On point 1. Yes. They sell to the refiners in Houston. The refiners, if chosen, sell it overseas or to whomever wants to buy it. International conglomerates provide jobs just like you and I do. There are risks to everything. If the pipeline isn't built, the oil is still transferred, just by different means. On point 2. I couldn't care less about how the route was chosen so I am not the best on anything in that regard. I do know I get sick of hearing environmentalists want to build their eco friendly cottages in the pristine woods yet someone else's shouldn't be built at all. I really don't know what the huge deal is. I can't tell you how many oil sills I see down here in oil country. Momma nature seems to deal with them pretty damn easy.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 8:45 AM Carl Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > "Really? Pipeline? So you think carying all that oil via train is safer > and has less a footprint? " > > In general, transport by pipeline is safer, but seems to do more > environmental damage when something goes wrong. Not the real point > though. The real issues are: > > 1) Is it in our best interest as a country to build a pipline across the > US so an international conglomerate can sell Canadian oil overseas. > On the face of it, I would say no but I could be missing something. Seems > to be a bunch of public risks with private profits. > > 2) How was the route chosen and were safer but more expensive routes an > option. If we reroute for group A and screw over group B, thats a serious > issue. > >
