For the record, given the fact China exists, is energy hungry, and Canada is more than willing to sell oil to them what purpose would this serve?
Okay, let's establish something right off: It is HARPER who wants to do this. Stephen Harper likes to think he speaks for this country's people, but he doesn't. There are many Canadian scientists and environmentalists who object to the pipeline. The scientists are muzzled and Harper and his cronies call environmentalists and others who prefer clean water, clean air, and living wildlife TERRORISTS. Yes, even people like me, who signs petitions (for all the good that does), writes letters, etc. are considered terrorists in the ruling party's eyes.
But then what else should we expect from a government that allowed a senior cabinet minister to compare people who object to the government prying into our personal emails to people who engage in and support child porn?
It would tell them we do not approve of their environment destroying ways. That we all need to clean up our energy production. Fight climate change.
Again, do not say it's all Canadians who are in favor of this pipeline. I'm definitely not, and I'm an Albertan.
As a Canadian I'm not sure how I feel about this. The whole tar sands thing seems to be smeared in controversy - so I'm not exactly sure what the facts are. If it's possible to get the oil out of these sands without causing environmental damage, then I'm all for it.
Warpus, please check out the CBC site for all the articles about Fort McMurray, tailing ponds, etc. It is IMPOSSIBLE to extract the oil without causing environmental damage. There is so much damage that's already been done. The Athabasca River is but one example of this. The fish in that river have cancer. I can't remember how many birds have died from being poisoned and drowned in the tailing ponds.
I mean, seriously, how could it do anything other than raise gas prices in the US? Canada is currently one of America's top oil sources. But we have them captive, because they cannot export their oil to any nation other than the US. Oh, Canadians make the claim that they could. That they could build pipelines east or west instead of south. But yet they haven't actually done it. Why? Well, tar sands oil is expensive to produce to begin with. And then you're either going to pipeline it east, 2500-3000 miles, before you get to the only deep water ice free port in eastern Canada, which is Halifax, or you are going to pump it 1000 miles west...
and over an mile in altitude high...
to clear the Rocky Mountains.
Neither one of those routes can be cost justified. So the Canadians can use it themselves, or they can sell it to the US, or they can leave it in the ground.
Or they can talk the US into approving the pipeline, and sell it to Latin America, the Caribbean basin, or China.
And that means more price competition in the US domestic market.
Stephen Harper wants to do one or the other, and thank goodness the people of British Columbia (the sane ones, anyway) are doing their best to quash the notion of sending the oil through their province and risking the destruction of one of the most sensitive ecosystems in the world (on the coast).
Yes, I live in Calgary and have O&G companies as clients.
Therefore a Reform-Alliance-in-Tory-clothing (aka fake Conservative) supporter?
Environmentally, this would increase the price of the oil, and thus increase the benefit of extraction efforts. More oil would be sold. Discounting the environment, this would be of good benefit to the Canadian corporations that have access to the oil sands. I don't know if it would benefit Canadian workers, given that the level of employment in Alberta is so high already.
If I were an Albertan, I'd not want the pipeline, because the pipeline won't really benefit Albertans (i.e., there're not going to be many new jobs created). It will increase the rate of extraction, which is problematic, because it's not like the price of oil is going down anytime soon. What would be best for Canadians would the creation of an intra-Canada pipeline to Canadian refineries. This would be job-creating and allow us to jack up the price of the oil, too.
Okay, awhile back you got in a huff about my contradicting you about the Alberta government being "fairly benign." If the pipeline went ahead, and if the province got tons more money from it, what do you think Allison Redford's Conservatives would do with it? Would she put it into education, social programs, fixing the highways and other infrastructure that's been needing fixing for so many years, hospitals, nursing homes and properly trained people to work in them, etc.? Or would she instead put it into whatever benefited the party and the corporations (and what would please Harper)? It's safe to say she wouldn't put it into research on clean(er) energy.
And what if our next premier is somebody more like Ralph Klein? He was more concerned about getting drunk, acting contemptuously toward the homeless and disabled, and pushing the gambling industry, than he was about actually giving a damn about people who weren't his cronies or who could make him rich(er).