Re: “Valuing land not always a strict matter of money,”Nigel Hannaford, Opinion, Dec. 20.
As a longtime investor in the oil and gas industry (and a founder/director of several oil and gas companies) as well as a landowner in the area, it is always refreshing to read a balanced viewpoint.
However, I suggest that Nigel Hannaford overlooked one pertinent piece of information. There is an alternative route for the pipeline proposed by Petro-Canada that would follow the existing industrial corridor created by Highway 940 (where clear-cut logging and oil and gas development exist). Petro-Canada identified this alternative route and it would avoid creating new disturbance in the relatively undisturbed backcountry of K-Country.
The only existing development on the proposed K-Country route is very old seismic lines that have largely grown in. The choice for Albertans in this case is not the false dichotomy of development vs. no-development, but ensuring the best route is chosen.
Petro-Canada attempted to argue at the ERCB hearing that the Hwy. 940 route is not viable (their proposed route through undisturbed K-Country has been an extended exercise in rationalization, perhaps because of the ulterior motives Hannaford suggests).
However, the Big Loop and Pekisko groups have demonstrated, through cross-examination and expert witnesses, that Petro-Canada’s claims are very much in doubt.
The ERCB’s task is to ensure the best route is chosen. Since Petro-Canada has failed to show it has selected the best pipeline route, it is reasonable to expect the ERCB to deny their application (or failing that, perhaps the Alberta Court of Appeal).
Curtis D. Bartlett, Calgary
Loading...