Quote:
Originally Posted by burn_this_city
Isn't it prudent to get the best price for your goods?
|
It would be negligent not to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Oddly I think the most plausible alternative to pipeline Alberta's oil is out east, which is the least desired option among industry.
|
Which makes sense... you lose part of the Brent/WTI spread going down to Panama, it doesn't get you to the Gulf refineries, and if you ship oil the long way you're even increasing the environmental impacts. It's clearly not the ideal solution from a net benefit perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire
At what cost?
Environmentally it is highly destructive as well as having the potential after it's built to be environmentally destructive. The proposed route runs right through the bread basket of the United States not to mention right over top of the biggest artesian aquifer in the United States. The pollution risks are far too high IMO to go through with this pipeline.
|
That's not what the State Department's Final Environmental Impact Statement says. So it goes over an aquifer. The environmental impact of making the pipeline longer to go around it is more significant than the risks of going over it. Darn NIMBYs.
Okay, so there's a risk of a spill if we build it. If we don't build it, there's a 100% chance of massive economic losses. This thing is gonna help pay for healthcare, education and other services from the Canadian and US government. Not building it makes that money disappear. Is that socially responsible?