New Group Formed To Fight Pipeline

Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:04 PM

Prince George- A group known as the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance has been formed in Prince George with a view to raising concerns about the proposed Enbridge Pipeline that would cross BC ending up at the coastal port of Kitimat.

Josh Deleenheer, says his group has attracted 300 members in less than a week after being formed to inform the public of the risks of the oil pipeline and the tanker traffic.

Enbridge proposes to construct two parallel pipelines from Northern Alberta’s tar sands to the port of Kitimat; one pipe will carry crude bitumen, a heavy oil product, to the coast of BC for oil tankers destined for Asian and American markets. The second pipe will carry condensate inland; condensate is used to transform the heavy oil from the tar sands into product that can be moved by pipeline.

Meantime David Luggi, Tribal Chief of the Carrier Sekani Chief Council, appearing on the Meisner program on CFIS says the majority of the bands over which the pipeline will pass are opposed to the construction.

Between Alberta and BC, Luggi says there are 60 First Nations over whose territory the line will pass.

Enbridge says they have 29 bands on side, but many says Luggi are fringe bands , in other words whose territory borders another band were the pipe line crosses. Plain and simple says Luggi the majority of the bands are opposed to its construction, right down to the port of Kitimat.

Enbridge according to Luggi would employ about 200 people when the line has been finished and the risk to the watersheds of the Fraser, Skeena, Bulkley, and all of the northern rivers is too great to allow the project to go ahead.

Luggi singled out Mayor Dan Rogers for criticism saying that the city has recently hired a Public relations officer and Rogers supports the pipeline project. "Can we expect that the new PR guy will be spinning a story to us about the benefits of the pipe line at a cost of $95,000 a year?"

A recent study prepared for the Pembina Institute by David Levy, outlines the vast number of salmon that would be at risk in the event of a spill along the line.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:04 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: metalman on November 25 2009 12:37 PM

Here we go again. Okay, how much do you want to allow this to go ahead?
Personally, I don't like the idea of all those supertankers traversing the Douglas Channel, sooner or later there will be an accident. Trouble is, the pipeline, like it or not, is needed. Its called progress.
metalman.

Posted by: MrPG on November 25 2009 1:33 PM

Good post metalman. Like it or not, pipelines are the safest way to transport oil. And until we all stop using oil, it still needs to get from point A to B.

Posted by: MrPG on November 25 2009 1:34 PM

"Luggi singled out Mayor Dan Rogers for criticism saying that the city has recently hired a Public relations officer and Rogers supports the pipeline project. "Can we expect that the new PR guy will be spinning a story to us about the benefits of the pipe line at a cost of $95,000 a year?"

Cheap comment. I wonder what Mr. Luggi's salary is?

Posted by: commoner on November 25 2009 1:54 PM

While any pipeline has environmental concerns, the parties involved are doing all they can to meet or exceed environmental standards. IMO, groups like Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance are only interested in their viewpoint. They absolutely refuse to consider the work that the company has done to appease mitigating risks associated with the project. Attacking the mayor shows a complete lack of credibility in my view.

The resources will be transported one way or another. I am willing to bet that Chief Luggi has not viewed the all the environmental assessments that have been completed to date. Those assessments are very stringent. Attacking the mayor shows a complete lack of credibility in my view.

"Luggi singled out Mayor Dan Rogers for criticism saying that the city has recently hired a Public relations officer and Rogers supports the pipeline project. "Can we expect that the new PR guy will be spinning a story to us about the benefits of the pipe line at a cost of $95,000 a year?""

Luggi's comment makes no sense. A PR hiring and Rogers' opinion of the project does NOT suggest a conspiracy as the Chief is alluding to. He sounds more like a disgruntled child rather than a leader. Besides, it doesn't really matter in the end what Mayor Rogers or the city thinks anyways. They are third parties.

If Luggi and the Sea to Sands group have legimate concerns, perhaps they should be forthcoming with facts and show how Enbridge is failing them. Kitimaat Village and the District of Kitimat supports the project. So how Luggi can say that the Port of Kitimat is opposed to it is beyond me.

Posted by: commoner on November 25 2009 2:07 PM

These two links answer the naysayers:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/northernsentinel/opinion/letters/70241672.html

http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/northernsentinel/opinion/letters/63610647.html

Posted by: Randy1955 on November 25 2009 2:43 PM

Looks to me to be another group of employed people with nothing else to do but pull everyone else down. Seen the economic situation out west lately.

Posted by: downnotout on November 25 2009 2:58 PM

Build the pipeline. That way there will be another buyer for the oil from Alberta and B.C. Than if we ever get a politician with some backbone we could tell the States scrape the lumber agreement or else we just won't let oil or gas flow south. All we would have to do is put on a tax or tariff.

Posted by: seamutt on November 25 2009 3:02 PM

Kitimat sure can use the jobs.

Posted by: rvuser on November 25 2009 3:40 PM

Its amazing how easy it is to sit back and try to stop progress when one continues to get paid by the taxpayers of this great nation. Perhaps if you really had to get out and scrounge for your livelihood, you may be more apt to accept that nothing is achieved without risk.

Posted by: chickenbus on November 25 2009 4:07 PM

Employment will be lower than the possible jobs presently available on the land that would be needed to produce this pipeline. For example, there would be 78 design consultants employed over a period of three years. This would not be locals for sure.

In construction, there would be 91 people employed on average over a period of three years(30 per year) for construction of the stations, and 36 on an average over three years (12 per year) during construction at the marine terminal. Logging would require 35 people on average over three years and site development in BC would employ one person. The camps in BC would need 31 (10 per year), that's cooks and dish washers. Not much when you think of the damage one spill could do not to mention the damage the construction itself would do.

Enbridge is not a huge employer of local people. In Canada, the US and in South America (we're talking millions of people in the western hemisphere) there are just 4000 people employed by Enbridge.

Also, when the pipeline is no longer in use Embridge would "decommission and abandon" the entire thing. In other words, we'd get the clean up at our expense, not theirs.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on November 25 2009 4:08 PM

Pipelines create jobs...lot's of jobs, and we need them.
We also need what these pipelines are pumping.
And contrary to popular belief,some people actually need and WANT jobs!
What a bizarre concept!
I wonder if any of these over-paid naysayers ever ask anyone if they want jobs?
Do they decide who works and who doesn't?

Posted by: MrPG on November 25 2009 4:21 PM

"Also, when the pipeline is no longer in use Embridge would "decommission and abandon" the entire thing. In other words, we'd get the clean up at our expense, not theirs. "

Do you have anything to back up this statement? I'm pretty sure that decommissioning/abandoning is the responsibility of the company, and they are federally regulated to do so.

Posted by: Loki on November 25 2009 4:30 PM

I'll tell you what, volunteer to have the pipeline cross your property and see how you like it.

What I remember from over the summer is the people that are objecting to this have a vested interest because that is what this is about. it is not simple environmental concern. They do not want the pipeline on their property or to have that property expropriated for that purpose. The Carrier Sekani that is loudest in this are directly impacted by this project.

Just another case of big business rolling over the objecting citizens with the aid of the politicos they bought.

This entire project is about getting an oil and gas pipeline up through prince Rupert. Not a bad idea. Using PR as a loading port rather than the lower mainland will benefit PR substantially. Rolling over objectors especially those with the vested interest of residing on that property, not so good. That is so old school. I was under the impression that modern businesses don't do that because of all the negative publicity and potential retaliation. Remember, big oil pissed off someone bad enough that they are bombing well and pump sites in the peace region. Does Enbridge want that to occur? I don't think so, but they are doing a bang up job of doing just that.

The simple solution that will likely cost a bit more, find a new route around the communities and areas that don't want it. What I predict will happen, they will continue to steam roll this through.

Posted by: squirrelnuts on November 25 2009 5:06 PM

"I'll tell you what, volunteer to have the pipeline cross your property and see how you like it."

Well, I'd expect to be paid handsomely, and that's what I expect will happen. Personally, I'd be thrilled if Enbridge knocked on my door and offered me market value, but I digress...

30 or so Indian bands opposed. What a shock... Why don't these First Nations just cut to the chase and come out and say it: "We want money". Quit dancing around it and throwing out red herrings. We've all seen this BS play out too many times.

Posted by: billm on November 25 2009 5:18 PM

You might want to check on what the oil companies will pay you to cross your land, bearing in mind that when you have the pipe in the ground, you no longer are affected. You only own surface rights.
You get a small amount of money for the roads and site that is used, when the pipe is in the ground, what's on the surface that they need to pay you for.
That is of course until the pipe breaks and the oil spills onto your property, then you have a claim. But don't rush because the people in Alaska got $800 dollars per fishermen after Exxon appealed the courts award and won.

Posted by: muckermike on November 25 2009 5:38 PM

I agree with David Luggi. Why risk an oil spill. Anyone who has worked the oil patch will tell you most good jobs go to Albertans. The risk is just too high!

Posted by: Mercenary on November 25 2009 6:51 PM

I hope they don't build it. I'm a trucker and without a pipeline that means more loads by truck.

Yay me!!

Posted by: Green on November 25 2009 8:08 PM

David Luggi is dead on ... why are we giving away our raw resources anyways.. We should be refining them here, employing Canadians

Posted by: He spoke on November 25 2009 8:28 PM

Maybe, we need to have a support group for the pipeline. an independent group, nothing to do with the city.

Posted by: dow7500 on November 25 2009 10:32 PM

chikenbus, where did you pull your stats from, my guess is your ass. Did any one see the pipline through Jasper Park being built? This will employ a hell of a lot more people than you state. Pipelines today are incredibly well built and no environmental risk is left to chance. Do you think they would let a large diameter pipeline cross through a national park without the highest possible standards. It dosen't make it risk free, but its risk negligible. There are piplines all over North America. We know how to build them safely today. Problems with existing lines tend to be from lines several decades old and built in an era lax regulations. Those days are long gone.

I own property in alberta and Saskatchewan with several lines crossing them. We were compensated fairly and have had no problem in 20 years. The crops actually grow better over a pipeline since the ground temprature is warmer. I know of several people who plant their gardens over them for this purpose.

Bottom line is this can be done safely and environmentally. Selfserving groups like this one need to be heard,but this project should not be stopped.

Posted by: caranmacil on November 25 2009 11:00 PM

Thanks for some actual info Dow. There is a lot of talk about risk and no figures...Why are there never any figures? I think those folks confusing private land with land claims ought to be careful though, unless you feel like paying rent on your "own" land.

Posted by: my2bits on November 25 2009 11:18 PM

dow7500-I doubt that all your property in Alberta and Saskatchewan have any fish bearing streams, creeks or rivers on them. Furthermore we're talking here of bringing oil tankers 40 miles down Douglas Channel, of which you would know nothing, being from the prairies.

It is said that the construction of the pipeline would create 4000 jobs. However, that would only be for a few months. In the end, something like 30 permanent jobs in Kitimat would be created. Is it worth taking the chance of even spilling a few drops into the channel, for the sake of 30 jobs?...I think not.

Posted by: swingline on November 26 2009 7:26 AM

hang on... I thought kevin told us that clearcuts were the only risk to salmon!

Posted by: cheeta on November 26 2009 7:41 AM

Maybe David Luggi could provide the same amount of jobs (at decent pay) that the pipeline would create.
Bottom line - they want money.
It's getting very tiring - every project no matter where in the provice has to have native approval. Well I don't see them living off the land in tents, with no electricity and or heat etc......
they can't go back in time. The pipeline is progress and jobs are needed. I say they should process with the pipeline and take the utmost care to protect the environment and if an accident happens - again the must to all possible to clean up. Accidents happen, planes crash, vehicles leave the road - but we still use them. The pipeline is necessary!!
The seas to sands alliance should take a hike!!!

Posted by: dow7500 on November 26 2009 3:32 PM

my2bits, are you suggesting that there are no pipelines crossing fish bearing streams? Actually one property i own in Alberta does have a fish bearing stream and it also is used for irrigation and cattle watering. If you think a project like this will be built in a few months, you obviously have no clue to the nature of it. But keep your arrogant ignorance coming.

Posted by: interceptor on November 26 2009 4:26 PM

The seas to sand alliance is a joke first off - a quick google of Mr Delenheer tells about all you need to know - another enviro wacko with no facts or basis, just spouting fear mongering buzz terms that get the uninformed in a tizzy. Secondly, the oil is going to move - FACT. So is it safer in a pipeling or in a tanker on the highway? The native opposition is 100% money driven,, which is fine. It should be. Just step up and admit it and negotiate a fair compensation.

Posted by: caranmacil on November 26 2009 4:43 PM

I think folks would be surprised at just how many fish bearing streams ARE crossed by oil or gas pipelines. Pretty much ALL of them up north anyway. Other than the pine river fiasco, where are all the spills? Besides, the pine river spill was more of a water supply issue than a fish kill anyway.

Posted by: my2bits on November 26 2009 5:16 PM

dow7500-
To start with, I am neither arrogant nor ignorant.

When they talk 4000 jobs to build the pipeline, they're most certainly not 4000 in one crew. There will probably be tens of different companies, each with a few crews. As I'm sure you know, the pipeliners cover a lot of ground in a short time. My guess is that the entire project would be done in one season.

I do not have too much of a problem with the pipeline itself, my misgivings are with the oil tankers coming into our coast. There are mishaps and near mishaps on a constant basis. And with oil tankers, all it takes is one.

Posted by: commoner on November 26 2009 8:09 PM

"I do not have too much of a problem with the pipeline itself, my misgivings are with the oil tankers coming into our coast."

Since you feel so strongly I suggest you give up oil altogether then. Oil transport by sea is safer than oil transport by land. Just as it is safer to fly than to drive. There is always risk my2bits and those risks have and will be mitigated. The only way to eliminate it entirely is to stop using oil...PERIOD.

Posted by: irish on November 26 2009 9:26 PM

maybe the tribal chief would sing a different song if all projects were to stop,tax payers no longer working and his people not getting there cut.why is it everything the white man does has to go through the natives,it is not like they are helping the economy.luggi and the rest of them are just milking this province.try working and paying taxes like the rest of us and then see how many projects you want to stop

Posted by: dow7500 on November 26 2009 9:31 PM

my2bits, assuming I would know nothing of tankers in the Douglas channel or of fish bearing rivers because I am a displaced flatlander smacked me of arrogance. But whatever. Your guess that a project of this size could be done in a season showed me your total lack of knowledge of a pipeline of this size and scope. This is not prairies they are crossing. To be as environmentally stable as will be required will take years to finish. To think with the rivers and mountainous terrain that this will traverse can be done in a "season" is miles from reality.

Posted by: gus on November 27 2009 8:46 PM

I am amazed that people are concerne about sending logs, chips, pulp our of the country but not oil.

Refine it here, at the least. Use the byproducts to create other products to sell.

If the West is opposed to the line, then send it east to the Lakehead. Build up the industry in the Thunder Bay area.

It would be interesting to see if there is any opposition to the pipeline going in tht direction.

Pipeline opposed by Australian Senate
http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/senate-backs-pipeline-opposition

closer to home, Morricetown
http://thegreenpages.ca/portal/bc/2009/06/event_galvanizes_opposition_to.html

Notice that the opposition is in part about what it is that the pipeline helps support, the most unsound method of producing oil ever invented by man.