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 |