Dear Editor:
Re. Refinery a Safer Solution, May 7 opinion column:
I agree with David Black's assessment of the danger of shipping bitumen via tanker from Kitimat. I disagree with the proposal of locating a refinery in Kitimat, however.
Recent programs on the Knowledge Network about our Pacific coast in their series Over the Edge show the thousands of islands, large and tiny along the coast creating a watery slalom for tankers to navigate. Some mariners have said that the huge tankers proposed for this task simply couldn't make the turns.
Why not a refinery closer to the source of the bitumen? The logical place would be Alberta, near the resource; however, if we want to create B.C. jobs, then how about a location in northern B.C., before the start of the pipeline through the province? Pipelines can also suffer ruptures, and not only our coast is pristine, the untouched (at present) wilderness along the proposed pipeline route would be destroyed.
First Nations have lived on the land slated for the Northern Gateway pipeline since the last glacial period. They need to have the last word. We have treated them abominably. Even (the late governor general) Lord Dufferin said, way back in the mid-1800s, that "when it comes to the Indian (land) question, B.C. is skating on very thin constitutional ice!" I think we're about to fall through it.
I have doubts about the choice of Kitimat for such a port. Looking at the map it seems that tankers would have to take a few prohibitive turns to get to open ocean. Let's remember these ships are a lot bigger than the Queen of the North.There is another port alternative: Prince Rupert.Back in 1911, Prince Rupert was designed and built specifically for trade with Asia because of its location on a deep and open harbour, 500 miles closer to Japan than Vancouver. If we must ship this resource offshore, my professional opinion as a planner (retired) would be to locate a refinery in Prince Rupert, which is already on a trans-Canada rail line, thus man-altered (as opposed to pristine) land along it. No need to go for the incredibly destructive effort of drilling through mountain ranges, and spanning river valleys.In all of this, however, let's remember that the tar sands mining area has now irreversibly destroyed an area larger than many a sovereign state. How much more land do we sacrifice? We will never meet our greenhouse gas abatement plans at this rate.
The toxic soup left behind in poisonous lakes will haunt our grandchildren's grandchildren, and maybe beyond. Do we really have the right to do that for mere money?
Eva Lyman
West Vancouver
