Voters rescind tar sands oil resolution

BETHEL – Residents at the annual town meeting Wednesday voted to rescind a resolution stating Bethel's opposition to allowing tar sands oil to be transported through town via pipeline.

The resolution was adopted at a town meeting Jan. 30 and said its purpose was  to “protect the health and safety of local citizens, water-bodies, other natural resources, and our global climate in relation to the possible transport of tar sands oil through Bethel.”

A group of Bethel residents asked the Board of Selectmen to add the resolution to the Jan. 30 meeting warrant, because they were concerned about the possibility of the South Portland-to-Montreal Pipe Line carrying crude oil derived from diluted bitumen, also known as “dilbit.”

According to the residents, there are higher risks of oil spills from dilbit pipelines. They also voiced concerns about local economic impacts should dilbit oil spill from a section of the pipeline that crosses the Androscoggin River.

Discussion on the resolution ended quickly at the Jan. 30 meeting after a proponent of the resolution called for the question to be voted on 15 minutes after discussion began.

During the discussion, only proponents of the resolution spoke, leaving no time for the opponents to speak, including Larry Wilson, president and CEO of the Portland Pipe Line Corp.

On March 28, resident Bud Kulik began collecting signatures for a petition that would ask the town to rescind the resolution adopted on Jan. 30.

Sarah Southam, who teaches science at Telstar Regional High School, told residents prior to the vote that passing the resolution on Jan. 30 was “an important step that we took as a community to say that we do not want tar sands oil to be transported through Bethel.

“If we support the extraction of tar sands oil in Alberta, and the transportation of tar sands oil through the Montreal-Portland Pipe Line, we will lock ourselves into decades of more dependence on fossil fuel rather than focusing on cleaner, alternative energies,” Southam said.

She later pointed out that tar sands oil is “one of the dirtiest, carbon-intensive fuels” and gives off “14 percent more carbon dioxide emissions than the average oil.”

Jane Ryerson said, “I've lived here all my life. The pipeline has run through Albany all my life, and never in my 59 years has there been any type of spill. You should vote to rescind this because the process was flawed from the beginning. Both sides were not seen and both sides were not given a chance to weigh the pros and cons. In fairness to the other side, this should be rescinded.”

Ron Savage called proponents of the resolution “hypocrites.”

“Probably 95 percent of us drove here tonight,” Savage said. “It seems a bit hypocritical that we can use fuel to get here, yet we want the pipeline to be in everybody else's neighborhood but not ours. The company in Canada has a good business model, they have a good safety record. I'm in favor of rescinding.”

Following an 75 minutes of discussion, moderator Harry “Dutch” Dresser called for a vote.

According to Dresser and Doar, the next step will be for the town to send letters to the companies and individuals that the resolution was originally sent to announce the resolution has been rescinded.

mdaigle@sunjournal.com

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

Jane Ryerson's picture

tar sands vote

As Mike Fox stated in his comments, I didn't realize until that night at the meeting when a local attorney made the comment that this vote is just a vote letting them know how we feel. This vote means nothing as far as the pumping of the tar sands. The pipeline and federal government will do what they do regardless. As I stated at the meeting, I have never seen any spill from the pipelines around here that I remember. You know we use these fuels and it doesn't bother people to use them to their own needs, so if they want to continue life as they know it, then stuff like this happens. The pipeline folks present at the meeting had facts on their side. One person stated that the environmentalists try to hijack these things and use scare tactics and they have statements of things they say have happened in other areas, but they didn't give you the facts that these problems were not related to the pipe of the pipeline but other factors. I say keep the fuel moving.

MICHAEL FOX's picture

Does it matter?

Does it matter what the townspeople of Bethel, Waterford, Casco or any of the other towns the pipeline passes through think or want? Last I knew, the federal government can over ride any resolution that is passed. And if the federal government gives the ok for Tar Sands to flow through here, what are you going to do to stop it? Nothing.

The Portland Pipeline is in the business of transporting oil. If they were concerned about their line not being able to handle the new product, do you think they would actually do it? The cost of a spill to them would be enormous. Let alone the cost to the environment.

BROOKS MORTON's picture

Good job

The voice of reason has voted for a fair and open process to prevail.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...