Pipeline twinning might create problems

Chevron didn't sign a long term contract for capacity with TMPL? Why?

Editor, The Times:

I’m only too happy to be wrong about the Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMPL) twinning project being a threat to Burnaby’s Chevron refinery. But am I wrong?

Upon rereading John Hunter’s letter (“Pipeline twinning not a threat to refinery,” July 9 issue), I get this vague disquiet. Chevron didn’t sign a long term contract for capacity with TMPL? Why?

The size of Burnaby’s refineries makes them uneconomic? Well, okay, but what Canada’s super petro thugs said (with the possible exception of that pipeline back east) about Alberta tar being refined here in Canada. Oh horrors! Environmental rules, union wages, cost of construction! No! Promote ‘Alice through the Looking Glass’ projects such as Northern Gateway and the Keystone Kops nonsense.

Fortunately these two projects, actively pushed by those mouthpieces the ‘independent non-partisan’ Macdonald Institute and the Fraser Institute, appear to be dead in the water. Plus build no more refineries here in Canada.

Then there’s this one. “If the union fears that Chevron might shut down, they might to examine their own contracts with Chevron to see if they can assist in the long term survival of Chevron.”

Of course, when all else fails, go after the working people. Heck! That one didn’t even fool the Albertans.

When, due to too low royalties and sheer stupidity (Andrew Nikiforuk) Alberta went into the red some $6 billion, that lump of Harperite arrogance Jim Prentice decided to take it out on the populace of Alberta. He went crashing down in flames. Oh, by the way, if I want fantasy and fiction, I’ll read a novel, not a TMPL website.

I’ve never been to China to live or work but my youngest daughter has. In her view, Chinese unions are somewhat of a sad joke.

Dennis Peacock


Clearwater, B.C.