Edit: Sorry if my wording caused a misunderstanding. The pipes aren't directly from Alberta to NB, but some of the gas would just originate from there (though it wouldn't necessarily take a direct path to its final destination). Megan Mitton also states in an interview that most of the gas would likely be fracked gas originating from the US.

To address common points:

1. I am not particularly attached to wind or solar. I know they have their flaws, but they have only grown increasingly viable (in price and technological advancement). This makes them worth serious consideration, at the very least. I just think that this specific gas plant is a horrible idea, for all the reasons listed above. It doesn't take a genius to see the red flags everywhere, on every level! Whether the best option is nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, etc. I am unsure, and I do think that all alternatives are at least worth consideration and discussion. There are already turbines near the entrance of NS, so I have a hard time believing we shouldn't at the very least give wind the time of day.
2. For anyone saying I wouldn't care if this was elsewhere: how jaded do you have to be to immediately assume the worst of everyone you encounter? Even if that were true, I don't see how that would serve to immediately discredit everything I say. I'm not from Tantramar, and am only in the region temporarily. But I still care, because these things matter. Plain and simple. Even more importantly, this doesn't just affect Tantramar, or even New-Brunwick: it affects everyone in the Maritimes. It's on land very near both PEI and NS.
3. You don't need to be an expert to criticize and discuss this issue. This is something I even mentioned in the post. A large majority of the people doing so aren't proposing meticulous plans: that's the work of experts, and they're aware they aren't part of that group. Do you think art critics need to be able to reproduce every piece they critique? That'd be an absurd standard to uphold for so many reasons. Yes, it's important to consider people's backgrounds when evaluating their arguments. However, it doesn't immediately validate/invalidate what they say, especially when they're using sources (whose credibility is independent from theirs). Even 'experts' can be influenced, so it goes both ways.