Skip to content

Letter: Ignoring Trans Mountain tanker risks is foolish logic

Editor: Re: Trans Mountain oil tankers not worth setting your hair on fire , NOW Letters, Nov.
Trans Mountain pipeline
Environmental groups say they still oppose the Trans Mountain oil pipeline and more tankers on B.C.'s coast and haven't struck a deal with Alberta on its carbon emissions plan.

Editor:

Re: Trans Mountain oil tankers not worth setting your hair on fire, NOW Letters, Nov. 7
Following John Hunter’s logic, we needn’t bother having fire extinguishers or smoke alarms if our homes haven’t caught fire, nor need we bother to have earthquake preparedness kits since the Big One hasn’t hit yet.
First of all, the TMX Aframax tankers would carry diluted bitumen, not conventional crude oil.
There have been two diluted bitumen disasters, the Enbridge spill in the Kalamazoo River in July, 2010 and the Keystone burst pipeline in North Dakota just last month. Both originated from the Alberta Tar Sands. Unlike conventional crude, which floats and can be skimmed off the surface, bitumen sinks and can’t be fully recovered.
Waiting until there’s a dilbit disaster destroying our coast is akin to trying to douse the flames after your home is an inferno. Preventing the fire in the first place would make far more sense, as would preventing a 20-fold increase of TMX dilbit tankers from plying B.C. waters.
Roslyn Hart, Burnaby