NEWS RELEASE · 31st May 2010
MP Nathan Cullen
On the same day a poll was released showing that 80 percent of British Columbians oppose oil tanker traffic in their waters, Enbridge filed plans for a 1,172km crude oil pipeline across the province that would bring supertankers to the BC coast.
With an over 8000 page regulatory filing, Enbridge has initiated a joint review panel process even as the growing disaster in the Gulf provides clear evidence of the risks of oil developments in marine environments.
“I’m a little stunned that they have chosen to file now,” said New Democrat Natural Resources and Energy Critic Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley) “They must be confident that the formal review process is rigged in favour of industry, but I don’t know how they think they are going to convince British Columbians to reverse their opinion on oil tankers while they are watching the devastation oil spills bring.”
The pipeline proposal faces significant opposition throughout the Northwest due to the threat it poses to significant fisheries and tourism and the environment as a whole. The project is also opposed by an unprecedented alliance of Coastal First Nations who declared last month that they will not allow oil tankers in their traditional territory.
“Enbridge is asking people to trust the same types of assurances given by BP in the Gulf of Mexico. Even with the latest technology, accidents can and do happen,” said Cullen. “Unfortunately the current government is more interested in fast-tracking industrial projects than protecting Canadians and our environment. Instead of greasing the skids for this project, the Environment Minister should live up to his title and strengthen the 1972 tanker moratorium by making it law.”
Cullen is in Saanich, BC today to launch his Oil & Water Tour. Over the coming months, the Tour will bring First Nations, business groups, environmental organizations and communities together to unite opposition to Enbridge’s project and engage British Columbians in a dialogue about developing alternative energy sources and promoting long-term sustainable jobs.
“Canadians have seen the extreme environmental and economic costs of oil development. Studying and investing in sustainable alternatives is long past due,” said Cullen.
Comment by Steve Smyth on 9th June 2010
I suppose time will tell about Korean involvement but I also question our MP for saying 80% of BC people are oppsed to this based on a survey of 800 people located God knows where.
Anyone who jumps to conclusions either opposing or supporting with waiting for the facts to come out is not doing anyone a service. There is far too much money arrayed on both sides of this argument for my comfort.
Comment by James Ippel on 31st May 2010
I quetion the statement by Mr Cullen that 80% of British Columbians oppose Enbridge. Polls can be slanted to favor the opponents of a project, and I believe that has happened here.
If you poll only people that oppose a project, you are going to get a high % against. I have little or no faith in any poll conducted by environmentalists, eco-terrorists, or tree huggers. Anything that comes out of the mouth of David Suzuki, (in my opinion) is only the ramblings of rich Americans who fund his organization, Al Gore being one of his major benafactors.
There are many people in the northwest that feel Enbridge can safely export oil through Douglas Channel, and the inside passage, out to the Pacific Ocean, but their thoughts or opinions are discounted.
We MUST listen to both sides of the equation, unfortunately, the only ones who get the media coverage are the nay-sayers.
As for the Gulf of Mexico fiasco, whatever happened to the original concept that the North Koreans may have torpedoed the rig, causing the disaster. Bear in mind, this happened shortly after North Korea torpedoed a South Korean ship. Also, bear in mind, that the oil platform being utilized by BP was built in South Korea, and may have been a propoganda tool for the North Koreans.
I still have a problem accepting that this was a combination of human errors that led to this disaster. There are far to many safety factors in place.