Review of Enbridge Proposal Officially Underway

Thursday, May 27, 2010 02:05 PM

Prince George, B.C.- Enbridge has filed its application with the National Energy Board for the construction and operation of its Northern Gateway Pipeline.

This is the proposed twin line between Bruderheim, Alberta and Kitimat. One line would carry oil to a new marine terminal in Kitimat for export, the other would carry imported condensate from Kitimat to Bruderheim. The filing of the application marks the official start of the regulatory review process of the project

The eight volume application outlines the project and its benefits and will be assessed by a Joint Review Panel.

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.

Patrick D. Daniel, President and Chief Executive Officer, Enbridge Inc. says the application includes a thorough evaluation of “the environmental, engineering and construction onsiderations of the land and marine facilities and outlines the measures Enbridge will take to demonstrate to communities that our project is safe, that it has been planned responsibly and that environmental protection will always be front-of-mind."

The full application can be reviewed on the National Board website (www.neb-one.gc.ca) as well as the project website at www.northerngateway.ca.

If approved, the project is expected to have a peak construction workforce of 3,000 workers and 1,150 long term jobs ( not necessarily all in B.C.) during operations. The terminal in Kitimat is expected to create 165 jobs.

Enbridge says that if approved, the line and terminal would be operational in 2016.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2010 02:05 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: pgmatt on May 27 2010 3:42 PM

Bad timing to start this. I bet they are cursing BP right now.

Posted by: polar7018 on May 27 2010 5:43 PM

pipelines don't seem so bad now after the bp carry on.at least if there is a break in a line the pump houses along the route pick up a pressure drop and shut down the flow.it would not be millions of gallons
like in the gulf of mexico.

Posted by: Eagleone on May 27 2010 7:59 PM

Setting aside the obvious environmental considerations... what about the cap and trade carbon tax and such? Are we Canadians going to have to pay to reduce our carbon consumption to meet the targets of the growth in our oil and gas exports? It seems rather obvious that yes we will in fact have to pay taxes to reduce our consumption because all the global actors are talking about the country as a whole when they are talking targets. All of this export will be going to China so in effect we will pay their carbon tax if this goes ahead so we can also subsidize them with cheep energy in which to compete against our economy with.

This is a form of economic suicide for Canada and our American trading partners if it goes ahead. The only ones to benefit will be our foreign communist competitors, the oil companies, and the government bureaucracy that is drunk on resource dollars to pay their outrageous compensation packages. Once the construction jobs are gone all we have left is the risk of another BP type disaster.

AIMHO

Posted by: pgmatt on May 27 2010 8:00 PM

Yes but the average person will not grasp this concept and the whole imagery of oil tankers and the pristine west coast is bad. Not saying I'm necessarily against it just a bad time to discuss it.

Posted by: Eagleone on May 27 2010 8:14 PM

An idea I would float is why not have all resource royalties government collects be distributed as a social credit on a per capita basis to say individuals of voting age... rather then see it go directly to government perverting their priorities in their quest to raise ever more revenue.

If the money goes into the hands of the people that own the resources (us the citizens of this province) then it in effect takes a longer route to get to its final destination (government). People would save or spend the money, and it would be a source of wealth for the greater economy and not just limited to the oil/mining/forestry industry and their bureaucracy on the take.

Ideally we would have the option to have an individuals social credit applied to the basket of public services they wish for, or simply to cover other taxes owed, or paid out if they have more urgent needs for it.

If an individual wanted government bundled dental care, child care services, prescription medicine, MSP premiums ect then they could pay for these services from their allotted per capital social credit share of the natural resources revenue.

Like an employer that provides a pool of funds and you pick the benefits you want, an individual would be able to prioritize the service from government that they want and have a pool of funds to pay for it. The rest of the tax paying public would have less of a responsibility to subsidize the services of others that they opt out of.

I estimate roughly each individual would have a $1000 a year social credit to define their benefits package with or put into self directed savings for retirement. The government would get their revenue from the people deciding how they want their royalties spent by the bureaucracy and all government programs would have a higher level of accountability as a result.

AIMHO

Posted by: RIP commonsense on May 27 2010 10:42 PM

Under usual circumstances I would have said we need jobs and development and let the usual assortment of greens, first nations,suzukis and granola crunchers fight this as they usually do every single project.
However, on this one I feel differently. Why send this resource to Asia and help them? Why should we cut a pipeline across this country, run the risk of destroying some of the best undammed salmon and steelhead rivers in the world,then run another risk with the tankers taking this down our coast?
Why do all this when we can sell all we want to the US and run it through already existing pipelines?
Why take the risk for only a few post construction jobs
when we already have the market close by?