No Oil Tankers in B.C. petition
October 13, 2010 - 1:03pm
Oil tankers carrying tar sands bitumen could be sailing the coastal water of B.C. in a few years if the Gateway Pipeline gets built and if permission to use oil tankers is given.
A spill from either the pipeline or the tankers would be catastrophic for these delicate ecosystems.
Petition for "No Tankers" here:
http://dogwoodinitiative.org/notankers/
-----
Article: "BC municipalities vote against oil tankers and pipeline" :
----
I am looking for another petition against the Gateway Pipeline, I will post it later.
Thank you for signing this petition.
I see that nobody was waiting for this link to sign a petition against the Gateway Pipeline... if replies are an indication. 25 people looked at the above, about the oil tanker route to carry tar sands bitumen, maybe some signed it?
Maybe the Activism forum doesn't get much activity....
Anyway, about the Gateway pipeline that will bring that bitumen [heavy tar-like oil] to the BC coast where the tankers would pick it up.
Quotes:
"Enbridge is proposing to build this new 720-mile pipeline, which would carry 525,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day to the sleepy little town of Kitimat, nestled at the end of an inlet that is surrounded by beautiful mountains and pristine temperate rainforests."
"Spills along the pipeline route are certainly a concern: the pipeline will run across several fault lines, and Enbridge hardly has a great safety record - its existing pipelines had 65 "reportable spills" of a total of 13,777 barrels in 2007 alone."
Link to petition against the Gateway Pipeline??? I cannot find it, even tho' a Google brings up several promising pages... Please post it here if anyone finds it.
But here is a Rabble Blog on the Gateway Pipeline > http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/tylermccreary/2010/10/union-bc-munic...
Noah I signed it, thank you for linking it here.
Look here in the environmental forum for more on this pipeline initiative, there could even be a link to it.
Cool, thanks remind. I've been away for a few days, but its nice to see your post when I got back.
I never did find a petition against the Gateway Pipeline, but I did find this other site with info > http://pipeupagainstenbridge.ca/
Maybe someone will raise the Gateway and Oil Tankers on the BC coast in the enviromental forum, but I can't do it now. It would be awful to have that pipeline running through all that wilderness in BC and Alberta... there is so little natural space without access by road and that pipeline would cut up a bit more of whats left. Off road vehicles would surely use it to get deep into the wilderness... I know, I have friends who do that sort of thing. Oh well... we can protest at least!!
We went to Aberta the other day along Hwy 16, that runs all the way along the Fraser, and again, just like we are everytime, were amazed at the pipeline running right beside us along the Fraser too. The brain trust that does these things in areas of high geological activity are beyond my comprehension.
Crazy, I know. That pipeline could burst open and the oil would flow whether or not the auto shut off system works. And it would flow into the Fraser River!! I cannot believe we take such chances like this. [the oilmen say it is perfectly safe despite the many leaks every year from Canadian pipelines].
But didja catch the Rabble article "Oil and water cannot be allowed to mix" ??
Link> http://tinyurl.com/24fm334
Quote:
"From Kitimat, the tankers would negotiate a hazardous 98- to 158-nautical-mile exit to open water (depending on the route). They would round Hawkesbury Island, Gribbell Island, Princess Royal Island, and Gil Island, where BC Ferries' Queen of the North sank in 2006. Then the tankers would either negotiate a hard turn out the Caamano Sound or navigate the Principe Channel to the Hecate Strait. Environment Canada has identified the Hecate Strait as the world's fourth most dangerous waterway. If oil tankers are allowed in these unpredictable northern waters, it will be a matter of when, not if, there will be an oil spill."
This is not over yet, we have to keep the pressure on.
I was sent a new petition to oppose the Gateway Pipeline, and oil tankers in BC coastal waters, in the Great Bear Rainforest. It her here at this link to Forest Ethics, but you will have to navigate to find the petitions you want to sign because the link I have seems to show my personal info.
Here is the homepage, look at the top toolbar for "Take Action" > http://forestethics.org/
You can also send the link to your friends from the page that opens after you sign the petition.
13 M.P.s from B.C. have sent a letter to PM Harper urging for a legistlated ban on oil tankers from BC's coastal waters.
Alex Atamanenko was one. Was YOUR MP one? Perhaps you should write him or her a letter about it?
And here is a note from the Dogwood Institute:
For 37 years the northern coastal waters of British Columbia have been protected from oil tanker traffic. This ban is now under threat.
Plans to build pipelines and a supertanker port in BC to service the Alberta Tar Sands are moving forward with support from the BC and Canadian Governments.
But there is still time to save our coast - sign the petition!!
Link> http://dogwoodinitiative.org/notankers/petition
More from Dogwood:
"If you have any questions about how the No Tankers campaign is going, don't hesitate to call Eric Swanson at 250-370-9930 ext. 27"
{so, I guess go ahead and phone if you have questions}
We went to Aberta the other day along Hwy 16, that runs all the way along the Fraser, and again, just like we are everytime, were amazed at the pipeline running right beside us along the Fraser too. The brain trust that does these things in areas of high geological activity are beyond my comprehension.
There's something ironic about driving in a petroleum powered vehicle and feeling disdain for the very liquid that is propelling you down the highway. :D Seriously, agreed on the pipeline location. Perhaps it was designed to withstand a resonsable quake?
There's something ironic about driving in a petroleum powered vehicle and feeling disdain for the very liquid that is propelling you down the highway. :D
Nothing ironic if you're hoping for change. Perhaps, a tool to seem witty for those that aren't concerned with climate change.
Seriously, agreed on the pipeline location. Perhaps it was designed to withstand a resonsable quake?
Wow, serious finally? You think it was designed beside the river because they gave a crap about the quake possibility?
Success!!
On Tuesday Dec 7th, 2010 -
"This afternoon in the House of Commons, MP's voted in favour of a motion to ban oil tankers on BC's north coast. The motion called on the government to immediately propose legislation to ban bulk oil tanker traffic in the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound."
I think the Kitimat LNG project is going ahead. Just ask the First Nations people in that area.
Kinder Morgan's Grand Plan to Pipe Oil Sands Crude
Tankers in Vancouver harbour to steeply increase. Second pipeline to Kitimat could eclipse proposed Enbridge project.
By Mitchell Anderson, Today, TheTyee.ca
A quiet application to the National Energy Board (NEB) may soon vastly expand oil tanker traffic through the waters of Burrard Inlet, making Vancouver the major conduit of oils sands crude and bitumen to China.
Trans Mountain Pipeline, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan that operates the 300,000 barrel per day (bpd) pipeline from Alberta to B.C. and Washington State has applied to the NEB to enter into long-term buying contracts called "firm service."
They are also requesting to divert more Alberta crude and bitumen capacity to the Westbridge tanker terminal in Burrard Inlet and away from existing land-based refineries in B.C. and Washington. If approved, this would immediately expand crude capacity through Vancouver from 52,000 bpd to 79,000 bpd -- an increase of more than 50 per cent....
http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/06/02/KinderMorganGrandPlan/
A tenfold increase in tanker traffic and a fourfold increase in tanker size in Vancouver harbour. The riptide at Second Narrows is very severe and there isn't much room under the train bridge or the SN bridge. Harbour authorities must be very confident in their protocols and procedures. I wonder what those procedures are?
The Transmountain Pipeline was built in an earlier age with less stringent procedures but the new expansion will have to meet all the latest safety protocols. All in all, it appears to be a very complicated plan through a very busy harbour.
U.S. company plans billion-dollar expansion of Trans Mountain pipeline
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP, a large yet little-known Houston energy and pipeline company, operates a relatively small pipeline - called Trans Mountain - from Edmonton to the Vancouver suburb of Burnaby.
On Thursday [April 12, 2012], the company announced that it has enough customers for the product lined up to begin the official regulatory review process of its plan, which would put another pipeline on the route.
The expansion, which has been in the works for a decade, will join the much-better known Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by Enbridge Inc. as a source of controversy. The Gateway plan would move oil sands bitumen from Edmonton through northern B.C. to the remote and rugged northwest coast for export to Asia.
Kinder Morgan's proposal for 850,000 barrels of oil a day to flow to Vancouver - up from 300,000 - would mean an oil tanker every day in the Burrard Inlet. It currently requires one about every four days.
The proposal will of course benefit from the Harper Government's new rules for ramming through environmentally-destructive projects without sufficient scrutiny.
------
Related post