New poll shows strong B.C. support for Gateway

Author: Northern Gateway
Dated: 5 January 2012

A new poll out suggests solid support among B.C. residents for Northern Gateway and opposition far lower than often suggested by environmental activists.

A survey by leading polling firm Ipsos Reid done on behalf of Enbridge found support for the Enbridge Northern Gateway project at 48% while those opposed at 32%.

“Clearly such statements by environmental activists that there is overwhelming opposition in B.C. to Northern Gateway are inaccurate,” said Paul Stanway, Manager of Communications for Northern Gateway.

“Judging by this poll, the people of B.C. are far more open-minded on Northern Gateway than the activists would give them credit for.”

Of the 48% in support, 14% indicated they “strongly” support Northern Gateway.

Of the 32% who oppose, 13% said they are “strongly” opposed. Two-in-10 are undecided about the project.

“Project support leads opposition in all regions, among both genders and among all age groups,” Ipsos Reid stated in a news release.

Ipsos Reid also measured B.C. residents’ familiarity with Northern Gateway.

Respondents who are either “not at all familiar” (25%) or “not very familiar” (30%) stood at 55%, according to the poll.

Those who said they are either “very familiar” (5%) or “somewhat familiar” (37%) stood at 42%.

“It will be incumbent upon us to continue to work hard at getting the facts out to British Columbians so that they can come to an informed opinion on the project,” added Stanway.

The poll of 1,000 adult British Columbians was conducted Dec. 12 - 15, 2011. Ipsos Reid estimates a margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. These data were statistically weighted to ensure the sample’s regional and age/sex composition reflects that of the actual B.C. population according to 2006 Census data.

The poll can be found here.

A news article on the poll can be found on the Vancouver Sun website.

Post your comment

All comments are moderated, not based on their opinion, but on the presentation of fact-based and constructive dialogue and compliance with our terms and conditions.
  • Northern Gateway, Jul 23rd, 2012 (2 years ago)

    Hi Joe, thanks for your comment.

    Did you see the outline of the changes we've made to our integrity, safety and operations since the Marshall incident? They're listed here:

    Safety is our top priority and following the incident in 2010 and 2011 we made a number of appropriate operational changes based on our detailed investigation of the incident. We also conducted over 175 inline inspections and over 3000 pipeline excavations over the past two years.

    The benefits this pipeline offers to BC are significant. They're outlined on this page:

  • Al, Jul 23rd, 2012 (2 years ago)

    Talk about a misleading headline; less than half does NOT equal strong support!

  • Joe Robinsmith, Jul 21st, 2012 (2 years ago)

    I have listened to the debate through the media and through talk shows on CKNW now for quite a while.

    I support the idea behind the project. As long as the world is dependent on oil and fossil fuels, we have an obligation to utilize our natural resources. However, I think that more should be done to address the concerns over the human error that caused the spill back east in Michigan. I appreciate the latest release on what will be done regarding the physical concerns, but my understanding is that it was humans who kept restarting the pipeline flow. There should be no override until it is physically checked at the locations indicating an issue.
    Secondly as a British Columbian, I wouild like to see some way of the royalties being shared with our province since the majority of the pipeline and risk is being shouldered by BC. Yes, I understand that the current situation allows the province with the resource to benefit entirely, but it is not Alberta that faces the longest section of pipeline or risk to shoreline. And the majority of the jobs after construction will all reside within Alberta. There must be some method of BC receiving benefit as well in the long term.

  • Northern Gateway, Jul 10th, 2012 (2 years ago)

    Hi Steven, thanks for your comment and question. Ipsos Reid conducted the poll and are the experts in public opinion research. This post highlights their findings. They're clear on the margin of error in their release found on their website.

  • steven, Jul 09th, 2012 (2 years ago)

    the margin of error quoted above isn't exactly accurate. "A survey with an unweighted probability sample of this size and a 100% response rate" would have this margin of error. However, the data was statistically weighted to reflect 2006 census data and there's no mention of the response rate. So, what's the actual margin or error?

  • Northern Gateway, Jul 09th, 2012 (2 years ago)

    Hi Jenny, thanks for your question.

    We do not speak for, or on behalf of, governments or political parties. It is best for you to contact the parties directly or search news media websites for statements that outline their respective positions.

  • Northern Gateway, Jul 09th, 2012 (2 years ago)

    Hi David, thanks for joining the conversation.

    Northern Gateway is committed to hiring as many local workers as practicable in both construction and operational phases.

    Northern Gateway is also designed to transport a variety of crude oil types including upgraded oils.

  • Northern Gateway, Jul 09th, 2012 (2 years ago)

    Hi John, thanks for your comment.

    Ipsos Reid is a leading Canadian public opinion research organization. The poll was scientific and transparent in its methodology and conduct.

    This same poll question was asked in a subsequent poll commissioned by the NDP and found similar levels of support for the project.

  • Jenny, Jul 08th, 2012 (2 years ago)

    could you tell me which political party is on your side at the moment?

  • David Zunker, Jul 08th, 2012 (2 years ago)

    I am very opposed. A sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries is worth millions more to the BC economy than being a conduit for Alberta Oil. A viable fisheries employs 1,000s while an oil port and pipeline employs a few hundred most of whom are from elsewhere. Let them pipe it directly down to the US. Why should we bend over for the big oil companies? I see no plans for any new or upgraded refineries here.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next »

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments

Share this page