Tag Archives: BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers

Not a Good Night for BC’s Environment

Share

It was not, over all, a great night for environmentalists in BC with the very notable exception of the election of Elizabeth May as the first Green Party MP in our history. She will find that she has taken on the responsibility of being one of BC’s main spokespeople on environmental matters and The Common Sense Canadian looks forward to working with May and, of course, those other MPs who feel as we do about the environment and related issues. I make no apologies for not calling the election correctly – if I did that I would spend half my lifetime apologizing!
      
As the old saying has it, if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. So it is with us who have taken environmental issues on as a lifetime issue. It’s not that we don’t see, understand and have passion for other issues – rather that we see the environment as being urgent. If we get it wrong over the next few years – and the BC government and the Harper government have got it wrong – then the damage is forever. You simply cannot restore wild salmon runs or erase the damage of a catastrophic oil spill. On the economic side of the environment issue, if you lose your public power to private interests as we seem determined to do, it’s gone forever.
 
It must be stressed that we are not opposed to change where it is demonstrated to be in the public interest. We’re not Luddites out to destroy the “cotton ‘gin’” although any study of that time makes one very understanding of those who saw their livelihoods vanish to an unmanned factory that used to employ them. But – and this must be stressed – the environmental destroyers with their fish farms and private river monstrosities are not destroying jobs that exist – they are pleading the employment they bring as justification for their schemes. After short term construction jobs are over, the only jobs are as caretakers.
 
It’s not as if these huge companies bring us something we can’t do for ourselves – quite the opposite. Our wild salmon have sustained communities for generations and, in the case of First Nations, for eons. These fish farm companies use our resources to make fortunes for foreign shareholders.
Consider this: Fish farmers tell us that they can’t go to self contained methods because it’s too expensive.
 
Why is it too expensive?
 
Because they don’t have to pay for their farm now because we the people and the environment bear all the expense.
 
This is the same with private power companies – not only do they not make a sou for our province, not only do they not make power we can make ourselves for much cheaper, not only do they destroy our rivers, they do it at our expense. We pay their overhead!
 
This it is with bringing Tar Sands in pipelines across our province then down our coastline in tankers – we pay their overhead by taking all the risk!
 
The point I’m forcing is that it isn’t just a “green” issue but an economic one. We British Columbians pay all the overhead of fish farms, private power projects, pipelines and tanker traffic! And there’s nothing in it for us!

But don’t let me deceive you. If we were making bundles out of these deals I would oppose them with every effort I could summon. I would do so because it’s plain wrong. These fish, rivers, ecologies are like trust funds. They don’t belong to us.
 
Speaking for Damien and myself, The Common Sense Canadian, far from being set back by a Tory government, are challenged – and we love challenges. We see a number of MPs in a position to fight and well motivated for the battle ahead.

People vote in elections for many things. It is our challenge to see that when we have the next provincial election, saving our fish, our rivers, our public power, our wilderness and our coastline are front and centre issues.
 
 
 
 

Share

A Vote for Harper is a Vote for Oil Tankers in BC

Share

We must rise as one and vote against all Tory candidates on May 2 and do so by voting for the candidate most likely to beat them and here’s the reason:
 
Ponder the words spoken by Prime Minister Harper on a recent visit to North Vancouver – quoted in the Vancouver Sun:

“I think we have been very clear on this,” said Harper.

“We will only allow tanker traffic if we can be sure that tanker traffic is safe. But will we ever say that we cannot have the same kind of commerce on the West Coast as on the East Coast? Of course we’re never going to rule out those opportunities for our country.”

Harper said he wants to “see the day” when Canada is able to continue to increase trade with Asia.

“So we’re not going to create artificial bans on the West Coast that don’t exist in other parts of the country.”

Those are the words which must surely cause British Columbians to utterly reject Harper and his Tories at the polls.
 
The objection to the Enbridge double pipeline proposal from the Tar Sands to Kitimat thence by huge tanker down our coast, and expansion of the Kinder-Morgan pipeline from the Tar Sands to Burnaby, are not based upon some 1960s flower children chants (it turns out we should have listened to them) or some anti-business bias. The deep concerns come from fact, not emotion (though I confess that I have strong emotions about my province) about a policy which is based upon the false premise that these propositions have little risk.
 
Forgive me for using my oft-repeated simile but the dangers cannot be pushed aside lightly by one-liners.
 
Suppose you have a revolver with 100 chambers, only one of which has a bullet and suppose you put the gun to your head and pull the trigger just once. The odds are simple, 99-1 against. What, however, if you decide to repeat this insanity without any limits as to how many or how long?
 
The risk is then a certainty waiting to happen.
 
As you are calculating the odds of the gun going off you would be concerned about the consequences; namely, unless you were firing marshmallow not bullets you would be dead.
 
Not only are these pipelines and tankers certain to have accidents, the consequences are not marshmallow but utter catastrophe.
 
The pipelines, two them to Kitimat – one with Tar Sands gunk, the other to take back the natural gas compound to Alberta used to dilute the bitumen for pumping – transit some of the last true wilderness on the planet, including the Great Bear Rainforest.
 
What happens if there is a leak during this 1000-plus km journey?
 
The spill piles up until help comes, and given our geography, God only knows how long that would take!
 
Enbridge’s track record is appalling. With its Kalamazoo River spill last year it was roundly criticized for tardiness and that was in a populated area.
 
When Enbridge has its BC spill it will be in wilderness devoid of easy access. When the spill is reported the company must seal off both sides of the rupture and during that interval oil continues to flow through the breach. We’re talking 1100km transversing about 1000 rivers and streams in the wildest terrain in the world. No matter how quickly Enbridge responds, the damage will be an enormous, permanent tragedy. Moreover, while at the best of times any rupture will be tragic, what if the rupture is by terrorists who know how to make it as catastrophic as possible?
 
The proposed tanker traffic out of Kitimat is just as serious a concern as a land tragedy, perhaps even more so. The Exxon Valdez will pale by comparison. This is the most dangerous of the world’s seacoasts.

I hesitate to say that as we voters calculate the consequences of Harper’s offhand dismissal of our case (75-80% of British Columbians have consistently polled in favour of a tanker ban), we should remember that there isn’t anything in it for BC. I hesitate because even if the rewards were immense we should be opposed because no monetary reward could compensate our loss. In fact, BC is simply an easement and gets nothing of consequence. 

Why are our two senior governments so eager to have our province, on land and sea, hostage to China’s need for Tar Sands gunk? Isn’t the idea to get away from the use of fossil fuels? Aren’t we, in a sense, enabling the drunk to drink?

(It’s interesting to note the similarity of this policy to the government’s utter lack of concern that the Campbell/Clark private power plan sends all the benefits out of province. What is it about us in BC that the governments we help elect want to destroy our environment while making foreigners rich and happy?)

Back to proposed and existing pipelines and tanker traffic.
 

Stephen Harper’s policies guarantee that BC will sustain incalculable damage.
 
That being the case, British Columbians must ensure that Harper doesn’t get electoral encouragement, much less a majority from us.
 
Retaining our beautiful province is in our hands when we enter that polling booth May 2nd.

Share

Kinder Morgan shuts Trans Mountain pipeline to investigate possible oil leak

Share

From the Red Deer Advocate – April 25, 2011

by Canadian Press

CALGARY — Kinder Morgan has shut
down a pipeline that runs from Alberta to the West Coast while it
investigates a possible oil leak.

The Trans Mountain pipeline was
shut down on Friday afternoon as a precaution after a small amount of
crude was found on a farmer’s field about 150 kilometres west of
Edmonton, company spokeswoman Lexa Hobenshield said Monday.

“We are investigating whether the product is from a current release or historic incident,” she said in an emailed statement.

She added it’s not yet clear
exactly how much crude spilled, or when the 300,000-barrel-per-day
system may be up and running again.

The Trans Mountain line stretches
1,150 kilometres between Edmonton and terminals in the Vancouver area
and Washington State. It carries heavy and light crude oil, as well as
refined products such as gasoline and diesel.

Houston-based Kinder Morgan
(NYSE:KMI) owns or operates nearly 60,000 kilometres of pipelines and
180 terminals in North America.

Calgary-based Enbridge Inc.
(TSX:ENB) is planning to build another pipeline from the Edmonton area
to the West Coast, called Northern Gateway.

That controversial line would
wind up much further north on the coast than Trans Mountain, to connect
with the port of Kitimat, B.C. The crude would then make its way to
Asian markets by tanker.

Enbridge grappled with two
high-profile pipeline leaks in the U.S. Midwest last summer. Outages on
those lines caused major bottlenecks for Canadian crude that was bound
for U.S. markets.

Read original article

Share

Minority Govt. & Strategic Voting to Save BC

Share

Two related matters today.

First, Prime Minister Harper is making a big fuss about needing a majority government. So are the Central Canadian media. I ask, what’s the matter with a minority government?

Think what the Harper government did without a majority and ask yourself what’s so good about a majority 5 year dictatorship? Why don’t the media examine what is right about a minority government.

In fact there is one extremely good thing – the government is forced to consult with other leaders both on the budget and general legislation. On the budget, the Minister of Finance can’t walk into the Chamber and say “like it or lump it – after the usual fandango and ritual speeches we, the government, are going to cram it up your…surely I need go no further.” How is that bad?

It’s the same thing with legislation and policy – there must be consultation.

It’s said that a minority government must always kiss the backside of the opposition – that is palpable nonsense. In reality minority parties while able to vote down the government rarely do. They usually are out of serious money for campaigning and don’t want an election where the government can, as here, bleat that they couldn’t get their legislation through – legislation that would end the nation’s woes and bring happiness to all.

The media claims that all the House of Commons does is bicker. But surely to God that’s what they’re supposed to do. It’s a passionate place because there blood is spilled figuratively rather than literally.

In my opinion a minority government, while far from perfect, is the best of possible results – especially for British Columbia, which needs political clout.

Let’s look at what BC needs.

Of course we have the needs of the rest of the country – health, jobs, better social policy and so on – but every party wants this, with none of them likely any better than the other.

We have a province that has growing concerns about the environment and giveaways that are features of both Victoria and Ottawa.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) are in bed with the fish farmers as memoranda leaked to the Cohen Commission clearly show. The Tories clearly support foreign corporations slaughtering our salmon in the interests of shareholders in Norway.

The Harper government supports the debasing of our environment so that large companies can make power we don’t need, that BC Hydro cannot use but is committed by contract to take and lose money on – all to the profit once more of foreign shareholders. In fact the federal government has helped fund Plutonic Power, which is General Electric in drag.

The Harper government supports the Enbridge pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat and also supports huge oil tankers taking this sludge down our coast – arguably the most treacherous coastline in the world.

What can we do about this? What can we do to ensure that if Harper forms another government we in BC will be able to rely upon a strongly built opposition to see that parliament hears our concerns?

The issue before us is a stark one: do we support the party of our usual choice and the toady they have as their candidate or do we vote strategically so as to ensure our province has clout in Ottawa?

Strategic voting means supporting the best opposition candidate and vote for him/her even though in better times you wouldn’t.

We British Columbians have three areas of concern which, if badly dealt with, will kill off our wild fisheries, bankrupt our public Hydro corporation and ensure that oil spills on land and sea will damage our province beyond repair.

The Conservative government would allow, indeed encourage these catastrophes. These environmental outrages are not the bleeding heart sort supported by flower children in days of yore – in fact they are at the very core of our way of life.

If we do not commit ourselves to fighting for the province, who will? I personally look at my nine grandchildren and my great granddaughter and conclude that this destruction can’t happen on my watch – at least not without me giving everything I have to the fight.

Let’s all join as British Columbians to send a message to Ottawa that will at least be heard in the House of Commons.

If we do that, we’re in with a chance.

If we don’t, thank God we won’t be still alive when future generations of British Columbians will look back at us with the scorn we so justly earned  

Share

North Island candidates comment on oil tankers

Share

From the Courier-Islander – April 20, 2011

For the upcoming May 2 federal election, Vancouver Island North candidates were asked:

Last
December, the House of Commons passed a motion calling for a ban on
crude-oil tanker traffic off BC’s north coast, but the motion was
non-binding and considered likely to be ignored. What’s your position
on allowing oil tanker traffic off the BC coast? What impact would such
a ban have on the Vancouver Island North riding?

NDP Candidate Ronna-Rae Leonard:

Our
coastal life is too important to our economy and our waters are too
rough to risk tanker traffic. The Exxon Valdez disaster and the BP
spill in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrate the devastation that results
from accidental spills. The sinking of the Queen of the North ferry
showed that even with navigational technology, human error can occur.

The
oil and gas companies are far more concerned about their profits than
the B.C. Coast. It is up to us to defend what is ours. A spill would
mean the end of the very basis of our livelihoods and deprive of us of
our most precious resource.

Eight in 10 British Columbians, the
vast majority of coastal First Nations, and the Canadian Parliament all
support a ban on oil tankers on BC’s Coast. Making it law will ensure
future generations do not bear the risk of a major oil disaster.

Conservative Candidate John Duncan:

Our
Conservative party’s number one priority remains the economy, which we
will balance with responsible environmental stewardship. Oil and gas
tankers go into and out of Vancouver every day. Oil and gas tankers
have more than 100 movements a year along the BC coast to service our
coastal industries and communities. Prince Rupert and Kitimat are
increasingly important ports for international trade and their
industrial infrastructure will increasingly resemble the Port of
Vancouver. The Conservative Government has no plans to re-open the 1988
Exclusion Zone on tankers travelling between Alaska and Washington
State on the B.C. Coast and we have no plans to re-open the current
moratorium on offshore oil and gas developments on the B.C. Coast.

Liberal Candidate Mike Holland:

I
believe we need a ban on oil tanker traffic off B.C.’s north coast. A
moratorium was put in place by the Liberal government in 1972 but the
Harper Conservatives refuse to recognize the moratorium, or the
incredible risk to our coastal communities, tourism and fishery
industries that tanker traffic and an oil spill would pose. That’s why I
supported the efforts in the last Parliament by Vancouver-Quadra
Liberal MP Joyce Murray to formalize the moratorium on the shipping of
crude oil in the dangerous inland waters around Haida Gwaii and off
Northern Vancouver Island with Bill C-606, and if elected I will work
in the next parliament to ensure a formal ban is passed into law. As
the moratorium has been in place since 1972 the impact of a formal ban
on our riding would be negligible, but the impact of a spill would be
tragic and irreversible.

Green Party Candidate Sue Moen:

The
Green Party of Canada continues to call for a legislated ban on bulk
oil tankers along Canada’s entire Pacific Coast and supported the
Private member’s bill calling for this, as a significant step towards
protecting BC’s coast. The proposed pipelines that would feed that
traffic have been opposed by over 80 First Nations bands and thousands
of B.C. residents.

Greens propose more marine conservation areas,
saving more boreal forest as a carbon sink and returning resource
management to local communities.

These actions create
opportunities for employment including environmental protection,
reforestation, research, eco-system rehabilitation, and in
non-extractive eco-tourism, and many more. These are sustainable jobs. A
single catastrophic spill — a certainty in the wild waters off our
coast — would devastate all of those jobs.

I don’t want to live in a world where the clean-up of an oil spill is defined as good for the economy.

Read original article

Share

Oil tankers

Share

There is a site called MarineTraffic.com and it shows ship traffic all over the world.

There are tankers going in and out of Van. Harbour on a regular basis and Cherry Point [usa]. How come no one is saying any thing about saving the Gulf islands??

Also there are tankers going to Kitimat and Rupert all the time be it tugs and barges or deep sea tankers. the Alaska tankers to Anacortes come surprisingly close to the west coat of Van Isle on the way south from Alaska.

This protest of “keep Tankers out of the North coast” is unwinnable… It’s happening all the time… Has been close to a hundred years…

All we can do is regulate the hell out of them so it can be done as safely as possible… Still we all know accidents happen.

Bob Koskela
Houston, BC
Ex commercial fisherman

Share

Stephen Harper opposes banning oil tankers off B.C. coast

Share

From the Vancouver Sun – April 18, 2011

by Mark Kennedy

Conservative leader Stephen Harper says a re-elected Tory government
will not impose a legally binding ban on oil tanker traffic on the West
Coast of Canada.

Harper made the statement Sunday in response to questions from a reporter at a campaign event in Vancouver.

“I think we have been very clear on this,” said Harper.

“We
will only allow tanker traffic if we can be sure that tanker traffic is
safe. But will we ever say that we cannot have the same kind of
commerce on the West Coast as on the East Coast? Of course we’re never
going to rule out those opportunities for our country.”

Harper said he wants to “see the day” when Canada is able to continue to increase trade with Asia.

“So we’re not going to create artificial bans on the West Coast that don’t exist in other parts of the country.”

Currently,
the Canadian and U.S. coast guards have a nonbinding agreement between
themselves and the U.S. tanker industry. It was designed to lower the
risk of an oil tanker running aground off the coast of British Columbia.

The
zone, which runs from southern Alaska to the southern tip of Vancouver
Island, applies to tankers carrying oil from the Trans-Alaska pipeline
to ports along the U.S. west coast.

The Conservatives have
resisted pressure from opposition MPs and environmentalists to give the
voluntary ban some teeth. The opposition parties teamed up in December
to pass an NDP motion calling on the government to legislate a ban on
tankers near the rich ecosystem of Haida Gwaii, formerly called the
Queen Charlotte Islands.

Earlier this year, the Harper government
insisted the exclusion zone is closely policed to make sure no oil
tanker traffic comes down the inside passage.

But the Canadian
Coast Guard concedes that its radar systems can only monitor tanker
traffic in the southern portion of the zone, as tankers approach the
Juan de Fuca strait between Vancouver Island and Washington State.

The coast guard must therefore rely heavily on the tanker industry to accurately report the whereabouts of vessels.

Tanker
traffic along the B.C. coast is expected to increase as energy
producers in Canada look to ship more oil and gas to growing Asian
markets.

Read original aritcle

Share

Enbridge files more Gateway info

Share

From The Northern Sentinel – April 15, 2011

Following a request made by the Joint Review Panel for more
information, Enbridge Northern Gateway has submitted more information
for their application.

Clarifications the panel was looking for included
market considerations, impacts the environment would have on the project
(such as land slides and fires), as well as a more detailed oil spill
response plan.

“We would like to keep this process moving forward, we
support it strongly so we want to demonstrate that by filing these
updates as efficiently as we could,” Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway
said.

The additional submission includes 39 additional files,
one of which shows potential full-bore rupture releases and spill
extents for a hypothetical spill.

Nine submissions are around river and creek crossings.

“That’s an area of sensitivity and we recognize that,
and there are a significant number of river crossings,” Stanway said.
“We want to make sure everybody understands the engineering we’ve put in
place for the river crossings will be robust enough for the terrain
that we’re talking about.”

Their more detailed General Oil Spill Response Plan was developed by looking at other pipelines around the world.

“We’ve looked at situations where people have had great successes and attempted to use their best practices,” Stanway said.

As the marine aspect of this project is new to them,
they also looked to marine safety from around the world, mostly in
Scotland and Norway, Stanway said.

“They’ve had an incredible track record over the last
30 years and haven’t had a major incident of any description, so we’ve
taken their best practices and incorporated them into the marine safety
aspects of the project,” Stanway said.

According to the plan, in the case of an initial
response regional management would first record information from the
caller, then shut down and isolate the source system and dispatch a
first responder.

If an emergency were then confirmed, senior management
would be called, and regional management would activate the ICS and
mobilize response personnel.

The full oil spill response plan, as well as all the 39
additional submissions made by Northern Gateway, are available on the
National Energy Board website, www.neb-one.gc.ca.

Stanway encouraged interested parties to go check out
the information. Any comments on their submission would go to the JRP,
however there’s no reason why they shouldn’t feel free to ask Enbridge
as well, Stanway said.

They’re continuing their public discussions as the
project moves forward in a number of ways, including the Community
Advisory Boards, so there may be feedback from those as well.

“That’s good, that’s what we want is a vigorous public
discussion,” Stanway said. “Our attitude has always been that the more
that people know about this project, the more comfortable they will be.”

Read original article

Share

Cetaceans of the Great Bear

Share

Watch Pacific Wild’s latest release – a beautiful short animation
focusing on the whales of the Great Bear Rainforest. Produced by Picture
Cloud film & animation of Victoria B.C., this visually stunning and
thought-provoking animation explores the dire threats facing whales by
acoustic ship pollution. The return of Humpback and other species of cetaceans to the waters of
the Great Bear Rainforest is a welcome event since the dark days when
whale killing ships travelled our waters. But this may be short lived if
oil tankers begin moving Alberta tar sands crude through the Great
Bears fragile waters.

The release of this animation is timely. On May 2nd the Canadian public
go back to the voting booths and only one federal party supports oil
tankers in the Great Bear Rainforest. Never has one election meant so
much to our coastal environment. From PacificWild.org

Share

New Animated Film on Oil Tanker Risks: Cetaceans of the Great Bear

Share

Watch Pacific Wild’s latest release – a beautiful short animation
focusing on the whales of the Great Bear Rainforest. Produced by Picture
Cloud film & animation of Victoria B.C., this visually stunning and
thought-provoking animation explores the dire threats facing whales by
acoustic ship pollution. The return of Humpback and other species of cetaceans to the waters of
the Great Bear Rainforest is a welcome event since the dark days when
whale killing ships travelled our waters. But this may be short lived if
oil tankers begin moving Alberta tar sands crude through the Great
Bears fragile waters.

The release of this animation is timely. On May 2nd the Canadian public
go back to the voting booths and only one federal party supports oil
tankers in the Great Bear Rainforest. Never has one election meant so
much to our coastal environment. From PacificWild.org

Share