Quote: "Vancouver, the "greenest city in the world," may quietly become the main tanker route for oil sands crude bound for China."
- end quote
Last summer there were big protests, especially by BC First Nations, about the proposal to build The Gateway pipeline from the Ft. MacMurray Tar Sands to the BC coast at Kitmat, right through the BC interior wildlands.
The plans seem to have been shelved for now, there is too much opposition.
So, what does the BC government do? They allow the oil industry to try another route, even though it is obvious the public will is to reject the idea of Tar Sands crude/bitumen moving through BC.
There are a few reasons for the opposition to Tar Sands moving through BC:
1] it will increase OIL TANKER traffic on BC's coast
2] the pipeline could leak and make a big mess
3] it facilitates Tar Sands EXPANSION [there are plans to "more than double" the size of that mistake in Fort MacMurray] by opening up a new market, in China, for Tar Sands bitumen.
This new route for Tar Sands is actually a proposal to expand an existing pipeline route through the southern part of BC.
Tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet would grow from the current maximum 70,000 bpd [barrels per day] to 450,000 bpd. - a substantial increase in the risk of a spill.
So, why is it not in the public spotlight a Tyee article asks:
Quote: All of this is happening with remarkably little scrutiny or even awareness in the Lower Mainland. Of the 18 legal interveners in Kinder Morgan's application, 17 are oil companies and one is from the Alberta government.
The B.C. government specifically declined to be involved in the decision that would greatly scale up tanker traffic off our coast, through our largest city. No environmental or public interest groups applied to be involved in the NEB application.
The Gateway pipeline protest was covered in this thread: http://rabble.ca/babble/activism/gateway-pipeline-protest