Tag Archives: Enbridge

Standing up to Enbridge in an Undemocratic Canada

Share

Last article I spoke of civil disobedience, a legitimate tool of dissent in a democracy when a government makes political decisions without public consultation and to the exclusion of all but the powerful. We have just such a decision forthcoming with federal and provincial approval of the Enbridge pipelines from the Tar Sands to Kitimat and huge oil tankers moving that sludge down our treacherous coastline to Asia and the US.
 
The governments will no doubt say that this decision has been democratically decided by democratic process, which is pure barnyard droppings.
 
In fact the public has not been consulted and won’t be until after the deal is done.
 
Since last week there have been two major events to report.
 
Stephen Harper will likely face five vacancies on the Supreme Court during this term – including two recent retirements and others on the way – which he will fill with Conservatives, thus ensuring “right thinking” dominance of that court for more than a decade to come.
 
Harper is good on political pay-offs.  Look at how he rewarded David Johnston, whose terms of reference for the hearing into the investigation into Brian Mulroney’s shenanigans ensured that he would get off lightly and no nasty reflections on the Conservative Party would surface. Mr. Johnston was rewarded by appointment as Governor-General.
 
The second event was Harper confirming that his government will approve the massive oil tanker traffic to come down our coast from the Enbridge pipeline delivering Tar Sands bitumen to Kitimat. Displaying breathtaking candour, combining arrogance and ignorance, Harper approved this deadly policy saying that tankers already go down the Atlantic coast and are widely used in the Great Lakes! That shows you how much Harper and Co. knows about BC and indicates to me how unimportant our local Tory MPs are or, perhaps, they aren’t able to understand what BC is all about. About one thing we can be certain: no environmental concern will ever even slow down any moneymaking scheme of those who care only for money. Corporations don’t have a soul because they’re not supposed to; the government has no soul because they rely on corporate money to stay elected, while the people who do possess souls are stonewalled from standing up for real values.
 
There are also the fish farms which Harper, through his Minister, Gail Shea (easily the worst Fisheries minister ever, and that covers a lot of ground) actively uses Fisheries and Oceans as an advertising agency for these environmental nightmares.
 
I hope I’ve demonstrated why we cannot rely upon democratic processes to save our environment.
 
Last Saturday’s Globe and Mail had a full page story by Josh Wingrove in their national edition. It chronicles recent oil spills, especially the Rainbow disaster – the largest spill in Alberta in more than 30 years. My advice is to get that article, download it off the Globe and Mail website for the entire story.
 
The truth is that spills cannot be avoided and when they happen are utter disasters.
 
It’s not hard to understand why this is so. It takes time for a spill to become evident and when it does, huge damage has already been done. You can stop the oil being transported but you can’t do anything about what is already in the pipe.
 
It’s important to understand where the two Enbridge pipelines will go and it must be remembered that we’re dealing with two pipelines – one to bring the bitumen to Kitimat and one to take the gas condensate to Alberta, in order to dilute the bitumen to be transferred.
 
It must be carefully noted that we’re not talking about “risk” here, but a certainty. It’s as simple as this – if one runs a “risk” continuously it becomes a reality waiting to happen and when it does happen it’s a first class calamity.
 
The Enbridge proposed pipeline runs through one of the last true wildlife areas in the world – 1000+ km and over 1000 rivers and streams.
 
The catastrophe can come from several possible sources – earth tremors, aging and rusting, terrorism, and plain negligent construction. The Rainbow disaster came because a small section of the pipe was not sufficiently buttressed against the earth settling – a simple but catastrophic event caused by one shift in one minute area of the pipeline.
 
How can these be inspected?
 
The short answer is they can’t be, as the Rainbow case makes eloquently clear. They are largely located far away from populations and hard to get at. Moreover, as in the Rainbow case, the problem is seldom discernible to routine inspection.
 
In summary, the proposed pipeline from the Tar Sands will fail, and when it does it will be a catastrophe of epochal proportions.
 
What then of the tanker traffic down our treacherous coast?
 
A wreck or serious leak is even more dangerous than a pipeline leak and will make the Exxon Valdez pale into insignificance. Moreover it will happen and, when addressing this point, remember that at least pipelines stay still.
 
What an irony – here we are trying to wean ourselves off fossil fuels while we sacrifice our land and water on behalf of Asian customers after our fossil fuels!
 
And bear this in mind: BC gets nothing out of all out of all this – we’re and easement, a right-of-way to suffer consequent damage from pipelines we have no interest in.
 
Don’t be fooled into thinking that jobs come with this exercise. Once the pipeline is built, the only labour is custodial. Even most of the construction jobs will go to those who do this sort of work on an ongoing basis and will almost all come from out-of-province.
 
What remedies are there for us to pursue?
 
Write a letter to our MP?
 
Mine gave money to Plutonic Power (General Electric in drag), without the remotest idea as to what this independent power company was doing or even a faint notion of what the provincial government’s Energy Plan was all about. Why would he be any more caring about oil spills on land and sea?
 
There are no remedies within the system and any attempts to proceed down that path are an utter waste of time.
 
Our only hope is to protest and, if necessary, practice civil disobedience with the expectation that the rotten justice system will put us in jail.
 
That tells you what democracy, Canada-style, is all about.
  

Share

B.C. aboriginal groups prepare pipeline protest march – groups meet in Calgary over proposed Enbridge pipeline

Share

From the Calgary Herald – May 10, 2011

by Dina O’Meara

CALGARY — Representatives of B.C. First Nations
and union groups gathered in Calgary to protest a proposed bitumen
pipeline from Alberta to the coast of B.C., setting the stage for a
colourful Enbridge annual meeting.

The
Calgary-based pipeline and energy company is promoting the $5.5-billion
pipeline, with associated marine terminal, as a nation-building project
which will open needed new routs to Asia.

Opponents
say the massive 1,172 kilometre line threatens pristine lands and key
waterways along its proposed route across the Rocky Mountains, as well
as the challenging waters of the northern B.C. coast.

A
group will be marching through downtown Calgary Wednesday morning to
Enbridge headquarters to voice their concerns ahead of Wednesday’s
annual meeting.

“I’m very concerned about the
risks that the Enbridge pipeline and the tankers off the north coast
post to the industry and our communities as a whole,” said Arnie Nagy,
president of Prince Rupert’s Local 31 United Fishermen and Allied
Workers Union.

Nagy’s family has been fishing
the region for generations. The coastal waters are known to be
treacherous, and any tankage break would decimate marine populations as
well as put thousands of people out of work, he said.

Nagy,
also a member of the Haida First Nation, was in Calgary along with the
Yinka Dene Alliance, a group of five First Nations with territories
spanning the proposed route, to raise awareness about their concerns
over possible oil spills on the proposed pipeline.

In
December the Alliance publicly rejected Enbridge’s offer of an equity
stake in the project, and banned the pipeline from its traditional
territories.

Members of the alliance met with Enbridge executives and board members Tuesday to discuss their views.

Concerns
were heightened last year after an Enbridge oil pipeline ruptured in
Michigan, spilling 19,000 barrels of sour oil into waterways leading to
the Kalamazoo River. Weeks later, another Enbridge line ruptured in the
Midwest, further bruising the company’s reputation.

And
on Tuesday Enbridge confirmed a segment of its Norman Wells pipeline
system in the Northwest Territories, sprang a small leak, releasing
about 407 litres of oil in the remote area.

While
the Yinka Dene group declined commenting on Tuesday’s meeting with
Enbridge until the following day, an company spokesman characterized it
as a dialogue.

“This is part of an ongoing
process,” Paul Stanway said. “We’ve been talking to Aboriginal
communities and Aboriginal representatives now for a number of years
about Northern Gateway and this is a continuation of that process.”

Chief
executive Pat Daniel, John Carruthers, president of Northern Gateway,
and the 13-member Enbridge board met with alliance members, he said.

The
meeting was an opportunity for executives and board members to hear
concerns from communities along the proposed pipeline route, and tell
Enbridge’s side of the story, Stanway said.

Read original article

Share
Fish Lake - which Premier Christy Clark would see destroyed for a mine

Batten Down the Hatches! Time to Focus on Saving BC

Share

BC is a special place – so much so, its specialness requires no justification to those of us fortunate enough to have been born here, nor to those who’ve had the good sense to flee other parts of Canada and the world to make this their home. But BC’s uniqueness extends beyond its breathtaking geographical features, its iconic fish and wildlife, and its rich cultural diversity. We’re not Quebec – but we’re every bit as distinct  on this side of the Rockies from the rest of the country. I’m a proud Canadian – but I’m also a dyed-in-the-wool fourth generation British Columbian and I care very deeply about this particular province, as I know do many of my fellow British Columbians.

And so, in the aftermath of a federal election which granted Stephen Harper his fabled majority, it is crucial that we British Columbians now turn our attention to British Columbia. Our last defence of the environment and public interest here lies with our next provincial election.

In a country as large as ours, with a federalist system in which provinces hold a significant share of constitutional, budgetary, and governing responsibilities, the relative impact of a government on the lives of its people increases the closer to home it gets. The lion’s share of our daily services is provided by municipalities and regional districts; while most of our health care, education, and major resource decisions are made by the Province. I don’t point this out to downplay the importance of federal politics in shaping our society, but to remind BC voters that an even more momentous decision awaits us in the coming months or years (depending on Ms. Clark’s fancy), when we return to the polls to decide the future of BC.

It’s difficult for any concerned environmentalist here not to cringe when contemplating what Stephen Harper will now attempt to do to this province of ours – with regards to oil pipelines and tankers, natural gas fracking, fish farms, federal support for private power, etc. – but that’s nothing compared with the prospect of a renewed mandate for a BC Liberal government, which is even further right wing than Harper & co.

If you don’t believe that, look to Taseko Mines’ proposal to destroy Fish Lake in the Chilcotin region for a gold and copper mine. The application sailed right through BC’s paltry environmental assessment process, only to be halted in Ottawa by the Harper government.

Not even they could overlook the mountain of evidence from DFO and myriad scientific, conservationist, and indigenous interveners that suggested the ecological trade-offs were simply too great. The company had told the BC Liberal government it just had to destroy the lake, or the mine wouldn’t be economically viable – which the Liberals accepted without question. The company maintained this position until the very day after the feds rejected its plan, at which point – lo and behold! – it suddenly realized it could build the mine, make a healthy profit, and keep the lake! I believe that’s what Charlie Sheen calls WINNING!

But who was there, just one day before this extraordinary admission from Taseko Mines, to suggest that as premier she would impose on the prime minister to reverse his environment ministry’s decision and allow the company’s original lake-destroying plan? Christy Clark, who it now appears – and I never thought I’d find myself saying this – may be even further right than Gordon Campbell (making her a full two shuffles to the right of Harper)!!

Not only does this incident illustrate how stark, raving anti-environment, anti-public, and anti-First Nations the Clark administration is (it was the Tsilhqot’in people who led the fight to save their lake and territory from the mine), but it pokes a hole in the Liberals’ perceived economic competence – which the NDP needs to be able to undermine if they are to form government this time around. The BC Liberals allowed themselves to be fooled by a mining company, claiming it needed to destroy the lake, when it didn’t. The only difference was an extra $300 million in pure-profit dividends to shareholders, for cutting corners at the environment’s expense.

It’s the same story with private power in BC – another prime example of the financial folly of this government, made all the more comical by their sudden head scratching as to how on earth rates for Hydro consumers can be going through the roof after 10 years of prudent economic stewardship by their government. How could it be? We must strike a task force to get to the bottom of this! Of course, it has nothing to do with the $50 Billion of unnecessary, environmentally damaging private river power contracts we’ve signed at 2-3 times the market rate! (Note to Task Force: let’s be sure to leave that stone unturned).

So to those fiscally conservative folks in BC who went with Stephen Harper, I suggest we need to hedge our bets and install a progressive provincial government. With the combination of the 75-80% of citizens opposed to oil tanker traffic on our coast, backing up the the strong, unified First Nations opposition to Enbridge, plus the international attention building on the issue and a government on side in Victoria, I like our chances for protecting our coast from a catastrophic oil spill. But that provincial representation is essential in this equation. With both the feds and province walking in lockstep – or trying to outdo each other on who cares least for the environment – for the next four years, we’ll be in trouble.

So let’s not be suckers for the old myth of BC Liberal economic superiority. Let’s look critically at their staggering deficits and debt increases. Let’s acknowledge the NDP delivered better job growth throughout their decade in power (believe it – it’s a fact). Let’s admit that the Liberals have a ridiculous BC Place Stadium roof, a billion-dollar convention centre boondoggle, and wildly over-budget highway spending to the NDP’s fast ferries. Let’s agree that, regardless, jobs and economic growth can’t come at the expense of our environment and the public interest. Let’s survey the the political landscape, take stock of Harper’s victory and what that bodes for BC – and be smart about our future.

We may have several months or several years – or anything in between – but a provincial election is coming in BC and there’s a hell of a lot more riding on it for us British Columbians and our treasured environment than the federal one we (or half of us anyway) just voted in.

It’s time to batten down the hatches and save BC!

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

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

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

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

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 Enbridge Film: Risking it All – Oil on our Coast

Share

Watch this new 13 min short documentary from BC filmmaker Twyla Roscovich and CallingFromTheCoast.com on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and oil supertankers on BC’s coast.

 

From CallingFromTheCoast.com: “The north and central coast of British Columbia is one of last great wilderness areas that still supports a vibrant & productive ecosystem.  Home to thousands of runs of salmon, steelhead, grizzlies, wolves, orca, rare white bears, dolphins, porpoises and hundreds of other species, the coast is a natural spring of wealth & wonder.  The plan to build the Enbridge pipeline, with ensuing tanker traffic, threatens all of this- the coastal ecosystem, the coastal economies and local food security.

The BC coast supports many economies through commercial fishing, sport fishing & tourism, as well as providing massive natural food sources that feed thousands of people- serving up salmon, crab, halibut, clams, cockles, oolichan, herring, sea cucumbers, urchins, rockfish, lingcod, geoduck, seaweed, etc. A natural resource that just keeps giving. Enbridge plans to risk all of this to transport the dirtiest oil in the world to market. It’s your coast, province, and country. This short video outlines the plans for the pipeline and tanker route, the company behind this proposal, and what it means for our beautiful coast. Oil on our Coast was produced with Hartley Bay & the Gitga’at Nation with the goal of inspiring & educating in order to help save what sustains us.”

Share