This page contains annotated news stories and press releases with commentary about land reform and the democratic process in British Columbia. Our comments are shown in red.
Crying Over Spilt Oil
Apr 08, 2008Last week marked the nineteenth anniversary of the Exxon Valdez
oil-tanker spill that devastated Alaska’s Prince William Sound.
Coincidentally, earlier this year also marked the 19th anniversary of
British Columbia’s worst oil-spill in history which polluted much of
the west coast of Vancouver Island. Those living in Tofino and Ucluelet
for the past 20 years will remember the effects of that spill all too
well.
Despite these examples of the inevitable disaster when oil-tankers pass through a coastal region, the opposition to tanker-traffic by an overwhelming majority of British Columbians (75 per cent) and a 35-year-old moratorium on tanker-traffic through B.C.’s Inside Passage, Ottawa and Victoria have been turning a blind-eye to tankers recently plying that route.
There are a number of oil and gas companies currently lobbying the government to allow tankers to threaten the fragile ecosystems of the Inside Passage. Their aim is to increase the export of Alberta’s tar-sands oil to China and India, and the import of natural gas condensate (used to extract the oil from the sand) from Asia and Latin America.
The hub for these efforts will be in Kitimat, where oil pipelines will meet a planned super-tanker port and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal. It is estimated that up to 130 tankers will travel through Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound and the 150km up and down the Douglas Channel every year.
The industry averages a moderate spill (over 1,000 barrels every six years and a major spill (10,000 barrels) every 16 years. Given the hazardous nature of these waters (particularly in the winter) with this volume of traffic, Environment Canada predicts at least one major spill, ten moderate ones and over a hundred small spills every year.
Due to the area’s geography of inlets, coves and bays, any spill will be extremely difficult to clean up.
Tankers would pass Foch-Gilttoyees Protected Area and Provincial Park, over 600 salmon spawning rivers, and feeding grounds for orcas and migrating humpback and grey whales. Kitimat’s lucrative fishing and tourism industries would also be threatened by oil-tankers and their inevitable spills.
Through its promotion of Alberta tar-sands oil (the most destructive project on Earth according to the green think-tank, Environmental Defence), heightened security and militarization of coastal waters can also be expected.
But Kitimat isn’t the only place on the B.C. coast where a LNG terminal is planned. Against vociferous local opposition, Texada Island is also pegged for one that includes a 1200MW gas-fired power-plant.
As we all know, between the ferries, cruise ships, fishing vessels and pleasure craft, the east coast of Vancouver Island sees heavy year-round marine traffic. This only increases the likelihood of collisions, disruptions and other mishaps associated with massive tankers using the same stretch of water.
A spill here would have catastrophic effects - not only on the highly sensitive ecological habitats, but also on the health and economy of the growing populations of Victoria, Nanaimo, Comox and the Sunshine Coast.
The federal government has already expressed opposition to LNG terminals in Maine, citing the threats moving LNG through New Brunswick’s Head Harbour would pose “unacceptable environmental and navigational risks.” It is interesting that the same people do not see these same risks associated with LNG plants on the coast of British Columbia. What’s good for the goose apparently isn’t much use for the gander.
So, what to do? Those among the 25 per cent who support oil-tanker traffic along the B.C. coast should do nothing, because inaction will guarantee success in this case. Those other 75 per cent who oppose it should contact their respective MPs and MLAs to find out where their elected representatives stand on the issue. If the answers are inadequate, letter-writing campaigns can be effective. There are also many on-line petitions with room for a lot more signatures. Let your voice be heard. Better now than while cleaning crude oil off shorebirds. Because there’s no use in crying over spilt oil.
Despite these examples of the inevitable disaster when oil-tankers pass through a coastal region, the opposition to tanker-traffic by an overwhelming majority of British Columbians (75 per cent) and a 35-year-old moratorium on tanker-traffic through B.C.’s Inside Passage, Ottawa and Victoria have been turning a blind-eye to tankers recently plying that route.
There are a number of oil and gas companies currently lobbying the government to allow tankers to threaten the fragile ecosystems of the Inside Passage. Their aim is to increase the export of Alberta’s tar-sands oil to China and India, and the import of natural gas condensate (used to extract the oil from the sand) from Asia and Latin America.
The hub for these efforts will be in Kitimat, where oil pipelines will meet a planned super-tanker port and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal. It is estimated that up to 130 tankers will travel through Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound and the 150km up and down the Douglas Channel every year.
The industry averages a moderate spill (over 1,000 barrels every six years and a major spill (10,000 barrels) every 16 years. Given the hazardous nature of these waters (particularly in the winter) with this volume of traffic, Environment Canada predicts at least one major spill, ten moderate ones and over a hundred small spills every year.
Due to the area’s geography of inlets, coves and bays, any spill will be extremely difficult to clean up.
Tankers would pass Foch-Gilttoyees Protected Area and Provincial Park, over 600 salmon spawning rivers, and feeding grounds for orcas and migrating humpback and grey whales. Kitimat’s lucrative fishing and tourism industries would also be threatened by oil-tankers and their inevitable spills.
Through its promotion of Alberta tar-sands oil (the most destructive project on Earth according to the green think-tank, Environmental Defence), heightened security and militarization of coastal waters can also be expected.
But Kitimat isn’t the only place on the B.C. coast where a LNG terminal is planned. Against vociferous local opposition, Texada Island is also pegged for one that includes a 1200MW gas-fired power-plant.
As we all know, between the ferries, cruise ships, fishing vessels and pleasure craft, the east coast of Vancouver Island sees heavy year-round marine traffic. This only increases the likelihood of collisions, disruptions and other mishaps associated with massive tankers using the same stretch of water.
A spill here would have catastrophic effects - not only on the highly sensitive ecological habitats, but also on the health and economy of the growing populations of Victoria, Nanaimo, Comox and the Sunshine Coast.
The federal government has already expressed opposition to LNG terminals in Maine, citing the threats moving LNG through New Brunswick’s Head Harbour would pose “unacceptable environmental and navigational risks.” It is interesting that the same people do not see these same risks associated with LNG plants on the coast of British Columbia. What’s good for the goose apparently isn’t much use for the gander.
So, what to do? Those among the 25 per cent who support oil-tanker traffic along the B.C. coast should do nothing, because inaction will guarantee success in this case. Those other 75 per cent who oppose it should contact their respective MPs and MLAs to find out where their elected representatives stand on the issue. If the answers are inadequate, letter-writing campaigns can be effective. There are also many on-line petitions with room for a lot more signatures. Let your voice be heard. Better now than while cleaning crude oil off shorebirds. Because there’s no use in crying over spilt oil.
