REPORTING · 16th January 2012
Peter King has been the only person, after three days of testimony, to express support for the Enbridge Northern Gateway proposal. He said the problem he wished to address was urbanization. In Vancouver, people work and live in two different communities, with four hours travel. Fuel, the cost of travel and parking are problems people face every day.
King expressed mass transit adds hours to the commute. A person who drives to work works more hours to pay for the commute. If people live closer to their work, it costs more but have more leisure time.
He expressed crime is easier to solve in smaller communities. In smaller communities, kids can play on the street. There is less pollution and there is better air and water quality.
One person could put a teaspoon of oil into their water and would not be noticed. If hundreds of people put a teaspoon of oil into the water of larger community, it would be noticed. In Vancouver, the latter comes from the storm sewers.
He told the panel a horse could carry ten tonnes over a limited time but not all at once. A person could drink four litres of bleach at once and die but could drink the bleach diluted over a lifetime for no effects on the body and might have benefits.
King explained the busiest waterway in the world is the Suez Canal. The channel is 24 metres deep, 205 metres wide and it is a single lane. Some Super Tankers are too large to transport through it. The Douglas Channel is wider and deeper then the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal has pirates and is a target during a war zone.
King wished to provide people in different parts of the world the same quality of life which he is blessed. If Enbridge does not come here, people in other parts of the world will have to pay more for energy.
“If I have all the food, and I refused to sell it to 100 starving people, should I be surprised when they take it from me by force. Should I have the ability to stop other people in the world from gaining energy? No. Do I have the ability to control how the energy is used, in an economic, socially and environmentally way?” said King.
He concluded the pipeline should be built.
Anti Oil I'm Not
Comment by Robert Sallows on 17th January 2012
No James I am Not anti Oil. I am Anti Enbridge because you do not have to look very far to see their track record. This project I am against for me personally is because of The Tankers in the treacherous waters of The Douglas Channel and The West Coast and who do you think will foot the bill for one of these cleanups.I'm thinking The Taxpayers. I read yesterday China is buying up commodities such as oil only to keep the prices high. Do you really think the average citizen of this project will benefit from this?You say Yes and I say No......
lots of reasons
Comment by ron wilton on 16th January 2012
I oppose Enbridge for lots of reasons.
Most if not all are well documented and do not need repeating in this comment.
The oil companies want to sell the tar goop offshore in order to fetch a higher price than the U.S. is currently paying.
If successful with Enbridge, the oil companies will not sell the goop to us or the U.S. unless we too pay the higher 'offshore' price.
That higher price could easily translate into a $.20 /liter increase for gas and diesel in Vancouver and the rest of BC.
If the supporters of Enbridge think that paying $1.40 /liter at the pumps is a good thing and makes good sense, then continue with your support.
If you don't think that large increases in the price of fuel at the pump won't create hardship, job losses, higher food prices, inflation and a lower standard of living, then by all means continue your support for Enbridge.
Maybe you're right.
If money or lack thereof is your driver, is it worth taking that chance along with all of the other 'good' reasons for opposing Enbridge?
Really, shouldn't we be looking after our best interests first, and besides ,how much more money do Enbridge and the oil companies really need anyway?
You're Welcome James
Comment by Mike Escaler on 16th January 2012
I'm not against oil James, but I am against this project. When done right, there's nothing wrong with pipelines and tankers but this project just has mess written all over it and the bigger issue which is one which I am VERY against is not just the shipping of crude, but the shipping of Canada's unrefined natural resources to other countries for their benefit when the jobs could stay here and value could be added to the product and we could all benefit as Canadians from it. Don't make assumptions and come right out and call my opinions worthless, because everyone is entitled to one, not just you and Peter King.
Comment by James Ippel on 16th January 2012
A person express' an opinions on an open forum, and the first thing you do is insult him. The same goes for Robert.
It is becoming increasingly evident on this forum that if you are for Enbridge, you are immediately relegated to a low life position, and your opinions are not worth a tinkers damn.
An after thought-do you drive automobiles, or have any recreation vehicles that use petroleum products? If you are so against oil, maybe park your oil dependant vehicles, quit using plastic bags, forget about modern conveniences, because they are all petroleum based.
5 minutes wasted
Comment by Robert Sallows on 16th January 2012
Well I thought i would read this article to see if Peter could sway me in some way,but he is about as clueless as that puppet from Ethical Oil!!!!!
Comment by Mike Escaler on 16th January 2012
I think we have found the solution to the world's energy crisis in Peter King. The amount of hot air he's expelling on behalf of Enbridge is laughable and could easily be enough to run multiple 50 megawatt generators. All these examples of dilution being the solution to pollution make me think of another. It seems Peter has been so diluted with Enbridge propoganda that he actually believes it's okay, when everyone else can see that there's been some serious polluting going on, just like everyone else can see that any spill is a bad spill.
Glad Peter is speaking for Enbridge
Comment by Karen on 16th January 2012
With arguements like Peter's I'm surprised Ethical Oil hasn't snatched him up as an advisor yet.