"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4f3203ef$0$25426
:


"Dr. Deb" wrote:

Lew, as others have said, "Actions have consequences."

I know that is very difficult for liberals to process, but the world
does
not have to do what they want, just because they want it.
--------------------------------------
"Liberal" has nothing to do with it.

Big oil, especially the Koch brothers, stand to make a lot of money,
if that pipeline goes thru.

Big oil, especially the Koch brothers, have bought and paid for a
collection of Congress critters, and will collect their marks as this
plays out.

Sorry, but a pip squeak P/M and the 30-35 million Canucks he
represents, don't have a seat at the table for this poker game.

Lew

I am waiting how this is going to go. There is OBVIOUSLY a lot of
obfuscation going on. Is winning tar sands oil and gas indeed bad for
the environment? I don't know, but it seems that cracking that stuff and
heating it until it bleeds does cost energy. Does it leave the top layer
of the mining area devastated? Probably, but can it be easily restored?
Running a pipeline may be fairly easy, but the Alaska pipeline has had
relatively frequent problems, and the tar oil is much more viscous and
corrosive. Can that be managed sufficiently? Running such a pipeline
through environmental sensitive areas such as the aquifer area in
Nebraska (?) is asking for trouble - move it or else.

I would like the idea of building refineries in Alberta, and shipping
finished products ...

Canucks - work on the concepts and the plans before you have to redo
fully built infrastructure ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid