B´ÎÔª¹ÙÍøÍøÖ·

Skip to content

Pipeline chatter appears to avoid simpler answers

Build a refinery nearer the oil sands, suggests reader

Pipelines. Pipelines. Pipelines.

Lots of talk, for and against. Promotion. Planning. Debate. Opposition.

But little actually happens to fix the matter, sort out or resolve all the frantic chatter. Time passes and money trickles away. Most Canadian pipelines will never be built. Would that not suggest a new approach is needed to deal with the matter?

Despite shipping by pipeline being safer than by railway, people still fear the impact of a bitumen spill. Toxic is toxic and no one wants that noxious material flowing across the land, killing anything in its path, rivers and all. Is it not time to reassess the topic, take a different approach to transporting carbon fuel from the source?

Why not build a refinery nearer the oil sands B´ÎÔª¹ÙÍøÍøÖ·¦ and then ship out a less toxic product? Why not produce gas for Canadian cars to use; ship some east to curtail imports there, use some here in the west to reduce or stop importing auto fuel from our neighbours to the south?

TrumpB´ÎÔª¹ÙÍøÍøÖ·™s comments, like those found in his tweets, may never come to pass but we must bear in mind that his focus is America first B´ÎÔª¹ÙÍøÍøÖ·“ and what could that cost Canada?

Don Wilkes

Langford

 





(or

B´ÎÔª¹ÙÍøÍøÖ·

) document.head.appendChild(flippScript); window.flippxp = window.flippxp || {run: []}; window.flippxp.run.push(function() { window.flippxp.registerSlot("#flipp-ux-slot-ssdaw212", "Black Press Media Standard", 1281409, [312035]); }); }