Shipping crude by rail just as bad as Enbridge Pipeline
(PRINCE RUPERT, BC) CN Rail’s proposal to ship tar sands crude oil to Kitimat by rail is unacceptable, say conservation advocates in Northwest B.C.
Spokespeople with the group Friends of Wild Salmon say rail transport is even more accident prone than pipelines, and still requires oil tankers.
“Eight in ten British Columbians oppose oil tanker traffic off B.C.’s North Coast,” said Jennifer Rice with Friends of Wild Salmon. “So any proposal that involves such tanker traffic is going to be unequivocally opposed, whether it uses pipelines, rail cars or some other method to transport the oil to the port.”
Rice added that CN Rail’s safety record is also cause for concern.
“The railroad follows the Skeena River for a great distance. A derailment during a major upriver salmon migration could have very serious implications for the future of specific stocks – particularly those stocks that are already at suppressed levels.”
In march 2010, a group of nine coastal First Nations signed a declaration stating “…in upholding our ancestral laws, rights and responsibilities, we declare that oil tankers carrying crude oil from the Alberta Tar Sands will not be allowed to transit our lands and waters.”
“People in Northwest B.C. have serious concerns about the expansion of the tar sands and its effect on aboriginal communities in Alberta, as well as its impact on our global climate,” said Haisla councilor Gerald Amos. “These concerns are not mitigated by proposing alternative transportation methods.”
“The majority of communities, including the Coastal First Nations, have already decided we will not accept oil in our watersheds or on our coast,” said Amos. “This proposal brings the same concerns as the Enbridge Pipeline, and so does not change our decision.”
Jennifer Rice: 250-600-2455
Gerald Amos: 250-632-1521
Friends of Wild Salmon | PO Box 2803 | Smithers, BC, Canada, V0J 2N0 | email@example.com | Unsubscribe