Ecuador court gives green light for Silvercorp, Salazar’s El Domo project
The ruling removes the last major obstacle for the $250 million project, located 150 km northeast of Guayaquil.
As hearings into the Northern Gateway pipeline continue, Enbridge, the company behind the $5.5 billion project to transport oilsands crude 1,170 kilometres from Brudenheim, Alberta to a new marine terminal in Kitimat, says it would consider moving the pipeline terminus to another location further north.
In a conference call announcing Enbridge’s fourth-quarter results, CEO Pat Daniel said the company will look at ending the pipeline in Prince Rupert instead of Kitimat, where the project has faced staunch opposition from local First Nations and several environmental groups.
Prince Rupert, located about 110 kilometres north of Kitimat, was previously ruled out by Enbridge because it would require an 80-kilometre right-of-way extension along the Skeena River. Daniel said studies indicate that Kitimat is the better option for a terminus but that Enbridge wants to look at other possibilities:
“Recently, I have indicated that we will re-examine that to see whether there is another way to get to Prince Rupert, but all of our engineering and environmental studies continue to point in the direction of Kitimat being the best alternative,” Daniel said. “We want to make sure that we have thoroughly evaluated any and all routing opportunities.”
An unprecedented 4,000-plus people – the vast majority environmental activists – have been scheduled to speak for a collective 650 hours at public hearings on the Northern Gateway pipeline. The hearings began on Jan. 10.
The project gained a new imperative after the Keystone XL pipeline project was stalled; in January Washington refused to approve it within a tight deadline set by the U.S. Congress.
Alberta oil sands production is set to more than double to 3.7 million barrels by 2025 out of a total of 4.7 million including conventional oil. Production in the US, particularly from the Bakken basin in North Dakota, will see the country ramp up current output of 7.8 million barrels/day to 10.9 million barrels over the next few years.
3 Comments
Biddulph Art
I would really like to see how all tese 4000+ tree hugers travel and where their funding really comes from.
West Coast Cdn
Saying its a “vast majority of enviro activists” is BS. Its BC residents concerned about negligent ship captains (Exxon Valdes, BC Ferries Q of the North), Negligent corporations cutting corners for profit (BP Gulf of Mexico), engineers underestimating risks in an earthquake prone areas, this is the Pacific Rim and we are expecting the big one we are told all the time, in case anyone forgot. What are those new tsunami warning signs all over the coast for? This is also an area of major salmon rivers for Chinook, at risk being destroyed in the case of a spill. Kitimaat and Skeena Rivers to be exact. We have much more than cows and wheat fields here, the marine life here is worth more than to us than shipping oil. Our lives revolve around marine life, our livelihoods do to. Our outdoors are breath taking and we don’t want that to mean can’t take a breath due to oil fumes in the case of a spill. Look at Gulf of Mexico, wetlands destroyed, shrimping livelihoods ended, people’s way of life destroyed due to corruption between BP and the Feds in the US and who has gone to jail for that? No one. Keep putting heavy industry in areas of critical marine habitat and soon enough you wont have a habitat. Yes we think differently in BC on the coast, because we have a lot to lose if there is a spill. What we have is priceless. Keep the oil off the coast.
lynchpinlarry
Simply put propaganda, your publication should be ashamed of yourselve, why don’t you report real facts