XPost: can.politics, bc.politics, van.general   
   From: "@nyet.ca   
      
   > May 12, 2014 - The Globe and Mail   
   >   
   >   
   > Burnaby has some tough questions for Trans Mountain   
   >   
   > City's support is crucial for Kinder Morgan's pipeline expansion   
   > project, which is running into growing resistance in the Lower Mainland   
   >   
   >   
   > Kinder Morgan Inc.'s proposal to twin its 60-year-old pipeline across   
   > British Columbia is in big trouble.   
   >   
   > Because the company already has a pipeline on the route, a   
   > long-established marine terminal and a commendable safety record, the   
   > project has been seen by many as a sure thing. But Kinder Morgan's Trans   
   > Mountain pipeline expansion project is running into growing resistance   
   > in the Lower Mainland where urban politicians are digging in to stop it.   
   >   
   > The latest sign of confrontation came a few days ago when the City of   
   > Burnaby filed a request for information with the National Energy Board,   
   > posing some tough questions for Trans Mountain.   
   >   
   > "This project ... will require Burnaby and its citizens to live with   
   > significant new risks and costs for many years," states a background   
   > summary prepared by the city's legal counsel, Greg McDade. "A project of   
   > this magnitude should not be imposed on a major municipality without the   
   > social licence from its citizens and consent from its democratically   
   > elected government."   
   >   
   > The city then asks: "Will Trans Mountain seek the assistance of the NEB   
   > to make orders imposing this project on Burnaby against the will of its   
   > citizens?"   
   >   
   > It is hard to imagine how Trans Mountain, which has until June 4 to file   
   > a response with the NEB, can provide an answer that is acceptable to the   
   > City of Burnaby. A "yes" means it will try to push its way through   
   > Burnaby, which would trigger a political and legal battle. But a "no"   
   > means Trans Mountain will let Burnaby decide its fate. Either way, it   
   > could be a pipeline showstopper.   
   >   
   > But there are more tough questions.   
   >   
   > "There is no rationale or analysis provided as to why expanding the   
   > pipeline, tank facilities and marine terminal in a major metropolitan   
   > area is the best alternative or in the public interest," states the city   
   > summary. "It appears that Trans Mountain chose this option merely   
   > because it already had an existing pipeline and facilities from the   
   > 1950s ... If no other options were considered, please advise why not. If   
   > the existing pipeline route is no longer viable ... why does the   
   > proposal not provide for its abandonment in favour of a consolidated new   
   > route?"   
   >   
   > The summary also raises the possibility that Burnaby could simply refuse   
   > to issue permits for construction, for water use, or to provide   
   > emergency services.   
   >   
   > Trans Mountain is asked to explain how it will build without the city's   
   > support. It is asked to provide details on the number of "security, fire   
   > and emergency personnel that will be required," to be trained and posted   
   > in Burnaby and it is asked how the company would respond to a   
   > catastrophic event.   
   >   
   > "Is it possible that it may be necessary to let a storage tank fire burn   
   > itself out?" asks the city, which points out such fires have burned for   
   > four days in other jurisdictions.   
   >   
   > The city notes that "a boil over tank fire" could discharge molten crude   
   > from storage tanks. And then it notes the tank farm, which would be   
   > greatly expanded, is already dangerously close to urban housing and to a   
   > school.   
   >   
   > In an interview Mayor Derek Corrigan said it would be "a big problem" if   
   > Trans Mountain can't adequately answer the tough questions being asked   
   > by Burnaby.   
   >   
   > "This may be one of the few times that an organization ... [which]   
   > appears to be an unstoppable force, has met an immovable object," he   
   > said to signal his determination.   
   >   
   > Mr. Corrigan wants Trans Mountain stopped, and he doesn't think any oil   
   > pipeline should be built anywhere in Canada, until a national energy   
   > strategy has been devised.   
   >   
   > "The reality is that there is no national energy policy, there is no   
   > operating mind behind all of the decisions being made. We are relying   
   > entirely on the invisible hand of the marketplace," he said.   
   >   
   > And for the City of Burnaby, letting industry decide how, where and when   
   > oil should be exported through its midst simply isn't acceptable.   
   >   
   > Mr. Corrigan is not alone in this regard. On Tuesday, Vancouver city   
   > council will consider a motion submitted by Green Party Councillor   
   > Adriane Carr, which calls for a pipeline plebiscite question on the   
   > civic election ballot next November.   
   >   
   > The motion states the Trans Mountain project will pose "increased risks   
   > of oil spills and leakages that threaten the health of Vancouver's   
   > citizens, environment, shorelines, beaches and tourism economy."   
   >   
   > The motion doesn't suggest how the plebiscite should be worded. But it's   
   > hard to think of any question that would lead to a yes for Trans Mountain.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)