Try other routes

British Columbia shouldn't have to bear all the pain of shipping Alberta tar

I have been pondering the possible repercussions of a petroleum spillage in the interior of this province and especially along the coast.

This is especially concerning, with the news that there have been two major oil pipeline failures in Alberta within the past 15 months, the first of which, to my knowledge, was never publicized.

As I understand the situation, the pipeline owners are responsible for any spillages that occur, on land, as a result of malfunctions of the pipeline and the onus would be on them to repair any damage to the environment. That is if they are still a viable company at the time of the occurrence, and if not, who would be responsible for the reparations?

The route chosen for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline appears to cut across about two-thirds of the width of Alberta and the full width of B.C. Since we are being advised by the federal government this pipeline is for the benefit of the whole country, should the whole country not be willing to take on some of the risk?

Therefore I’m suggesting alternatives to the Northern Gateway Pipeline route.

One: redirect the pipeline from Fort McMurray, to the Northwest Passage, distance, approximately 1,230 kms.

Two: redirect the pipeline from Fort McMurray to Churchill, Manitoba, distance, approximately 1,050 kms.

Granted there would be logistical challenges different from the presently planned route but there would be no Rocky Mountains to contend with. That would make it a much more Canada type project than what is presently proposed.

Richard A. Young

 

Parksville