The real problem with the @TransMtn file is that the people involved have allowed themselves to be misinformed on so many levels This Guardian piece is the result of years of misinformation piled up on itself. It is hard to fight this type of message #bcpoli #abpoli @keithbaldrey
Diluted bitumen is not the most toxic type of oil, an analysis of the relative risks of the alternatives to the TMX (yes we do have to consider the alternatives) mean much higher risk to the Salish Sea, but we don't hear that because that is not the story the activists tell 2/
The activists pretend that if they stop the pipeline then magically all fossil fuels will stop. But the Puget Sound and BC will still need fuels and they will be coming in less safe means because they won't have the new NEB requirements 3/
Somehow this article also assumes that the government will get tired of enforcing rules...I really don't understand that point so there will be a higher risk to the Inlet...yeah that doesn't make sense 4/
As for the Puget Sound, it is seeing about 20,000 train car loads of fuel every year (and increasing) running along the Columbia Valley Gorge. Even one of those train cars de-railing into the Columbia has the potential to kill the Columbia Fishery. 5/
As for the Fraser Canyon, same story only not as many rail cars...yet...but should the pipeline not go through that means more tankers risking the Thompson and Fraser Rivers. But that isn't mentioned.... 6/
As for the Salish Sea, the BP facility in Anacortes currently sees an average of 300+ tankers a year unloading there. The pipeline will reduce that number. That is tens of thousands of tankers (with lower safety standards) every year 7/
So when the article claims it is reducing the risks to the Salish Sea it is doing nothing of the sort. The crude still has to get there somehow and the Salish Sea doesn't car if it is Canadian or Saudi crude spilled in the Salish Sea 8/
Ultimately what we have is a false narrative spread by the activists who don't care to discuss relative risks. They have an agenda and virtually none of them are capable of (or willing to) assessing the relative risks so we get articles like this one 9/
