel comes from the oil industry will argue that the most environmentally-friendly fuel is where they can make the most money. That's exactly what happened with Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, Occidental, and Shell in Canada - but it didn't work. Like your pitch for carbon neutrality, we have another poster today who has seen fit to rename hydrogen-fueled vehicles "EVs", and claim they qualify as "zero emission vehicles" (of course, that's not going to work either).
Where we get our fossil fuel from doesn't matter nearly as much as working as hard as we can to leave it in the ground. Any which is extracted will get burned - no matter how much sulfur it has in it - and in the long term, that's a prescription for disaster.