35 Replies to “Ethical Oil VS Forest Ethics”

  1. I SUPPORT Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project. I have a car. And a motorcycle. And a truck. And a motorboat. I like to drive them. When these misguided hippies invent another source of fuel, I will buy it. Until then, bring on the oil projects, please!
    Sincerely,
    ————

  3. My email supports the project. wonder if it will get published with the leftard’s emails.

  8. Sent a comment entitled “Build the pipeline now”
    The world needs more ethical oil and so don’t listen to watermelons funded by foreign interests. The “disruption” caused by the pipeline is of no consequence compared to the effect of a couple of miles of ice over the whole of BC which was there just 15,000 years ago. The Alberta oil sands may be the only thing that’s standing between us and another ice age so lets expand production as fast as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Loki
    It’s interesting that Canadian addresses are last on the list and this whole organization should be investigated for fraud. Maybe we should pay a few homeless drunks to “occupy” their offices. For the cost of a couple of cases of wine should be able to have a significant impact disrupting this moonbat campaign.

  9. Now that they have your address and phone #, how long is it going to take before they hit you up for a donation?

  11. Build that pipeline
    We in the Americas need a reliable source of oil that is produced by ethical companies. These companies employ thousands of Canadians, I can’t understand why you would want to deprive those hard working Canadians of their jobs. Even more confusing is why you would want us to be wholely reliant on Middle Eastern countries who so severely abuse their populace, most notably their women. I guess what you really stand for is the supression, mutilation, and even murder of innocent women.
    Sincerely,

  12. Just sent my message in supporting the pipeline, if all the readers here at SDA used those morons own website to do the same, we can really make a difference. Similar to a Poll gone wrong!

  13. I wrote that the oil is going to be shipped anyway and that a pipeline is always going to be more environmentally sound than transport by train.

  14. Now they want me to contact others to send emails. So any of you who want to tell them to hurry up and build the dam pipeline please do.

  15. Why bother with this as Forest Ethics will just flush any emails not agreeing with their goal of shutting down Canada’s economic base.
    Wouldn’t it make more sense to just email Enbridge with our support?

  16. I sent a message through the forest unethics site. After you send they direct you through their site to sned it and in doing so change your message. Good “honest” left loonie campaign.

  17. It would be logical and prudent to bring this to the attention of the Revue Committee which this process targets. This empirical evidence of intent to manipulate the revue process.

  19. I support the Gateway Pipeline Project in principle, however Kitimat is the wrong port for the terminal for a multitude of good reasons.
    The proposed pipeline should follow the existing highway and railway corridor to Prince Rupert. This should be obvious to anyone who knows how to read a map.

  20. The benefits we enjoy as Canadians are largely funded by oil revenue. It’s our responsibility and duty to share our views with the government on such an important project. I sent my comment.

  21. Hi there
    Just use their web page to send messages to the committee to tell them why you think we should build the pipeline…

  22. It’s Moral issue.
    What have environmental groups like Foretethics and others ever done for man kind?
    For Enbridge we are customers or employees both groups are well respected by a business like Enbridge, on the other hand for Forestethics we are a carbon footprint that needs to be reduced or eliminated.
    Claiming the moral high ground there actions to reduce the availability of affordable energy at a great cost to humanity , who are they to decide that people of China and other 3 world countries aren’t allowed to rise out of poverty?
    If it wasn’t for Oil from the Oil Sands and other sources we perhaps would have to go back to burn whale Oil for light and wood for heat, so in order to save the Forest and the whales using fossil fuels is the right thing to do.

  23. Here is my comment:
    Humans must reach a level of prosperity where alltheir basic needs are met before they care about the environment. Starving families in Somalia without access to firewood burn tires. By having our needs met we then are enabled and free to care for our environment. I believe the vast majority of people want to take care of our planet.
    A pipeline built in Canada in the year 2012 is simply going to be as safe and environmentally friendly as possible and will contribute to the average Canadian’s quality of life, leaving them with the energy, time and resources to continue our goal of wise stewardship. The pipeline will also enable other nations to purchase oil froma source that does care about people’s rights, animal’s welfare and the beauty of our nation. Unlike most OPEC nations. The Northern Gateway pipeline is contributes to an actual strategy of safeguarding our environment.
    Sincerely
    Joel

  25. My comment directly to
    http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca/efile/LetterOfComment.aspx
    ————————————————
    I have always been concerned about oil spills, both as a citizen and in business.
    What puzzles me about this project is this:
    Opposition seems to stem from two issues.
    1) pipeline oil spills
    2) carbon dioxide emissions
    – While pipeline oil spills do happen, the industry seems to respond quickly and adequately.
    – Why is it that some say they are so concerned about a few hundred or perhaps even a few thousand liters of petroleum spill yet want to stop a project that would help to clean up the largest oil spill the earth has ever seen? It is the size of Belgium and soaked a few hundred feet deep. Namely, the Oil Sands.
    – Another huge oil spill was the recent British Petroleum Gulf of Mexico deep well blow out. A horrific accident that should not have happened. And yet, where is the long term damage? The naturally occurring microbes have simply consumed the petroleum as they have been doing since time began.
    – The earth has always oozed petroleum, on land and at sea. The Gulf of Mexico and the ocean floor off Santa Barbara California are well known natural petroleum vents. The oil sands natural “spill” is simply too big for the microbes to handle on their own. They need man’s help. The Enbridge pipeline would help the situation.
    – In 1793 Captain George Vancouver sailed through a huge oil slick off the coast of California near present day Monterey.
    – The earth’s atmosphere does not have too much carbon dioxide, in fact it could use more. Plants, including our food crops, grow much more healthier at our present day 400 ppm concentration than at the turn of the century’s 300 ppm. Below 200 ppm, plant growth would be hampered by a lack of carbon dioxide. At 160 ppm they die and so would we, because of starvation. In the past, carbon dioxide levels have been many, many times higher than today’s with no tipping point and no detrimental effects on animal life at the time.
    – Opposition to this pipeline also comes from those worried about carbon dioxide warming the planet through the greenhouse effect. But carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor. As a greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is doing all it can now. It has saturated it’s wave length and higher concentrations would see diminishing returns as a greenhouse gas.
    – Carbon dioxide composes just 0.04% of the atmosphere. I believe the proverbial ‘twice nothing still equals nothing’ applies here.
    – Even if the earth were to warm a couple of degrees, for whatever reason, would that not be better than the two kilometers of ice that covered most of Canada only 15000 years ago? Along the route of this proposed pipeline it was about three kilometers thick. Would the people living there now prefer that?

  26. As one of those people living along the pipeline route, I would much rather have a pipeline than ice three kilometers thick. The snow is about three feet deep right now and I’ve had about enough of that.

  27. N60: “The proposed pipeline should follow the existing highway and railway corridor to Prince Rupert. This should be obvious to anyone who knows how to read a map.”
    This was answered for you before. Prince Rupert is too shallow, with a depth of as little as 16 metres. Kitimat by contrast has a depth of 250 metres.
    When you’re reading a map, make sure you know which kind of map you should be reading, in this case, a navigation chart.

  28. Not according to Prince Rupert Port Authority:
    Prince Rupert has the deepest natural harbour in North America. The entrance into the inner harbour ranges in depth between 34-44 meters. Depths at existing berths range between five and 20 meters.
    http://www.rupertport.com/faqs.htm
    Don’t let inconvenient facts get in the way of those preconceived ideas, and don’t believe everything you think.

  29. The entire content of my message revolved around the etiquette of farting in public.
    The subject title was, “I farted in public recently”.
    Hopefully Ezra Levant will discover this e-mail during research for his show.

  30. N60: “The entrance into the inner harbour ranges in depth between 34-44 meters. Depths at existing berths range between five and 20 meters.”
    Which is in complete agreement with what I wrote. Try reading my posts next time. How many times does it have to be said? That’s too shallow for supertankers. No one gives a rat’s a$$ what the maximum depth is. Ships get hung up on the shallows.

  31. My understanding upon reviewing Enbridge gateway statements is that the route to the Prince Rupert terminal would follow/parallel a river bed. So it was initially discarded for Kitimat. They are now going to go back and review that decision.

  34. cgh
    Yep…..that’s the process…for now. If this highjacking of the process continues….the process can be discarded by an Act of Parliament….perhaps an ORDER IN COUNCIL.
    I have not reviewed this to any extent but the route to Prince Rupert has some merit having road and rail infrastructure in place however based on cgh’ comment The Port of Prince Rupert’s inability to serve super tankers…Kitimat is probably one of the few anchorages suitable.
    There are not many places these super tankers can tie-up. For a long time, super tankers are off loaded well off-shore in the Gulf of Mexico onto smaller vessels which can enter New Orleans. The vessels which are now glorified tenders were once considered super tankers…..
    In the Persian Gulf, the loading facilities are built offshore…such as Iran’s Kharg Island.
    As far as the monster super tankers…..
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batillus_class_supertankers
    Note the 4 mentioned ships had service lives of 6-7 years…..one however lasted from 1979-2003….

  35. Prince Rupert has an active and growing terminal port, the rail and road infrastructure is in place, which will significantly reduce pipeline cost, and tankers would not have to negotiate a long narrow environmentally sensitive fjord. The existing berths can accommodate tankers up to 315,000 DWT and if the port needs upgrading for larger tankers the port’s income can easily cover it.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation