Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
NEWS RELEASE · 31st August 2010
MP Nathan Cullen
Cullen tells lively rally Enbridge pipeline should not be allowed to proceed

Too much risk for too little local benefit, a dismal track record of spills and broken promises, strong First Nations’ opposition and a flawed and biased review process are all reasons why the Enbridge pipeline should not proceed, MP Nathan Cullen told a lively crowd of over 250 at a rally here today.

“Enbridge is looking to put our entire way of life at risk to boost its own corporate profits,” Cullen said. “Weak promises of a handful of jobs aren’t convincing Northerners to allow a company with a dirty track record to pollute our rivers.”

Cullen said Enbridge is out of touch with the sustainable economic development demanded by local residents. “Northerners believe in a future in which we can balance protecting our environment and growing our economy. We will not accept projects that just enrich big oil companies at the expense of our precious lands, natural resources, and future generations.”

“The Enbridge plan would bring new and unnecessary risks to our coasts, our rivers and our $140 million wild salmon economy. It will also spur a massive increase in the destruction caused by Alberta tar sands production,” Cullen said. He noted the Enbridge pipeline spill in Michigan last month that spewed over three million litres of oil into the Kalamazoo River, in addition to the many dozens of spills Enbridge records each year.

Speaker after speaker took to the microphone at today’s rally that was organized by several prominent First Nations and environmental groups to oppose Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway project that would see dual crude oil and condensate pipelines snaking across 1,170 kilometres of challenging and sensitive terrain. The rally coincides with Joint Review Panel hearings, mandated by the National Energy Board, in Kitimat seeking public input into specific issues related to the Enbridge application and hearing process.

An Angus Reid poll of 804 adults released yesterday and conducted last week shows that less than one third of people in northern BC support the Enbridge pipeline while a majority have serious concerns about the project’s environmental risks.
ooops!
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 1st September 2010
That should have read "Mexico City".
"One tenth of 1 percent"
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 1st September 2010
This statistic comes directly from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers who it is fair to say have a vested and financial interest in promoting a particular statistic. Be that as it may, the oil/tar sands produce 6% of all Canada's Greenhouse Gas Emissions. That is more than some European countries. By 2020 it is expected that the area of the oil/tar sands will be the size of Florida.

Alberta with 1/3 the population of Ontario produces more CO2 equivalents than all of Ontario. Toronto itself is supposedly in the middle of the pack for most cities as is Vancouver.
Calgary rates higher than Mexico for Greenhouse gas emissions.

Maybe it all depends on who you trust. Are the claims by the Canadian Petroleum Producers and its members, selling off our finite resources for profit, impartial and objective? Is profit motivated Enbridge objective. Are politicians getting political donations from Enbridge objective?

These are important issues.
For another view..
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 1st September 2010
... Check out
http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/reports/pdf/TarSands_TheReport.pdf
Tar sands, oil sands.
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 1st September 2010
"Until the 1960s, everyone called them the tar sands. At that point, primarily as a way of communicating more clearly what product would eventually come out of the bitumen, the Alberta government started calling them the oil sands.
Both terms were used interchangeably until about ten years ago when this topic became politicized by the opponents of the way the bituminous sands were being developed. Tar sands sounds more sinister to the ear now. The proponents of the development seem to make it a point to always call them the oil sands.

Politicization came with the relatively recent fights over all the complicated social, political, environmental and emotional issues that now surround this topic. But talk to any of the old timers and they will use the two terms interchangeably. For the old dudes there is no emotion associated with either term.
I like to use both terms in conversation as a way to see how people react - and then I know a bit about their point of view.
Technically the product from the bituminous sands deposits is neither tar nor oil. Tar actually comes from trees (Look it up! I too did not know this) and oil comes from petroleum reservoirs.
In fact the technically correct term is bituminous sands. It's just not as easy to say as tar sands or oil sands."
- David Finch, Historian
Correction
Comment by James Ippel on 31st August 2010
First and foremost, they are the Alberta "OIL SANDS," not "TAR SANDS." Lets get online with the proper discription. As an aside, the Oil Sands and the Province of Alberta produce less pollution in a year than does the City of Toronto, yet, at every opportunity the folks in the east dump all over the Oil Sands. Also, I notice that they do not turn down the ten billion dollars that Alberta contributes in the form of taxes to Ottawa every year.
Mr Cullen is right that Enbridge is putting unnecessary risks on our coasts, but he does not have an alternative. The opposition parties oppose the export of our natural resources, (oil) and at the same time vehemently oppose the construction of Oil Refineries so we can process our natural resources at home. I am sure that the large oil companies would build refineries at home but for the fact that the cost factor in doing so is astronomical. By the time they jump all the hurdles, through all the hoops, and many millions of dollars later, with no guarantee that they will be successful, they choose the cheaper route and export.
Mr Cullen, I challence you to work towards having refineries built in Canada. This will produce long time permanent jobs in Canada, and we will be refining our own natural resources instead of sending them overseas. Take a stand, work towards having Refineries built near the source of the raw materials. Forgo the NIMBY theory, take a stand, and work with Canadians for Canadians.
PS: The Oil Sands produce 1/10th of 1% of global greenhouse gases. Compare that to the City of Toronto who produce more than the entire Province of Alberta.