Tankers? No thanks

When it comes to supertankers off B.C.'s north coast, both sides of the tanker debate talk about risks and benefits. But a crucial question is who risks and who benefits.

The risks are to our existing economy and way of life, to communities and first nations up and down our coast.

The benefits are to Albertan oil companies and their shareholders, although some try to say otherwise.

John Winter's May 27 article in The Vancouver Sun accurately numerates the value of coastal trade but fails to point out any specific benefits to British Columbia of any of the current proposals for tanker ports on our coast.

Allow me to fill in the blank: 70 jobs. That's the number of long-term permanent positions offered by the largest of the tanker/

pipeline schemes, Enbridge Gateway. Fewer people than employed by Rona hardware in Terrace.

What's put at risk? A $1.7-billion fishing industry that employs more than 16,000 people and a coastal tourism sector that sees up to 500,000 people travel our Inside Passage annually.

Predicting the exact impact of an oil spill on these sectors is impossible -- but it's clear that many livelihoods depend on healthy, functioning coastal ecosystems.

So how likely is a spill? A Simon Fraser University study concluded that industry averages suggest that if Enbridge's Gateway project were built, we could expect a major spill approximately every 16 years.

The industry claims its record is improving, but an oil spill-free future is a pipe dream. In the past eight months there have been major oil spills in Russia, South Korea and San Francisco.

Is it reasonable that certain areas should be off-limits to oil tankers? Given the incredible bounty and splendor of our coast there is no reason to demand anything less.

Winter's article extols the safety record of B.C.'s marine pilots, but here again he fails to consider the actual tanker proposals and chose not to look at specific safety concerns posed by supertankers traversing some of the world's most treacherous waters.

The Pacific Pilotage Authority and B.C. Coast Marine Pilots are not so glib. In a phone conversation, Kevin Obermyer, CEO of the Pilotage Authority, called Dogwood Initiative's position against tankers "admirable." B.C. Coast Marine Pilots, the private company contracted by the PPA to pilot ships in B.C. waters, acknowledges that supertankers have their own inherent risks.

B.C.'s marine pilots have an excellent record piloting vessels safely through our waters, but have no experience piloting Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCC's, commonly called supertankers) that will ply the Douglas Channel up to Kitimat. "There are no VLCC's on the coast" says Neil Crystler, head of B.C. Coast Marine Pilots.

A loaded supertanker is twice the length and six times the weight of the relatively nimble coastal tanker common to the ports of Vancouver and Kitimat. It is this great weight (up to 300,000 tons) that makes supertankers the world's most difficult ships to steer.

Crystler admits that he cannot currently guarantee that they could be piloted as safely as present coastal traffic.

Sadly, accidents happen, and they happen more frequently in treacherous waters with unfamiliar equipment and procedures. "The graveyard of the Pacific" is well recognized as a difficult marine environment, where accidents happen even in good weather: Think Queen of the North.

However, when talking about risk it is not just the likelihood of an accident that is important, it's also the consequences of an accident and the ability to mitigate the damage if the worst does happen.

B.C.'s north coast is not only extremely unforgiving of navigational errors, its geography would turn an oil spill cleanup into a nightmare. Even under ideal conditions, the tanker industry says only 15 per cent of the spilled oil can be recovered.

The conditions on the north coast are far from ideal. The deep inlets, narrow straits and countless islands present tens of thousands of kilometres of coastline for an oil spill to foul. Were a spill to occur anywhere along the 150-km length of the narrow Douglas Channel, the 20-foot tides in the area would make effective containment impossible.

Who should get to decide if the world's most dangerous and cumbersome ships should be allowed to ply our north coast? Answer: The people who would most feel their effect.

The overwhelming majority of those who live and work on the coast want a legislated tanker ban. Polls show that 75 per cent of British Columbians agree.

Lets make it happen.