61 First Nations from the Fraser River watershed came together yesterday to declare they would protect the Fraser River watershed from Enbridge Northern Gateway proposed oil pipeline & other tar sands related projects.
See www.savethefraser.ca.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
Ottawa ignoring safety
Ottawa ignoring safety
By Arthur Williams - Prince George Free Press
Retrieved from: www.bclocalnew.com
Published: July 08, 2010 8:00 AM
Updated: July 08, 2010 2:29 PM
The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project has drawn heavy criticism from politicians, environmentalists, First Nations and competitors.
On June 21 federal Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff weighed into the debate by calling for a moratorium on oil tankers along B.C.’s coast.
“The Harper Conservatives refuse to recognize the tanker moratorium off the B.C. coast, and have taken no steps to protect our marine ecosystems from harmful oil spills,” Ignatieff said in a written statement. “The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a grim reminder that we must always be vigilant. While the Conservative government has left our coastal communities and oceans vulnerable, the Liberal Party is proposing innovative, decisive action that will make Canada a world leader in protecting our oceans and coastal communities.”
In his speech, delivered in Victoria, Ignatieff stated clearly that his party opposes the development of a tanker terminal in Kitimat.
Local environmental group Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance formed to oppose the development of the Northern Gateway Project. Spokesman Josh DeLeenheer said the pipeline project will have little long-term benefit for the region, while exposing it to the risk of an environmental disaster.
“We really feel this project doesn’t have social license. This project doesn’t really represent any kind of diversification,” he said. “We’re not against economic development, but we want to see it move in a different direction.”
Other opportunities like bioenergy and logistics will create new, sustainable jobs without the same degree of risk, he said.
The ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an example of what could happen if a tanker were to run aground in the Douglas Channel.
“You really get a sense of the tragedy of it. You really start to see the scope of what the damage can be to tourism, fisheries, the environment,” he said. “Obviously there are differences between deep-sea drilling and tankers. But once the oil hits the water, it’s the same. When you’re talking about the very large crude carriers that can carry two million barrels, it could be devastating.”
On June 2 Amnesty International called on B.C. and Canada to not allow the project to go ahead without, “the free, prior and informed consent of the affected First Nations.”
The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council and Wet’suwet’en First Nation are directly in the path of the pipeline and say they will not support it. In addition, 26 other First Nations groups downstream of the 773 water crossings have voiced their opposition to the project.
Carrier Sekani Tribal Council vice-chief Terry Teegee said the council has been clear from the beginning they oppose the project.
First Nations have a clear human right to appropriate consultation on natural resources projects in their traditional territories, Teegee said.
“That’s what we’ve been advocating to the province and Canada,” he said. “They need to be looking at the cumulative impacts of development.”
Instead of looking at the pipeline in isolation, there needs to be an examination of the total human impact on the ecosystem and river systems, he said.
First Nations groups have been shut out during the development of major infrastructure projects in the past and unless there is a change it appears that is being repeated with the Enbridge project, he said.
Pipeline operator Kinder Morgan Canada has filed a letter with the National Energy Board saying the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is redundant.
“We didn’t see there was an adequate review of alternatives to the project, which is required under the process,” Kinder Morgan communications director Andrew Galarnyk said. “The application needs to have backing consumer support, and it doesn’t.”
Kinder Morgan Canada currently operates the Trans Mountain Pipeline between Edmonton and Burnaby. In 2008 Kinder Morgan completed upgrades to the 50-year-old pipeline to increase capacity from 225,000 barrels per day to 300,000 barrels per day.
Using the existing right of way Kinder Morgan could increase its capacity by another 400,000 barrels per day.
“We see our project as being less environmentally impacting,” Galarnyk said. “We have an existing right of way with pipe in the ground now. We have existing dock facilities in Burnaby.”
Unlike the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, Kinder Morgan could increase its capacity incrementally as demand warrants, he said.
“We will not file our application until we have that support.”
By Arthur Williams - Prince George Free Press
Retrieved from: www.bclocalnew.com
Published: July 08, 2010 8:00 AM
Updated: July 08, 2010 2:29 PM
The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project has drawn heavy criticism from politicians, environmentalists, First Nations and competitors.
On June 21 federal Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff weighed into the debate by calling for a moratorium on oil tankers along B.C.’s coast.
“The Harper Conservatives refuse to recognize the tanker moratorium off the B.C. coast, and have taken no steps to protect our marine ecosystems from harmful oil spills,” Ignatieff said in a written statement. “The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a grim reminder that we must always be vigilant. While the Conservative government has left our coastal communities and oceans vulnerable, the Liberal Party is proposing innovative, decisive action that will make Canada a world leader in protecting our oceans and coastal communities.”
In his speech, delivered in Victoria, Ignatieff stated clearly that his party opposes the development of a tanker terminal in Kitimat.
Local environmental group Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance formed to oppose the development of the Northern Gateway Project. Spokesman Josh DeLeenheer said the pipeline project will have little long-term benefit for the region, while exposing it to the risk of an environmental disaster.
“We really feel this project doesn’t have social license. This project doesn’t really represent any kind of diversification,” he said. “We’re not against economic development, but we want to see it move in a different direction.”
Other opportunities like bioenergy and logistics will create new, sustainable jobs without the same degree of risk, he said.
The ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an example of what could happen if a tanker were to run aground in the Douglas Channel.
“You really get a sense of the tragedy of it. You really start to see the scope of what the damage can be to tourism, fisheries, the environment,” he said. “Obviously there are differences between deep-sea drilling and tankers. But once the oil hits the water, it’s the same. When you’re talking about the very large crude carriers that can carry two million barrels, it could be devastating.”
On June 2 Amnesty International called on B.C. and Canada to not allow the project to go ahead without, “the free, prior and informed consent of the affected First Nations.”
The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council and Wet’suwet’en First Nation are directly in the path of the pipeline and say they will not support it. In addition, 26 other First Nations groups downstream of the 773 water crossings have voiced their opposition to the project.
Carrier Sekani Tribal Council vice-chief Terry Teegee said the council has been clear from the beginning they oppose the project.
First Nations have a clear human right to appropriate consultation on natural resources projects in their traditional territories, Teegee said.
“That’s what we’ve been advocating to the province and Canada,” he said. “They need to be looking at the cumulative impacts of development.”
Instead of looking at the pipeline in isolation, there needs to be an examination of the total human impact on the ecosystem and river systems, he said.
First Nations groups have been shut out during the development of major infrastructure projects in the past and unless there is a change it appears that is being repeated with the Enbridge project, he said.
Pipeline operator Kinder Morgan Canada has filed a letter with the National Energy Board saying the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is redundant.
“We didn’t see there was an adequate review of alternatives to the project, which is required under the process,” Kinder Morgan communications director Andrew Galarnyk said. “The application needs to have backing consumer support, and it doesn’t.”
Kinder Morgan Canada currently operates the Trans Mountain Pipeline between Edmonton and Burnaby. In 2008 Kinder Morgan completed upgrades to the 50-year-old pipeline to increase capacity from 225,000 barrels per day to 300,000 barrels per day.
Using the existing right of way Kinder Morgan could increase its capacity by another 400,000 barrels per day.
“We see our project as being less environmentally impacting,” Galarnyk said. “We have an existing right of way with pipe in the ground now. We have existing dock facilities in Burnaby.”
Unlike the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, Kinder Morgan could increase its capacity incrementally as demand warrants, he said.
“We will not file our application until we have that support.”
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Letter to Initiatives Prince George from s2s.ca
Sea to Sands Challenges IPG's Stand on Enbridge
By 250 News
Wednesday, June 30, 2010 04:29 PM
retrieved from www.opinion250.com
Prince George, B.C. – The Board of Directors of Initiatives Prince George has been sent a letter by the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance.
The Alliance wants to know why IPG has repeatedly been on the record supporting the Enbridge pipeline project and if the Board will be directing IPG to make a submission to the Joint Review panel which has started its review of the pipeline application. If the Board is to make a decision on making such a submission, Sea to Sands wants to know if there will be an opportunity for public input before that decision is made.
The Alliance is also questioning IPG’s authority to take a positive stand on the project “We question the extent to which City Council members ( our voted representatives) have had input into this decision about whether or not Initiatives Prince George should be coming out in favour of the Enbridge Northern Gateway project.”
The project would see two lines built between Bruderheim Alberta and Kitimat. One line would carry oil to a terminal in Kitimat for shipment to markets in the U.S and Asia, the other would carry condensate back to Bruderheim.
With the B.P. disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, there is dwindling public confidence that such a pipeline and a marine operation would be safe from accidents and disastrous spills. Enbridge has promised multi hulled ships, special tug boats and new gps technology and radar off the coast to minimize the potential for marine spills.
Sea to Sands says it has presented a 600 signature petition to Prince George Mayor Dan Rogers calling on him to step down from the Enbridge Gateway Alliance. Mayor Rogers recently told his fellow Directors on the Regional District of Fraser Fort George that being a member of the Alliance’s community group doesn’t mean you support the project, only that you are in a position to better hear the project’s plans and offer ideas and concerns.
By 250 News
Wednesday, June 30, 2010 04:29 PM
retrieved from www.opinion250.com
Prince George, B.C. – The Board of Directors of Initiatives Prince George has been sent a letter by the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance.
The Alliance wants to know why IPG has repeatedly been on the record supporting the Enbridge pipeline project and if the Board will be directing IPG to make a submission to the Joint Review panel which has started its review of the pipeline application. If the Board is to make a decision on making such a submission, Sea to Sands wants to know if there will be an opportunity for public input before that decision is made.
The Alliance is also questioning IPG’s authority to take a positive stand on the project “We question the extent to which City Council members ( our voted representatives) have had input into this decision about whether or not Initiatives Prince George should be coming out in favour of the Enbridge Northern Gateway project.”
The project would see two lines built between Bruderheim Alberta and Kitimat. One line would carry oil to a terminal in Kitimat for shipment to markets in the U.S and Asia, the other would carry condensate back to Bruderheim.
With the B.P. disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, there is dwindling public confidence that such a pipeline and a marine operation would be safe from accidents and disastrous spills. Enbridge has promised multi hulled ships, special tug boats and new gps technology and radar off the coast to minimize the potential for marine spills.
Sea to Sands says it has presented a 600 signature petition to Prince George Mayor Dan Rogers calling on him to step down from the Enbridge Gateway Alliance. Mayor Rogers recently told his fellow Directors on the Regional District of Fraser Fort George that being a member of the Alliance’s community group doesn’t mean you support the project, only that you are in a position to better hear the project’s plans and offer ideas and concerns.
Friday, June 25, 2010
federal Liberals promise oil tanker ban off BC
Ignatieff supports oil tanker ban off B.C. coast
Chris Wilson
Vancouver — From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Retrieved from
Published on Monday, Jun. 21, 2010 8:52PM EDT
Last updated on Tuesday, Jun. 22, 2010 6:04AM EDT
The federal Liberals want to ban oil supertankers from British Columbia’s northwestern coast, a promise that would halt the building of a proposed $5.5-billion oil sands pipeline from Alberta through northern B.C.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s announcement that a future Liberal government would legislate a ban on the tankers pits his party against one of Canada’s largest companies, Enbridge Inc.
Last month, the Calgary oil pipeline firm formally applied to the National Energy Board to build the pipeline. The Northern Gateway would move 525,000 barrels a day from the oil sands to Kitimat for export to Asia, but the plan to ban tanker traffic around Haida Gwaii would quash the plan.
“We know that those are dangerous waters. We all know what oil does when oil spills,” Vancouver Quadra Liberal MP Joyce Murray said in an interview. “We believe there’s no guarantee there won’t be a spill.”
Mr. Ignatieff wasn’t available for an interview, an aide said after the Liberal leader announced the new policy at an event on Monday in Victoria. In a statement, the Liberal leader declared: “The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a grim reminder that we must always be vigilant.”
Enbridge said its Gateway pipeline would bring much-needed jobs and investment to northern British Columbia and be built and operated to stringent environmental and safety standards. But because the pipeline proposal is before a quasi-judicial hearing at the National Energy Board, Enbridge didn’t speak specifically about the Liberals’ talk of a tanker ban.
“It wouldn’t be appropriate to speculate on these types of political policy statements,” Enbridge spokesman Alan Roth said.
The oil pipeline is opposed by 28 first nations along the route, according to environmental group Dogwood Initiative, and a poll conducted for Dogwood in May found that 80 per cent of 500 people surveyed supported a ban on tanker traffic on the B.C. coast.
Enbridge is lobbying Canadians to support Northern Gateway, placing full-page ads in newspapers that promote a predicted $81-billion in direct and indirect government revenues over 30 years.
Ms. Murray indicated the Liberals are against large supertankers and not the many other ships that sail B.C. waters. The Liberals don’t oppose the smaller tankers carrying a light oil called condensate that already ply the choppy waters of Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound around Haida Gwaii.
The Liberals also did not take a stand on the oil tankers that sail past downtown Vancouver and Stanley Park taking crude from a facility in Burnaby, a terminus of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline from Alberta.
Two New Democrat MPs in the Lower Mainland – Fin Donnelly of New Westminster-Coquitlam and Don Davies of Vancouver-Kingsway – already have private members bills before Parliament to legislate a tanker ban in the same area around Haida Gwaii.
Growing support in Parliament buoyed Dogwood Initiative, which has worked for years against Gateway. A spokesman for the group said that if the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois support the NDP bills, a ban could be legislated quickly.
“We’re on the road to victory,” said Eric Swanson of Dogwood. “We could have a legislated tanker ban before the next election.”
The Liberals said they would formalize a tanker moratorium enacted in 1972. Enbridge disputes this moratorium, citing a 2005 letter by then Liberal transport minister Jean Lapierre to Liberal David Anderson. The letter noted a ban on tanker traffic from Alaska to the southern United States, but added that tankers originating in ports such as Kitimat weren’t banned.
Separate from the tanker question, a moratorium on drilling for oil and natural gas on B.C.’s offshore remains. The provincial B.C. Liberal government tried early last decade to get Ottawa to lift the drilling ban, but gave up in 2005 and recently reaffirmed there are no plans to open up the coast to drilling.
Chris Wilson
Vancouver — From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Retrieved from
Published on Monday, Jun. 21, 2010 8:52PM EDT
Last updated on Tuesday, Jun. 22, 2010 6:04AM EDT
The federal Liberals want to ban oil supertankers from British Columbia’s northwestern coast, a promise that would halt the building of a proposed $5.5-billion oil sands pipeline from Alberta through northern B.C.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s announcement that a future Liberal government would legislate a ban on the tankers pits his party against one of Canada’s largest companies, Enbridge Inc.
Last month, the Calgary oil pipeline firm formally applied to the National Energy Board to build the pipeline. The Northern Gateway would move 525,000 barrels a day from the oil sands to Kitimat for export to Asia, but the plan to ban tanker traffic around Haida Gwaii would quash the plan.
“We know that those are dangerous waters. We all know what oil does when oil spills,” Vancouver Quadra Liberal MP Joyce Murray said in an interview. “We believe there’s no guarantee there won’t be a spill.”
Mr. Ignatieff wasn’t available for an interview, an aide said after the Liberal leader announced the new policy at an event on Monday in Victoria. In a statement, the Liberal leader declared: “The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a grim reminder that we must always be vigilant.”
Enbridge said its Gateway pipeline would bring much-needed jobs and investment to northern British Columbia and be built and operated to stringent environmental and safety standards. But because the pipeline proposal is before a quasi-judicial hearing at the National Energy Board, Enbridge didn’t speak specifically about the Liberals’ talk of a tanker ban.
“It wouldn’t be appropriate to speculate on these types of political policy statements,” Enbridge spokesman Alan Roth said.
The oil pipeline is opposed by 28 first nations along the route, according to environmental group Dogwood Initiative, and a poll conducted for Dogwood in May found that 80 per cent of 500 people surveyed supported a ban on tanker traffic on the B.C. coast.
Enbridge is lobbying Canadians to support Northern Gateway, placing full-page ads in newspapers that promote a predicted $81-billion in direct and indirect government revenues over 30 years.
Ms. Murray indicated the Liberals are against large supertankers and not the many other ships that sail B.C. waters. The Liberals don’t oppose the smaller tankers carrying a light oil called condensate that already ply the choppy waters of Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound around Haida Gwaii.
The Liberals also did not take a stand on the oil tankers that sail past downtown Vancouver and Stanley Park taking crude from a facility in Burnaby, a terminus of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline from Alberta.
Two New Democrat MPs in the Lower Mainland – Fin Donnelly of New Westminster-Coquitlam and Don Davies of Vancouver-Kingsway – already have private members bills before Parliament to legislate a tanker ban in the same area around Haida Gwaii.
Growing support in Parliament buoyed Dogwood Initiative, which has worked for years against Gateway. A spokesman for the group said that if the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois support the NDP bills, a ban could be legislated quickly.
“We’re on the road to victory,” said Eric Swanson of Dogwood. “We could have a legislated tanker ban before the next election.”
The Liberals said they would formalize a tanker moratorium enacted in 1972. Enbridge disputes this moratorium, citing a 2005 letter by then Liberal transport minister Jean Lapierre to Liberal David Anderson. The letter noted a ban on tanker traffic from Alaska to the southern United States, but added that tankers originating in ports such as Kitimat weren’t banned.
Separate from the tanker question, a moratorium on drilling for oil and natural gas on B.C.’s offshore remains. The provincial B.C. Liberal government tried early last decade to get Ottawa to lift the drilling ban, but gave up in 2005 and recently reaffirmed there are no plans to open up the coast to drilling.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Enbridge has filed
The following from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2 days after Enbridge filed, the Haisla and Gitga'at Nations hosted their Feast of the Nations at Kitamaat Village, a fantastic & very well-attended feast. All First Nations of north western BC made statements of solidarity to stand together against this project, and they are supported by a growing number of well-organized ENGOs and concerned northern BC, BC & Canadian residents.
Enbridge, you are in for an epic fight, and Sea to Sands will be there as part of this growing network of opposition.
NO MEANS NO!
*************************************************
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Bulletin
This weekly bulletin includes links to all news releases issued by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, announcements issued by the Minister of the Environment with respect to federal environmental assessment, and opportunities for public comment and availability of participant funding. Please note that some announcements are issued by departments other than the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Refer to specific announcements for appropriate contact information.
Announcements during the past seven days:
May 27, 2010 - Northern Gateway Pipeline Project - Joint Review Panel Begins Assessment of Recently Filed Northern Gateway Pipeline Application
With today's filing of the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project application, the Joint Review Panel (the Panel) will begin its assessment of the application.
The Panel will review the proposed project under both the National Energy Board Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It will assess the application according to the Joint Review Panel Agreement and Terms of Reference.
The Panel will first review the application to determine if it contains sufficient information to initiate the joint review process and issue a Hearing Order. The Hearing Order will outline the various ways people can participate in the review process, deadlines for key steps of the process and a draft List of Issues which will be considered for the project. Information sessions and panel sessions will be held in communities close to the proposed project. All of these sessions will be public and advertised in local media. A complete schedule will be posted on the National Energy Board's website and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's website.
www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca
Enbridge, you are in for an epic fight, and Sea to Sands will be there as part of this growing network of opposition.
NO MEANS NO!
*************************************************
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Bulletin
This weekly bulletin includes links to all news releases issued by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, announcements issued by the Minister of the Environment with respect to federal environmental assessment, and opportunities for public comment and availability of participant funding. Please note that some announcements are issued by departments other than the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Refer to specific announcements for appropriate contact information.
Announcements during the past seven days:
May 27, 2010 - Northern Gateway Pipeline Project - Joint Review Panel Begins Assessment of Recently Filed Northern Gateway Pipeline Application
With today's filing of the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project application, the Joint Review Panel (the Panel) will begin its assessment of the application.
The Panel will review the proposed project under both the National Energy Board Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It will assess the application according to the Joint Review Panel Agreement and Terms of Reference.
The Panel will first review the application to determine if it contains sufficient information to initiate the joint review process and issue a Hearing Order. The Hearing Order will outline the various ways people can participate in the review process, deadlines for key steps of the process and a draft List of Issues which will be considered for the project. Information sessions and panel sessions will be held in communities close to the proposed project. All of these sessions will be public and advertised in local media. A complete schedule will be posted on the National Energy Board's website and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's website.
www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Feast hosted by Haisla & Gitga'at at Kitamaat Village this Saturday, May 29, 2010
Haisla First Nation
Gitga'at First Nation
May 25, 2010 17:15 ET All-Nations Feast to Focus on Stopping Enbridge Pipeline, Tankers
KITAMAAT VILLAGE, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwire - May 25, 2010) - The Haisla and Gitga'at First Nations have invited members of the public and media to a traditional feast on May 29 to re-affirm community opposition to Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline and oil tanker traffic.
WHAT: Solidarity of Nations Feast
WHERE: Haisla Recreation Centre, Kitamaat Village (13km south of Kitimat, B.C.)
WHEN: Saturday, May 29, 2010. Presentations begin at 9:00 a.m. Dinner at 4:30 p.m.
The dinner will feature the traditional foods of the coastal First Nations and will be followed by First Nations dancing.
Presenters at the feast will include:
•Dr. David Suzuki, Scientist, broadcaster and renowned conservation leader
•Guujaaw, Council of the Haida Nation
•Art Sterritt, Coastal First Nations
•Stewart Phillip, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
•Dolores Pollard, Haisla Chief Councillor
•First Nations Summit (presenter TBA)
•Terry Teegee, Carrier Sekani Tribal Council
•Dr. Riki Ott, Cordova, Alaska
•Norm Hann (recently completed a 385-kilometre paddling expedition of the proposed oil tanker route on his stand-up paddleboard)
This is a family friendly event and admission is free.
Gitga'at First Nation
May 25, 2010 17:15 ET All-Nations Feast to Focus on Stopping Enbridge Pipeline, Tankers
KITAMAAT VILLAGE, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwire - May 25, 2010) - The Haisla and Gitga'at First Nations have invited members of the public and media to a traditional feast on May 29 to re-affirm community opposition to Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline and oil tanker traffic.
WHAT: Solidarity of Nations Feast
WHERE: Haisla Recreation Centre, Kitamaat Village (13km south of Kitimat, B.C.)
WHEN: Saturday, May 29, 2010. Presentations begin at 9:00 a.m. Dinner at 4:30 p.m.
The dinner will feature the traditional foods of the coastal First Nations and will be followed by First Nations dancing.
Presenters at the feast will include:
•Dr. David Suzuki, Scientist, broadcaster and renowned conservation leader
•Guujaaw, Council of the Haida Nation
•Art Sterritt, Coastal First Nations
•Stewart Phillip, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
•Dolores Pollard, Haisla Chief Councillor
•First Nations Summit (presenter TBA)
•Terry Teegee, Carrier Sekani Tribal Council
•Dr. Riki Ott, Cordova, Alaska
•Norm Hann (recently completed a 385-kilometre paddling expedition of the proposed oil tanker route on his stand-up paddleboard)
This is a family friendly event and admission is free.
Monday, May 3, 2010
BC Environment Minister admits Gulf of Mexico oil spill raises additional questions about Enbridge Northern Gateway project
Gulf oil spill fuels West Coast tanker fears
Gulf disaster 'raises a lot of additional questions,' minister says
Monday, May 3, 2010
Environmentalists in B.C. say the oil spill off the U.S. coast should serve as a warning about risks the oil and gas industry could pose to the West Coast of Canada.
There are concerns the environmental impact of the ongoing spill from the well of the wrecked Deepwater Horizon drill rig could be worse than the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster that devastated Prince William Sound in Alaska in 1989.
Jennifer Lash, director of the Living Oceans Society, says if a proposal to build a crude oil pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific is allowed to go ahead, B.C. will be at risk of a similar disaster.
Enbridge, one of North America's largest oil and gas distribution companies, wants to transport oil from the oilsands to the coast for export. Its proposed Northern Gateway project would run a twin pipeline from near Edmonton to a new marine terminal in Kitimat, B.C., for exporting petroleum and importing condensate.
Lash says that once the oil reaches the coast, it will be moved by tankers which pose a bigger danger to the environment than the oil rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico.
'Clearly the situation in the Gulf of Mexico raises a lot of additional questions.'
—B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner"Apparently oil rigs are safer than tankers. So if oil rigs are safer, and the oil rig down there was the safest, with all the latest bells and whistles, and this is the result of it, then we just need to look at it and say we cannot afford to go down that road," said Lash.
"Accidents happen. The Gulf of Mexico accident is reminding us of this," she said. "And what we need is a permanent ban on oil and gas development and tanker traffic off the coast of B.C."
Provincial Environment Minister Barry Penner said it's premature to compare the situation in the Gulf of Mexico with anything in B.C., and noted that Enbridge hasn't even begun the environmental assessment process yet.
"Our approach here in B.C. has been we would not support any oil and gas development unless it can be done in a safe way," Penner said, adding: "Clearly the situation in the Gulf of Mexico raises a lot of additional questions."
The province is carefully watching the situation in the Gulf of Mexico, Penner said, and an environmental emergency team is standing by to help if needed.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/05/03/bc-west-coast-oil-tanker-spill.html#ixzz0mt2UIyvM
Gulf disaster 'raises a lot of additional questions,' minister says
Monday, May 3, 2010
Environmentalists in B.C. say the oil spill off the U.S. coast should serve as a warning about risks the oil and gas industry could pose to the West Coast of Canada.
There are concerns the environmental impact of the ongoing spill from the well of the wrecked Deepwater Horizon drill rig could be worse than the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster that devastated Prince William Sound in Alaska in 1989.
Jennifer Lash, director of the Living Oceans Society, says if a proposal to build a crude oil pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific is allowed to go ahead, B.C. will be at risk of a similar disaster.
Enbridge, one of North America's largest oil and gas distribution companies, wants to transport oil from the oilsands to the coast for export. Its proposed Northern Gateway project would run a twin pipeline from near Edmonton to a new marine terminal in Kitimat, B.C., for exporting petroleum and importing condensate.
Lash says that once the oil reaches the coast, it will be moved by tankers which pose a bigger danger to the environment than the oil rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico.
'Clearly the situation in the Gulf of Mexico raises a lot of additional questions.'
—B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner"Apparently oil rigs are safer than tankers. So if oil rigs are safer, and the oil rig down there was the safest, with all the latest bells and whistles, and this is the result of it, then we just need to look at it and say we cannot afford to go down that road," said Lash.
"Accidents happen. The Gulf of Mexico accident is reminding us of this," she said. "And what we need is a permanent ban on oil and gas development and tanker traffic off the coast of B.C."
Provincial Environment Minister Barry Penner said it's premature to compare the situation in the Gulf of Mexico with anything in B.C., and noted that Enbridge hasn't even begun the environmental assessment process yet.
"Our approach here in B.C. has been we would not support any oil and gas development unless it can be done in a safe way," Penner said, adding: "Clearly the situation in the Gulf of Mexico raises a lot of additional questions."
The province is carefully watching the situation in the Gulf of Mexico, Penner said, and an environmental emergency team is standing by to help if needed.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/05/03/bc-west-coast-oil-tanker-spill.html#ixzz0mt2UIyvM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)