Again you ignore the risk, one-sided to the point of idiocy ... the risk is real, dilbit is particularly noxious and persistent, you've got a company with a horrific spill record wanting carte blanche to pipe it through some of the most tricky terrain in the country, narrow river valleys with plenty of people and fish downstream, then you get it to the head of Douglas Channel and you're faced with a narrow passage then a really tough coastline ... as for US funds, well of course, there's probably canuck funds in US causes, and german/french/brit/etc funds too, these groups are international, to make use of this in your argument you'd need to demonstrate that no US funds are at work in promotion of this pipeline, something you'll find a bit difficult imho
The risk is real, and the population here knows it ... proponents would serve their cause better by addressing the risk, in meaningful effective ways, not stupid deceptive Enbridge videos and internet rants |
