[eloff]

I think I'm in favor of the pipeline, the alternative is shipping oil via rail which is riskier and burns more oil. Sadly it doesn't stay in the ground without a pipeline.

However, Canada should get smart here and do what Norway does with their oil profits. Invest it in a sovereign wealth fund that's diversified away from oil. Because the oil age is ending and it will hit the most expensive producers, like the oil sands the hardest.

That seven billion spent on converting to renewable energy might have made more sense.

[ozborn]

Agree with your comments regarding Norway and renewable energy.

However, I suspect that if the pipeline is built they will still ship via rail if it is profitable - thus the net effect will just be more oil coming from the oil sands.

The only scenario were a pipeline could help the environment (relative to the status quo - it's still bad) would be it rail usage was displaced by pipeline usage. This could be true only when the price of oil holds stable between a narrow range such that pipeline shipments profitable, but not rail shipments. The price is unlikely to ever hold at such a range long enough such that Suncor, etcf.. would adjust production to ship by pipeline only. High sunk capital costs have meant that historically these companies run close to full capacity regardless of price.

[eloff]

That's an interesting take on the pipeline. If market demand for heavy oil and oil sands supply are unlimited, then it would indeed function like that. Both are finite though. It's a possibility, I just don't have the information to say which would be the more likely outcome.

There's little doubt the pipeline is what's best for Canada. What's best for humanity is another question.

[germinalphrase]

“ This could be true only when the price of oil holds stable between a narrow range such that pipeline shipments profitable, but not rail shipments.”

Are you saying this because you know it to be true, or are you speculating?