Enbridge
deleted 1,000km² of BC's islands off of its public videos and maps to
convince the public its pipeline and oil tanker plan is less dangerous
than it really is.
Tell Enbridge: Stop misleading the public and pull your misleading pipeline ads immediately.
If a tar sands pipeline and supertankers project looks too dangerous, what do you do? If
you’re Enbridge, you delete islands off of public videos and maps to
convince the public the project is less dangerous than it really is.
Right
now, oil and gas giant Enbridge is fighting to build a 1,177 km tar
sands pipeline from Alberta, to BC’s coast, despite massive public
opposition.[1] If the project is approved, up to 500 oil tankers
a year laden with toxic heavy crude will have to weave through the 4th
most dangerous waterway in the world, making sharp, 90° turns through
twisting, rocky passages.
Enbridge knows that as the public is learning about its 800 oil spills in the last decade,
they are turning against the company’s plans to run pipeline and
tankers through pristine rainforest and coast. So it hired the same PR
firm that worked for Big Tobacco and Enron to roll out a multi-million
dollar public image makeover. Its slick website campaign is designed to
convince the public that the oil tanker route is safe, but a scientist just discovered that Enbridge deliberately removed 1,000 km2 of islands off of a public video and map to make the oil tanker route look much less treacherous than it actually is. [3] Use the form on the right to tell Enbridge to stop misleading the public and pull the ads immediately.
Enbridge’s
pipelines across North America just keep spilling, and the official
report from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board found that
negligence caused the massive 3 million litre Michigan Kalamazoo spill
in 2010. [4] Two years after the worst pipeline spill in US history, the
toxic crude is still polluting waterways and making people sick.
Enbridge’s
official application to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline includes
maps from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Google Earth, and even the Government of Canada. This proves that
Enbridge knows what the treacherous oil tanker route looks like — but is
grossly misrepresenting how wide the shipping routes would be, and
misleading the public about the true dangers of the project.
The slick route animation and map in the route safety video both show the Douglas Channel without the maze of islands that oil tankers as long as the Eiffel Tower will have to weave through.
Enbridge knows that spill cleanup would use skimmers and booms that
work only in low breezes and a light chop — not in treacherous waters
with names like Terror Point, Calamity Bay and Grief Point.
Right
now, Enbridge is feeling the heat. Its pipelines just leaked again —
this time in Wisconsin — intensifying fears about Enbridge’s safety
track record. [5] And now, Enbridge’s CEO is admitting that opponents to
the pipeline have taken control of the debate, and he’s trying to
discredit them by labelling them as “revolutionaries”. Enbridge is
highly vulnerable to public pressure, and that’s why we’re teaming up
with Leadnow.ca to run this campaign. If enough of us speak out
together, we can force Enbridge to pull the ads. [1] Tell Enbridge to pull its misleading pipeline ads immediately.
A Canada goose covered in oil makes its way along
the Kalamazoo River after an Enbridge pipeline ruptured in Marshall,
Mich. in 2010 (Andre J. Jackson/Detroit Free Press/Associated Press)
(Note:CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)
The federal panel reviewing the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline
has demanded Enbridge submit as evidence a U.S. government report
condemning the company's conduct during the 2010 oil spill in Marshall,
Mich.
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report was
published in July, but Enbridge has not tabled any information about the
spill, which leaked 3.3 million litres of oil into the Kalamazoo river,
coating wildlife.
Now the Joint Review Panel assessing the
company's proposed oilsands pipeline from Alberta to B.C. has tabled a
detailed request asking Enbridge to supply the synopsis report and the
final report by noon MT on Sept. 4. The move follows a CBC interview with independent economist Robyn Allan, who revealed that the report had yet to be entered as evidence into the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline hearings.
In the interview, Allan said Enbridge was underestimating the risks
posed by the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline because the company's
risk assessment excluded the Kalamazoo spill.
The NTSB report concluded there was a "complete breakdown of safety
at Enbridge" and that employees at Enbridge acted like "Keystone Kops,"
failing to recognize that the pipeline had ruptured and was continuing
to pump oil into the surrounding area.
The cleanup costs have been estimated by Enbridge and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency at $800 million US, making it the single
most expensive onshore spill in U.S. history, according to the NTSB.
The Joint Review Panel's request to Enbridge, submitted on Tuesday,
also requires the company to answer tough questions about the safety of
the proposed pipeline, including issues of leak detection, construction
defects and threat assessments.
Church opposition
With
public opinion against the Enbridge pipeline mounting, the United Church
of Canada announced on Wednesday its delegates have adopted a
resolution expressing "categorical" opposition to the pipeline proposal.
According to a church statement, the resolution was proposed by the
Native Ministries Council of British Columbia Conference, after
consultation with church leaders, aboriginal elders and congregation
members.
One of the church's biggest environmental concerns is the size of the
super tankers required to transport the crude oil from the Enbridge
pipeline to China and the subsequent enormity of any possible spills and
resulting environmental damage.