The Editor,
Re: "Pipeline best option: VAFFC," Letters, Feb. 1.
The letter in the News by Mr. Pollard promotes sending tankers of toxic and highly flammable jet fuel into the Fraser River.
The VAFFC proposal is mainly about tankers and the risks posed to the Fraser River and a short pipeline across Richmond is a smaller issue.
VAFFC refuses to dwell on the tanker risk issues.
Pollard insists the protection of the river is VAFFC's fundamental priority.
A similar, but much smaller proposal by VAFFC was rejected by the federal government some 24 years go.
Considering this rejection, and if the river is VAFFC's priority, why put tankers, fuel facilities and probable fuel spills into the Fraser River?
In 2011, Environment Canada (EC) said: "The project would present a new and unacceptable risk to the locally, nationally and internationally important fish and wildlife populations of the Fraser River Estuary.
"Environment Canada is of the opinion that there is limited ability with currently available technologies to effectively control a potential Jet-A fuel spill in the Fraser River Estuary.
Why did EC say that? Do VAFFC staff not read well?
Pollard claims that EC has accepted the project based on VAFFC's recent less-than-scientific biofilm (mudflat jet fuel impact) study!
A recent letter from EC disputes VAFFC's self-assessment of little risk from any spill.
VAFFC continues to ignore wishes of more than 90 per cent of the people and unanimous opposition from Richmond and Delta councils.
Pollard pretends he responded to Richmond's concerns and pulled the pipeline out of residential streets to make the project safe.
That is simply a cruel hoax in that the original alignment was simply outrageous and would have caused civil disobedience.
The best option is a pipeline from nearby Chevron Burnaby and BP Ferndale refineries directly to YVR.
That is the only option that would keep all jet fuel traffic off our highways, off the river and out of our globally significant estuary.
If VAFFC is desperate for offshore fuel to the detriment of jobs in Canada, the docks at those refineries can accept supertankers to supply additional jet fuel from anywhere in the world where it can then be safely piped to YVR.
VAFFC plans to send a fleet of polluting supertankers over tens of thousands of kilometres of oceans and into the river.
When is such a transportation system with possible jet fuel spills, fires, a fuel vapor explosion or the loss of a fishery, our salmon and waterfowl in the estuary a smaller footprint than a more secure on-land pipeline to the local refineries?
Why would VAFFC not want to own our oil and keep the jobs on this continent?
People joke about never trusting snake oil salesmen. The same could now apply to salesmen pushing the idea of jet fuel oil tankers in the Fraser River as the best environmental option.
Otto E. Langer, fisheries biologist Richmond
