Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
It would be negligent not to.
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.
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?
|
Disagree completely.
A risk of polluting the biggest domestic fresh water source heavily outweighs something as trivial as money. Water is far more important than money or the collapse of the U.S. economy.
Besides, there's not a 100% chance of economic losses. It's a quick fix to a much larger problem. There are other ways.