Emotional responses

In response to Noel Gagnon’s rebuttal regarding facts applied to pipelines in Canada, I would like to make it clear that I have no association with any oil or gas enterprise. My perspective is taken from what I read and hear reported.

I have written several times but have yet to see any rational data that justifies the rhetoric of those who oppose these developments.  To date the common phrases I have seen refer to “total devastation of pristine wilderness”, or “destruction of our fishing” in the event of a pipeline leak.

No evidence of such catastrophes are presented. These are simply emotional responses.

I could argue that the likelihood of an oil spill could be compared to the probability of a major earthquake on the west coast, yet we do not hear the environmental lobby suggesting wholesale migration of the west coast population to safer jurisdictions.

So far the only reasonable suggestion I have heard has been raised by a friend of mine living in the Terrace-Kitimat region that would be most affected by a pipeline spill.

He attended the hearings when the panel was in his area and told me he would support the northern gateway pipeline — if Enbridge would increase the thickness of the pipe carrying the bitumen to the coast.

I would hope that the NEB would concur with his suggestion. Prevention is better than reaction.

Eli Fricker

North Saanich



We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.