EthicalOil
 

EthicalOil.org calls on Canadians to ask Minister Oliver to ban foreigners from the Northern Gateway Pipeline review hearings

January 5th, 2012  |  By: Kathryn

January 5, 2012 – VANCOUVER – EthicalOil.org is calling on Canadians to send a message to Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, to tell him to ban foreigners and their local puppets from appearing before the federal government’s Northern Gateway Pipeline joint review panel hearings.

“Today we launched a form on OurDecision.ca that allows Canadians to send a message directly to Minister Oliver,” said Kathryn Marshall, spokesperson for EthicalOil.org.  “Foreigners and foreign groups are registered to appear before the pipeline review panel, and we think Minister Oliver should exclude them. Whether or not Canada decides to build this pipeline is a Canadian decision, based on Canadian interests. We shouldn’t let outsiders dictate what is best for our country. ”

These hearings are part of the federal government’s joint panel review process of the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Thousands of individuals and hundreds of groups have registered to give testimony about the pipeline. This includes many foreigners and companies owned by foreign governments such as Hugo Chavez’s oil company, CITGO. Many other foreigners from Europe to South America and many foreign-funded lobbyists and groups are registered as well.

“Canadians must take a stand against foreigners and their lobbying groups interfering in our decision. Canadians have a lot at stake with this pipeline, and whichever way the decision goes, it should be made only by Canadians and in the best interest of Canada. Please visit OurDecision.ca and send Minister Oliver the message that foreigners and their front-groups should not be part of our decision making-process,” said Marshall.

  • ‘Ethical Oil’ isn’t

    “Foreigners and foreign groups are registered to appear before the pipeline review panel, and we think Minister Oliver should exclude them. Whether or not Canada decides to build this pipeline is a Canadian decision, based on Canadian interests. We shouldn’t let outsiders dictate what is best for our country. ”

    Totally agree.

    Let’s start by banning any company that has even one share owned by a foreigner from appearing.

    Which reminds me: When will EthicalOil.org release its donor list?

    • Anonymous

      Canadians who work for/with foreign companies have a stake in Canada`s success. These foreign sleazebags don`t pay taxes, have nothing invested here and couldn`t give a f*ck if Canada succeeds or not.

      BTW, I`m on the donor list.

      • Guest…

        Dear Edmontonchick….

        Suggest you look at all of the international conglomerates involved in the Oil Sands project… take a long hard look at their other projects around the world… make a big long list of all the environmental disasters associated with those projects and then question if the patients are running the asylum… The oil is a precious resource but it is a finite resource… it will run out and you have to have an end game… just ask the middle east it is slowly dawning on them the oil gravy train will run out eventually… The big question is what will be left behind when the international oil and gas companies all close up shop and head out of town… Will northern Canada be a contaminated environmental nightmare… will the water we now need to grow the food to feed our population be available or contaminated… etc… the oil and gas industry does not have a great track record for looking after the environment… which is the part we need in the long term to survive… Our own environmental ministry has serious questions about this development and a no “big picture” data to evaluate the macro environmental impacts of this development… (see recently released “secret” Enviroment Canada ppt presentation)

        • Anonymous

          Guest, you are not talking to some ignorant West coaster who has been brainwashed by foreign money controlled groups like Pembina. I see the oilsands up close and personal regularly and I don`t need a lecture from someone who wouldn`t know an exchanger if they were leaning on one.

          Your post was entirely disingenuous and I will explain in point form.

          -The biggest oil companies on the planet are not publically traded ones like BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, Suncor etc. They are state-owned and guess what they have a much, much worse environmental record than their privately held counterparts.
          -You don`t understand the industry, but when a privately held company is utilized in say Nigeria they are not the operating company, the larger state-owned one is and guess what…they call the shots on everything including environment, safety etc.
          -Oil is a finite resource, but then again so is the sun. We are NOT running out of oil and in fact world reserves have never been higher. The ‘peak oil’ theory is based on disingenuous data.
          -We will run out of food long before we would ever run out oil. There is no need for it, but this too would be the consequence of disingenuous enviro-hysteria.
          -Resource nationalism in places like Venezuela, Russia and the Middle East where the state has grabbed assets from independent oil companies have limited production.
          -The Alberta oilsands are not a contaminated wasteland. In fact the Athabasca river is NOT one of the most polluted rivers in Canada or even Alberta let alone the world. Air quality here is better than most metropolitan areas in North America. Quebec has most polluted rivers in Canada, but these pale in comparison to the countries with state-owned oil companies you would like Canada to lose market share to.

          • Guest…

            Dear Edmontonchick,

            I’ll hit you up here in point form…

            “but I don`t need a lecture from someone who wouldn’t know an exchanger if they were leaning on one.”

            Response: wrong… I well over 13′ish years in the oil and gas industry worldwide… in all phases pre-exploration, exploration and drilling, construction, production, clean up… onshore and offshore, and a Post Grad in Oil and Gas related field…

            “The biggest oil companies on the planet are not publically traded ones like BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, Suncor etc. They are state-owned and guess what they have a much, much worse environmental record than their privately held counterparts.”

            Response: not entirely correct… I’ll use Forbes and few other easy web sources for this… of the top 20 about 14 are NOC’s and 6 or so are public… Your point does kind of make you wonder why in other countries the state often has negotiated ownership of each project from say 15% up to 51%, puts up no money during exploration or construction, and still gets employment taxes and related benefits from capacity building and infrastructure… how much does Alta and Canada get for royalties on the oil sands projects??? A damn site less I imagine. I will point out we pay an absolute fortune for water in all these countries compared to what BC and Alta charge the Oil and Gas industry, and we still get dinged to make significant investments in local public water infrastructure… How much do Oil sands companies pay per m3 of water??? I will agree though I have seen some terrible enviromental violations by NOC’s… but that is another topic… it is not a very valid arguement to say that the pot is a darker shade of black than the kettle… Publically traded companies have proven in the last few years with tankers, drill rigs, pipelines, production facilities, etc… that they are capable of horrible errors in judgement, leadership, and failures in process safety… to the detriment of the local population and enviroment…

            “You don`t understand the industry, but when a privately held company is utilized in say Nigeria they are not the operating company, the larger state-owned one is and guess what…they call the shots on everything including environment, safety etc.”

            Response: wrong… I’ve worked in Canada, and about 9 countries in Europe and Africa… all in Oil and Gas industry. In JV’s with NOC’s they rarely if ever dictate OHS standards other than requirements to meet overall government standards in my experience… often during the exploration phase the NOC has little to no involvement in the operation as the company is paying 100% of the exploration costs which they claw back during the initial stages of production. When the JV’s go into production the NOC partner does have more say but I would say the norm is to follow the established expat company standards more than the exception… Which is definitely the case if the expat company retains operatorship… not to say that companies don’t get twisted around by NOC’s in some countries, but I would not say that is the rule…

            “Athabasca river is NOT one of the most polluted rivers in Canada or even Alberta let alone the world”

            Response: have you got some hard data on that because I was a little concerned when Environment Canada said in it’s “secret” report they didn’t have maco environmental data for the impacts of oil sands projects and they were very concerned about water quality affecting wildlife and communities down stream… I’m curious where you get this information from and would like the links please… I’m assuming the research is peer reviewed…

          • Anonymous

            Name the biggest oil company in the world. ExxonMobil? British Petroleum? Royal Dutch Shell? In fact, the 13 largest energy companies on Earth, measured by the reserves they control, are now owned and operated by governments. Saudi Aramco, Gazprom (Russia), China National Petroleum Corp., National Iranian Oil Co., Petróleos de Venezuela, Petrobras (Brazil) and Petronas (Malaysia) are all larger than ExxonMobil, the largest of the multinationals. Collectively, multinational oil companies produce just 10% of the world’s oil and gas reserves. State-owned companies now control more than 75% of all crude oil production.
            http://www.petrostrategies.org/Links/worlds_largest_oil_and_gas_companies.htm

            Do state-owned behomoths like NNPC(Nigeria) or Gazprom have a better record in providing safe, well-paying employment, worker safety, environmental protection? HELL NO!! It has been estimate that Alberta would need a sales tax of at least 25% if not for the royalty money they receive from oil and gas.

            “often during the exploration phase the NOC has little to no involvement in the operation”

            Dead wrong…from wiki, NNPC by law manages the joint venture between the Nigerian federal government and a number of foreign multinational corporations, which include Royal Dutch Shell, Agip, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Texaco (though now merged with Chevron). Through collaboration with these companies, the Nigerian government conducts petroleum exploration and production. The head of the Nigerian wing of Transparency International says salaries for workers are too low to prevent graft.

            From start to finish, the 8th largest oil company that is only interested in corruption can use smaller publically traded companies to deflect criticism from themselves. All the more reason we should be taking market share away from these monstrous and corrupt state-owned companies.

            As for polluted rivers, the Yamaska in Quebec is the most polluted in Canada.The next worst river is also in Quebec. The Bayonne, which rated a paltry 27.6, has its headwaters in the hilly regions north of Joliette and joins the north shore of the St. Lawrence near Berthierville, almost directly across from the mouth of the Yamaska.

          • Stig

            Seeing you have a ready answer to everything, what’s so ethical about supporting and exploiting an industry, that empowers terrorists throughout the middle east, and which will only make them more of a threat, with the ever increasing value of oil?. Actually sounds perverted to me, especially with viable alternatives, available. I say cut the terrorists off, by turning the spigots off, what say you?.

          • Dial 1 800 Oil Spill

            hmmm… I’ll have to read up on the additional information about the rivers appreciate that (to check context)… in return I’d ask that you look at the “secret” Environment Canada ppt. that was just released after the FOI request and have a think on the issues brought up in the EC ppt. EC seems to be very concerned about water quality in the river, lack of macro environmental impact data, etc..

            This may be due more to the nature of the oil sands development contaminants vs those found in the other rivers??? I’m guessing O&G contaminants which tend to be nasty carcinogens amongst other things… I have to read if the evaluations of what constitutes poor or good water quality what it is based on (which contaminants etc.)… I will look at your details… Any water pro’s out there that can put the details above into context? Are EC’s concerns specifically related to the nature of the contaminants in the oil sands development vs the other polluted rivers which may be contaminated different things? contaminated but with less toxic/carcinogenic compounds so to speak?

            As to Nigeria I can’t comment on that one nation in Africa it is one of the few I’ve not been to… and to be frank mostly because I don’t want to got there…

            Your comments are wrong in the following countries which align my statement which I have worked in…

            Mauritania, Senegal, Ghana, Gambia, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tanzania, Angola, Libya (even the deposed nut job in Libya left the O&G companies alone to use their own Health and Safety Management systems… and he was one seriously crazy control freak)…

      • Wisker

        Canadians who work for/with foreign ENGO’s have a stake in Canada’s sucess. These foreign sleezebags (oil companies) care only about their bottom line and coudn’t give a fuck if Canada succeeds (whatever that means) or not.

        • Anonymous

          Foreign NGO`s pay little if any tax, do not provide good paying jobs, do not have any real infrastructure and do NOT provide anything of value to Canadians despite the largesse they from billionaire Wall Street investors.

          Enbridge on the other hand has been around for something like 60 years, employs about 6000 workers mostly in Canada/USA, named one of Canada`s top ten employers, recognized as one of Canada`s greenest employers that has contributed more to Aboriginal communities than any federal program ever has.

          There you have it, foreign sleazebags here temporarily, buying our democracy and contributing fuck all vs a responsible Canadian entity who contributes massively to our economy. Bottom line is the PM is correct, foreign NGO leeches have no right hijacking our economy and democracy.

          You are right about one foreign sleazy oil company who want to speak at the hearings…Venezuela`s!!

          • WesternDude

            If these foreign sleazebags have a legitimate argument about the ‘ethics’ of this pipeline, why would it matter where they are from and where the money comes from.

            Pembina also is an alberta creation from 86 and now employs 50+ people around Canada. They pay taxes and work collaboratively with industry to find solutions.

      • Stig

        Apparently, neither do the Federal or Alberta governments, or else they would plan and build the infrastructure here, to produce gasoline from the bitumen Here, and make a lot of money HERE!, instead of shipping it all to Texas, so they can make huge profits there. For some reason, I get the feeling that instead of making our country stronger, it will weaken it, if it already hasn’t. Just a feeling.

  • ‘Ethical Oil’ isn’t

    Don’t like “foreigners”?

    Then don’t read these articles:

    Who’s Behind New Pro-Oil Sands Ad Blitz? by Geoff Dembicki
    http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2011/09/08/Ethical-Oil-Blitz/

    Who is behind the Ethical Oil Institute? by Karen Kleiss
    http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2011/09/09/who-is-behind-the-ethical-oil-institute/

    When will EthicalOil.org release its donor list?

    • Stig

      You got it straight. This website, as far as I can see, has nothing to do with ethical anything, but its opposite and the perverse encouragement of more terrorism, and more blood war. Indeed, it may even be supporting the very terrorists it believes is being isolated, by arguing for the source of their funding, oil, oh and diamonds, but thats another perverse industry and another website, no doubt. This raises a very concerning question however, as to who supports this website, besides feckless idiots and even the idea that there is such a thing as ethical oil, when evidence of the damage done through oils exploitation, is no farther away than the two pits in NY City, where the twin towers stood!. The one being dug in Alberta, will be no different.

  • Wolverine #2

    Local puppets? Your organization (ethical oil? give me a break!) are just puppets and hacks for Big Oil. Keep your rupturing pipelines out of our beautiful province. It’s much easier and way less controversial to just build another from your toxic corner of the world down to the U.S. Northern Gateway is a line in the sand. Those opposed to this ridiculous proposal will do whatever it takes to stop it. And your radio ads. Do you really think British Columbians will take them seriously? Who came up with this bright idea? Is Karl Rove on your payroll? These are the type of ads you see put out by Republicans and Tea Baggers down in the States. What a joke!

  • Samantha March04

    Funny how people bitch from computers, using products made from oil. Get off your computer, phone etc. don’t use anything with plastic. Wear anything made in a factory etc. How many times must this be told to people before they get it. We need oil and gas and until you find an actual viable solution to everything that oil is used for please shut up. Your rhetoric of who sponsors who is redundant. Just as Green Peace has sponsors everyone else needs sponsors too. Go live off the land with nothing containing oil, shipped by oil and the like and see how long it will last.

    • Stig

      Greenpeace is an advocacy organization, which asks for support from the public, while BP gets its money from a public, that has little choice but to pay, except perhaps if they switch Shell or Exxon, or in other words no real choice. And yes indeed, try living without oil, a condition that most people on the planet live with every day, but with more and more being pushed into using less and less, soon, if you don’t have the money, you won’t get the fuel. Nigeria or Iraq for example: a lot of oil, but on the ground, a luxury item, even for those among them, who can afford the world price. If gasoline was half your paycheck, or more, just as it is for these people, will you be driving? We don’t live in the best of all possible worlds Samantha, there are alternatives and we do have a choice, one that in the future, we won’t have.

    • Kansas

      we have alternatives. what we don’t have is a gov’t with the balls to develop them. industry requires investment – our gov’t isn’t directing any of the “billions” it makes from the tar sands into green energy tech or even saving a penny of it for any useful reason.

  • Ridiculous!

    I’m surprised that EthicalOil.org hasn’t shared the following interview on their website where their spokesperson is schooled by CBC’s Anna Maria Tremonti.

    http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/12/06/ethical-oil/

    Ethical Oil is simply a slick marketing term to make the tar sands seem like a better decision to support. There is no such thing as ethical oil. All major players in the oil sands also produce in the countries that “EthicalOil” says we should not support.

    Canadians are not as stupid as you think and we will fight to protect our precious coastline.

    • WesternDude

      This interview is embarrassing… I think the more this website promotes itself and the more Harper uses their catch phrases, the better it is for Canadians who actually favour responsible development of the oil sands. The arguments are so completely illogical.

  • Vanresident

    Ummmm, where do all the oil companies get their money? Who is in charge of Statoil, Bp, etc? Wake up Canadians! Foreign money for enviro groups is a drop int he bucket compared to the foreign money that funds major oil companies, major lobby firms and floods the PM’s office with lobbyists. Canadians aren’t as stupid to believe this hogwash. Think again, website promoters- ummm, who atre you excatly?

  • Anonymous

    Anyone who cannot see the difference between foreign funded companies like Greenpeace or Pembina and say a Canadian who may work for/with a company that has foreign investors are either stupid or dishonest. Investors in the oil sands actually have a stake in Canada; they bring their money here, they create jobs here, their interests are directly aligned with Canadian interests. They want us to succeed; we want us to succeed.

    That is entirely different than the anti-Canadian groups using their foreign wealth and power to incapacitate our regulatory processes and obstruct our industry. They have no stake here. They don’t create jobs. As non-profits, they largely don’t even pay taxes here. When their tactics cause Canadians to lose jobs, prosperity, and tax and royalty revenues that could help improve our health care and education systems, it doesn’t affect the foreigners at all. The more they succeed in thwarting our plans, the poorer we become. That’s not having a stake in Canada; that’s the opposite of having a stake in Canada.

    Oil is going to keep being produced to drive the world economy for a long time to come. Oil in itself is not evil, it is the way it is produced. Denying projects like NG, Mackenzie Valley or Keystone does not reduce global oil production…it only gives more market share to places that don`t give a damn about human life let alone the environment. I`ve always suspected OPEC has had a hand in the anti-oilsands hysteria as they have the most to lose with further development of it.

    • Guest…

      This is simply naïve… “in the oil sands actually have a stake in Canada; they bring their money here, they create jobs here, their interests are directly aligned with Canadian interests.”

      Their interests are aligned with our government interests as long as there is money to be made… They will not give a damn when they pull up shop and head out if they have left an environmental disaster behind them… their stockholders will be happy as they have made their billions and run… they have a track record of doing this around the globe why will it be any different in Canada???

    • Stig

      No kidding, many of the countries in OPEC and even outside of it, harbor terrorists, they even have supporters within there nations governments and security agencies, and need the oil to flow, because it keeps them in business. The tarsands are their lifeline, to a continued and even growing franchise of terrorism, if you know what I mean, but probably don’t, LOL. We must make the world a safer place from these terrorists, and by cutting them and their high level supporters off from their source of money, oil, it can be done. edmontonchick, why do you support the terrorists and not support the alternatives to our energy needs that would see to their end?. What are, a terrorist?

    • Kansas

      you’re a piece of work

  • Truecanadian

    Foreigners, foreigners, gosh they are scary!! Maybe we should ask all foreigners to leave the country? Starting from when? 1867? Earlier? What is the test of a true Canadian? This site is treading into some dangerous xenophobic ground.

    Pembina is likely the nation’s best think tank on energy policy, and its roster of clients shows how valued its services are. The attacks on Pembina and other groups are what’s truly scary here.
    Let’s hear from Pembina itself:

    “what is perhaps most troubling about Marshall’s arguments against the Pembina Institute is the subtle but dangerous xenophobia that underlies her commentary. She suggests that Pembina relies on “foreign money” for our work to promote sustainable energy solutions like responsible oilsands development, and that using “foreign money” means that our work “doesn’t represent Canadians.”

    Marshall uses the word “foreign” in a pejorative way, like it’s nefarious or un-Canadian. On the contrary, I’m proud of how the Pembina Institute sources our hard-earned revenue. For example, roughly 45 per cent of our $5 million annual revenue comes from our consulting work, through which we provide advice to federal, provincial and municipal governments and companies on management practices and strategies for sustainability. Since many of our corporate clients are Fortune 500 transnational companies, listed on both Canadian and U.S. stock exchanges, does that make their money “foreign,” unrepresentative of Canadians and therefore bad? Perhaps in Marshall’s parochial world it does. By extension, then, should Canada be preventing foreign-owned companies from extracting Canadian oil? The same logic would seem to apply.”
    http://www.pembina.org/blog/598

  • Dial 1 800 Oil Spill

    Anybody notice a theme with this company… quite a record for these guys… very impressive… NOT!

    Using data from Enbridge’s own reports, the Polaris Institute calculated that 804 spills occurred on Enbridge pipelines between 1999 and 2010. These spills released approximately 168,645 barrels (26,812.4 m3) of hydrocarbons into the environment.

    On July 4, 2002 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured in a marsh near the town of Cohasset, Minnesota in Itasca County, spilling 6,000 barrels (950 m3) of crude oil. In an attempt to keep the oil from contaminating the Mississippi River, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources set a controlled burn that lasted for 1 day and created a smoke plume about 1-mile (1.6 km) high and 5 miles (8.0 km) long.

    In 2006, there were 67 reportable spills totaling 5,663 barrels (900.3 m3) on Enbridge’s energy and transportation and distribution system; in 2007, there were 65 reportable spills totaling 13,777 barrels (2,190.4 m3).

    On March 18, 2006, approximately 613 barrels (97.5 m3) of crude oil were released when a pump failed at Enbridge’s Willmar terminal in Saskatchewan. According to Enbridge, roughly half the oil was recovered, the remainder contributing to ‘off-site’ impacts.

    On January 1, 2007 an Enbridge pipeline that runs from Superior, Wisconsin to near Whitewater, Wisconsin cracked open and spilled ~50,000 US gallons (190 m3) of crude oil onto farmland and into a drainage ditch. The same pipeline was struck by construction crews on February 2, 2007, in Rusk County, Wisconsin, spilling ~126,000 US gallons (480 m3) of crude. Some of the oil filled a hole more than 20 feet (6.1 m) deep and was reported to have contaminated the local water table.

    In April 2007, roughly 6,227 barrels (990.0 m3) of crude oil spilled into a field downstream of an Enbridge pumping station near Glenavon, Saskatchewan. Long-term site remediation is being attempted to bring the site to “as close as possible to its original condition”.

    In 2009, Enbridge Energy Partners, a US affiliate of Enbridge Inc., agreed to pay $1.1 million to settle a lawsuit brought against the company by the state of Wisconsin for 545 environmental violations. In a news release from Wisconsin’s Department of Justice, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said “…the incidents of violation were numerous and widespread, and resulted in impacts to the streams and wetlands throughout the various watersheds.” The violations were incurred while building portions of the company’s Southern Access pipeline, a ~$2.1 billion project to transport crude from the oil sands region in Alberta to Chicago.

    In January 2009 an Enbridge pipeline leaked about 4,000 barrels (640 m3) of oil southeast of Fort McMurray at the company’s Cheecham Terminal tank farm. It was reported in the Edmonton Journal that most of the spilled oil was contained within berms, but that about 1% of the oil, about 40 barrels (6.4 m3), sprayed into the air and coated nearby snow and trees.

    April 2010 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured spilling more than 1500 litres of oil in Virden, Manitoba, which leaked into the Boghill Creek which eventually connects to the Assiniboine River.

    July 2010, a leaking pipeline spilled an estimated 843,444 US gallons (3,192.78 m3) of crude oil into Talmadge Creek leading to the Kalamazoo River in southwest Michigan on Monday, July 26.

    On September 9, 2010, a rupture on Enbridge’s Line 6A pipeline near Romeoville, Illinois released an estimate 6,100 barrels (970 m3) of oil into the surrounding area.

  • Watersheds

    This website is horribly ignorant.

    Pembina is a responsible organization. It works cooperatively with industry, government and other relevant stakeholders in promoting sustainable energy solutions. It is transparent in their funding (unlike this website) and has won praise from even the Wildrose party in past.

    http://www.pembina.org/blog/598

    What does this website do other than smear important actors in the oil sands discourse in a manner equal to Greenpeace. Even though the Athabasaca has never had a monitoring program capable of testing to effects of development on the river in the 40+ years since commercial development commenced, this website would like to silence those critics and prefer to potentially my destroy my watershed over an argument about foreign funding (even though Pembina is 40% funded by the oil industry).

    Ethical Oil, please release your funding list.

    • Robmax

      Pembina institute is one of the bunch responsible the loss of 140,000 jobs in Alberta when they coned Stelmach into raising royalties. They should be jail for trying to destroy the economy. We are sick of the traitors in this country.

      • Wisk

        They supported a report commissioned by the Premier on experts on the topic that prior to the release of the report, were praised by industry actors. I would love to hear where the 140,000 job cuts figure you cite came from. Advocating for the sustainable energy solutions does not make you a ‘traitor’.

        • Robmax

          Trying to destroy the energy industry is not advocating for sustainable energy. Which is by the way, is nothing but a subsidy scam. It’s largely responsible for destroying the economies of Europe. One hundred and forty thousand jobs were lost as a direct result of trying to raise the royalties because investment dried right up. That is how much the unemployment rate went up in Alberta. There were companies like Mullen for instance, that were forced to lay off over 1000 employees alone. They supported a shame report and advocated for it, while the industry warned them of the job losses that would follow, and they did. Stelmach was forced to backtrack on those increases because the conventional oil patch was collapsing. The increases on the oil sands that were not rolled back, led to the building of oil sands components in Asia. More jobs lost. The likes of the Pembina institute are traitors, and if I had my way they would in jail now, and they would never get out.

          • WesternDude

            The oil sands for the first 60 years of development and a lot of technology was supported by a public subsidy. Syncrude was a public private consortium. Why should sustainable energy solutions be any different. Fossil fuels externalize the costs of energy production and thats why we have a climate change issue (which I’m sure you think is a socialist scam designed to reorient the worlds wealth even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence)

            “The likes of the Pembina institute are traitors, and if I had my way they would in jail now, and they would never get out.”

            Yikes! If you had your way, it sounds like you would make Canada a far less ethical source of oil.

            This province is held hostage by oil companies, we should look to diversify our economy so we aren’t so reliant on the whims of energy giants. We have extremely low royalties, Norway has 100,000$ for every citizen sitting in a bank collecting interest, given that they are also extracting energy intensive oil that requires extensive R&D, why is Alberta so worse off.

          • Dial 1 800 Oil Spill

            well said… WesternDude…

          • Kansas

            yes.

            pro-oil people just love to bend over.

  • Canadian Nationalist

    The Northern Gateway hearings relate to the construction and operation of a pipeline on CANADIAN soil.

    They are not about setting policy for developing or exporting Canadian natural resources. that is the Government’s role.

    With that in mind there would be a very limited need for any non-Canadian presenters to be heard.

    These hearings should not be allowed to become a means for international entities to delay or siderack the regulatory approval process to serve their own economic interests.

    • CanadianVoter

      I don’t think that they are. But it does seem like the interests of Big Oil and people linked to EthicalOil.org *are* trying to hijack the democratic process that is set in place.

      Respecting democratic process is more in the interest of regular Canadians, than changing the process to suit special interest organizations.

  • Bigcitylib

    So, the fellow that’s doing your radio ad sounds very much like the guy that did anti-Iganitieff ads before the last election for the CPoC. These ads were orchestrated by the
    The Würstlin Group. Are you using the Tories
    http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2012/01/gotcha-connections-between-ethical-oil.htmlPR company?

  • Stevieg222
    • http://www.facebook.com/jonathan.waldie Jonathan Waldie

      Not really……

  • Bartholomew

    “Ethical Oil” is nothing more than a public relations smokescreen. Oil extracted on Canadian soil is no less polluting than oil extracted from Saudi Arabian soil. “Ethics” do not magically cleanse oil of its intrinsic filthiness. “Ethics” will not reduce the amount of pollutants that refined oil products emit when they are burned. The laws of physics and chemistry are not affected by “ethics”.

    Tobacco is grown on Canadian soil as well. Perhaps we should start marketing Export A, Du Maurier, and Peter Jackson as “ethical” cigarettes. Why worry about lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, strokes, etc. when you’ve got “ethics” on your side?

  • Guest
  • I live downstream of Fort Mac

    I agree the decision on this pipeline should focus on creating jobs for Canadians. So as a Canadian (not funded by foreigners) I am outraged we are just shipping unrefined product offshore like this. If your case was really about jobs for Canadians and creating a strong economy you should be advocating for refining to be done here.

    Seems “unethical,” to me to have that refining done offshore.

    Seems “unethical,” to allow those refining profits to go offshore.

    Seems “unethical,” to have to make me drink water downstream of the area where this bitumen is produced.

  • Paul L

    Oh, come on. People are so much smarter than this. I’m making my contribution to the Sierra Club right now.

  • David

    I am Canadian and you don’t speak for me at all! You are just shills for the big corporations and the mega wealthy. You people make me sick!

  • Guest

    Your spokesperson that was on Power and Politics was an absolute disgrace. Not exactly the approach I was hoping to see from Ethical Oil…extremely embarrassing and harmful moment for your organization.

  • Dave

    This website has the self-serving habit of “reporting” about only issues that support it’s cause, instead of legitimate two-sided discussion about the merits and pitfalls of the oil industry in Alberta. Even the questions it asks are one-sided e.g.. “Should we support ethical oil from Canada or support unethical oil from foreign countries?” Forget the fact that I would be labelled morally irresponsible if i chose the ladder, or unpatriotic, or against economic progress ect.. The question itself is false – why do I have to choose one or the other? How about neither? We Canadians need to stop destroying our land for so that these oil elites get rich and our working class gets the scraps. How about redistributing the wealth that these big oil executives get, and start using it to create more and better work for our Canadian citizens? We don’t have to choose “ethical” or “conflict” oil. Economic progress does not mean human progress. Canada does not need destroy our land, water and air for big oil. Do you really think that expanding the tar sands will really make our lives better? Wake up Canada!

EthicalOil