Editor, The Times:
I reply to Dennis Peacock’s July 30 letter (“Pipeline twinning might create problems”), which appears to be replying to mine of July 9, the origin of which was an earlier letter by Mr. Peacock wherein he claimed that the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project (TMEP) could force the closure of Burnaby’s Chevron refinery.
In my July 9 letter, I made six points. Mr. Peacock’s ignores many of them and instead attacks an entire group of organizations, politicians and industries, including myself. This is not very helpful in advancing the debate about the Chevron refinery issue.
I made the following points, and Mr. Peacock’s July 30 responses were as indicated below:
1. According to cited newspaper reports, Chevron was not opposing the TMEP, which hardly matches Mr. Peacock’s claim of shutdown risk. No reply.
2. Chevron could have tied up pipeline capacity long term by signing a long-term contract, as others did, but Chevron elected not to. Reply: Why didn’t they? Well, Mr. Peacock could have called Chevron and asked. As an ex-refiner, I would guess they did not want to take of the risk of the financial commitments of a long-term contract.
3. Three other Burrard Inlet refineries shut down over the years due to environmental and other cost pressures (not crude supply), with their small sizes making it uneconomic to continue. Reply: Peacock seems to blame “Canada’s super petro thugs” and the failure to refine oilsands in Canada. Well, none of those refineries (or Chevron either) were designed for bitumen, had the real estate to add conversion units to do so, and in my opinion their small size and age would not have been economic to convert in any event. Instead, several built very large refineries in Edmonton.
4. I suggested that if the Chevron refinery union was concerned about the refinery shutting down, as Peacock claimed, they work with Chevron to see if their labour contract can be modified to assist. Reply: I am accused of “going after the working people”.
5. I stated that Peacock’s claim of no benefits from TMEP is ridiculous and grossly inaccurate, and that he should check the benefits estimates on the TMEP website. Reply: He will not read the website, hinting strongly he would not believe it anyway. Well, if Mr. Peacock is prepared to write letters to the public without doing research on his facts, so be it.
6. I stated that his claim that China has no unions is false. Reply: He now concedes that, but his daughter who he says worked or lived in China tells him the unions are a “sad joke”.
I would suggest to Mr. Peacock that a factual debate is more useful than attacks on various people and groups, and that he might want to check his facts before writing in the press.
John Hunter, P. Eng.
J. Hunter & Associates Ltd.
North Vancouver, B.C.
