Vigil-Info Picket:

Stop Enbridge (BP North) Oilsands Northern Pipeline and SuperTankers to Hell Gateway into SuperNatural B.C.

One Bentall Centre, corner Burrard St and W Pender St across from Hyatt Regency Hotel 5pm-6pm Tuesday June 8, 2010
Vancouver, BC

UPDATE 2-Enbridge files Gateway pipeline plan, fight looms

    Line would connect oil sands to tanker port on Pacific

    Thu May 27, 2010 6:12pm ED


* Enbridge says line can be operated safely

* Native group calls it “act of aggression” (Updates with opposition reaction, adds details)

By Allan Dowd

VANCOUVER, May 27 (Reuters) – Enbridge Inc (ENB.TO). asked Canadian regulators on Thursday for permission to build its controversial Northern Gateway pipeline, which would carry crude from Alberta’s oil sands to the Pacific Coast.

The long-anticipated announcement sets the stage for a bitter battle with environmental and aboriginal groups who say the risk of a tanker accident along the rugged and picturesque British Columbia coast is too great…

Opponents lashed out at the filing, with the spokesman for a British Columbia aboriginal group calling it “an act of aggression” and “arrogant”, given that it comes while crews are still fighting the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

“This means all out war,” said Art Sterritt, a spokesman for the Coastal First Nations.Opponents released a poll on Wednesday saying 80 percent of British Columbians would oppose increased tanker traffic along the coast, which has been restricted on a voluntary basis since the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.

Enbridge President and CEO Patrick Daniel says he could care less about First Nations, Activists, Residents and Environmental groups- one upmansship on BP. He says China’s Authorities demand and will pay

big money for Alberta Tarsands Bitumen and what’s more China’s Authorities have now recently invested Billions of $ in the Alberta Tarsands and are calling the shots with their friends in Ottawa re: PM Stephen Harper.

Enbridge President and CEO Patrick Daniel remarks also imply a Nexus

of Corruption with the Federal Government (What the Oil and Gas Industry wants it gets see BP-US Gov’t Office of Mineral Management ). China’s Authorities are also pushing to Refine Alberta’s Bitumen in China- once the contracts are done and the Oil flows-this is a done deal-the devil is not in the details but Writ Large—We must Stop this even before it begins…

Oil sands bitumen to flow to West Coast by 2015: Enbridge

filed under: Oil Sands, Enbridge, First Nations

By Shawn McCarthy

Globe and Mail

April 30, 2010

Enbridge Inc.’s (ENB-T49.330.310.63%)  ambitious plan to build an oil sands pipeline to the West Coast will succeed despite opposition from first nations andenvironmentalists as well as concerns about pipeline overcapacity, the company’s chief executive officer says.

Enbridge plans to file next month for a permit from the National Energy Board to build the North Gateway project to Kitimat, B.C., says CEO Pat Daniel. He expects the NEB process to take two years and is confident the project will be approved.

If all goes according to Enbridge’s plans, Alberta bitumen would be flowing to Pacific Rim markets by 2015..

Producers feel that in order to be able to negotiate better pricing for their crude oil, they do need access to another market,” the Calgary-based CEO said yesterday. He acknowledged, however, that diverting export volumes from the U.S. could drive up pipeline fees on those lines, because costs would be spread among fewer barrels of oil.

Mr. Daniel said refiners in Asia have expressed interest in receiving bitumen from Alberta in an effort to reduce their reliance on the Middle East. He added that environmental standards at those refineries should match North American ones, so the Canadian government would have no cause to block exports...

Enbridge argues the tanker traffic will be as safe as possible – all double-hulled, with B.C.-certified pilots and tugs tethered on the front and back. Oil tankers have accessed the ports of Vancouver, Portland, Me., and Quebec City without mishap, Mr. Daniel noted.

“But can we promise there will never be an accident? No. Nobody can.”

And he said it is “hypocritical” for people to oppose projects like Gateway while enjoying the benefits of the fossil-fuel economy.

First nations band together — to say no to Enbridge pipeline

Read more:

By Fiona Anderson, Vancouver Sun March 24, 2010

First nations from British Columbia and Alberta and environmentalists came out in force Tuesday to voice their opposition to Enbridge’s proposed 1,170-kilometre pipeline, which would carry crude from the oilsands in Alberta to a port in Kitimat, where it would be transferred to tankers.

The day chosen was significant, the 21st anniversary of the Exxon Valdez running aground in Alaska, spilling 40 million litres of crude oil into Prince William Sound and causing widespread damage.

The risk of an oil tanker running aground as it travels “through the pristine waters within our traditional territories,” is too great, said Art Sterritt, executive director of Coastal First Nations, an alliance of native bands along British Columbia’s north and central coast, including the Haida.

If we had a tanker accident on the coast of British Columbia it would literally wipe [out] all of our cultures, all of our salmon, all of our groundfish,” Sterritt said. “We cannot let that happen.”

A five-year study released earlier this week by Raincoast Conservation Foundation concluded that whales, wolves, bears and birds would be devastated by an oil spill in the area.

The Coastal First Nations met with Enbridge almost a year ago to tell them they were opposed to the project.

At that time they told us — and they said this at their [annual general meeting] as well — that if all of the communities within this geographic region didn’t support the pipeline they would stop the project,” Sterritt said.

So the group met with the communities in the area to determine who supported the project and who didn’t. What they found was that all of the communities were opposed to the pipeline.

From Vancouver Island up to Haida Gwaii, through the Interior to the territories of the Gitanyow and the Carrier Sekani and down again to Lillooet, “all those nations and first nations have expressed their opposition to the Enbridge project,” Sterritt said.

We all believe the Enbridge gateway pipeline project is a threat to the very existence of our culture and our way of life,” he said.

Gulf Oilpocalypse Has Canada’s Rapt Attention

Chris Genovali

Executive Director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation

Posted: May 27, 2010 03:17 PM

Many Canadians have been anxiously following the ongoing “oilpocalypse” in the Gulf of Mexico and are experiencing a deep sense of unease as they scan the daily media reports. Such foreboding is clearly understandable as one can’t help thinking this might be a nightmarish peek into one possible future for British Columbia as federal and provincial politicians here in
Canada lay the groundwork to transform our Pacific coast into an
“energy corridor.

They dream of seismic testing, offshore drilling, pipelines from the tar sands, and oil tankers plying our rocky coast; this is what passes as visionary in the age of government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

In the wake of the Gulf Coast disaster, Canadian federal opposition parties have called for emergency hearings before the Commons Natural Resources Committee to discuss the need for more stringent safeguards against oil spills in Canada’s Arctic. But the public needs to be properly and clearly informed as to the risks and tradeoffs with regard to proposed
oil development and transport for the B.C. coast as well; Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s recently released report,
What’s at Stake: The cost of oil on British Columbia’s priceless coast, is designed to do just that; we encourage you to go to the Raincoast website and download the report.

Enbridge Inc.’s proposal to build a twin pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to the north coast of B.C. means we could see supertankers on the coast transporting “the world’s dirtiest oil” to hydrocarbon hungry Asian and American markets. Enbridge proposes to construct and operate two pipelines, 1,170 kilometers in length, between an inland terminal at Bruderheim, Alberta, and a marine terminal near Kitimat, B.C. One of the pipelines will carry crude oil west to Kitimat and the other line will carry
condensate east to Bruderheim. The pipeline would ship over 500,000 barrels of crude oil per day and, twice a week, 350-metre long supertankers would pass by the very spot where
B.C. Ferries’ Queen of the North went down in 2006.

This presents a very significant threat to coastal marine and terrestrial species and ecosystems, as well as to the food supply and livelihoods of First Nations and coastal communities. Coastal First Nations executive director Art Sterritt summed up the threat posed by oil tankers: “The minute there is tanker traffic, there is damage to a way of life.”

It was fascinating to recently read in the Financial Post how Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel is flogging his company’s “Northern Gateway Pipeline” project, tossing out empty warm and fuzzy platitudes like “We’re doing it…for Canada.” His assertion that tar sands development and the Enbridge pipeline, as well as the attendant oil tanker traffic that will put B.C.s coastal environment at great risk, is at heart an egalitarian crusade to help poor energy-starved third world countries is cynical beyond belief.

In another related news item in the Globe and Mail, Daniel was quoted as follows: “But can we promise there will never be an accident? No. Nobody can.” Glib statements regarding the risk of a catastrophic oil spill on the B.C. coast if his company’s pipeline is approved and constructed are likely cold comfort to most British Columbians, the majority of who would prefer an
oil-free coast according to polling on the issue. In fact, a newly released
Mustel Group poll shows that 80 percent of British Columbians support banning crude oil tankers in B.C.’s coastal waters, up from 72 percent in a similar 2008 poll.

Enbridge has made much of the fact that double hull tankers would be used to transport tar sands crude from the north coast terminal in Kitimat. But double hulls have their own set of problems. In an article for the Prince Rupert Daily News, Jennifer Rice, energy campaigner for the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation, delineated several of those issues, including this
one: “When double-hulled tankers are traveling at low speeds and a collision occurs, only the first hull is punctured preventing the oil from spilling out. At higher speeds the extra hull has done little to prevent oil spills. In reality, the speed at which both hulls can be pierced is surprisingly low, as little as three knots depending on the strike angle.”

Blind faith in modern technology is often misplaced; only eighteen days before the Gulf Coast disaster, in justifying his position on off shore drilling, President Barack Obama asserted that “oil rigs today don’t generally cause spills as they are technologically very advanced.”

Attaching a dollar value to the damage that spilled oil does to marine and terrestrial ecosystems is an impossible task. As the Wall Street Journal reported, the blame game in the Gulf of Mexico has been in full swing as BP is claiming “this was not our accident.” Who will pay? If history is any indication, it likely won’t be the corporate entities responsible for the disaster. The cost of the Exxon Valdez spill has been estimated at $9.5 billion, of which Exxon paid $1 billion, with taxpayers footing the rest of the bill. British Columbians cannot trust that Enbridge or any other oil industry player operating in Canada would behave any differently than BP or Exxon in the face of a catastrophic spill on B.C.’s coast.

ForestEthics: Enbridge Files B.C. Crude Oil Plan as Gulf Turns Black

Posted : Thu, 27 May 2010 23:21:32 GMT
Author : ForestEthics
Category : Press Release

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — 05/27/10 — Enbridge is steamrolling ahead with its plan for a tar sands pipeline and crude oil tankers on the B.C. coast, despite strong public opposition.

The company filed its application for the controversial Northern Gateway mega-project today with the National Energy Board.

“We are extremely disappointed Enbridge has chosen to ignore the majority of British Columbians and coastal First Nations. Eight in ten British Columbians do not want crude oil tanker traffic in their coastal waters,” said Nikki Skuce, Senior Energy Campaigner with ForestEthics. “This is an inherently unsustainable project that places B.C.’s spectacular coast at imminent risk of a major oil spill.”

“We are going to see an unprecedented uprising against this project,” added Skuce. “Enbridge wants to turn a blind eye to the environmental conflict they are creating, but opposition to this project is widespread and people are not going to let it happen.”

Skuce noted that Enbridge chose to file at a time when the southeast U.S. is bracing for the devastating impacts of the BP oil spill.

“The Gulf spill is a turning point for all risky oil development projects. Enbridge’s proposal is the way of the past, not the way of the future.”

Enbridge’s filing kicks off a federal review process that could take years.

“The National Energy Board review is a process run by the oil industry for the oil industry. It approves 99 percent of the projects it reviews and none of the panel members are from the region. How can communities place any faith that this process will protect their coast?” questioned Skuce.

Enbridge is proposing to bring oil supertankers into the same waters where the B.C. ferry Queen of the North sank in 2006.

Saturday, residents of Northwest B.C. will join First Nations in Kitamaat Village for a major gathering aimed at re-affirming opposition to the Enbridge project.

Nikki Skuce
(250) 877-7762 or (778) 210-0117

Canada’s tar sands: a dangerous solution to offshore oil

Alberta is the ‘safe’ option for US oil needs – but its tar sands are far more environmentally damaging than Deep Horizon

Heather McRobie

As the clean-up of the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico continues, the US may finally begin to rethink its position on off-shoring drilling. As usual, change is frustratingly slow, and almost imperceptible: environmental groups like the Centre for Biological Diversity have criticised the Mineral Management Service, the US agency that oversees oil extraction, for its “business as usual” approach during the disaster, and expressed concerns that the Obama administration has waived environmental reviews of more than 20 new off-shore drilling projects even as the Deepwater Horizon spill continues.

Still, a glimmer of environmental hope has come from the unlikely source of Californian governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who withdrew his support to expand off-shore exploration off California’s coast in the wake of the BP oil spill. It may be hard for climate-change activists to admit, but Schwarzenegger’s move seems impressive, particularly considering the pressure he faces to ditch environmental concerns to save California’s flailing economy. The governor’s turnaround on off-shore drilling comes as he faces increasing pressure to abandon California’s commitment to the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020. Opponents have collected enough signatures to put an initiative on November’s ballot to delay the implementation of the act until unemployment falls below 5.5%.

In this political climate, Schwarzenegger’s change of heart on off-shore drilling could bolster environmental campaigning efforts to reduce offshore projects nationwide: if recession-suffering California can do it, so can the rest of the country.

The problem comes if California shifts its consumption of oil to a more carbon-intensive source. David Hughes of the Post Carbon Initiative has noted that, even if offshore drilling is banned in California, it will have little positive environmental impact if the state’s current demand for oil is just met from other sources. One likely source in particular will only worsen the situation: oil from the Canadian tar sands are already the biggest source of US oil imports, and Alberta’s recoverable reserves are now estimated to be the second-largest worldwide after Saudi Arabia. And unlike oil from Saudi Arabia, Albertan oil is literally in the sand itself, so refining it is up to five times as energy-intensive as refining crude oil.

Alberta premier Ed Stelmach wasted little time visiting Washington to promote Canadian oil sands as a “safer” option in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico disaster – referring to the oil sands as an “unconventional” source, as though one of the most destructive variants of fossil fuel extraction was merely a friendly alternative.

This is the moment that Canada’s prime minister Stephen Harper has presumably been waiting for. While the US has, at least so far, resisted a complete dependency on Albertan sand oil, this environmentally disastrous from of petrol is widening its share of the global market. Despite the recession’s impact on Albertan oil production, Albertan oil company Enbridge Inc is going ahead with its plans to build a 1,200km oil sand pipeline to supply Asian markets.

Canadian oil companies have begun to actively court China, whose consumption of Albertan oil has increased dramatically in the last five years: the Canadian government recently approved a £1.5bn investment giving PetroChina a 60% stake in two new Albertan oil sand projects. Canadian oil is also reaching European markets: the new Greenpeace report revealed that Albertan tar sands oil has been indirectly entering the EU’s petrol supplyunbeknown to consumers, and indicated that this is likely to become more widespread.

Defenders of Canada’s deals with China – hardly known for its environmental record – argue that it was a reasonable response to the decline in American interest in Albertan oil. The Obama administration in particular has shown itself to be ambivalent about Canadian oil. Harper’s government and Albertan politicians seem to have made it a priority to win America over to Albertan oil – and are being lent support for this from surprising quarters.

Amid the popular (if characteristically understated) patriotism stoked by the Vancouver Winter Olympics, heightened scrutiny of Harper’s environmental policies (if “policy” is the right word for a man whodismissed the Kyoto protocol as a “socialist scheme” and then did his best to undermine a successor agreement) received a defensive response even from Harper’s Canadian critics: now wasn’t the time to tolerate “Canada bashing” abroad.

Similarly, when in 2009 Canada came last on a WWF scorecard of G8 countries’ environmental policies, and the Obama administration’s clean energy and security bill looked set to disproportionately harm the Albertan oil trade, Canadians were quick to note America’s hypocrisy, and perhaps understandably resented being lectured by the world’s largest and most profligate consumer. The problem is, none of the arguments that Canada is being somehow unfairly maligned actually contradict the point that the Alberta tar sands are evidently an unmitigated disaster for the environment, or that Canada’s carbon emissions are estimated to have increased by 26% since the Kyoto Protocol.

With Alberta’s premier happily capitalising on the Deepwater Horizon disaster to win the US over to Albertan oil, and Schwarzenegger backtracking on offshore oil drilling, recession-hit California and ambitious Alberta would be a match made in petrodollar heaven: Alberta would once again be secure as the dominant petrol supplier to the US, and the deal is far more palatable for America than its main alternative of tar sand oil, Chávez’s Venezuela. For America as well as for Europe, Albertan oil is increasingly the best option from a political point of view – but never from an environmental one.

The Gulf of Mexico disaster could trigger a wider environmental catastrophe if the US’s search for new petrol sources points it back in the direction of Alberta.

Resources in the rainforest

It’s going to be bigger than Clayoquot Sound’

The looming fight over the Great Bear Rainforest will once again put B.C. at ground zero of the global environment movement

Mark Hume

From Saturday’s Globe and MailPublished on Saturday, Mar. 27, 2010 4:24PM EDT

It is because of accidents like that, and the dark spectre of the Exxon Valdez disaster which still haunts the West Coast, that Premier Gordon Campbell finds himself on a collision course with a powerful coalition of aboriginal groups over a proposed multibillion-dollar pipeline.

Although first nations are fighting several big resource projects in British Columbia, the conflict over the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline is developing into an overarching issue that is about to thrust the province into the international spotlight.

It’s going to be bigger than Clayoquot Sound,” predicted Vicky Husband, who has been one of B.C.’s leading environmental voices for the past 30 years.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., described the 1993 fight to stop clear-cut logging in Clayoquot Sound on Vancouver Island as “the flashpoint in one of the defining environmental battles of our time.” Ms. Husband says the Enbridge dispute may be the defining battle for a new generation concerned about climate change and global dependence on oil(coal, gas).

Cargo ship collides with oil supertanker near Singapore
Four square kilometer oil spill; ~18,000 barrels. Neither ship sank. Cleanup of the spill underway.

Post: #1

Tanker, carrier collide off Singapore

1st grey whale in 100 years spotted in Howe Sound

A grey whale spotted feeding in Howe Sound north of Vancouver in recent days is a sign that efforts to restore the area’s natural ecosystem are working, according to the chief of the Squamish First Nation.

Conservationists first noticed the whale feeding at the mouth of the Squamish River last week and photographed it over the weekend.

Chief Bill Williams, who heads up the nine communities that make up the Squamish First Nation, which stretches from North Vancouver to the northern part of Howe Sound, says history has not been kind to the grey whale, which was once common on the coast of B.C.

The recent sighting is thought to be the first time in more than a 100 years a grey whale has been spotted in the area.

“Grey whales used to inhabit the Howe Sound area up until 1880,” Williams said. “But then between 1880 and 1900, they were hunted mercilessly by the Hudson’s Bay Company, and they were all killed off in that 20-year stretch. So, they basically never came back. But now, they’re starting to come back.

A whale of a tale in downtown Vancouver

by Al Campbell

2010-05-06 13:01:36

VANCOUVER, May 5 (Xinhua) — Vancouver has entertained some important guests this year with the city’s hosting of the Winter Olympics, but none as big as a grey whale that cruised into town Wednesday morning for a leisurely lunch and a look around the local harbor.

First spotted by a jogger off Stanley Park around 10.30 a.m.(1730 GMT), news of the unusual appearance of a whale in the downtown harbor spread rapidly and brought thousands of curious locals down to the waterfront in hopes of a glimpse of the giant mammal.

By noon, the animal, which had veered from its migration path off the west coast of Vancouver Island on its way to the Bering Sea, was spotted in False Creek, an area populated by recreational boats, trendy restaurants and residential towers.

After swimming past the site of the Olympic Village toward the end of the dead-end creek, the whale, escorted by a flotilla of vessels and helicopters hovering overhead, turned around and made its way out to open harbor around 3 p.m. (2200 GMT) and disappeared into the depths of English Bay.


Shift Environmental Alliance(a homeless network of transborder

activists, students, academics, Aboriginal etc.) psea does not do media

interviews since july 2007,we thank all media for their inquires.

Please feel free to use anything on this site.

Abolition King Coal, Fossil Fuels, Nuclear Power and Weapons Everywhere!

The Great Struggle Continues….

Please also see:

9/11 Reset Haiti Humanity Global Warming One Minute to Midnight

Abolition of King Coal, Fossil Fuels, Nuclear Power and Weapons(update Friday Feb 13. 2009)

(Original PSEA Document) Abolition of King Coal Everywhere!(Update Friday March 13 2009)

Will the Dalai Lama Speak Out against Poverty and Beijing-Vancouver 2010 Olympics?

Will the Dalai Lama Speak Out against the Alberta Tar Sands in Calgary?

Dalai Lama sounds off on Afghan war, oilsands


Olympics and Hajj to Shut Down due to Swine Flu – Global Warming?

Climate change deniers and Fascist Nick Griffin, Baroness Ashton represents EU at Copenhagen


China’s Authorities World’s Most Notorious Currency Manipulators and Canada’s Oilsands

Time to Evict Colonial Band Councils, Fossil Fuel, Uranium, Gold, Loggers Corps etc From Traditional Indigenous Lands

Vigil/Info Picket: Justice for Burma, Sudan, Darfur, Tibet and Hundreds of millions of Peasant Slaves in China Abolition King Coal, fossil fuels , Nuclear power and Weapons!

Vaticanos, World Organized Crime, Banks, Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Industries and the Cult of Child Abuse (Sacrifice) Part I of Trilogy

The Collider, the Particle and a Theory About Fate

ESSAY New York Times

Big bang goes phut as bird drops baguette into Cern machinery

Wall Street Discovers The God Particle