National Geographic Dubs Northern Gateway Pipeline 'A Pipeline Through Paradise'

Northern Gateway

First Posted: 07/22/11 07:34 PM ET Updated: 09/21/11 06:12 AM ET

THE CANADIAN PRESS -- CALGARY - A National Geographic article on a proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would send oilsands crude from Alberta to the B.C. coast for shipment to Asia is raising alarm bells and fuelling debate over the project.

The $5.5-billion project is opposed by some First Nations, environmental groups, fishermen and communities that are concerned about possible spills in the Great Bear rainforest or from oil tankers along the rugged coast.

The magazine article, entitled "Pipeline Through Paradise," raises the spectre of a major spill if a supertanker were to run aground. It points to the sinking of the B.C. ferry Queen of the North in the same area in 2006.

"Giant tankers — some nearly as long as the Empire State Building is tall, loaded with condensate or up to 2.15 million barrels of crude — would thread between a jigsaw of islands to and from Kitimat," reads the article. "When the Gitga'at people of Hartley Bay discuss the proposed Northern Gateway project, an oil pipeline that would turn these same waters into a supertanker expressway, they always mention the Queen," it says.

"The accident taught them two lessons, they say. No matter how safe the ship, the most mundane human error can sink it. And when disaster strikes, they alone will be left to clean up the mess."

A spokesman for Enbridge Inc. (TSX:ENB), the Calgary-based company behind the pipeline proposal, says the article is fair as far as it goes, but doesn't include both sides of the story.

"They didn't use any of the information we gave them on the safety measures we have in place, particularly marine safety measures, that we have been proposing," said Paul Stanway. "It would mitigate to a large extent some of the concerns they expressed in the article." "We'd have very strict conditions on the type of vessel that would be allowed to use the terminal at Kitimat," Stanway added. "They would only accept the most modern, double-hulled vessels with a B.C. pilot on board."

The federally appointed Joint Review Panel expects to begin hearings on the project in January in communities along the proposed pipeline route and the northern B.C. coast.

A lobby group opposed to West Coast tanker traffic has praised the magazine article, saying it puts the issue into perspective.
"The profound choice is a human one and I think the article distills it to that," said Eric Swanson of the Dogwood Initiative's No Tanker campaign in Victoria. "You've got dozens of communities saying no, saying they can't be bought."

"The choice for me is, are we as British Columbians and Canadians the type of people who will force the risk of catastrophe on these unwilling communities?"

Stanway doesn't think the article will have any impact on the final decision by the panel. Swanson disagrees.

"It may compel more people to become involved. The readership of National Geographic is international and huge and there's a lot of readers in British Columbia."

The federal government supports Northern Gateway.

Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver was in Calgary this week talking about new research into pipeline safety and the value of the oilsands.

"Canada has a vision to be a global superpower, so it's critically important that we stay at the forefront of research and development," he said. "The oilsands are an enormous resource for both Alberta and for Canada."

"Clearly the oil produced there has to be shipped and pipelines is the way to do it. This government is supportive of the Keystone-XL Pipeline and Gateway. Gateway would open up the Asia market to Canadian exports."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA

THE CANADIAN PRESS -- CALGARY - A National Geographic article on a proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would send oilsands crude from Alberta to the B.C. coast for shipment to Asia is raising alar...
THE CANADIAN PRESS -- CALGARY - A National Geographic article on a proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would send oilsands crude from Alberta to the B.C. coast for shipment to Asia is raising alar...
Filed by Christian Cotroneo  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 9
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JUSTBAKERS135
09:35 AM on 07/25/2011
If oil moves to $150/barrel, as expected in the next decade, Canada is set to be a "global superpower" with export abilities rivalling Saudi Arabia. The pipeline to China, and the export pipeline to the US will generate trillions of revenue for generations of Canadians.

The law need to have steep fines, real ones, in the billions, for oil companies that are responsible for environmental damage. Fines that will make them want to ensure the safety of their operations - because the alternative would be too damaging to the bottom line.

Our modern world is based on dangerous processes - think the rare earth mines that make our cellphones and computers, the mines that find us copper and iron ore to build our infrastructure. Even "green technology": solar panels contain lots of dangerous metals and chemicals in the manufacturing process.

Either stop having babies and keep the world's population under 5 billion, or let technology lead us to the singularity. The choice is ours - but for me let them build the pipeline.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CommonWealth-SinglePayer
Walk on the Right, VOTE on the LEFT
03:51 AM on 07/23/2011
As if Oil spills like the Exxon Valdez, BP Gulf and many others never happened.
Anything for profit.
Spend some time in British Columbia, see how natural it is, see how it will be destroyed by oil.

Need to think of the next 7 Generations.
08:06 PM on 07/22/2011
Excuse me Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver!!!! Since when did you get the bone-headed idea that "Canada has a vision to be a global superpower," Are you kidding me???

Why don't you try asking the Canadian public, (remember, according to Elections Canada 60.4% of Canadian voters in the last election chose NOT to vote for your government and ill-conceived policies) whether that's what we really want and at what cost – environmental and other wise – before uttering such absolute nonsense.
09:37 PM on 07/22/2011
Excuse me Akimbo but until that 60.4% can collectively get their act together and vote in another party, 39.6% is enough to form a majority government in this country. To take it a step further, only 60% of eligible voters actually voted so for those other 40% who didn't vote and aren't happy with the outcome....It's your fault so suck it up for four years.
Oh...and they did ask the public for an opinon....Was called an election and now they speak for the Country for the next four years.
09:55 PM on 07/22/2011
Westcanguy I don't think any government, no matter how the vote went, has the right to do an evil act. I admit contempt of parliament was about as low as I thought Harper coould get but contempt for nature is truly madness. Canada will never be a super power and we can thank god for that. The cost is horrific and puts Canada below the lowest of all the countries. This fact is known by the rest of the world. How can Haper who purports to be a super christian take from the poor and give to the rich and destroy the country as well. Harper makes Bush seem to be the guy with the white hat.