Dear editor,
I am against the Northern Gateway pipeline project.
Why? Because I'm totally selfish and wish to keep the B.C. coast free of the devastating affect that an Exxon Valdez-sized accident would have upon our fish, whales, seals, otters, birds, tourism and fishing industry and our parks and heritage sites to name a few.
Like you I've heard the experts say, "Everything we do has some risk to it, but we will work to minimize that risk as much as possible."
These experts claiming to minimize the risk, are these the same experts that were managing the risk during last year's three-million-litre spill in Michigan?
From 1999 to 2010 Enbridge has had 804 "incidents." This represents 168,000 barrels of oil spilled. In January 2009 they had a spill of 4,000 barrels at their tank farm near Fort McMurray, in September 2010 there was a 6,100-barrel spill in Illinois.
Enbridge struck a deal in 2009 with the state of Wisconsin involving 545 environmental violations.
The probability of a spill on the B.C. coast is not a calculated risk. It is a certainty. It may not happen for a year or three or 15 but it will happen and it will be catastrophic.
Those who accept the risk factor argument have already convinced themselves that a spill is simply the cost of doing business and if it's good for the oil business then it's good for everybody. Government seems to agree.
If that's true then why are we not building refineries in our own country? Why should our oil be sent raw and unprocessed to other countries so that we can buy it back as a product?
It would do the government a world of good to look back and remember such events as Chedabucto Bay and the Exxon Valdez and then try really hard to justify giving approval to what will inevitably be a major fiasco on the pristine coast of B.C.
Doug Kerr,
Courtenay
