Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
NEWS RELEASE · 1st October 2010
MP Nathan Cullen
MPs welcome UBCM opposition to oil tankers, Enbridge pipeline

Municipal leaders from across the province voted thumbs down today against the dirty energy production that Enbridge wants to bring to BC, say NDP MPs Nathan Cullen (Natural Resources critic) and Fin Donnelly (Fisheries and Oceans critic).

“Today’s resolutions at UBCM (Union of B.C. Municipalities) send yet another clear message that Enbridge's outdated business practices are unwelcome and unacceptable,” Cullen said.

Earlier today municipal councillors at the UBCM conference in Whistler strongly endorsed motions by the Village of Queen Charlotte calling for a federal ban on bulk crude oil tanker traffic through Queen Charlotte Sound, Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait, and opposing the transport of tar sands crude oil by pipeline through BC.

“I am pleased the UBCM is showing leadership where the federal government has been silent,” said Donnelly (New Westminster-Coquitlam and Port Moody), who introduced a private member’s bill earlier this year seeking a ban on dangerous oil tanker traffic on the North Coast.

Cullen said today’s resolutions are of provincial and national significance and will put considerable pressure on Enbridge.

“The momentum against Enbridge is steamrolling,” Cullen said. “With the addition of municipal leaders to the ranks opposing Enbridge, the argument for a pipeline across northern BC is essentially over.

“First Nations, communities, environmental groups and now municipal leaders have all stood up in support of our rivers and against this project. Who else is left?”

Cullen said this summer’s disastrous leaks in Enbridge pipelines in the US have cast critical doubt on the credibility of the Calgary-based company to safely build a dual pipeline linking Kitimat and the Alberta oil sands.

He says the company’s failure to file complete information about oil spill risks and response plans, Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge reports and studies of impacts on local employment and access to services have heightened distrust of the project.
agreed Barry
Comment by Steve Smyth on 3rd October 2010
I was commenting on our MP's press release, which imho,contains a large typo or if it didn't, left out a difficult question

It said it would ban "dangerous tankers". I'm wondering who decides what is or isn't "dangerous"? and what is or isnt allowed?

Steve
Comment by Barry English on 3rd October 2010
I don't want to see any accidents in the Douglas channel, but if there was one, I would far rather see a load of aluminum ingots foul our beaches than condensate or bitumen.
No Spill Plan
Comment by Moe Naguib on 2nd October 2010
No Spill plan means they plan to spill, its that simple. A speaker came forward in Kitimat and stated that a company that is in business to pump oil is going to pump oil, not shut the process down for the sake of a few leaks. Can anyone really imagine an oil pumping process shut down because of a few dozen barrels of oil per hour leaking, I can't. Oil pipeline companies make their money from transporting oil, not fixing leaks under a percent or two of total flow.
a small question
Comment by Steve Smyth on 1st October 2010
quote "said Donnelly (New Westminster-Coquitlam and Port Moody), who introduced a private member’s bill earlier this year seeking a ban on dangerous oil tanker traffic on the North Coast. " end quote

Is MP Donnelly's motion against all oil tanker traffic or just dangerous oil tanker traffic? And will these "dangerous tankers" share the waters with the other, i guess, "not" dangerous ones?. And what about the already significant tanker traffic already plying the waters including visiting Kitimat?

just wondering