Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Project Threatens B.C.’s Fragile Ecosystems and Coastal Communities

More than two decades ago, the Exxon Valdez ran aground, spilling 40 million litres of crude oil into Prince William Sound and causing irreversible damage. Now, Enbridge Inc. wants to bring the same risk to B.C.'s pristine coastal waters and rainforest with its Northern Gateway Project.

Today, Enbridge Inc. is awaiting approval of a proposed pipeline that would carry oil from the tar sands to a port at Kitimat, British Columbia. After travelling nearly 1,170km through pristine wilderness and First Nations homelands, tar sands oil would be loaded on tankers bound for Pacific markets. To get there, they must first navigate the perilous northern B.C. coast, travelling the same waters where the Queen of the North ferry sank in 2006. An oil spill in this area would:

•    Cause irreversible harm to the livelihoods of many coastal and aboriginal communities
•    Fragment the Great Bear rainforest and the boreal forest, home to birds and other wildlife, including Caribou and Grizzly Bears
•    Expose 28 Important Bird Areas teeming with marine birds, fish and other animals to oil pollution from increased tanker traffic and an impossible-to-rule-out oil spill.

Nature Canada, and many stakeholders from First Nations to Members of Parliament, oppose the project on the grounds that it poses unacceptable risks to the ecosystems and coastal communities of British Columbia’s northern coast. In collaboration with BC Nature, we are preparing for the upcoming hearings on the Northern Gateway Project that will determine whether the pipeline is built. Our primary interest is the potential impacts of the project on wildlife (including birds) and their habitats. As joint interveners in the Joint Review Panel process we will be focusing on potential impacts on terrestrial wildlife and habitat along the pipeline route, with special attention to Woodland Caribou, and on terrestrial and marine birds and their habitat along the pipeline route and in the coastal waters through which the oil would be shipped (including Important Bird Areas).

We have hired three experts with in-depth knowledge and experience on these different aspects who are helping us review Enbridge’s application in order to verify whether it has accurately assessed the potential impacts of its proposed project. Our experts have so far identified many areas where the application is inconsistent, vague or has errors and omissions.

This past August, we submitted our questions to Enbridge as part of the information request step of the process. Enbridge will respond to these requests by October 6, and following a second round of information requests, we will file our written submission with the Joint Review Panel by December 23. In that submission, we will provide our own evidence regarding the project’s potential impact on Woodland Caribou, birds and Important Bird Areas, ensuring the Panel has the information it needs to understand the potential impact of the project on the ecosystems it proposes to alter so significantly.

Further down the line, our evidence will be reviewed by the Panel and our experts may need to defend our evidence when we reach final hearings in the summer of 2012. We will keep you up to date on our progress – so stay tuned! In the mean time, you can participate in the hearings by sending a letter to the Joint Review Panel by March 13, 2012, or making an oral statement at the community hearings (registration ends October 6).

 Want to learn more about the Northern Gateway Project? Visit our website!

Much Still Unknown About Gulf Spill Effects on Birds

Yesterday I participated in a webinar put on by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service on the impacts of the Gulf oil spill on migratory birds. The presenter, a scientist from the fisheries and wildlife branch of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) Department, described the complex assessment process and touched on some of the results of ongoing work.


The bottom line is that there is still a considerable amount of oil not accounted for, and that beneath the silts and muds in many of the coastal wetlands in Louisiana, and beneath the sand of beaches, are several layers of oil and tar in the substrate.

Some of the coastal mangrove islands with bird colonies have been impacted; mangroves have died and birds are forced to nest on the ground, only a metre of so above sea level, exposing their nests to inundation risk. There is still evidence of some light oiling of Pelicans.

The impact on oiled birds, particularly migratory birds, appears less than it potentially was – about 8 thousand birds were observed/ recovered oiled or found dead, representing some fraction, perhaps 10%, of the total killed. Laughing Gull, Brown Pelican, (Gulf Coast breeders), Northern Gannet (Canada – Atlantic coast), and Roseate Tern were the most affected species identified.

It is common to see an oily sheen on the water, and there is concern of storms in the Gulf stirring up the sediment and exposing the oil again in the marshes.

Information on toxicology is embargoed, as are many other specific details due to litigation around damages. This may be the case for many, many years. The last fisheries have opened recently, but there is still concern about what people are eating. Every type of study imaginable is underway, but again, with no information forthcoming (e.g. toxicology, ecology). Some partial payment from BP for damages has been made, and the Coastal states have each received large sums which are being dispersed to a range of organizations.

Much more information is available on the NRDA website – though, as I mentioned, many details and results are embargoed.

It's also worthwhile to check out the USFWS Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill website that keeps on tally of birds and wildlife impacted, which is revised from time to time. It breaks down the species found.

House Passes Motion to Ban Tankers in the northern BC coast

On Tuesday, the House of Commons passed a motion to ban tanker traffic off the B.C. coast. The motion was introduced by Nathan Cullen of the NDP and was supported by the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois. It calls on the Harper government to come up with legislation banning oil-tanker traffic in B.C.'s north coast - namely, Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. A ban would clarify the questions around the exiting moratorium on tanker traffic, which the government claims is voluntary. And more importantly, a ban on tanker traffic would protect the ecosystems and coastal communities of northern BC from a potential oil spill.

Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline Project proposes to build pipelines from Alberta to B.C.'s Kitimat port to ship oil from the tar sands to markets in Asia. This would 1) contribute to the projected increase in tanker traffic on the B.C. coast (about 225 per year to begin with), 2) increase the likelihood of another Exxon Valdez disaster, and 3) give the Canadian tar sands (the largest carbon emitting industry in Canada) more reason to exist.

A ban on tanker traffic would stop this dangerous and unsustainable proposal.

On the same day the motion passed, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Scott Vaughan, unveiled his alarming conclusions on Canada's readiness to respond to offshore oil spills, including that:

- The government lacks the readiness needed to respond to a major oil spill;
- Both Transport Canada (the regulatory agency responsible for preparing spill responses) and the Canadian Coast Guard (the federal body that would manage the spill on-site) have incomplete or outdated knowledge on the risks of spills;- The Canadian Coast Guard hasn't evaluated its capacity to respond to spills since 2000, and doesn't have a system in place to track spills!

Have you ever wondered how many oil spills take place in Canadian waters? Well, apparently between 2007-2009 there were 4, 160. Vessels, such as oil tanker and fishing boats, were involved in 2, 000 of them.

Now that the motion has passed, what happens next?

What should happen, is that a bill is introduced and new legislation is put in place to ban oil-tanker traffic. But there isn't much reason to hope the government will act on a motion they didn't support, even if it is the will of Parliament. After all, they continue to ignore a motion they did support.

What am I talking about? 

In May this year, following the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the House unanimously passed NDP MP Linda Duncan's motion to take hard look at Canada's preparedness and fix any weaknesses. The motion read:

"That this House notes the horror with which Canadians observe the ecological disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico and their call for action to prevent such an event in Canada, and therefore calls on the government immediately to conduct a thorough review and revision of all relevant federal laws, regulations and policies regarding the development of unconventional sources of oil and gas, including oil sands, deepwater oil and gas recovery, and shale gas, through a transparent process and the broadest possible consultation with all interested stakeholders to ensure Canada has the strongest environmental and safety rules in the world, and to report to the House for appropriate action".

In the long-term interests of coastal wildlife and the communities that exist along Canada's west coast, the government should take the opportunity to implement BOTH motions and move us closer to preventing a major oil spill in Canada.

Raising A Green Fledgling - Part 6 - Staying Green While Not Turning Blue...

Hello Readers!

This part of the series focuses on a very timely question - how do you stay warm when the weather starts getting colder?

Fall has descended upon Ottawa in the last couple of weeks, prompting my wife and I to dig out sweaters from the depths of our closet and to evict the patio furniture from the backyard. These and other aspects of 'hunkering down' for the winter made me think about how we and our green fledgling will stay warm during the next 6-8 months.

So how do I heat my home? Well, we have an oil furnace. Yup, oil. We live in a city where natural gas is widely available to homeowners but our home happened to be newly re-equipped for oil heat when we purchased it. Our furnace is less than 12 months old and has a high efficiency rating. We've also sought out and sealed drafts around our 50+ year old house and installed a programmable thermostat to reduce our overall energy consumption/costs for heating & cooling.

This series is all about how well my environmental values withstand the many demands - and conveniences - of modern-day parenthood. While home-heating is not a parenting issue, per se, how it is done absolutely influences one's environmental footprint. In fact, space heating in the home can contribute to 60% of residential energy consumption according to Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). After a series of posts on the things I think my wife and I are doing "well" to reduce our family's environmental footprint and connect our daughter to nature, I thought it timely to talk about something we can and should do better over time.

The Gulf of Mexico oil disaster is a poignant reminder of the risks associated with oil & gas extraction, hopefully catching the attention of anyone who heats with oil or gas, drives a vehicle, or purchases petrochemical products. Concurrent events like the Red Sea oil spill (June), China's Yellow Sea oil spill (July), the Enbridge pipeline rupture in Michigan state (July), Chevron's bid to explore offshore oil & gas in the arctic Beaufort Sea (Aug) and news of Tar Sands extraction impacts on the Athabasca River (Sept) remind us again and again of these risks.

The fuel and electricity that provides heat and hot water in my home (and possibly yours) come from somewhere, and I want to better understand their origins. That way I can make more responsible choices about how to reduce my family's environmental footprint by choosing greener, cleaner energy. Everyone should consider try this, particularly since we're using even more energy (derived from fuel combustion and other sources) in our homes over time... NRCan lists the following changes in energy consumption between 1990 and 2007 across the residential sector*:

Residential

• Water heating = 6.2% increase
• Space heating = 14.3% increase
• Lighting = 17.8% increase
• Other appliances (e.g., TVs, DVD players, personal computers) = 123.8% increase
• Space cooling = 166.5% increase

These increases can be attributed to numerous factors and don't directly reflect changes in fuel and electricity consumption. However, consumption is trending in an opposite direction than one would hope given the risks associated with how and where we get the raw energy sources from in the first place...

So here's the take-home message for this RAGF installment: How will you keep your family warm this winter? Do you know the origin of the fuel and/or electricity used to heat your home? Do you know the full environmental impacts associated with your home heating method? And if so, have you thought about how to reduce the negative impacts? Is your family interested in green energy alternatives?

For the record, there are a lot of 'greener' home heating alternatives available, including things like heat pumps, concentrated solar thermal power, geothermal energy, and energy sourcing alternatives like Bullfrog power. I won't expand on this topic for now since this discussion could be a post unto itself.

Stay tuned for the next post in the RAGF series. Check back every 2-3 weeks for new installments. And thanks for reading!


*Keep in mind that this is just a SAMPLE of all the sector-specific energy consumption stats available from NRCan - I encourage you to also check out the changes in energy consumption patterns that have occurred across the board.

Photo: A. MacDonald

Oil Now Out of Sight, Out of Mind?

An oil slick on the Gulf of Mexico, June 12, 2010
Photo by Deepwater Horizon Response/flickr

After the Deepwater Horizon oil well began spewing millions of litres of oil into the Gulf of Mexico earlier this year, governments, scientists, and coastal communities braced for what was expected to be a long and arduous clean-up effort. As attempts to stop the flow of oil failed repeatedly, the spill eventually grew to become the worst ecological disaster to hit American shores. The oil recovery effort was expected to continue for a very long time.

Then, in early August, the U.S. Government published a report claiming that much of the oil was contained or cleaned up because, for the most part, the ocean's surface was "clean." Unfortunately, that prognosis proved too optimistic.

In the past month several reports and studies appear to show that oil from the BP blowout is still present. A report released in mid-August by the Georgia Sea Grant and the University of Georgia stated that "up to 79 percent of the oil released into the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon well has not been recovered and remains a threat to the ecosystem."

Scientists at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) discovered an oil plume that spanned roughly 35 kilometres in length, reached heights of 200 metres and was 2 kilometres wide. This oil plume lingers more than 900 metres below the ocean's surface and is believed will remain for months; however the environmental repercussions will be felt for years.

Following this latest discovery, it was revealed that more oil was present at the bottom of the seafloor up to depths of over 1,200 metres. Scientists discovered that a substantial layer of oil sediments rests on the bottom of the seafloor stretching several kilometres in all directions.

Samantha Joye, a professor at the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of Georgia, set sail on August 21 to better understand where the 750 million plus litres of oil went and she now has a pretty good idea. "It's showing up in samples of the seafloor, between the well site and the coast. I've collected literally hundreds of sediment cores from the Gulf of Mexico." The oil sediments covering the seafloor are about two inches thick and in some samples they found tar balls, dead shrimp, worms and other invertebrates.

Florida's Department of Environmental Protection reports on its website that "beaches in Northwest Florida will continue to receive isolated impacts, mainly scattered tar balls, in the coming months."

As reported in our June newsletter, nearly five million Canadian migratory birds are making their way south, many of which will be passing through the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

So far, it's unclear just how many birds have died or been injured in the spill, and some environmental groups have voiced scepticism about official tallies. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife report, issued in response to a freedom of information request, listed only 4,676 affected birds as of September 14th. It was quickly determined, however, that the figures were up to 60 percent incomplete.

It's widely accepted that it will take months if not years before scientists are able to produce a true picture of the effects of the BP spill. In the meantime, we need to ensure that this type of tragedy is not repeated in Canada. Take action now and send a letter to the Canadian government to place a temporary moratorium on new off-shore drilling projects as was done in the U.S. immediately following the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

Canadian Hottie Speaks up for Boreal Forest

I have always been a fan of Canadian actor Ryan Reynolds, who is best known for feature roles in movies such as Van Wilder, Definitely Maybe, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and many others. Oh, and did I mention he was named one of People Magazine's Sexiest Men Alive in 2008 and 2009? Well now I have one more reason to adore him (aside from his notorious six pack). Ryan is an advocate for clean energy and greater investment in renewable energy sources. He realises that the real price of oil isn’t the one listed on the billboard at the gas station, but the one that takes into account the total environmental and human costs of oil production. Ryan recently shot a video for the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) entitled, The True Cost of a Gallon of Gas. In the video Ryan urges the public to petition the American government to pass clean energy and climate legislation. He also reminds us that we face similar challenges in Canada:

I didn't grow up in Louisiana, and I can imagine those who did are even more passionate about cleaning up this mess than the rest of us. I grew up in Canada, where we have a similar tragedy being carried out right now: the ancient boreal forest in Northern Alberta is being destroyed to collect dirty tar sands oil. Oil that generates three times the global warming pollution as regular crude. As a result, entire ecosystems and indigenous communities are being devastated.

You can join our campaign to protect the Boreal Forest by signing a petition and voicing your concerns about the tar sands. Or you can tell Canada’s elected officials what they need to do to prevent an oil spill disaster in Canada.