- Reaction score
Redeye said:Some of them, quite frankly, are. And generally for the same reason, they're making arguments they can't really back up, that are emotional rather than factual. From a purely economic standpoint, seeing it built means a lot of money coming in, which of course is a good thing for the economy of Alberta (and that will feed into growth in many jurisdictions. I've also seen some great information on how much the production process has improved in ecological/remediation terms, which is good to because ultimately we don't have an adequate alternative to petroleum yet. Hopefully we will before long, but for now, we don't.
The problem lots of Americans in particular have with KXL is its route through a major aquifer, and the fact that there have been spills from such pipelines, with the worry being the contamination of a massive aquifer in important agricultural land. The second interesting line of argument they use concerns the possibility that the products will just be exported, torpedoing the "energy security" argument. Given that there's a lot of high powered lobby money flooding into the debate, with a cynical public, it's making for a lot of interesting reading during debates. I've no idea how it will turn out, but it's fascinating to read up on.
Once oil leaves the well it is, essentially, a fungible commodity and no one really knows, nor should anyone with an IQ higher than the one the gods gave to green peppers care where it came from or where it is going to. TCP has, already, agreed to reroute the pipeline around the aquifer so that argument is nothing more than cheap, dishonest propaganda - about what we expect from those sources.
But, there is a good strategic argument for doing everything we can to stymie the Middle East, including reducing the market for its oil.