Letters to the Editor – May

The Editor:

Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Tilbury Terminal Expansion Project – risk of catastrophic explosion related to tanker traffic on the Fraser River – a warning.

This ill-advised project poses a continuing and significant danger to public safety and the environment along the Fraser River. It must not be approved.

These dangers are well documented in an extensive report to federal and B.C. cabinet ministers, submitted last week by James Ronback, a respected systems safety engineer and Delta resident. Ronback has been studying these system safety hazards for years.

Most residents of the lower mainland are unaware of the catastrophic risks posed by the fuel-air explosion of a LNG bulk tanker, the proposed LNG storage facility, or both.

They should be.

Highlights of the report:

Fact: One LNG tanker stores the energy equivalent of 10 atomic bombs, comparable to the “Little Boy” dropped on Hiroshima.Fact: The expanded Tilbury LNG storage tank will have the stored energy equivalent of 80 atomic bombs.

Fact: The heat and blast wave from a fuel-air explosion from a collision or terrorist attack would obliterate Tilbury Island, the jet fuel tank farm and nearby industrial and residential areas.

Fact: The underpowered LNG bulk tankers are single propeller vessels and difficult to steer in the event of a mechanical failure or strong winds. Mechanical failures are impossible to predict, as noted recently when the steering mechanism on the B.C. Ferry Queen of Oak Bay unexpectedly failed just prior to this Easter weekend. This happened in broad daylight on calm seas.

Fact: At a time of heightened international tensions, including Russian nuclear forces on “special alert” the expanded LNG tank farm and the LNG bulk carriers transiting the Fraser River are sitting ducks for terrorists. There is no way to properly secure these facilities and shipping lanes.

This project should be shut down entirely or relocated to a safer site outside any populated areas of Metro Vancouver.

John Lesow

North Vancouver

The Editor:

Our volunteers are amazing! Let’s give them some love! A committee is forming to coordinate a Volunteer Recognition Day in early June. Would you like to participate in the planning of a day celebrating all our everyday local heroes – the Fire District 5 firemen and their crew of Covid-fighting volunteers, the Food Bank volunteers, PREP members, Circle of Care volunteers, CERT, PAWS, etc.? We need a steering committee to plan events and recruit more volunteers.

We will be looking for entertainers, musicians, cooks, logistics planners, shuttle bus drivers, children’s activity planners, etc. Please reply as soon as possible to me, Annelle Norman, via prvolunteerday@gmail.com.Annelle Norman

Point Roberts

The Editor:President Eisenhower once said “I have one yardstick by which I test every major problem – and that yardstick is: Is it good for America?”

There is a great debate going on in our country right now: Republican versus Democrat, and liberal versus conservative. Because of this, unfortunately, legislatures ignore President Eisenhower’s yardstick. Instead of asking, “Is it good for America?” they instead ask, “What does my political affiliation say about this policy?” More often than not, policies are passed roughly along party lines. This gives a great advantage to the majority party. “Bipartisan” is currently the exception, not the norm.

There is one proposal that I wanted to bring to your attention – SB 5897, the FUEL Act. It should be bipartisan, but it’s not. Majority democrats haven’t given it much thought. Apparently, they would rather spend the money on whatever they choose. The other option: suspend collection of the gas tax for the remainder of the year. This has also been proposed on the federal level. Wouldn’t it be great if every family in Washington could save about $200, no bureaucracy, no strings attached? Is this good for Washington?

The bill deserves more thorough consideration. Our new Senator Sefzik has tried to make this happen this past session. I’ve watched some of his speeches and it seems that he gives a more logical, evidence-based approach to policy. Rather than letting political motives drive decisions, it seems that he really does care.

Andrew Bargen

Lynden