EDITOR,
Re. "Sellout in progress," Editorial, Chief, Nov. 7.
Thanks very much for your editorial environmental view on Enbridge Northern Gateway (ENG). It should not be too surprising to us that this is happening, seeing as Christy Clark's leading supporter and ongoing powerbroker, Gwyn Morgan, has had a lifetime of influence in the energy business, and the B.C. Liberals raised a lot of money at fundraisers in Alberta just before the last election. Albertans knew the fix was in, and that the Christy Clark/Alison Redford fuss was just a charade before our B.C. government approves ENG.
There are also further economic issues with Gateway that aren't remotely on Christy's fading list of five demands or part of the recent "framework." Despite the millions being spent on ongoing cheery ads, Enbridge has never proposed to have adequate insurance for spills, certainly not one like the infamous Enbridge Kalamazoo, Mich., bitumen spill which is still not cleaned up after more than three years. Enbridge, and the companies they would insure with, know that major spills in remote wilderness are going to happen, and so adequate insurance just isn't in their budget.
Enbridge has also set up Northern Gateway as a separate and distinct corporate entity from Enbridge itself, so that the responsibility or cost of inevitable spills will not actually fall back on the mother company itself. This shows a distinct lack of confidence by Enbridge that major spills will not occur.
And for those of us following the reports and blog of Robyn Allan (RobynAllan.com), an economist with a long list of senior positions in B.C. and Saskatchewan resource and finance, including President and CEO of ICBC, etc.
"there is extreme doubt that even without spills, Enbridge Northern Gateway will actually have any positive economic benefits for ordinary British Columbians, due to its inflationary effect on energy costs in B.C. Higher prices for all products, including those in the B.C. domestic market, are part of Enbridge's submission for the pipeline."
Enbridge's own figures in their ads offer B.C. provincial revenue of only "$1.2 billion over 30 years to strengthen public services" ($2.6 billion across Canada), while at the same time B.C. domestic gasoline, diesel and heating fuel costs for B.C. residents and all businesses will dramatically rise due to the increased value of bitumen delivered to tidewater for export to Asia.
Doing the math on the Enbridge's stated "benefit" of 1.2 billion divided by 30 years and the roughly 5 million population of B.C.; this means provincial revenue of only $8 per year per person. This claimed benefit would be eaten up in the first fill-up of the year, so for all the rest of every year we, and all the businesses that make up the economy of B.C., will be paying much more for the energy that runs the infrastructure of British Columbia.
Even without spills, is Enbridge Northern Gateway actually in the public interest of B.C.? Probably not.
Doug Morrison
Squamish
