Dear editor,
The B.C. Coast has seen more than a century of ships sunk, oil spilled, billions of litres of toxic pulp mill effluents discharged, mining leachates released, and untreated city sewage with PCBs, PCPs, drugs and pesticides deposited.
Somehow, all these receiving areas are now declared "pristine and fragile"? Nonsense!
They are defiled, but again they are robust. I suggest we decide on projects such as the Northern Gateway Pipeline on strategic and economic terms.
If undertaken, there will be leaks and spills. There will be costs.
Both the environment and the economy will recover, more or less and eventually. But ... and a big but ... let us not treat this project as a yes/no, only option scenario.
There a many alternate investments that could be pursued to similar economic ends. The defined project needs the volume and prices and time span to fulfill its economic objectives. It is not flexible in any of these terms.
My business and industrial experience concludes that this project is a bad strategic choice for Canada. Rejection will force investments to choices of near-source refining and flexible delivery options such as unit rail tank trains.
Costs are higher and incidents are more probable, but every risk is smaller and opportunities to adjust to changing economic circumstances are greater. Northern Gateway would lock us in to one scenario, and as such it should be rejected.
David A. Kelly,
Courtenay