Enbridge Confident it Can Change Minds of Opposition

Friday, October 01, 2010 02:42 PM

Prince George, B.C.- Although delegates to the UBCM convention have voted on resolutions that in effect say “no” to the proposed Northern Gateway Twin Pipeline project, Enbridge believes it will be able to convince communities the project is a good one.

Earlier today the project was dealt a blow at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention with the passage of two resolutions. The first urged the federal government to legislate a ban on bulk crude oil tanker traffic through Queen Charlotte Sound, Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait. The second resolution opposed the transport of tar sands crude oil by pipeline through British Columbia. Both resolutions passed by a significant margin.

The two resolutions passed by significant margins.

Enbridge’s spokesperson for this project is Alan Roth. He says Enbridge was aware of the resolutions that were to be on the floor at the UBCM convention “We do understand that some people have genuine concerns about ensuring that Northern gateway can be built and operated safely and also that economic benefits from the project do accrue to northern B.C. communities and British Columbia as a whole. We feel that people’s concerns will decrease as they learn the facts about the project over the next two years during the very rigorous and impartial regulatory review process that the application is undergoing right now. We feel also that people will learn that the project will indeed bring significant and lasting benefits to the economy and the people of northern B.C. in an environmentally safe and sustainable way.”

The $5.5 billion dollar project calls for a twin pipeline to be built between Bruderheim Alberta and Kitimat B.C.. One line would carry crude to Kitimat where it would be loaded on to tankers, the other would carry condensate from the marine terminal back to Bruderheim.

Roth says the application is complex, “People, over the course of the two years of the regulatory review process we expect, will come to realize the risks associated with tanker traffic and the risks associated with pipeline transportation of crude oil are actually extremely low and we feel that people will start to revise their beliefs or their feelings about the project as a result.”

He is optimistic minds can be changed within that two year window provided by the regulatory review process “The project is a good project. Enbridge would not be proposing it unless we felt that it could be built safely and operated safely and protect the environment into the bargain and that’s the kind of thing we believe people will come to better understand over the next two years.”

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Friday, October 01, 2010 02:42 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: IMO on October 1 2010 2:58 PM

Wow! They just wont take NO as an answer huh?

Posted by: polar7018 on October 1 2010 4:35 PM

build it.

Posted by: PrinceGeorge on October 1 2010 5:10 PM

"Using data from Enbridge's own reports, the Polaris Institute calculated that 610 spills occurred on Enbridge pipelines between 1999 and 2008. These spills released approximately 21 million litres (132,000 barrels) of hydrocarbons into the environment."

Quite a record!

So, a double pipeline will be running north of P.G. buried several meters underground unless it crosses one of the many creeks and rivers.

The oil and condensate are being pumped along. It is an invisible activity. No value added, no secondary industry. No jobs.

How would the City of Prince George benefit from that activity? How much money annually and how many permanent jobs? How is it going to lower my homeowner taxes? How will it help patch some of the pot holes and pave a few lane kilometers?

The people react negatively because they lack understanding and need to be educated...is this not quite a patronizing attitude?

Posted by: He spoke on October 1 2010 9:07 PM

Build it, ah whats wrong with a wee bit of oil here and there. It all came out of the ground anyway.

Posted by: herbster on October 1 2010 10:10 PM

If it gets built, the joke is on us. Enbridge is quite happy to play us for suckers, since they will never pay for the full damage they cause when there is a pipeline or oil tanker leak. Meanwhile they are happy to pay $32 million a year in taxes, when the Chinese refineries are willing to pay an extra $5 a barrel over the Texas refineries. At 550,000 barrels a day that is $2.78 million a day in extra profit or just over 1 billion dollars a year in extra profit for Enbridge. They are going to throw a lot of PR money at this to get it built. We should start by telling them that there will be a tax of a billion per year to let the pipeline be built. Quebec made a fortune off of Newfoundland by charging them an arm and a leg to transport their electricity. We should do the same to Alberta. We are after all , the ones taking all the risks.

Posted by: supertech on October 1 2010 10:56 PM

To hell with Enbridge. Keep our natural resources in this country. Sell them as finished products only.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on October 2 2010 3:44 PM

With modern technology and safety controls,it doesn't have to be the disaster many seem to think it will.
Economically,it's major undertaking that would benefit many...bigtime!
25-30 years ago I would have said no, but we do have the technology and the high-tech monitoring systems to keep it safe.
Double walled pipe,autotmatic valves at closer intervals,all kinds of things.
Let's not shoot ourselves in the wallet, without really looking at all the options.
So far,all that's happened is everyone is hollering no,no,no!
And if it IS a bad idea,fine...then we say no.
But we need to spend more time looking at the contruction details themselves.
We have spent a lot of time looking at the possible disaster scenarios and condeming the whole thing.
Let's look at the engineering details before we kill it.

Posted by: Give more on October 2 2010 6:35 PM

"but we do have the technology and the high-tech monitoring systems to keep it safe."
They've had them for years in the States too and have even been told by the regulators there to repair various sections. Have they done so? No. They've only repaired when they've had a leak. Of course this is after the fact and the damage has been done. What would be the difference up here?
Possibly it could be built to the very highest standards of technolgy BUT if it is not maintained as they have proven they don't bother with, sometime down the road there will be a problem. It won't bother them because it will be us that suffer. Have any of them taken responsiblity and resigned over mismanagement? Do you ever see any of them down there getting their hands dirty trying to clean up their mistakes personally? I didn't think so.