No one wants to screw the environment, put innocents in danger, etc. but that is often the way the argument goes. Common interests and what is good for the country and the economy often appears to take a back seat to ideology.
Eventually I just lose interest in debating people's beliefs.
Thanks for saying you agree with me, and that's probably more often the case then not.
1. Safety. While no pipeline can ever be 100% leak proof, the track record for this particular pipeline (or at least that portion of the Canadian route, as well as the brief entrance into the U.S.) for the type of oil it brings still has a few safety issues that need to be addressed.
2. Access to rupture and clean-up. People are judging this project in a similar light as the BP Gulf of Mexico (GOM) oil spill, and I can't say I blame them. While there's a difference in repairing a oil pipeline rupture at significant ocean depths compared to affecting similar repairs over land, the environmental impact are relatively the same. The difference clearly is "access to the well" (or in this case the pipeline itself and, thus, clean-up and repair of an above ground rupture are obviously made much easier in comparison to a deep water well rupture).
3. Overall Environmental Impact. The environmental impact of a deep water oil spill are much different than an above ground oil spill. Again, access to the well is key. However, the damage done to "nature" from a catestrophic spill are different. We can use the Exxon-Valdez oil spill as a model. Although a "man-made" disaster, land, sea and animal life in the affect area bore the brunt of the impact. What made this spill different for the lower-48 was the "isolation" aspect of the spill. Most people in the lower-48 viewed the spill as "Alaska's problem," not America's problem. But let a spill happen anywhere along the U.S. route from our norther board to the GOM and people will see this as an "American" disaster.
4. Economy/Job Growth. There have been mixed figures as to exactly how many "permanent" jobs this pipeline will create. And while the jobs numbers are important, one thing I haven't heard folks mention (mostly Republicans since they are the ones pushing this project) is "how much oil would America get to keep?" What's the ratio, i.e., refinement -vs- retention? It's a question that requires an answer because by all reports I've read the bulk of the refined oil from this pipeline will be exported. And if that's the primary reason the pipeline is to come to the GOM - just to give a Canadian company access to one of America's primer trade routes, I say "no thank you, Canada!". But I digress, unless TransCanada gives a more accurate (if not more consistent) figure as to how many regular, full-time jobs this pipeline will produce "for American workers" and let the public know what the ratio of oil refinement-to-retention is for domestic resale (in barrels per day), I think the issue bares further discussion with far more scrutiny.
And mind you, we haven't even begun to discuss the more personal issue of imminent domain or revenue sharing as far as constructing the pipeline between two nations is concerned.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 02-14-12 at 02:22 PM.
Well .. you may want to look at the Yellowstone River oil spill..
Its a completely different animal than an ocean spill.
Turbulent waters don't lend themselves to clean up.
Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg