letter to Enbridge (re: Northern Gateway proposed pipeline) from Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance (s2s.ca), Prince George BC

Enbridge Inc.
3000 ‐ 425 1st Street S.W.
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 3L8

BY REGISTERED MAIL

December 14, 2009

To Whom it May Concern:

RE: NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINE PROJECT
COMMENTS SUBMITTED FOR INCLUSION IN ENBRIDGE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD RECORD ‐ PRINCE GEORGE, BC

We are a newly formed citizens' group, based in Prince George, BC, opposed to the Northern Gateway oil pipeline project. To date, we have over 600 people opposed to the oil pipeline project and our support is growing daily.

In part we are responding to articles in the Prince George Citizen, November 27, 2009and Prince George Free Press, December 3, 2009 wherein Enbridge spokespeople are quoted as saying they hope this group (Sea 2 Sands Conservation Alliance) brings its concerns to Enbridge's Community Advisory Board.

We would like to be on record as saying that we do not view the Enbridge‐run Community Advisory Boards as an open public consultation.
The Enbridge website www.northerngateway.ca gives no details about the Community Advisory Board meetings. People must apply to attend and Enbridge screens the applicants. The meetings are not widely advertised. The media is excluded. In past sessions, Enbridge facilitators guide and control the discussions. The possibility of NO PIPELINE is not on the table at these meetings.

Reasons for our concerns and our opposition are as follows:

1. Broader Environmental Implications

a) Climate change ‐ governments are currently meeting in Copenhagen attempting to reach agreements to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the
potentially devastating impacts predicted by the scientific community. A majority of Canadians are in support of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Building an oil pipeline to sell Canada's water and energy‐intensive bitumen to countries such as China and India is incongruous with the goals of the Copenhagen meetings. It is also incongruous with all international climate talks being held around the world. In addition, the Canadian tar sands are known to be the highest growing source of carbon emissions in Canada and the primary impediment for Canada to bring about substantial reductions to carbon emissions. There is a complete disconnect between a reduction of carbon emissions and construction of a pipeline to export Canada's crude oil. Our generation has a significant moral responsibility to work toward reducing carbon emissions if there is even a remote chance that human‐generated emissions are causing the planet's weather systems to become destabilized.

b) Destructiveness of the tar sands ‐ The Canadian tar sands are receiving international criticism for the intense damage they impose on the local environment and those living in close proximity to them. In fact, Canada is losing its internationally respected reputation as a peaceful, responsible country because of this dirty source of oil; a reputation that took nearly 150 years to build. Critics of the tar sands include those from local indigenous people to heads of state around the world to global religious leaders. Some concerns related to the tar sands are:

i) detrimental impact on local First Nations traditional uses of the land
ii) elevated rates of cancer, birth defects, haemolytic anaemia and liver damage in people living in close proximity to (especially downstream) the tar sands
iii) immense amounts of water and natural gas utilized to extract bitumen
iv) destruction of boreal birds' breeding grounds
v) deaths and injury to local wildlife
vi) ineffective restoration of affected lands

The Enbridge Northern Gateway project is inextricably linked to the continued expansion of the tar sands. To support this pipeline is unacceptable.

Canada's economy evolves to the use of cleaner sources of energy. Sea 2 Sands feels that the sooner we move in that direction, the better.

2. Risk of oil spills along the Route ‐ both in terms of the pipelines and the oil tanker traffic that would result from construction of the port at Kitimat Enbridge states that there is a risk of oil spills. "Pipeline leaks are an inherent risk of operations" (Enbridge Annual Report 2008). This project would cross approximately
1000 streams and numerous major rivers including the Stuart River, a tributary of the Nechako River, which flows through the City of Prince George. Spills entering Prince George's watershed would have serious consequences for domestic and industrial water supplies. The citizens of British Columbia have already been subject to a substantial spill from a pipeline on the Pine River in August 2000. That spill impacted fish and wildlife habitat, and had significant negative effects on the drinking water in Chetwynd. The rivers crossed by this proposed pipeline are tributaries of the two major river systems of British Columbia, the Fraser and the Skeena. These watersheds represent some of the most valuable salmon habitat in the world. In recent years it has become apparent that salmon stocks on both rivers (Skeena and Fraser) are already compromised. The risk of even one oil spill could cause such damage as to destroy the few salmon we have left. A report has been produced outlining the potential negative effects of oil on salmon (http://bc.pembina.org/pub/1894). Enbridge cannot guarantee there would be no spills along this pipeline nor could they guarantee a timely response in the event of a spill in the remote and rugged territory the pipeline will cross, particularly during extreme weather conditions. Even the risk of one spill is too much in the context of these fragile inland ecosystems. The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council has conducted further research addressing some of these issues on the local level more specifically, and have been documented in their Aboriginal Interest and Use Study, which can be found at (http://www.cstc.bc.ca/cstc/67/enbridge).

The risk of oil tanker spills in the Douglas Channel and the northwest coast is also considerable and of serious concern. Wildlife values in this area are significant on a global scale. For example, 28 of British Columbia's 84 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) lie within 250 kilometres of the mouth of Douglas Channel (http://www.bsc‐eoc.org/iba/regional.jsp?region=BC). Many of these IBAs support significant breeding populations of colonial seabirds. In addition to seabirds, the entire North Pacific population of grey whales passes through these waters during their annual migration from their breeding grounds in Mexico to their summer feeding grounds near Alaska. These waters are also migratory pathways for west coast salmon populations. British Columbia's recent experience with the spill of diesel fuel when the ferry, Queen of the North, sank in 2006 saw a number of issues indicating what would happen should a spill of crude oil occur. First and foremost was how difficult it was to physically contain even a small spill of a light and relatively benign substance in and around the rugged coastline for northern BC. Any spill from tankers moving oil from Kitimat would have unfathomable impacts to this extensive coastal area.

3. Socio‐Economic Costs Associated with Constructing the Pipeline: To First Nations people: Resource extraction has created divisiveness between various First Nations communities and between First Nations and non First Nations communities. It is time for this divisiveness to end. Many of the First Nations communities along the route of this pipeline have strongly stated their opposition. The traditional uses of the land would be severely compromised. As various First Nations groups, including the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, have pointed out, the social costs/risks are simply too high in the face of long‐standing cultural traditions. As we strive to move toward more sustainable, low‐carbon, local‐based economies, the wisdom of Aboriginal elders and traditional uses of the land become increasingly vital. We cannot afford to further place at risk these valuable cultural resources. Please watch the following series of videos for more information about the profound insights of local First Nations people into the broader issues at stake: http://www.youtube.com/user/CIERworld#p/u/0/s7Uk2NjuLCA. To all communities along the route: Northern communities need long‐lasting, resilient economic bases. What we do not need is short‐term employment projects that come with significant long‐term environmental and social costs. For years northern British Columbians have endured a boom and bust, raw resource extraction economy, which has led families into cycles of despair during the hard times. Many social science studies point to the abject social consequences of relying heavily on raw resource extraction and short‐term industrial economic foundations. Recently there are various projects around the area focused on evolving beyond the boom and bust raw resource extraction mentality that has not served people well during times of recession in the past. We must build locally based sustainable economic opportunities; to do this requires healthy land and water resources. Any project — such as the oil pipeline and its associated spill risks — does not fit with this kind of vision for future northern economic development. Northerners must develop these visions. There are other economic activities in the north that depend on healthy, uncontaminated watersheds and even one oil spill risk would jeopardize the viability of these pursuits. One example is tourism: northern British Columbia's tourism base is founded on offering wilderness experiences, and a pristine environment is a cornerstone of these economic endeavours. Hunting and fishing are other examples.

One study conducted in the Skeena watershed reported that wild salmon fisheries generate close to $110 million in direct economic activity (http://northwestinstitute.ca/downloads/IBM_skeena_report_06.pdf). Many of our members have deep and longstanding roots in the northern interior of British Columbia. Most have lived in these communities for many years, have strong community ties and care deeply about this area. These are serious issues for us and many other residents along the proposed route. The opposition of Sea 2 Sands members was not formed without thought and we will continue to strongly oppose this project. The vision for Northern British Columbia that Enbridge is proposing by way of the Northern Gateway project is contradictory to the values of our members and the stewardship role that we share as residents of this region. We ask that you consider abandoning the Northern Gateway project and continue to pursue more viable and sustainable methods of energy production and distribution. Now, more than ever, we need leaders in the development of sustainable energy alternatives. You have an extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to the health and prosperity of your company, your shareholders, and our nation. Please do not waste it.

Sincerely,
Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance
per:

Josh DeLeenheer
Mary MacDonald

Spokespeople

cc:
Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Hon. Jim Prentice, Canada Environment Minister
Hon. Gordon Campbell, Premier of British Columbia
Hereditary and Elected B.C. First Nations Chiefs
Dick Harris, MP, Cariboo‐Prince George
Jay Hill, MP, Prince George‐Peace River
Nathan Cullen, MP, Skeena‐Bulkley Valley
Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance Page 6 of 6
Hon. Shirley Bond, MLA, Prince George‐Valemount & British Columbia Minister of Transportation & Infrastructure
Hon. Pat Bell, MLA, Prince George North & British Columbia Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Integrated Land Management Bureau
Hon. Blair Lekstrom, MLA, Peace River South & British Columbia Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
John Rustad, MLA, Nechako Lakes
Hon. Dan Rogers, Mayor of City of Prince George
Prince George City Council
Tim McEwan, President & CEO, Initiatives Prince George
Prince George Media