Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
Google image of Douglas Channel with text added by the Terrace Daily.   Compare this true image with the graphic used by CTV News over the past two months, below.
NEWS RELEASE · 24th February 2012
MP Nathan Cullen
Note: Images and maps produce by the Terrace Daily and are not part of the News Release by MP Nathan Cullen. They are provided for contextual reference purposes only.

Skeena-Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen says he is not surprised but also not convinced at Transport Canada’s findings yesterday that oil supertankers can safely travel in and out of the port of Kitimat.

“We clearly have a different threshold for the acceptable level of ‘residual risk’ these tankers pose to the marine environment,” Cullen said today.

“As I told the Enbridge Joint Review Panel last week, how realistic is it to believe that 15,000 supertankers will be able to safely travel the narrow Douglas Channel, let alone the Hecate Strait and devastating open ocean storms, over the life of the project?

“Accidents will happen. While the risk may be small, the effects of a marine spill or leak are catastrophic, and are unacceptable to the people I represent and to 80% of British Columbians.

“Over 45,000 coastal jobs and dozens of rich northwest aboriginal cultures are at risk. Piping bitumen to port is risky enough, after which tankers have to run a gauntlet of potential human and mechanical error, challenging channels, and the wild North Pacific.”

Cullen pointed out the width of Douglas Channel where supertankers would sail is only 1.35-kilometres, far narrower than the 10-kilometre channel width at the site of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster. He also pointed to research putting the number of marine vessel incidents along Canada’s Pacific Coast from 1999-2009 at 1,275.

“That’s over two per week, not what I or most people would call a residual risk,” Cullen said.

Cullen noted the value of BC commercial and recreational salmon fisheries and nature tourism is conservatively estimated at over $1 billion annually, an economy that no level of risk should be permitted to jeopardize.

Transport Canada yesterday filed its review of Enbridge’s proposed marine shipping routes to the regulatory panel weighing the $5.5-billion project, which would see Alberta crude shipped to the West Coast by pipeline and exported to Asian markets via a marine terminal at Kitimat. The report found no regulatory concerns for vessels, operations, proposed routes, navigability, other waterway users and the marine terminal operations associated with the project.

See the full Termpol Report here.

Watch a presentation from the JRP in Kitamaat Village by Dieter Wagner on the tanker routes through Douglas Channel here
Google image of actual area of Douglas Channel prior to opening to Queen Charlotte Sound (Haida Gwaii on left)
Google image of actual area of Douglas Channel prior to opening to Queen Charlotte Sound (Haida Gwaii on left)
CTV Graphic of Douglas Channel.   If the general public believes this unfathomable unrealistic CTV presentation of the hazards what can one expect the public to think?  See full video graphic below.
CTV Graphic of Douglas Channel. If the general public believes this unfathomable unrealistic CTV presentation of the hazards what can one expect the public to think? See full video graphic below.
Compare the real maps with the graphic presentation by CTV.   Could CTV be accused of deliberate misrepresentation?
Compare the real maps with the graphic presentation by CTV. Could CTV be accused of deliberate misrepresentation?
A navigation nightmare just to get out of Douglas Channel
A navigation nightmare just to get out of Douglas Channel
I just thought of something....
Comment by Katrin Kozevnikov MacLean on 25th February 2012
For Enbridge to go through with all of this they would have had to get Transport Canada's approval from the very start. Why would Stephen Harper in 2009 change the navigable waterways act so that the rivers are no longer environmentally protected. Hence why would Enbridge spend so much money doing all the studies, reports which were and then revisions made. The only way those revisions could have been made is if the said ministries such as environment and transport (geological hazards) had read those first reports. In other words the pipeline could not go further unless those revisions were made. So with this whole transport Canada approving the tankers just now. Well guess what it is a ploy. THEY HAD TO HAVE GIVEN APPROVAL FROM THE VERY START OR THIS WHOLE PIPELINE WOULD HAVE BEEN SCRAPPED FROM THE START!