Dear Editor:
It is with great interest I have followed the controversy about Kinder Morgan's plan to ship diluted bitumen from a terminal in Burnaby.
My understanding of the project is that Kinder-Morgan is planning to obtain through right of entry orders (which can apparently be granted by the National Energy Board) to obtain a 150-metre-wide "safety zone" through very heavily populated parts of Burnaby. This safety zone is where the pipeline will be built by the cut-and-cover method. This right of entry method is planned for use, as apparently almost 100 per cent of the affected landowners in the Lower Mainland have refused to allow the pipeline through their properties. Every municipality has refused the pipeline, and the B.C. government is opposed to this line. (Maybe because the Lower Mainland is where most of the voters are located.)
I believe that one major reason for this lack of cooperation is because this pipeline is not for the benefit of Canadians. The project provides no energy supplies for Canadians. It is entirely so that foreign-owned producers can ship diluted bitumen produced in Alberta though a foreign-owned pipeline to foreign markets, while using little B.C. and other Canadian labour to do the job. One hundred per cent of the profits will go out of Canada. The only benefit to Canada is some royalties to Alberta, some GST paid to the federal government and perhaps a few hundred jobs for Canadians. Some of this information is from Kennedy Stewart, the member of Parliament for Burnaby-Douglas.
For this small benefit to Canada, the communities of the Lower Mainland have been asked to accept a swath of destruction through heavily built-up communities that is one-and-a-half football fields wide and many kilometres long - with who knows how much damage to our infrastructure and no way to know at this time of adequate restoration of infrastructure will be made.
If there is any leakage from the line, we will bear all the damage from this while not even getting any additional energy supplies from the hazard.
This writer considers the amount of disruption and destruction of a built-up city to not be acceptable for the small benefit, and I would be shocked if the National Energy Board approved this project as it stands as there are alternative ways to do this to allow the foreign companies to make just as much profit while not ripping up the built-up areas of Burnaby, Coquitlam and likely parts of Surrey, Langley and other communities - and to avoid the movement of tankers in Burrard Inlet.
And speaking of tanker movement, my understanding is that Canada's busiest West Coast port will have to come to a complete standstill for something like an hour a day while the daily tanker negotiates its way through the Second and First Narrows.
I have applied to be an intervener with the National Energy Board on this project, as what I believe to be the planned route goes about one block from where I live. While the final route actually had not been determined by the deadline for filing with the National Energy Board, the alternate route proposed goes a block the other side from where I live. As an engineer I believe this project can be done in other ways, at no more cost to Kinder Morgan, maybe less, that does not disrupt built-up cities.
This writer also believes that one cannot properly criticize projects without offering alternatives.
Here is my suggestion:
Roberts Bank is a deep-water port where ships currently load bulk cargoes without entering Burrard Inlet or the Fraser River. They also move a very large number of containers in and out of Canada. Access to this port can be achieved without having to go through heavily built-up areas.
Considering the route through Burnaby alone will cost Kinder-Morgan over $50,000 per metre, it may very well be lower in cost for them to expand the artificial land at Roberts Bank and load the tankers there in deep water.
Advantages:
* no need to close the Port of Vancouver for an hour a day
* likely lower overall cost as the pipeline could be routed to avoid heavily built up areas.
* Tankers can be larger than the ones that would load in Burrard Inlet and can be filled to full capacity.
* Access can be achieved without ripping through built up areas like Burnaby or Coquitlam
* The terminal site is access controlled and security will be easier.
In case of a spill, because the water area is larger, booming and containment will be easier. It would be possible to put permanent booming in place around a good portion of the oil terminal due to the more remote location. And because the look of the place is not as critical, embankments could be large and high enough to prevent a tank rupture of any size to be contained.
Disadvantages
* The pipeline will need to be slightly longer.
* The Roberts Bank project will need to be expanded by a few acres.
* The final few kilometres are through land essentially at sea level, and special construction techniques will need to be used to protect the environment and to keep the water pressure from forcing the pipeline out of the ground.
In conclusion, this writer feels the pushback from the B.C. government, the municipalities involved, the people of B.C. and the environmental movement will make life very miserable for the people of Kinder Morgan, and the project as proposed is going to be opposed at every possible level. Every possible legal tactic will be used to delay it if not stop it.
The writer suspects that some executives from Texas may feel that they can take advantage of the Canadian reputation for being easygoing. However, once Canadians feel we are being taken advantage of, we can be as stubborn as anyone, anywhere.
D.M. Fraser, by email
