re article, titled “Salmon River advocates…”
What planet does Ian Anderson of Kinder Morgan live on, claiming that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is “a stronger, safer and more responsive project” due to gathering “years” of input and feedback?
The truth is that a politicized National Energy Board has allowed Kinder Morgan to ignore input from the public, the NEB has dismantled the ability at hearings for groups to cross examine Kinder Morgan, Kinder Morgan has been allowed to ignore 80 per cent of questions submitted prior to the hearings, and when Kinder Morgan deigns to answer the responses have been inadequate if not laughable.
Marc Eliesen former head of BC Hydro withdrew as an intervenor from the Northern Gateway and the Trans Mountain projects calling the NEB hearings “fraudulent” and the submission by Kinder Morgan incomplete and unprofessional.
The existing Kinder Morgan pipeline caused massive permanent damage to streams and wetlands. But Kinder Morgan’s expansion does not intend to use more modern methods to protect habitat. They bizarrely claim that doing things the same old way does not cause any permanent damage. Nor do they think they should provide compensation for the damage their pipeline has and will create. The public be damned.
There are many arguments against this pipeline. Using modern ecological methods and providing compensation where damage is unavoidable would be a rounding error in the cost. How could this project even be allowed to the hearing stage without addressing these basic issues to protect the public interest?
Doug McFee, Chair, Salmon River Enhancement Society