My understanding is that the damage to the Alaska coast from the Exxon Valdez in 1989 affected 6,000 miles of shore line and still has not been totally cleaned up, despite promises of the U.S. government and the oil company. We have seen devastation in the Gulf of Mexico and it is the people who fished that area for a living that now have to look elsewhere for employment who are paying the real price. Spills on land are no less costly in terms of ruined farmland, dead wildlife and unusable water.
We have a provincial government who has let us down when it comes the replanting of trees by forest companies. Are we are expecting them to force the big oil companies to keep promises of clean up when they don't even enforce the collection of fines levied for environmental damage?
If the federal government is going to shove this pipelines down our throat, and since they refuse to listen to any opposition they just might, then we should demand no less than a trust fund in the hands of non-government, non-oil company people that will cover the cost of complete restoration from any catastrophic spill, lost wages for the forestry, farmers, fishers, trappers, tourism enterprises and any other persons living off the land, and the administration costs of the fund upfront before these companies put a shovel in the ground. Perhaps if they have to insure their enterprise with cash then we can have some assurance that they won't be pumping oil through damaged pipes because the sensor must be wrong.
Even if the oil company were right about the chances of a spill from human causes the west coast is part of the ring of fire and subject to tectonic movement. Are their pipelines earthquake proof? Is the oil company responsible for clean up if the spill results from a natural disaster? There are no absolute no-risk ventures but this one is all risk for the people of northern B.C. Surely we have other avenues for economic diversity than destroying what we have for someone else's gain.
Frances Mantler
Prince George
