westcanforum

Sorry, I see where my post was confusing.  You have misinterpreted what I wrote here:  "XJ, what you fail to see is the benefit of maintaining the area pipeline and tanker free.  There is no economic gain in this, but there is a gain."

There is an obvious economic gain to going ahead with the project.  By "this" I meant that there is no economic gain in rejecting the project, but there is an alternative non-financial gain in rejecting it.

I agree that there is a lot of development everywhere.  There is also a line to be drawn to say that enough is enough and we are going to keep what remains.  The location of that line has to be debated each and every time a mega-project like this is considered.  I think this should be publically debated in addition to the bureaucratic checks and balances that exist.

I also reject misinformation (you have seen me do it wrt to Romero's article), but I won't necessarily accept that the pipeline is in the best interests of Canadians without considering all the arguments that are valid.  There is a valid argument for rejecting the pipeline, just as there is a valid argument for building it.  I'm undecided as to which is the stronger argument.

Well, I look at it differently. Rejecting an industrial project of this magnitude is an economic loss to a country that will face serious future decisions about rising costs in areas like health care.

It`s not likely I`ll ever convince anyone this project is desirable. At least you are not calling me a 'racist' all the time like that lying puerile twit Romero. The hearings for NG will begin next month and you`ll get to hear all arguments, but opponents will dominate it of course.