Slope, you've been against this since first proposed last year. Fine; that's your prerogative.
But your "facts"? Dreamed up: Message 28128701
If you're a knowledgeable Canadian, you know the economic history of the Maritimes. Churchill Falls and Quebec. The Bricklin. The refinery at Come-By-Chance, and many more attempts to breathe life into an economically disadvantaged area.
What's more, from the time of the first oil embargo in '73, Eastern Canada has remained exposed to geopolitical risk for crude: Message 25296214
Now of course, Eastern Canada is paying premium prices for energy, while Alberta needs a reliable customer.
---
Newfoundland will bypass Quebec's intransigence, using subsea cables for its Lower Churchill hydro development. If the Maritimes can also obtain crude predictably, without geopolitical risk and at the best price possible, it has a much better chance at economic viability. Because in the next century, industry will go where there's energy.
---
But these things -- and other documented facts -- don't matter to you. Instead, you keep grinding out nonsensical opposition.
The premiers want it. The refiners want it. The people want it. It's good for the East, and it's good for Canada. It's good for Alberta. It takes pressure off the strongly-opposed BC pipeline. It's a good business proposition.
By you facts don't matter. Neither do obvious benefits to all Canadians, and Canada itself.
Okay, slope. It's a win-win-win proposition but no matter what, you're agin it. 'Nuff said ;)
Jim |
