I would like to respond to the Wexit column (Is Wexit what the people want?) on the opinion page of the Oct. 30 edition. At best, it demonstrated a myopic view of the consequences of Wexit, being that “big corporate oil and gas companies in Alberta” would be the beneficiaries. At worst, it implied that security of water supply is in danger.
Let’s consider the facts please. Where is the mention of Suncor Energy and Canadian Natural, both Canadian owned and making up more than two million barrels per day of the total 2.8 million produced in Alberta? Let’s also consider that it’s not the oil companies that are the largest beneficiaries of a healthy oil and gas industry in Alberta. It is the service industries that benefit from the capital and operating spend of the oil companies, directly translating into jobs for Albertans.
Look at the number of news reports we have heard over the last two years of small Alberta towns falling on their feet because of job losses, directly connected to service contracts to the oil industry that have been terminated.
Can someone please explain to me how water security will be compromised as a result of separation? This seems to me to be pure speculation to stoke panic.
Please let me clarify that I am not a “Wexiter,” but I do get frustrated with media articles and columns that present partial information and create a distorted picture as a result.
I have seen too much of this in the past years with the Tar Sands Campaign, and against my normally apolitical and apathetic approach to the media, I want to respond to this column because it does not seem to provide a considered approach to the issue of Wexit. What would have been more interesting to read would be a discussion on the pros and cons of the specifics presented by Project Confederation. They appear to have addressed the problems related to a hard Wexit by prompting partial options and components.