Letters to the Editor

Dangers, benefits to energy ideas

Letter writers argue the merits – and threats – of more oil pipelines, tankers and coal trains. - Leader file photo
Letter writers argue the merits – and threats – of more oil pipelines, tankers and coal trains.
— image credit: Leader file photo

Some taxpayers are not thinking of the positive sides of what pipelines can do for them financially. If the pipelines do go ahead, large royalties will be paid to the B.C. government, which is really us.

B.C. taxpayers could have a few options: eliminating the provincial sales tax or medical premiums, or even receiving an annual royalty cheque.

In Alaska, the Alyeska pipeline has provided the average citizen an annual cheque of $1,108.45 a year for 30 years. It’s better than buying lottery tickets.

Some people ask, what about the risk of an oil spill? But these same people get up every morning and do not know what will happen to them.

Going on a vacation? What if the plane goes down? You might have a car accident. Some of us have jobs that can end in an accident. Our health can suddenly deteriorate.

In summary, we all take chances every day. So why not take the benefits of the pipelines?


Joe Sawchuk



Earthquakes pose a real danger

Re: “Old man take a look at your facts,” B.C. Views, Jan. 21.

Perhaps columnist Tom Fletcher should take a look of his own – at potential earthquake hazards to oil pipelines.

Some supporters of Enbridge’s proposed oil pipeline to Kitimat claim such pipelines are not notable breach hazards during earthquakes – in which two pieces of tectonic plates grind against each other in opposite directions.

If there was to be a shift of even a few feet around or immediately below the pipeline, it would be defying common laws of physics, unless the pipeline is made of extremely elastic material (which they’re not).

It must be noted that the assurances of pipeline safety brought up by proponents of oil pipeline projects can never be true pipeline safety or anything near it.

They’d breach, to put it mildly, leaving behind detrimental environmental consequences throughout pristine and eco-sensitive regions of B.C.


Frank G. Sterle, Jr.

White Rock


A lesson in physics

Letter writer David Gibbs recently stated, “Do you even care that for every tonne of coal burned, more than two tonnes of pollution is emitted into the atmosphere, much of it falling back into our own country?”

Imagine that.

Getting two tonnes of pollution for every tonne of coal.

This goes against the German scientist Hermann Von Helmholtz laws of the conservation of energy (1821-1804) that you cannot get out more than you put in. In fact, you usually you get a whole lot less.

For most people, this is just plain common sense.


Fred Perry


We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.

Community Events, March 2017

Add an Event