A ae =

aoe

ag SevoeS Be et et Si

Swett RA

sone a Pontatert

Whee RT att

tease

opr

aime nominate OC Sg SANT

7

. _ Full investigation

of Kitimat option

By ALLAN KRASNICK on
Managing Editor -

The West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry opens formal
hearings in Vancouver today, its terms of reference
greatly broadened since U.B.C. law professor Andrew
Thompson was commissioned, on March 11, to inquire

into and report on ‘“‘the

social and environmental

impact regionally (including the impact on fisheries)

-that co

result from establishment of a marine

tanker route and construction of a marine terminal at

Kitimat.”

The original orientation
towards Kitimat has been
shifted into a more
comprehensive «
investigation of a number of

oposals for ::marine oil
ferminals and tanker routes
to be used <in moving
offshore oil, : ‘principally
from Alaska, to refineries in
the midwestern Untted

States.

Northern Tier Pipelines
wants to build a Port
Angeles, Wash., oilport to
connect with a proposed line

. that would cross five states
before terminating. at
Clearbrook, Minn.

Trans Mountain Pipeline

efers a Cherry Point,

Nash.; terminal, where
crude would be unloaded at
an Atlantic
refinery and then trans-

shipped to the midwest
through an existing
company pipeline to

Anterprovincial Pipe Line

Ltd., Murphy Oil Corp., dnd.

Farmers. Union entral

Exchange Inc. - applied for.
mission to construct a
timat

terminal, but
recently suspended

ans

application.

ough KPL has asked
the National Energy Board
to hol “in abeyance” its
application to construct a
753-mile Kitimat to
Edmonton pipeline, the
company w continue to
participate in the Thompson

inquiry. * ;
ommission. counsel
Russell Anthony told the
Herald in a recent interview
that KPL will still be
ted to provide the
inquiry ‘with all the
_ information it has gathered

so far... a
‘Because KPL is primarily
sponsored by midwest
_ refiners, it resumably
makes little difference who
moves the oil as long as

supplies are available.
timat Pipe Line has not

: ixy Lee Ray
supports Cherry Point even:
‘hough siting of an oil port
east of Port- Angeles would
run contrary to the state’s
Coastal Zone Management
Plan. Before the application
isa ed, state, national,
and Canadian concerns
must be answered.

So Kitimat remains very
much in contention: to the
dismay of.
environmentalists,
fishermen, and _ other

ments; to the delight of

at district council, its
chamber of commerce, and
other pro-growth

organization.
survey conducted by

MLA yell Shelford
indicated that 61.6 percent
of his Skeena riding’s

population disapprove of a.
at oil port, Shelford,

himself 9 supporter of the
plan if it means direct and
eeder benefits to the

-northwest, believes the poll

‘was an accurate assessment -

of public opinion.

. A Daily Herald poll taken
‘jn early May showed 44
percent rejection of the plan
versus 30 percent support.

Another expression. of
anti-pi e sentiment was
a stop-the-oil port resolution
that recelved unanimous
support at a general
_ meeting of the Kitimat local

of the Canadian Association
of Smelter and. Allied
Workers (CASAW).

On the other side. stands

Richfield

its bid,
announcing support~ ‘for-
I ' Mountain's ~

Kitimat’s district council
anxious to develop oil
terminal facilities as part of
a major port-industry
development program.

Council recently approved,
by majority vote, a position
paver supporting the

glas Channel). —

Opponents

Opponents of the Kitimat
application, united in an

- organization. called the
Kitimat Oil Coalition, worry
that KPL’s move was just a

— tactic exployed so that the .

company would not have to

take the lead in presenting

the evidence before the

ompson Inquiry.

aos AW, SPEC,
reenpea

Kitimat Alliance against

Supertankers to Kitimat

{TAASK), the Telkwa

Foundation, the Haiela.

Environmental Group,
Prince Rupert Save our
Shores, and the United
Fishermen and Allied
‘Workers Union are among
the groups represented in
the coalifion, .

Their concerns about the
Kitimat port focus .on both
the terminal and pipeline.
The coalltion will be a major

ticipant in the inquiry,
aving received $100,000
from. Thompson prepare

ecause
commissioner provided
funds directly- to ‘ the
coalition rather than
specific member
organizations, most of the
$100,000 will be spent on
legal fees for lawyers hired
to present testimony and
crogs-examine Inquiry

witnesses. a
The Nishga tribal council
and the Union of B.C. Indian
Chiefs also received funds to
assist in their direct
participation in the inquiry.
As well, an additional

&

$40,000 was made’ available —

to develop evidence on the
special dependency of
native people on food from
the ‘sea and river systems.

John Pritchard, a U.B.C.
anthropologist, has been
hired to study the possible
damage to the Indian

_ eulture of seven northwest
bands as a result of a -

Kitimat port.

To Pritchard, if the native
fishery is damaged, “the
whole culture is damaged.”

Spills are inevitable

Opponents believe that oi)
would be inevitable,
regardless of safety
measures taken.
uarter-mile long
supertankers would have to
negotiate narrow, twistin
channels “‘plagued wit
strong: currents, winds
- storms, and: submerged
rock,’ ‘the coalition of
conservation groups has

said. ro .
The ‘channels range in
width from 3,000 feet to, 144

. miles. -

. Coalition chairman Gary
Gallon says the area
through which tankers
would passis shrouded in fog
nine ‘months of the year,
with. visibility
restricted to about half a

mile. .
The tankers take 214 miles

to stop in an unccontrollable
nic stop and seven miles
acontrolled stop, he said.
They. are uncontrollable at

_ speeds of less than six knots,
The supertankers .would

reach Kitimat by passing .

through Dixon Entrance,
between the north end of the

Queen. Charlottes and the «

mainland, then turn south
through Principe’ Channel
‘between Banks Island and
the mainland,

The tankers then would

make two 120 degree turns §

' that oilport

_ systems have not been

ce, the Terrace:

often:

at

‘before entering the
relatively well-protected
8 hannel, eading to

Kitimat. -
The Kitimat route is far

» ‘more hazardous than any of .
the: others,

; opponents
' charge, and: thus Canadian
waters would not only be
exposed to the level of risks
nents are
rejecting in Long Beach,
Calif. and other sites, but,
indeed, to risks many times
higher than other systems.
ther parts of their
argument: ’
ere is little knowledge
of local winds;
- There is little knowledge
‘about currents and the sea
bottom; = ‘
“* ic studies on the
marine life of the t
Channel and Skeena River
done,
nor is there a great deal of
information about fish
migration or the effects of
_oil.in the water on the
homing instinct of returning

Skeena slamon;: and

> Because of the rugged
terra cle the channel,
8
using today’s ‘‘techology”’
ine nose and straw would
extremely diffic t.

-__ Pipeline.

The proposed Kitimat to

. The pri
Edmonton pipeline also

raises the spec
according to opponents
And they have 2
government document to
ck up their claims.
The. Environment and

Land Use Secretariat, a
provincial agency which |

reports toa top level cabinet
committee, warned that an
‘oll ’ the” Kitimat,

‘very
decimation.’’., ;

in i yen nere Commenting ~ ont sogial -f ~

impact, the re
project, would ” Prod

arge influx of transient
labor in northern B.C. which
could -be traumatic for
smaller communities such
- as. Smithers, Burns Lake,
-Houston,, Vanderhoof,
McBride, and Valement.
 .Other pipeline projects
have resulted in a dramatic
increase

t says

as well as
inflated” prices, the report
. ‘said. - v

-environmental

. Clean-up. efforts

of serious’
ecological damage,-

secret 4

vulnerable to

luce a @.

“in alcohol and’
. drug problems, prostitution,
assault and rape problems”
‘absurdly |

ebate shifts to for

‘portas an important part of
fis total on part
develupment. Council’s

plan for the city includes

port facilities, perhaps a

copper ‘smelter cr steel
, and. other ‘industrial
development that would
secure for Kitimat the
position of hub of the
northwest.
In a_ brief
George Thom will deliver to
the in , Kitimat bases
its su for the proposal

thus:

‘- "On the strength of the
federal government’s
statement that Canada must
have access to offshore oil to
maintain its industrial

' 2 In the firm belief that in

the ‘interests of British
Columbia, th-e

ulting - fi ibie al
resi from e ail
spills are lower in the
waterways approaching
Kitimat’s harbor than they
would be from: increasing

tanker traffic on the straits

of Juan de Fuca; and

that Mayor:

a tintin allen an

- "That -clean up
operations...will be more
successful and less costly
environmentally in the

channels ‘approaching .

Kitimat. .

The district believes that
the added tax revenue from
the project, an estimated
$1.6 on annually, could

easily handle any costs

brought, by the
dev ent,
Environmental concerns
were: expressed in a
deficiency report conducted
by U. Vic. marine biologist
Derek Ellis ' who will
represent the district at the
hearings, questionin
witnesses about ecologi

- matters.

The district wants the
federal government to
enforce tough navigational

regulations, protect the.

city’s recreational
resources,
compliance of a number of
strict. environmental rules.

Kitimat believes that
‘any negative aspects of the
pr are not so great

t

' 99?

- been chartered

and assure

930

"Daily Herald special report

al surro

and technolo cannot —
muitigate their elects.”

Confrontation

Oi) port supporters and
detractors have locked
horns many times since the
Kitimat p 1 was first
put forward: at public
meetings, council sessions
and once, ina blockade and

_ port demonstration. |

The tensest moment of
confrontation came in May
when Greenpeace and
antive ishing
representatives tried to
blockade a cruise ship, the
Princess Patricia, that had
by the
District of Kitimat for a-
convention of northern

partially defrayed. by
timat Pipe

condition the shi
rojected ipe ine route
rom Ketchikan, Alaska,
along the inside passage to.

KITIMAT-STIKINE REGIONAL DISTRICT |

. * El J
4 . : .
. ’
, :
I
*
"

"THE HERALD, Monday, July:10, 1977: PAGE 2.

sundings

_ ANDREW THOMPSON -

6264

-District’s support |

Supporters of a Kitimat

port blend beliefs in
_ conservative economics or
economic det

m with |

a dose of faith in modern -|

technology.’ .

The most obvious benefits
from the proposal are
economic, at least for the
short term. A_ pipeline
project would inject millions
of dollars in salaries,
taxation revenue, and spin-

off benefits. into the
economically-depressed
northwest. Co!
Shelford .believes 4

through ut charge could be
levi on the pipeline, not
unlike a similar tax placed
by the Syrian
for mideast oil brought
across that nation’s land.
The MLA estimates that
$38 million could be raised
annually from such a
charge, but he worries that

Canada and the United
already —

States may have
signed energy agreements

~ that would preclude such an’

impost. ,
dhetford is considering

‘ making a presentation
he inquiry; he says —

before the.
the submission would relate
towards possible benefits to
ithe northwest, shying away
from technical questions.
Shelford adds that as
many as 3,000 jobs may be
created within three years if
the project gets a go-aliead.
timat council sees an oll

“BIG JOHNS

DELICATESSEN
GROCERIES
10 AM-10 PM
y DAYS A WEEK

72 Bittern -
“Kitimat >.

overnment —

aa76. Wo
{ Cu
. $68 %
at 7. = Be .
» pho ‘
- vm B98T wu 4 o ° a
“Voie
(2657 “ me w i” wo >
‘ SAK yi
ot : & '
. Ry .
nam: a +
. 1 chy \sz6o . ow
~~ ee o
im : ri
oS ‘ eo '
2661 2660. 6 e28q | 5966
&,
421/626
5
4 ’
é 5 . \
2 a . a
nl. 2662 é ¥
a ; . 5S . ph
Morey ; \
ms] Lo,
. . —
\ ‘ ;
wh y ,
Nee fo a sa
oar ENA’. ;
< : Bory . : we . 4,’
{> Coe wake 4g 6 66806
oa \ ao i go2
. Va Te

a | | . i
a Beno $ 6804 VL eeoo | | *)!
“LAKE 6a05 . \4- Ie yy
. 78 + 2674 4%
| ; /s,
q{- . fie]?
an én “ ( —
‘ : aed . 2672
NY " te * i og) pe
— : te Ct No
, r " 2a76 Veg 1 aah om a ¢ a
‘ ; my at) a? 2
al . : — (oP Sr aa +
' @
+3)
NOTICE Is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held on the proposed
Lakelee Lake Zoning By-law No.s7. The proposed by-law ts concerned with all ihe Publle finer

Is
lands surrounding Lakelse Lake as shown by Schedule “A” and Schedule “Br

sert 1.

The general Intent of the propoue a zoning by:

The proposed zoning by-law may be viewed by any and all person
fictnterriatien, during regular business fo
‘Not - 4446 Lazelle Ave., Terrace, B.C.

and use of land and

i

ra atihe Rag

law Is to reguiate the development
so of bulidings. and structures.

a requiring more
nal District office,

An and all perse
notice and be go

t

{ 4asa _Pyaaes

5965

will be held In the Conference Room at Skoglund Hotsprings
duly 20, 1977, at 7: p.m. - , , ‘
na have an Interest in the proposed zoning by-law No.3? shall take
verned accordingly. proposed . ’ i

J, POUSETTE SECRETARY TREASURER |