City’s Stance on Enbridge Yet to Be Decided
Monday, December 12, 2011 @ 7:30 PM
Prince George, B.C. – With the date for public hearings on the Enbridge pipeline set to start in the New Year, City Council for Prince George is being reminded it has intervenor status in the Joint Review Hearings.
With this status, the City may:
- submit written questions, known as information requests;
- submit evidence in written format, or with permission orally during the community hearings;
- question other Intervenors and Northern Gateway orally at the final hearings;
- receive all documents submitted in the joint review process including notices of motion and related materials;
- submit notices of motion and participate in notices of motion submitted by other Parties; and
- submit a final argument
The deadline for a written submission is the 22nd of this month, too tight a deadline for this Council to meet.
The City may also provide a "Letter of comment".
Letters of comment are a written statement that express knowledge, views or concerns on the Project. A letter of comment is expected to include supporting information as well as a statement regarding the nature of interest in the Project.
Initiatives Prince George has already provided a submission to the Joint Review Panel, that submission offers support for the project.
The deadline for submission of letters of comment is March 13, 2012.
Recognizing that the Enbridge project is a controversial one, Councillor Murry Krause wanted Council to have an opportunity to discuss the project before instructing Staff to develop a letter as he would like to have some say in the "tone" of that letter.
Council has agreed to have staff draft some recommendations which would open the floor to discussion on the project. Councillor Stolz was the lone Council member to stand in opposition to that motion.
Comments
I dont like the idea of IPG, being an arm of the City expressing an opinion on these types of issues.
It gives the impression that they speak for the City, when if fact that may not be so.
Hopefully IPG will be part of the **Core** review.
Exactly!
X2
IPG should be run out of town. Why do we pay City Council if they can’t handle this stuff? Make the damn decision and stop “dithering”. The pipeline is going to be built–regardless.
This kind of thing on outside commitees is in part that sunk Dan Rogers.
Why does it matter what the City’s stance is? Why are they wasting time on this?
Harper already expressed his determination that he will see to it that the pipeline will go ahead, no matter what.
Is the city’s opinion going to make the slightest difference?
Of course not, whatever it is. The city should stick to its core mandate: Deal only with matters which are CITY matters, like water, sewer, sidewalks, roads, snow removal, keeping the taxes and fees affordable and so forth.
Don’t waste time and effort on this pipeline thing!
In other words finger up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. For this economically depressed city to decline support would be sad indeed.
Perhaps you should watch these crimes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gXaYZVGw44&feature=player_embedded
Not good enough…How about this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlnri_scklA&feature=player_embedded
If it’s on Youtube, it must be true.
“There is no one as blind as those who refuse to see”
Hmmm
http://www.terracedaily.ca/show9101a/IS_IT_TRUE_ELMER_DERRICK_IS_THE_GITXSAN_HEREDITARY_CHIEF
http://www.youtube.com/user/EnbridgePipelines
The below is Cut n pasted from Wikipedia
___________________________________________
Spills and violations
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.[9]
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.[10]
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) [11]
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.[12] 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.[13] 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.[14]
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”.[12]
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.[15] 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.”[16] 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.[17]
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.[18]
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.[19][20]
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
They operate 13,500 km of pipeline and move 2 million barrels per day. Your point is?…
Point is that all pipelines WILL leak at some time or another. Do we want our environment (or any environment, anywhere) polluted by crude oil? Of course any clear thinking person would object to the possibility. It is folly to think that the developed/developing world will ever try to eliminate fossil fuels, so maybe the pressure that interest groups try to bear against Big Oil should be focused on pipeline construction methods, instead of bans.
Is there not a way to build a pipeline that will drastically reduce the potential for an eventual leak? I’ll bet there is, and it’s a sure bet that it will cost a lot more than conventional methods too, but maybe that is something to look at.
metalman.
Pollution problem solved?
http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.com/2011/12/climate-pollution-scam-is-overproblem.html
Seems simple. If you want to shut down the pipeline companies, stop using oil.
“Is there not a way to build a pipeline that will drastically reduce the potential for an eventual leak? “
Sure, build it out of titanium if you want. However, that would pretty much kill any economic viability. There has to be a balance.
Canada has some of the toughest environmental rules and regulations in the world. But, nobody want to hear that. They want guarantees, which there are none.
I could go on wikipedia right now and edit in a 100,000 barrel spill in downtown PG and it would be there for you to cut and paste…
That would make you a fraud and an idiot!
Cheers
I know, I know, Enbridge didn`t puke over 800,000 gallons of crude into the Kalamazoo and the Brithish Petroleum spill in the gulf of Mexico never happened….The media faked it!
HA HA…Now that`s priceless
The missing links clearly live in Prince George!
Yeah, politically incorrect isn’t exactly popular with Grant’s type.
Hey, weren’t you banned from this site Mr. Powell River Persuader?
You mean The straight Goods.
I love his site, hard hitting with a touch of humour.
Too bad there wasn`t more like him.
Lol. Keep on pretending! You might get away with it!
We all want a good standard of living.
However some of us don’t understand the costs. It’s not just the price off the item. Every item has an environmental toll.
The oil sands carry a heavy burden. Without them we would all be poorer. Less money for roads, for hospitals, for education.
The continued development of this resource and the infrastructure to carry it to market is the future of our country.
Fishing on the Kitimat River is my favorite thing in the world. We need to balance nature and development.
When you are ready to post a link to another site, scroll down to the bottom of the page and first read the following
instructions:
—————————-
To include links within your comment, enclose the address in and tags. For example: http://www.opinion250.com
—————————-
Type ahead of the http: and type in immediately after the end of the link. No extra spaces or extra anything.
Then post the link with your comment.
A CN Rail derailment caused the largest inland oil spill in Canadian History. Why don’t people call for the end of all rail transport? Oh yeah, because the media is all about getting people to fear pipelines right now. And apparently, it’s working.
Just copy said links…then paste in your web address bar…Shazzaam…Click n go.
Cheers
We don’t want any darn economic development.
It brings prosperity which is evil!!!
“The oil sands carry a heavy burden. Without them we would all be poorer.”
Yes, we would be, and that is the sad thing.
Does Luxembourg have oil of any sort? Nope. $82,600
Bermuda? Nope. %69,900
Singapore? Nope. $62,100
Hong Kong? No. $45,900
Switzerland? Nope. $42,600
Canada? Yes. $39,400
The figures shown are the GDP/person. Canada has the 22nd highest GDP/person in the world and the third largest proven oil reserves in the world.
The question continues to be why are we so dependent on the natural resources we have. There are many countries which have considerably less than we have. Their “natural” resources are their people and the competitiveness of their people.
Given the resources we have we could increase our financial living standard significantly if we worked smarter and started to more seriously compete in the value added market.
For instance, what are we learning from the oil sands which we can export as products and knowledge to other countries which have and will have difficult access to future oil depowsit finds?
The same in forestry. Why do we have USA, Japanese and Swedish machinery logging in our forests instead of Canadian machinery which we can also export?
Comments for this article are closed.