Dear Enbridge: Do it right or go home

If they plan to build in my backyard then I want to see what I call an operations safety epiphany by the Enbridge Board of Directors.

Dear Sir:

There are millions of miles of pipeline in the world and more millions will be built.

What I want to see is a clear commitment from the Enbridge board that it means to minimize the probability of a pipeline failure everywhere (yes, on existing pipelines, also) starting today, and 10, 20, or 50 years hence.

This is to be included in a public statement by the board.

We want it to assure us that the board-approved commitment will be fulfilled to the best of the directors’ ability.

The Northern Gateway proposal is being reviewed by the Canadian National Energy Board and this board must understand we don’t want a pipeline that mirrors what’s contained in the US National Transportation Safety Board report regarding the Kalamazoo River incident in Michigan.

We who are voters want to let our politicians know that we’re leery of this Enbridge bunch.

Recent reviews leave Enbridge with a tarnished even scary image.

If they plan to build in my backyard then I want to see what I call an operations safety epiphany by the Enbridge Board of Directors.

If Enbridge is not prepared to make this type of full commitment then it should just go home.

If our leaders still are convinced that we need the revenue from this pipeline then they should invite proposals from the pipeline industry at large and Enbridge can resubmit a proposal for evaluation in an open process.

Enbridge’s detailed (online) project information is impressive. Lots of tech stuff which is good.

However when I looked at the marine charts I did wonder how it would be possible to navigate through the tortuous channels between the many islands during a howling gale without contacting some hidden underwater objects.

The best plan would be to minimize the probability of a shipping failure by relocating terminal outside of the Douglas Channel. Why not Prince Rupert?

Enbridge has said that this 50-60 km pipeline extension to Prince Rupert is too difficult. What? They’re planning to traverse 1100 km of rugged mountain country with major tunnelling, difficult river crossings, etc., on the way to Kitimat!

There are other opportunities for Canada. Why not upgrade the bitumen oil in Canada. Build petrochemical plants/refineries for domestic and export markets beside the LNG plants being planned for here.

I’d guess that a huge market awaits in Asia, US, etc. Only then it may be that this proposal could be worth the risk.

Carl Shalansky, North Vancouver, BC