Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
REPORTING · 16th November 2010
Walter McFarlane

The tenth question after the break came from Merv Ritchie who was live streaming the debate for the Kitimat Daily Online. He expressed there was one question which had been resounding through the chat on the video: “How come nobodies mentioning Enbridge?” He asked what their position on the shipping of crude oil and the construction of the pipeline.

Mary Murphy said the government had not finished the environmental assessment yet. They have to know what the risks are, if the risks are manageable or if the risks are acceptable. She also asked what Enbridge can do to create jobs here if they come such as an oil refinery or other options for the community. She stated the community dictates what happens and it is up to Council to listen. However, it is up to the government to do an environmental assessment and get the report out. She said if you accept the risks, the project can move on.

Corinne Scott stated she felt the Enbridge debate was two issues, one on the pipeline and the other on the oil tanker traffic. She said the environmental review board was not complete and without it, the people should not know what they should be upset about. A lot of people say it can not be built safely, she does not know that. She knows the community has to be at the table, listen and determine whether it is worth it or not. She stated there is not a good answer whether someone can be for or against Enbridge. She said she does not want anything happening to the coastline. It does not matter if they put in the best technology, the accidents happen because of human error. She was about to make a point for the other side of the issue but was cut off.

Linda Campbell said she was willing to work with Council on the issues in the community . She said the Council has taken the stand that until the environmental review is finished, they will not support or oppose the pipeline and the shipping of crude oil in the channel. She stated has opinions but she does not have all the facts. She added if she were to go on Council, she would agree that until the project is approved, she cannot express her opinion. She also pointed out the federal government has stated if they cannot ship by pipeline, they will ship by rail and challenged the audience as to which is worse.

Michelle deLisser stated Enbridge could be beneficial and environmentally, a disaster. She chose not to take a stand but Council should hold a referendum to see what the town thinks, for or against Enbridge.

Edwin Empinado said he wanted jobs but also wanted to take care of the environment. He used an example of overpasses built for animal traffic in Alberta as an example. He said he was still learning about Enbridge.

Debbie Rauhanen said there were risks but if the oil was not shipped by tanker, it would be shipped by rail and she knows CN has a lot of derailments. She said the only shipment people think of when it comes to shipping oil is Exxon Valdez which was human error and has been taken care of. She said ships bring business into the mall which is spent at local stores.
dirty oil v.s. bloody oil
Comment by Aaron von Schleinitz on 19th November 2010
It seems to me that people in our region are thinking too locally when it comes to the Enbridge question. Yes there are risks and major consequences involved in this project enviromentally for BC, Alberta, and the coast.
However, the risks and consequences enviromentally and harm of human life are far greater on a global scale.

The reason behind building this pipeline is almost solely based on China and India's rapid growth. This growth is not going to stop and in all fairness needs to happen so that billions more can enjoy the quality of life that we in the western world enjoy so dearly. This growth and rapid rise in quality of living requires the increased consumption of fossil fuels. These asian markets in turn would like to buy our tar sands oil to meet their needs.

If we choose to deny them the chance to buy our oil they will have to go through other sources to meet this demand. The other choices they have are countries like Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, and Iran. If we make them spend their money in these countries instead of ours we will in turn cause turmoil and bloodshed for thousands of people living in these regions. It will give more power to their corrupt and undemocratic governments to silence free speech and build atomic weapons. They will also build similar tanker and pipeline projects which will be built with poor safety standards. Causing greater risk and most likely far greater damage to their local enviroment.

We have the chance here in Canada to see that these asian markets meet their demands in the safest way possible. We can regulate the construction and operation of this project to be as safe as possible while putting billions if not trillions of dollars into the Candian economy.

Even better we in Kitimat have the chance at creating jobs, oppurtunities, and the platform for further growth. We still need to stand up for ourselves and hold enbridge to strict safety standards, but to turn them away completely will hurt the poor and oppressed some where else.