U.S. Bill Tightens Timeline For Keystone Decision

The Keystone XL is a done deal. It will be routed around the Ogallala aquifer as a sop to environmentalists and mid-west politicos. As for the GOP's insistence that it creates 20,000 jobs - well, that's just politicians talking. What I'd prefer to see are the provisions (if anything of substance exists) for the cleanup of the inevitable spills, and just where the money comes from to do these. After all, the cleanup of the Kalamazoo was a farce froom the getgo.

I just love how traitor Harper and his minions construct this as if they are trying to stand up for ' Canadian interests.' Truth is, as long as we are piping unrefined, non-value-added resources to either Houston or Beijing, then they are selling this country out faster than one can say 'Exxon-Mobil' or 'Petro China!'

I for one could care less if the Keystone Pipeline goes through the desolate wasteland of middle America, but I happen to live in a very beautiful part of the States, the Pacific Northwest, and would protest the project if it went through Western Washington, Oregon or Northern California to be exported out of Seattle, Portland or San Francisco. I imagine that I am not alone in having that opinion on this hypothetical proposal.

My question to Western Canadians is--if the pipeline doesn't go down the US mid-west to Houston and PM Harper makes good on his promise/threat to divert the project through the Western provinces, across scenic Alberta and beautiful British Columbia to be shipped out one of the most picutresque and livable cities in Canada, what would the residents of those regions have to say about it? I'd be very concerned, if not outraged. We're talking about the most awsome part of Canada despite what Ottawa and the Eastern provinces may think. I assume that this option is also hypothetical as the US Congress, which usually does nothing, will eventually pass this particular bill. But is there a movement in B.C at least, protesting this lunacy?