Taylor R. Hunt6372 Douglas Street MAIL ROOMWest Vancouver, B.C. SALLE DE COURIERV7W 2E9(604) 805-6476 2IZ HAY 28 A 10: 20

Secretary to the Joint Review PanelEnbridge Northern Gateway Project444 Seventh Avenue S,W.Calgary, ABT2P 0X8

May 22nd 2012Dear Sir/Madame,

I am writing you as a 22-year-old, university-enrolled, independent Canadian and lifelongVancouverite with an active, keen and thoughtful regard for both the benefits and shortcomingsof the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

The Enbridge proposal causes me grievous concern towards the future of my beautiful provinceand country, and for the livelihoods of its residents. So many ecosystems throughout NorthAmerica and the world have succumbed to the processes of urbanization, much of it driven bythe economic enrichment promised by large corporate businesses. The economic benefitsprovided by these companies have often far outweighed any opposition from individuals simplyconcerned with the ecological well-being of our planet. The smaller, more remote communitiesof Northern British Columbia are prime examples of peoples who have lived off this land formillennia, and a majority continue to do so to this day; many making their living off of thefishing industry. Despite the economic benefits that the Northern Gateway pipeline promises tobring to B.C. and Canada as a whole, the project and its continued operations would endanger athousand streams and rivers along with their interdependent ecosystems, which nurture bothcommercial and recreational fishing opportunities, as well as B.C.’s burgeoning eco-tourismindustry. But are the benefits really so? Robyn Allan, the former CEO of ICBC, proposes that oilprices will rise as much as three dollars per barrel over the next several decades, somethingwhich he calls “a negative and prolonged impact on the Canadian economy, [caused by] reducingoutput, employment labour income and government revenues.” This is not fair to us asconsumers, nor as residents of this province or of Canada, to have to pay more for our own oil asa result of reduced domestic supply (Henton, 2012). In any case, I simply cannot support aproject, no matter how great the potential benefits that puts so much of B.C.’s heritage, existingeconomic welfare and remaining natural beauty into such imminent peril.

As mentioned above, the proposed pipeline will cross in excess of a thousand streams and rivers,many of which are tributaries to the Skeena watershed, with a few belonging to that of the upperFraser River (CTV News, 2012). The Skeena watershed contains the second most largestcollection of salmon-bearing rivers in B.C., and is home to the single largest remaining run ofwild Steelhead in the whole world; that in itself I feel is worthy of protection (Great Canadian,2007).

(A41820)

Fish are a resource whose value extends well beyond the entertainment or livelihood offishermen. Salmon bring nutrients from the ocean directly back into the coastal ecosystems, andsustain killer whales, bears, wolves, birds, and even insects and trees. The Skeena’ s watershappen to flow directly through the Great Bear Rainforest, home to the extremely rare SpiritBear. Sadly, it is already estimated that less than 200 of these beautiful creatures remain in theworld (Goodall, 2010). In the event of an oil spill, it is clear that it is not just fishermen and fishthat would suffer. An accident of any kind; be it from oil, construction, or simply theencroachment of human activity into natural habitats all have the potential to completelyeradicate the Spirit Bear, not to mention decimate the populations mentioned previously. In myhumble opinion, the damage that has already been done is quite enough.

We can already see the preliminary effects of disturbances to the fragile Great Bear Rainforest’ secology, which fortunately has been preserved exceptionally well to this day. One does not needto be a scientist to deduce that when a staple food source (such as salmon) is removed, theecosystem that it belongs to collapses. It was documented last summer that many Grizzly bearsstarved after hundreds of metric tonnes of chum salmon destined for that area was discarded atsea (Genovali & MacDuffee, 2011). Similarly, eagles have literally fallen out of the sky due tostarvation in other parts of the province; again due to diminishing salmon runs (Hume, 2011). Bynow it should be clear: any further damage caused by an oil spill to an already sensitiveecosystem, one that is in fact fighting for mere continuance of its million year old biologicalcycles, would without a question damage said ecosystem beyond repair. The destruction of thesehighly sophisticated natural systems in the name of profiting from a fuel, unsustainable initself, is something no amount of human technological ingenuity could hope to replace.

To speak of economic benefits and opportunities, Canada’s existing fishing industry is said tobring in more than $8.3 billion a year in revenues, with a significant amount of it coming fromthe salmon fishing off the pacific coast (DFO, 2012). Moreover, the wild salmon in the Skeenasupport the $1.5 billion nature-based B.C. tourism industry: both indirectly — with the manymagnificent predators of salmon which dwell in the surrounding lands drawing in visitors fromthe world over— and directly, with sightings of wild salmon spawning in their natal streams beingwondrous to behold for many (BCWTA, N.D.). Combined, these sectors provide a plethora ofeconomic opportunity; commercial fishing fleet workers, lodge staff, fishing and ecotour guides,and licence holders all make their living from this natural bounty, not to mention the familieswho dwell in over 1,500 remote coastal communities, who are often dependent solely on theseoperations. However, due to existing degradation of ecosystems, commercial fishing in theseplaces is already struggling to keep its head above water, with smaller returns year after year thatcan be attributed to disease, decreasing ocean survival rates, shorter seasons and the ever-increasing costs of operating commercial vessels. The sport fishing industry faces similar suchissues. Any further damage resulting from a spill of any magnitude would compromise ourunique eco-tourism industry completely. I ask you, will the pipeline continue to provide forBritish Columbia in the long run as these industries have in the past, especially once they aresubjected to potential annihilation by this proposal?

To further jeopardize B.C.’s fisheries and pristine natural beauty by introducing the pipeline’ssubsequent industrial shipping operations is not only disheartening; it is undeniably a recipe fordisaster. To illustrate: the proposed route which the oil super tankers would take through B.C.

(A41820)

waters is by no means a smooth sail. The diluted bitumen product, after travelling through someof the most intricate and biologically diverseforests remaining on Earth, would be loaded ontotankers at a new terminus in Kitimat, which would then proceed to sail through some of the mostintricate and biologically diverse coastlines anywhere on Earth. The treacherous zig-zag routethrough Hecate straight is home to some ghastly sharp ship-wrecking reefs and underwater rock-islands, made all the more dangerous by the volatile weather conditions of the area. Toexemplifi this danger it is important to be reminded of the B.C. Ferries vessel, Queen oftheNorth, which fell victim to these unforgiving land features not far from the mouth of theSkeena river in 2006.

Although relatively small in comparison to other spills, the nearby community of Hartley Baynoticed the impact that 300,000 litres of oil and petroleum products had on the surroundingarea’s wildlife as a result of the Queen ofthe North’s wreckage. Shellfish, a staple to the dietsand livelihoods of the residents of Hartley Bay were contaminated for years after as a result ofthis minor spill. This demonstrates both the danger of the areas waters, and the sensitivity of thearea’s ecosystem. The Exxon Valdez spill, which emptied 260,000 barrels of crude into theocean near Alaska further demonstrates the decimating effect spills of a greater magnitude haveon the environment. In any case, the proposed super tankers will make the Exxon Valdez’scapacity look like that of a sailboat compared to the super tankers’ two million barrel capacity.Given the fact that the project will bring an additional 250 tankers into these waters per year, thechances of an environmental disaster increases dramatically (Vanderklipe, 2012).

If you take into consideration the inevitability of human error, the treacherous sailing conditionsin the proposed sailing region, as well as the damages caused by historical disasters, theenormous risk a tanker of that volume poses to the environment is obvious. A risk that really istoo great.

On the other hand, I do not doubt that Enbridge and its associates will be using the besttechnology available to minimize the risk of an accident. I am confident that highly-trained staffand sophisticated disaster management protocols will be in place; perhaps even from the momentthe bitumen is piped into the lines from the oil fields in Alberta up until the point it is deliveredto the seaside ports in Kitimat. However, a report written by the Alberta Utilities and EnergyBoard (2007) states that an average of 803 pipeline failures was recorded annually between theyears 1990 and 2005 in Alberta alone. Moreover, Enbridge had 610 spills of their own betweenthe years 1999 and 2008 (Nikiforuk, 2010) which do not even include the most infamous spill inMichigan in 2010, where one million gallons of oil product was spilled into the Kalamazoo river,contaminating water for residents and severely damaging the river ecosystem. This spill can alsobe used to remind us the long periods of time and large sums of money that it takes to clean anoil spill up — although the damage cannot ever be completely reversed. In sum, promises ofadvanced technology cannot prevent spills from happening; nor can promises protect theenvironment and liveithood of downstream communities in the event of a spill.

In closing, I would like to point out that the review panel is tasked with a very difficult, yetsensitive decision. It is questionable whether Enbridge’s proposal for the Alberta-B.C. pipelinewill be the great benefit to the economy it is made out to be. In any case, the preservation of bothBritish Columbia’s economic and anthropological traditions, and by far the most important,

(A41820)

ecological systems, all face serious risk of harm. Super, natural British Columbia is liable tobeing paved over to make way for a gas station for the world at large. We all realize that oil is afinite resource, and that its continued use is already damaging our realm (quite possibly alreadybeyond repair) even without us chopping down the first tree or spilling a single drop of oil into avirgin river. Yet we are doing nothing of the scale or magnitude of this pipeline to change ourways. To build this pipeline is to sign a contract that pays us a supposed large amount of moneyup front, and then proceeds to leech royalties away from us all for the rest of time, all withinlegal boundaries buried cleverly within the fine print. Who are the leeches, you may ask? Well,for one, they are some of the wealthiest entities that exist, with incomes greater than mostcountries in the world. To increase their utter and complete dominion over us, once given the go-ahead, they will then receive enormous tax breaks that will only secure their supposedly supremerule over us regular people, those folks who can’t even afford to live in the place they grew up inanymore. This brings me to my last point, the one that truly brings tears to my eyes. The peoplewho want to build this pipeline, the ones who will reap the most from it, do not even live inBritish Columbia. They don’t even live near here. They don’t swim in our waters, they don’t fishanymore. Which brings me to my last point, the one that truly brings tears to my eyes. Thepeople who want to build this pipeline, the ones who will reap the most from it, do not even livein British Columbia. They don’t even live near here. They don’t swim in our waters, they don’tfish in our streams, and they won’t have to live in the area once it has been completely soiled bythe environmental degradation that we so proudly have avoided thus far. They are the foreignradicals. Not someone who was born and raised on the shores of Howe Sound and the GeorgiaStraight and dreams of keeping it as beautiful as it is now, to be enjoyed by my children, andtheirs after them, and so on and so forth, providing we do in fact have the wisdom and theaptitude to prevent this world from being completely destroyed before they even arrive. We mustact now and actively search for alternate means to support the greater good of not just ourselvesas British Columbians, Albertans, and Canadians, but also for the entire human race.

I thank you for your time and consideration and sincerely hope you will consider what I havewritten and do everything in your power to ensure Enbridge considers alternative methods ofbringing Alberta tar sands oil to market. Although energy is an important resource worthy ofexploitation, it should not come at the expense of B.C.’ s pristine coastal ecosystems,communities and economies.

With kind regards,

1/;.

Taylor R. Hunt

(A41820)

CC:

Kenneth MacDonaldVP, Law and Regulatory AffairsNorthern Gateway Pipelines Inc.30th Floor, 425 — 1st Street SWCalgary, Alberta T2P 3L8kenneth.macdonald@enbrkigecom

Abby DorvalManager, Regulatory AffairsNorthern Gateway Pipelines Inc.30th Floor, 425 — 1st Street SWCalgary, Alberta, T2P 3L8abby4yai@enbridge.com

Richard Neufeld, Q.C.Barrister & SolicitorFraser Milner Casgrain15th Floor, 850 — 2nd Street SWCalgary, Alberta T2P 0R8richard neufeld@fmclaw.com

(A41820)

Works Cited

Alberta Utilities and Energy Board. (2007). Pipeline Performance in Alberta, 1990-2005.

Retrieved from: http://www.ercb.caldocs/Documents/reports/r2007-A.pdf

BC Wilderness Tourism Association (BCWTA). (N.D.). The Value of Wild Salmon to BC’s

Nature Based Tourism Industry and the Impacts of Open Net Cage Salmon Farming.

Retrieved from: http://torc.linkbc.caJtorc/downs 1/SalmonAndTourism.pdf.

CTV News. 10 January 2012. Debate flares as pipeline hearings get underway. CTV News.

Retrieved from: http://www.ctv.ca!CTVNews/TopStories/20 12011 0/northern-gateway-

pipeline-environmental-approval-hearings-begin-120110/.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2012). 2010 Survey Shows Recreational

Fishing a Contributor to the Canadian Economy. Retrieved from: http://www.dfo

mpo.gc.calmedia/npress-communique/20 1 2/hq-ac 1 0-eng.htm.

Genovali, C., & MacDuffee, M. 14 September 2011. Chum bycatch discarding denies grizzly

bears their quota. The Northern View. Retrieved from http://www.raincoast.org/media/in

the-news/salmon-in-the-news/chum-bycatch-discarding-denies-grizzly-bears-their-quotal.

Great Canadian Rivers, 2007. The Skeena River. Retrieved from: http://www.greatcanadian

rivers. comlrivers/skeenaJskeena-home.html.

Henton, D. 2 February 2012. Oil ‘price shock’ from Gateway pipeline would slam Canada’s

economy: study. Calgary Herald. Postmedia News. Retrieved from.http://www.calgaryhe

rald.comlbusiness/price+shock+from+Gateway+pipeline+would+slam+Canada+econom

y+study/6092927/story.html#ixzz 1 ncMPRp3 G.

Hume, M. 23 February 2011. Starving eagles ‘falling out of the sky’. The Globe and Mail.

Retrieved from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/subscribe.jsp?art 1918336.

(A41820)

Jane Goodal Institute. (2010). The Spirit Bear. Planet ReLeaf. Retrieved from

http://www.janegoodall.calplanet-releaf/SpiritBear.html.

Nikiforuk, A. 31 July 2010. The Enbridge Dirty Dozen: Michigan disaster follows 12 other big

spills or penalties this decade for giant aiming to pipe tar sands oil to Kitimat. Retrieved

from: http://thetyee.caJNews/20 10/07/31 /EnbridgeDirtyDozen!.

Vanderklippe, N. 23 February 2012. Enbridge gets supertanker nod for Northern Gateway

exports. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report

on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/enbridge-gets-nod-for-supertanker

route/article2347742/?utm meclium=Feeds :%2ORSS/Atom&utmsource=Home&utmco

ntent2347742.

(A41820)