Who is right re. Alberta and BC's pipeline vs no way to pipeline conflict?

Both are wrong. If I were premier of Alberta I would use the bitumen to make high end products in a refinery , that would be built for Alberta’s oil, and ship safely via normal train to shipping ports in B.C. Like plastics and what not and finished goods.

I don’t know enough about Western Canadian politics to have an educated view. As a rule, though, one province shouldn’t be able to force another province to do something against its interest.

I am going to side with BC on this one. Do the study, make sure it is done correctly, look at the results, make a decision from there. It is all well and good for Alberta to ship their oil out but it is BC that has to live with the environmental degradation should problems arise. So, Alberta, you want it, do it right.

Framing the increase in terms of jobs as Alberta is doing is a common political ploy, one used extensively in the US. With the Keystone XL they talked about the thousands of jobs that would come from it. What they were much less clear on was that the vast majority of these jobs were only temporary construction jobs and many of those required specific skills that were not going to be abundant in the adjacent areas and would require outside expertise. When it came right down to it the pipeline added, I think it was less than twenty full time jobs. So, bullshit on that argument.

Thirdly, the thing about this being about communities and not Rolexes and Caviar is also crap. Rolexes and Caviar is exactly what it is about. The tax revenue is incidental and the Caviar and Rolex crowd would like those to go away too so they can get all the little extras on their Mercedes as well.

One good thing about this article was that I learned a new idiom: Ragging the Puck. Now if I can just find a way to work it into the conversation…

Interesting. By the way more links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands
https://tinyurl.com/y7t87del (bitemun Kalamazoo Google)

The Alberta side says it’s better than via train etc.

Agreed. I think we should have just kept it as Obama had things arranged, and just let China have the oil.

@Yellowdog I’m not following. Who agreeing with? My last post is just presenting search result of Bitumen and what Alberta says.

I mean, who are you agreeing with?

China was wanting to purchase the rights / have it built their direction than into the States. Obama forbade it. We can let China have the oil and purchase it from them.

Evidently there will be fewer fulltime employees on the pipeline than at the local Walmart neighborhood Mart. And trust me, that ain’t a lot. Its twenty.

@Yellowdog yes, I suppose we could purchase the oil from China, but realistically we probably won’t. Here is a site indicating US oil imports by country and the amount we import from China is minimal as a percentage of our overall import (if my math is correct it is less than 0.2%).

@Yellowdog Ok. But the conflict is Albertaand federal, government vs BC.

@RedDeerGuy1 That sounds good.
@elbanditoroso I agree.
@rojo so, no to pipeline?

@flo correct. I side with BC. No pipeline without proper investigation and precautions.

@rojo Ok, but the environmental groups, BC say that it’s been investigated, studied to death, already, and the precautions are not enough, the money alloted in case spill up happens is a drop in the bucket etc.