B.C.'s Northern Gateway demands trigger showdown with Albert

[Soulforger]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... teway.html

NDP leader considers Northern Gateway pipeline dead

New Democrats prepared to start a provincial party in Quebec

NDP leader Tom Mulcair says he supports the idea of refining Alberta's oil in Canada instead of shipping the crude to Kitimat, B.C., and then on to Asia, as would be the case with Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project — which he calls a "non-starter."

In an interview that aired Saturday on CBC Radio's The House, the leader of the Official Opposition told guest host Chris Hall he supports the overall idea "of adding the value in Canada, developing, upgrading, processing, refining our own natural resources here."

On Friday, B.C. community newspaper tycoon David Black proposed building a $13-billion oil refinery near Kitimat to process all of the crude from Enbridge's controversial Northern Gateway pipeline.
RELATED: B.C. publisher proposes $13B crude refinery near Kitimat

"So whether it's that idea of having more refining capacity on the B.C. coast or what we've talked about, which is to move some of the bitumen in those pipelines, moving it east. Maybe that's a win-win situation," Mulcair said.

"We can start taking care of our own energy security, add the jobs in Canada instead of shipping both the bitumen and the jobs to the U.S. raw," he said.

As for the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, Mulcair thinks the project is dead, especially after the findings of a U.S. government report looking into an Enbridge oil spill in Michigan found there was a "complete breakdown of safety at Enbridge" and that employees at Enbridge acted like the "Keystone Kops," failing to quickly recognize the pipeline had ruptured and continuing to pump oil into the surrounding area.
RELATED: Scathing U.S. report missing from Northern Gateway hearings

"That was probably the last nail in the coffin," said Mulcair, recalling his reaction to hearing the "Keystone Kops" label.

Mulcair also took aim at Prime Minister Stephen Harper, suggesting his approach to sustainable development is failing.

"Mr. Harper seems to, over the summer, to have discovered the merits of science. The problem is he keeps firing his scientists and the ones he doesn't fire, he's muzzling.

"So if we can at least come up with a common understanding and use the highest level of environemntal assessment and get the best results then maybe these things can move forward in other places, but the Northern Gateway, I think, is a non-starter," Mulcair said.

Last week, while speaking to reporters after an announcement in B.C., Harper said science and not politics would decide the fate of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.
RELATED: Harper defends independence of pipeline approval process

Last month, B.C. Premier Christy Clark vowed to oppose the proposed pipeline project if the federal government and the province of Alberta didn't meet B.C.'s specific conditions, including getting a "fair share" share of the economic benefits.

When asked if a possible alliance with Clark was possible, Mulcair said he will be working closely with Adrian Dix, the NDP leader in B.C., to defeat Clark and her Liberal B.C. government in next year's provincial election.

"I'm going to be working very closely with Adrian Dix, the extraordinary leader of the NDP in B.C., to make sure the NDP forms a strong, progressive government in B.C."

Although NDP support is strong in B.C., the party holds only three seats in the Prairies.

This week, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall let it be known he had not forgotten Mulcair's diagnosis that the Canadian economy is suffering from a case of Dutch Disease, in which sales of natural resources increase the value of the dollar, hurting manufacturing through declining exports.

On Thursday, Wall tweeted: "Sask manufacturing up and leading the nation. Canada's up year over year 6.9%. That's quite a case of Dutch Disease."

More in link...

So the Fed NDP will be working to ensure a Provincial NDP government in British Columbia...

[dpwozney]

The hard core stuff, taxation, royalty fees, comprehensive liability protection requirements, environmental protection requirements and so on have yet to be addressed.

The deal, with “Canada’s liability rules”, has been previously addressed.

“Canada’s liability rules means a spiller may not have to spend more than $1.3 billion cleaning up a marine disaster. The rest of the costs could fall to the province and Ottawa”, according to this August 7 Canadian Press article by Vivian Luk.

Other deals such as royalties have also previously been addressed.

[RedDog]

I trust Mulcair has had his car crushed and donated to the kidney foundation in addition to having the furnace and hot water tank removed from his home. There is no need for him personally to be sullied by the oil and gas industry. He is right to do the appropriate thing once he has followed these responsible steps in the interests of mommy earth and the entire solar system. You go Thomas. You da man.

[WestViking]

The hard core stuff, taxation, royalty fees, comprehensive liability protection requirements, environmental protection requirements and so on have yet to be addressed.

The deal, with “Canada’s liability rules”, has been previously addressed.

“Canada’s liability rules means a spiller may not have to spend more than $1.3 billion cleaning up a marine disaster. The rest of the costs could fall to the province and Ottawa”, according to this August 7 Canadian Press article by Vivian Luk.

Other deals such as royalties have also previously been addressed.

No one can produce a link or a copy to one of these alleged 'deals' because they don't exist. Enbridge is speculating. So is the media. So is Clark. The cards have not been dealt and no bets have been made. Everyone with a seat at the table figures they can outsmart everyone else. The question is who is looking out for the taxpayer, and I suspect no one is.

[dpwozney]

The hard core stuff, taxation, royalty fees, comprehensive liability protection requirements, environmental protection requirements and so on have yet to be addressed.

The deal, with “Canada’s liability rules”, has been previously addressed.

“Canada’s liability rules means a spiller may not have to spend more than $1.3 billion cleaning up a marine disaster. The rest of the costs could fall to the province and Ottawa”, according to this August 7 Canadian Press article by Vivian Luk.

Other deals such as royalties have also previously been addressed.

No one can produce a link or a copy to one of these alleged 'deals' because they don't exist. Enbridge is speculating. So is the media. So is Clark. The cards have not been dealt and no bets have been made. Everyone with a seat at the table figures they can outsmart everyone else. The question is who is looking out for the taxpayer, and I suspect no one is.

If there is no deal, then how was Wright Mansell, a Calgary based firm, able to produce a research report with specific dollar amounts for the proposed Northern Gateway project? Was the Wright Mansell report speculation?

If there is no deal, then how was the Canadian Energy Research Institute able to recently release a report with specific dollar amounts for the proposed Northern Gateway project? Was the Canadian Energy Research Institute report speculation?

If there is no deal, is the Joint Review Panel assessing and reviewing Enbridge's mere speculation?

And, speaking of “the taxpayer”, is it taxpayers in Canada, or is it instead the project proponents, who are paying for the Joint Review Panel hearings and process for the proposed Northern Gateway project?

[WestViking]

If there is no deal, then how was Wright Mansell, a Calgary based firm, able to produce a research report with specific dollar amounts for the proposed Northern Gateway project? Was the Wright Mansell report speculation?

The Wright Mansell report is an economist's assessment of the Enbridge proposal, not an assessment of any alleged 'deal'. Read the Executive Summary:

The purpose of this report is to assess the economic case for the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project which relies on Enbridge's projection of a $2 - $3 increase in the price of oil, on every barrel of oil produced—every year—for 30 years. The production forecast used in their analysis is the same forecast with or without Northern Gateway and therefore there is no real increase in the productive capacity of the Canadian economy—just a redirection of supply.

The real impact of this project is not an income generating growth opportunity as the proponent would have the Canadian public believe. Northern Gateway represents an inflationary price shock which will have a negative and prolonged impact on the Canadian economy by reducing output, employment, labour income and government revenues.

Part 1 of this report addresses the misrepresentation of this project to the public and explains the implications for the macroeconomy and strategic policy. It is determined that Northern Gateway is neither needed nor is it in the public interest. The project represents serious economic risk to the Canadian economy. Northern Gateway is in a double bind. Without an inflationary increase in oil prices the project's benefit case crumbles. That is, unless Northern Gateway increases oil prices for Canadians there is no industry benefit and hence no economic benefit.

Part 2 of this report addresses the vulnerability of the Enbridge case to changes in its underlying assumptions and reveals that closer scrutiny of the methodology exposes numerous errors, misspecifications, presentation bias and extreme sensitivity of the outcomes projected to relatively minor changes in key economic variables, particularly supply, price and exchange rates.

The main focus of this report is an assessment of the economic case presented by Enbridge, an identification of what the proponent has missed, and discussion of the errors in analysis that must be addressed. However, should Northern Gateway be built, even in light of its risk to the Canadian economy and the environment, there is significant opportunity cost presented by this project. Northern Gateway means lost opportunity to create a long term energy security strategy for Canadians. It also represents a lost opportunity to ensure reasoned and sustainable development of crude oil resources that captures real value added in an environmentally responsible manner for the benefit of all Canadians.

The opportunities lost if Northern Gateway is built are real but they are being ignored by policy makers responsible for protecting the public interest. Foreign national oil companies recognize the opportunity inherent in value added refining of crude oil and distribution of petroleum products. This is at the root of their development strategies and they plan to take full advantage of improving on them by directly investing in Northern Gateway. Northern Gateway is a means to an end for foreign nationals— ensuring access to Canadian crude oil in order to feed their offshore refineries and distribution networks in the decades to come.

Canada's federal and provincial leaders have abdicated their responsibility for meaningful energy policy by endorsing Northern Gateway, and have willingly stepped aside while the value added potential of our raw resources is sold-short on the international market. From a public policy standpoint, Canada is being outplayed.

If there is no deal, then how was the Canadian Energy Research Institute able to recently release a report with specific dollar amounts for the proposed Northern Gateway project? Was the Canadian Energy Research Institute report speculation?

The CERI did a report for the First Nations and its approach can be summed up on Page 2 of its report:

By far the largest concern is for marine safety. The shipping lane within the Douglas Channel is marked by frequent bad weather and other hazards, a formidable route for tanker pilots to navigate. Today there is limited oil tanker traffic on BC’s west coast because of the voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone. If the pipeline goes through, as many as 225 crude oil tankers a year will call at Kitimat; this has come as a shock to opponents of the pipeline and residents of the region. Complete safety in BC’s northern waters can only be achieved if no traffic is allowed (i.e., no tankers, no risk) following the argument that “No matter how safe the ship, the most mundane human error can sink it...the potential damage from those oil tankers is x to the 100 power.” (Lemphers, 2010)(Skuce, 2010). To opponents, an oil spill is inevitable, either through a natural disaster or through an error in human judgement, and the cost of that tanker spill will be on par with the ecological disaster that occurred further up the coast when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska. As the West Coast Port Oil inquiry stated in 1978, a major oil spill is possible and apprehension over such a spill cannot be dismissed (Thompson, 1978).

If there is no deal, is the Joint Review Panel assessing and reviewing Enbridge's mere speculation?

There is no deal required for the Joint Review Panel. Please note:

The Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is an independent body, mandated by the Minister of the Environment and the National Energy Board. The Panel will assess the environmental effects of the proposed project and review the application under both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act.

You have no support to show for your contention that some deal has been struck on the Enbridge Northern Gateway proposal. You have not done your homework or even read through the various reports that you cite. You do not know the subject or its elements.

[Brexx]

If there is no deal, then how was Wright Mansell, a Calgary based firm, able to produce a research report with specific dollar amounts for the proposed Northern Gateway project? Was the Wright Mansell report speculation?

The Wright Mansell report is an economist's assessment of the Enbridge proposal, not an assessment of any alleged 'deal'. Read the Executive Summary:

The purpose of this report is to assess the economic case for the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project which relies on Enbridge's projection of a $2 - $3 increase in the price of oil, on every barrel of oil produced—every year—for 30 years. The production forecast used in their analysis is the same forecast with or without Northern Gateway and therefore there is no real increase in the productive capacity of the Canadian economy—just a redirection of supply.

The real impact of this project is not an income generating growth opportunity as the proponent would have the Canadian public believe. Northern Gateway represents an inflationary price shock which will have a negative and prolonged impact on the Canadian economy by reducing output, employment, labour income and government revenues.

Part 1 of this report addresses the misrepresentation of this project to the public and explains the implications for the macroeconomy and strategic policy. It is determined that Northern Gateway is neither needed nor is it in the public interest. The project represents serious economic risk to the Canadian economy. Northern Gateway is in a double bind. Without an inflationary increase in oil prices the project's benefit case crumbles. That is, unless Northern Gateway increases oil prices for Canadians there is no industry benefit and hence no economic benefit.

Part 2 of this report addresses the vulnerability of the Enbridge case to changes in its underlying assumptions and reveals that closer scrutiny of the methodology exposes numerous errors, misspecifications, presentation bias and extreme sensitivity of the outcomes projected to relatively minor changes in key economic variables, particularly supply, price and exchange rates.

The main focus of this report is an assessment of the economic case presented by Enbridge, an identification of what the proponent has missed, and discussion of the errors in analysis that must be addressed. However, should Northern Gateway be built, even in light of its risk to the Canadian economy and the environment, there is significant opportunity cost presented by this project. Northern Gateway means lost opportunity to create a long term energy security strategy for Canadians. It also represents a lost opportunity to ensure reasoned and sustainable development of crude oil resources that captures real value added in an environmentally responsible manner for the benefit of all Canadians.

The opportunities lost if Northern Gateway is built are real but they are being ignored by policy makers responsible for protecting the public interest. Foreign national oil companies recognize the opportunity inherent in value added refining of crude oil and distribution of petroleum products. This is at the root of their development strategies and they plan to take full advantage of improving on them by directly investing in Northern Gateway. Northern Gateway is a means to an end for foreign nationals— ensuring access to Canadian crude oil in order to feed their offshore refineries and distribution networks in the decades to come.

Canada's federal and provincial leaders have abdicated their responsibility for meaningful energy policy by endorsing Northern Gateway, and have willingly stepped aside while the value added potential of our raw resources is sold-short on the international market. From a public policy standpoint, Canada is being outplayed.

If there is no deal, then how was the Canadian Energy Research Institute able to recently release a report with specific dollar amounts for the proposed Northern Gateway project? Was the Canadian Energy Research Institute report speculation?

The CERI did a report for the First Nations and its approach can be summed up on Page 2 of its report:

By far the largest concern is for marine safety. The shipping lane within the Douglas Channel is marked by frequent bad weather and other hazards, a formidable route for tanker pilots to navigate. Today there is limited oil tanker traffic on BC’s west coast because of the voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone. If the pipeline goes through, as many as 225 crude oil tankers a year will call at Kitimat; this has come as a shock to opponents of the pipeline and residents of the region. Complete safety in BC’s northern waters can only be achieved if no traffic is allowed (i.e., no tankers, no risk) following the argument that “No matter how safe the ship, the most mundane human error can sink it...the potential damage from those oil tankers is x to the 100 power.” (Lemphers, 2010)(Skuce, 2010). To opponents, an oil spill is inevitable, either through a natural disaster or through an error in human judgement, and the cost of that tanker spill will be on par with the ecological disaster that occurred further up the coast when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska. As the West Coast Port Oil inquiry stated in 1978, a major oil spill is possible and apprehension over such a spill cannot be dismissed (Thompson, 1978).

If there is no deal, is the Joint Review Panel assessing and reviewing Enbridge's mere speculation?

There is no deal required for the Joint Review Panel. Please note:

The Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is an independent body, mandated by the Minister of the Environment and the National Energy Board. The Panel will assess the environmental effects of the proposed project and review the application under both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act.

You have no support to show for your contention that some deal has been struck on the Enbridge Northern Gateway proposal. You have not done your homework or even read through the various reports that you cite. You do not know the subject or its elements.

What you posted is not from the Wright Mansell report. It was written by Robyn Allen, the most active opponent of Northern Gateway.

[dpwozney]

If there is no deal, then how was Wright Mansell, a Calgary based firm, able to produce a research report with specific dollar amounts for the proposed Northern Gateway project? Was the Wright Mansell report speculation?

The Wright Mansell report is an economist's assessment of the Enbridge proposal, not an assessment of any alleged 'deal'.

The Wright Mansell research report is an assessment of the public interest benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway project under the deal called Confederation and laws and rules associated with the deal called Confederation.

If there is no deal, then how was the Canadian Energy Research Institute able to recently release a report with specific dollar amounts for the proposed Northern Gateway project? Was the Canadian Energy Research Institute report speculation?

The CERI did a report for the First Nations ...

I was referring to the recent report CERI released on Tuesday, July 31. CERI “is funded by the federal Department of Natural Resources, the Alberta Department of Energy, and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, an industry lobby group”, according to this link.

“The report published by the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) on Tuesday examined the potential economic impacts of three pipeline projects -- Keystone XL, Trans Mountain and Northern Gateway -- with figures based on the assumption the projects would happen”, according to this link.

This July 31st CERI report is an examination of the potential economic impacts of three pipeline projects under the deal called Confederation and laws and rules associated with the deal called Confederation.

If there is no deal, is the Joint Review Panel assessing and reviewing Enbridge's mere speculation?

There is no deal required for the Joint Review Panel.

The Joint Review Panel is assessing and reviewing the proposed Northern Gateway project under the deal called Confederation and laws and rules associated with the deal called Confederation.

[Soulforger]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... ience.html

Northern Gateway review hobbled by budget cuts, critics say

Critics of Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to tankers on the British Columbia coast say there is no time for the science to be completed before a federal deadline for the environmental assessment currently underway.

Documents filed with the National Energy Board show the environmental review panel studying the Northern Gateway project asked Fisheries and Oceans Canada for risk assessments for the bodies of water the proposed pipeline will cross. The pipeline is to traverse nearly 1,000 streams and rivers in the upper Fraser, Skeena and Kitimat watersheds.

The department didn't have them.

"As DFO has not conducted a complete review of all proposed crossings, we are unable to submit a comprehensive list as requested; however, this work will continue and, should the project be approved, our review will continue into the regulatory permitting phase," DFO wrote in a five-page letter dated June 6, 2012.

That flies in the face of remarks by Prime Minister Stephen Harper who has said the fate of the pipeline will be based on science and not politics.

The DFO response went on to say there "may be differences of opinion" between the company and the department on the risk posed by the pipeline at some crossings. It provided two examples of crossings of tributaries to the Kitimat River where Enbridge rated the risk as low but Fisheries rated it medium to high.

DFO said the federal ministry will continue to work with the company to determine the risk level and level of mitigation required.

"Under the current regulatory regime, DFO will ensure that prior to any regulatory approvals, the appropriate mitigation measures to protect fish and fish habitat will be based on the final risk assessment rating that will be determined by DFO."

Layoffs at Fisheries Department in B.C.

Earlier this month, Harper told reporters in Vancouver that "decisions on these kinds of projects are made through an independent evaluation conducted by scientists into the economic costs and risks that are associated with the project, and that's how we conduct our business."

He went on to say "the only way that government can handle controversial projects of this manner is to ensure that things are evaluated on an independent basis, scientifically, and not simply on political criteria."

But the federal government recently sent letters to 92 habitat staff members within Fisheries and Oceans in B.C., telling them that their positions will be cut. Thirty-two of them will be laid off outright.

The cuts will mean the department in B.C. has half the habitat staff it had a decade ago.

All but five of the province's fisheries field offices will be cut as part of a $79 million — 5.8 per cent — cut to the department's operational budget, including the offices in Prince George and Smithers that would have had the lead in monitoring pipeline effects.

The marine contaminant group that would have been involved in a spill in B.C. has been disbanded and the fisheries and environmental legislation gutted, said Otto Langer, a retired fisheries department scientist.

"[Harper] says the science will make the decision. Well he's basically disembowelled the science," said Langer. "It's a cruel hoax that they're pulling over on the public."

More in link...

[Brexx]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/08/19/gateway-pipeline-science.html

Northern Gateway review hobbled by budget cuts, critics say

Critics of Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to tankers on the British Columbia coast say there is no time for the science to be completed before a federal deadline for the environmental assessment currently underway.

Documents filed with the National Energy Board show the environmental review panel studying the Northern Gateway project asked Fisheries and Oceans Canada for risk assessments for the bodies of water the proposed pipeline will cross. The pipeline is to traverse nearly 1,000 streams and rivers in the upper Fraser, Skeena and Kitimat watersheds.

The department didn't have them.

"As DFO has not conducted a complete review of all proposed crossings, we are unable to submit a comprehensive list as requested; however, this work will continue and, should the project be approved, our review will continue into the regulatory permitting phase," DFO wrote in a five-page letter dated June 6, 2012.

That flies in the face of remarks by Prime Minister Stephen Harper who has said the fate of the pipeline will be based on science and not politics.

The DFO response went on to say there "may be differences of opinion" between the company and the department on the risk posed by the pipeline at some crossings. It provided two examples of crossings of tributaries to the Kitimat River where Enbridge rated the risk as low but Fisheries rated it medium to high.

DFO said the federal ministry will continue to work with the company to determine the risk level and level of mitigation required.

"Under the current regulatory regime, DFO will ensure that prior to any regulatory approvals, the appropriate mitigation measures to protect fish and fish habitat will be based on the final risk assessment rating that will be determined by DFO."

Layoffs at Fisheries Department in B.C.

Earlier this month, Harper told reporters in Vancouver that "decisions on these kinds of projects are made through an independent evaluation conducted by scientists into the economic costs and risks that are associated with the project, and that's how we conduct our business."

He went on to say "the only way that government can handle controversial projects of this manner is to ensure that things are evaluated on an independent basis, scientifically, and not simply on political criteria."

But the federal government recently sent letters to 92 habitat staff members within Fisheries and Oceans in B.C., telling them that their positions will be cut. Thirty-two of them will be laid off outright.

The cuts will mean the department in B.C. has half the habitat staff it had a decade ago.

All but five of the province's fisheries field offices will be cut as part of a $79 million — 5.8 per cent — cut to the department's operational budget, including the offices in Prince George and Smithers that would have had the lead in monitoring pipeline effects.

[b]The marine contaminant group that would have been involved in a spill in B.C. has been disbanded and[/b] the fisheries and environmental legislation gutted, said Otto Langer, a retired fisheries department scientist.

"[Harper] says the science will make the decision. Well he's basically disembowelled the science," said Langer. "It's a cruel hoax that they're pulling over on the public."

More in link...

I wonder what marine contaminant group he is talking about. WCMRC is the organization that is in place to deal with spills on the BC coast and they have not been disbanded.

http://www.wcmrc.com/

[Soulforger]

I wonder what marine contaminant group he is talking about. WCMRC is the organization that is in place to deal with spills on the BC coast and they have not been disbanded.

http://www.wcmrc.com/

http://www.wcmrc.com/?page_id=1594

RESPONSE NETWORK



Western Canada Marine Response Corporation depends on a network of marine contractors and fishers in the event of a spill on the west coast.

If you are interested in joining our team of Marine Oil Spill Responders, please download the expression of interest below and mail/email it to the address listed.

Marine Oil Spill Response Network

From their own site. Also they seem to have a very small staff from the chart I looked at, 24 full time 6 part time and 1 consultant.


I hope this helps...

[Brexx]

I wonder what marine contaminant group he is talking about. WCMRC is the organization that is in place to deal with spills on the BC coast and they have not been disbanded.

http://www.wcmrc.com/

http://www.wcmrc.com/?page_id=1594

RESPONSE NETWORK



Western Canada Marine Response Corporation depends on a network of marine contractors and fishers in the event of a spill on the west coast.

If you are interested in joining our team of Marine Oil Spill Responders, please download the expression of interest below and mail/email it to the address listed.

Marine Oil Spill Response Network

From their own site. Also they seem to have a very small staff from the chart I looked at, 24 full time 6 part time and 1 consultant.


I hope this helps...

I was just wondering what group Otto Langer was talking about that he claims has been disbanded.

[Soulforger]

I was just wondering what group Otto Langer was talking about that he claims has been disbanded.

But the federal government recently sent letters to 92 habitat staff members within Fisheries and Oceans in B.C., telling them that their positions will be cut. Thirty-two of them will be laid off outright.

The cuts will mean the department in B.C. has half the habitat staff it had a decade ago.

I am guessing this is the group Otto is talking about. How they link up with Western Canada Marine Response Corporation is still not clear but it would make sense that they would make use of habitat staff members within Fisheries and Oceans in B.C because they simply do not have the staff required to do it all...

24 full time 6 part time and 1 consultant at the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation is simply not enough to takle a major spill from a tanker especially if the weather takes a turn for the worse.

[Brexx]

I was just wondering what group Otto Langer was talking about that he claims has been disbanded.

But the federal government recently sent letters to 92 habitat staff members within Fisheries and Oceans in B.C., telling them that their positions will be cut. Thirty-two of them will be laid off outright.

The cuts will mean the department in B.C. has half the habitat staff it had a decade ago.

I am guessing this is the group Otto is talking about. How they link up with Western Canada Marine Response Corporation is still not clear but it would make sense that they would make use of habitat staff members within Fisheries and Oceans in B.C because they simply do not have the staff required to do it all...

24 full time 6 part time and 1 consultant at the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation is simply not enough to takle a major spill from a tanker especially if the weather takes a turn for the worse.

As you posted WCMRC would not be alone in tackling a major oil spill. They would be joined by a network of marine contractors and fishing vessels. They also have co-operation agreements with US organizations from Alaska and south.
That said I do think their capacity would have to be increased if either the TransMountain line is doubled or the Northern Gateway is built.
I don't think those Fisheries and Oceans guys that got laid off are people who would actually participate in a clean-up. They would probably just watch and take notes.

[WestViking]

What you posted is not from the Wright Mansell report. It was written by Robyn Allen, the most active opponent of Northern Gateway.

Please post a link to the Wright Mansell report you refer to. Thank you.