One Group Applauds Review of Enbridge Pipeline

Friday, May 28, 2010 03:59 AM

Prince George, B.C.- News that Enbridge has officially filed an application for its Northern Gateway project is being welcomed by the Northern Gateway Alliance. Enbridge filed the application yesterday, triggering the start of the regulatory review.

The Northern Gateway Alliance is a community coalition established to support the regulatory review of the Northern Gateway Pipeline project. The Alliance will provide an opportunity for people in corridor communities and elsewhere to share information about the project, the regulatory review process and how people can participate in the review process. Chaired by Colin Kinsley, former mayor of Prince George, the Alliance is guided by a Board of Directors made up of people from corridor communities.

"This is an exciting project for both northern BC and Alberta, with today's filing marking an important milestone in the public review of the project," said Kinsley, "It's important that the northern people of British Columbia and Alberta have a voice. The regulatory process that's been officially launched today will give us the opportunity for a thorough, informed and comprehensive review of all aspects of the Northern Gateway project."

Kinsley noted the Northern Gateway Alliance, which has now signed close to 500 members, will help to ensure people in communities along the proposed pipeline corridor have access to information about the regulatory review process and the project. The Alliance will work to make sure that communities have a voice during the regulatory review process and that their views are heard.

"Northern Gateway Pipelines will deliver significant economic benefits to the North including much-needed investment, skills training, jobs, port expansion, a secure tax base and more," said Kinsley. "Enbridge has demonstrated a clear commitment to listening to the communities of the north, to engage them throughout the process, and to uphold the highest standards for environmental protection and safety during construction and operations."

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Friday, May 28, 2010 03:59 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: RIP commonsense on May 28 2010 6:41 AM

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?

Posted by: metalman on May 28 2010 7:01 AM

RIP, In my opinion, the answer to your question is: GREED. More, more, more,
must make more profit, every quarter year, more than last year, more than last quarter. The shareholder must be fed, and he has a rapacious appetite. I agree with you, we should not be taking the chance of ruining the ecology of our province when markets already exist for our resources.
metalman.

Posted by: Dragonmaster on May 28 2010 8:13 AM

Look at the Exxon Valdez disaster. Not only has the oil still not been cleaned up properly, the money awarded to the many people that have lost everything has never been paid to those people. To this day Exxon will not step up to the plate and do whats right even under a court order. To think if we had a disaster like that and those responsible will take care of business when they should, is ludicrious.

Posted by: Loki on May 28 2010 9:38 AM

NIMBY?

Posted by: Boudicca on May 28 2010 9:41 AM

yeah and just imagine a spill in the Hecate
strait especially in the winter...it would never get cleaned up the waves out there are huge it would be near impossible.
I love the ocean and want it to stay clean and beautiful and full of life.

Posted by: Dragonmaster on May 28 2010 10:05 AM

As do most people Boudicca.

It's a shame people criticize others that care by using the acronym NIMBY. Those people are people that don't care about others or their opinions.

Posted by: Loki on May 28 2010 10:30 AM

You are making an assumption based on a single worded question, there is a question mark at the end. There was no criticism implied.

I care more for the environment than I do for people in general. I am fundamentally opposed to this particular pipeline. As far as I am concerned, there are enough of these potential environmental catastrophes in existence, thankfully none in my back yard.

The carrier Sakani's Dave Luggie is a hero in my eyes for opposing this as strongly as he is.

Posted by: Green on May 28 2010 4:40 PM

500 people in Kinsleys group doesn't seem to be very much considering all the communities that this project will run through. I wonder how many of them are company workers.

This projects doesn't make a lot of sense long term risk for short term benefit

Posted by: muckermike on May 28 2010 7:02 PM

I agree totally. Too much risk for too little gain. Stick to your guns David!!