Movement of oil based on economics

Letter from Doug Wilson on the proposed Enbridge pipeline project.


I read with interest all the arguments against the proposed Enbridge pipeline project. Are these people serious? I think far too many of us are too quick to be against things, whether it is being against a new shopping facility, a new industry, a mining development, or even a pipeline. It is so easy to be against things especially when we get caught up in all the hoopla.

So we are against the pipeline project; does that mean we are for shipping the oil or gas by rail, by truck, or even giant dirigibles, massive flying tankers filling up with oil in Alberta and then transporting the oil though our beautiful scenic British Columbia skies to land offshore to transfer the oil to ships?

Let’s face facts. Somehow the oil will be moved from one part of the country to another. The reason why this oil will be moved is pure and simple economics.

Look to the European financial crises where socialist-based governments have attempted to appease their populations for generations by giving into the demands of their populations for everything from retirement with full pensions at an early age, to government welfare system and wages far beyond being reasonable. The price that is being extracted because many of these countries — like Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and Spain — now no longer can afford their wonderful social system that their populations have come to expect means massive changes in these countries’ lifestyles.

What one person receives — in our wonderful welfare state of Canada —  doesn’t actually have to be worked for. Unlike European countries, Canada is able to afford, and provide for, at this time, by the sale of our resources such as oil, gas and minerals.

So I ask, if the sale of our resources is so critical for Canada to continue to provide for our social safety net, why are we against a pipeline, a mine, or even a new industry?

In my opinion the bottom line is we should be the ones telling the proponents of such projects, if you are going to build this or that project, our, the people’s, more ridged, well-researched standards of construction must be met. Too easily we get carried away with “what ifs,” rather than researching and finding solutions to the “what ifs.”

Doug Wilson

Williams Lake