Cairn Energy Oil Spill Response Plans Now Public

Responding to pressure from environmental groups around the world, Greenland has finally released Cairn Energy's oil spill response plans for public review.

Last month, Nature Canada joined 53 other international organizations – including Greenpeace, the David Suzuki Foundation, and Council of Canadians – in sending a letter to Greenland’s Prime Minister, Kuupik Kleist, expressing serious concern over the lack of transparency regarding Cairn’s operations in this unique and fragile region.

Bizarrely, the Greenland government argued it had been necessary to keep Cairn's contingency plans confidential until now because of the "unlawful actions aimed at the safety measures at oil exploration". Greenpeace has launched a number of protests at Arctic drilling operations over the past year.

Cairn's drilling operations -- which so far haven't yielded commercial amounts of oil and gas -- are a real gamble for the pristine wilderness of the Arctic. Walrus, seal, bowhead whale and polar bear habitats could be disrupted and entire remote communities wiped out if a toxic spill eliminates their means of subsistence living.

A spill in this region could be devastating to arctic seabird colonies feeding on the ice floes at Important Bird Areas along Nunavut’s northern coast, Baffin Island or as far south as Labrador. Ivory Gulls, Northern Fulmars, Black-legged Kittiwakes, Thick-billed Murres and many other seabird or water bird species would be at risk.

Cairn's oil spill response plans are being made public even as Shell has admitted that more than 200 tonnes of oil have entered the North Sea after a leak in a flow line leading to the Gannet Alpha oil platform 180 km off Aberdeen, Scotland.
 
In a wearily familiar refrain, the company had at first vastly underreported the scale of the leak, and as for plans to stop the flow? Apparently, the leak is in an "awkward" place, and there are hundreds of tonnes of additional oil in the pipeline, yet to pollute a world-famous colony of bottlenose dolphins in nearby waters.
 
Canada should heed these events and think long and hard before allowing any new offshore drilling, especially in the Arctic, and enact a plan to end our reliance on dirty, polluting fossil fuels in favour of responsible development of clean, renewable energy.

With each new spill, and each inadequate clean-up response, it becomes clearer that even with preventive measures in place, accidents are certain to occur, so it is important to identify places of great ecological significance and permanently protect them. Establishing a comprehensive system of marine and coastal protected areas is essential before development begins, so that irreplaceable natural habitats aren't lost forever to disastrous industrial accidents. Important Bird Areas and existing Migratory Bird Sanctuaries are good starting points to better protect habitats for birds that, in many cases, Canada shares with the rest of the hemisphere.

Review of Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Begins

Photo: Tom Middleton

On July 12, 2011, Nature Canada and BC Nature officially registered to participate as interveners in the environmental assessment review of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project. As interveners, Nature Canada and BC Nature will provide information on the impacts that the project could have on birds, bird habitat and terrestrial wildlife to a panel that will ultimately decide whether the project is in the public interest.

As we've said here before, this tar sands shipping project poses unacceptable risks to the ecosystems and biodiversity of the Northern B.C. Coast. There are 28 Important Bird Areas in the Northern B.C. coast and the whole Queen Charlotte Straight is an extremely globally important area for marine birds, other marine animals and fish. This rich ecosystem would be exposed to oil pollution from increased tanker traffic and an impossible-to-rule-out oil spill. The pipeline will also fragment the pristine habitat of boreal birds and other wildlife, including Caribou and Grizzly Bears.

Over the next year or so (assuming no delays) a Joint Review Panel (JRP) will examine the application submitted by Enbridge, as well as evidence and comments from First Nations, individuals, environmental organizations, and other interested persons regarding the project and its environmental impacts. There JRP will hold hearings starting in January 2012 to decide whether the project is in the public interest. The deadline to register as an intervener today, Thursday, July 14, but there are other ways you can  participate and comment.

We hope that the Panel will not allow the project to proceed after considering the impact on wildlife and many other objections to the project, particularly from First Nations. But we're at least a year away from that decision with much work ahead. We will keep you posted!

Double-hulled Tankers Won't Protect Northern BC Coast From Oil Spills

Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline Project proposes to take tar sands oil from Alberta to the northern BC port of Kitimat for export to Pacific markets. Enbridge believes petroleum products can be moved safely through the northern BC coast, in part thanks to "modern and double-hulled" tankers.

In a report released last week, Living Oceans Society takes a close look at the limitations of double-hulled tankers and concludes they're not the panacea they're touted to be.

The risk of an oil spill in the northern BC coast is one of the main objections to this project. A spill could cause irreversible harm to the livelihoods of many coastal and aboriginal communities, the area's unique marine ecosystems, the Great Bear Rainforest and 28 Important Bird Areas.

A Joint Review Panel has been established to review the environmental assessment of the project, but a date for the hearings is yet to be announced. Nature Canada plans to participate in the review, together with BC Nature. However, opposition to the project is building and a proposed legislated ban on tankers in the area could put an end to this threat. Watch spOIL for a glimpse of the wilderness at risk.

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.

What's at stake if Enbridge Builds its Northern Gateway Pipeline Project?

We've reported here on several occasions about our concerns regarding Enbridge's plans to build a pipeline to transport tar sands oil to tankers in the Port of Kitimat, BC.

It is hard to imagine what is at stake if this project is built and oil tankers are allowed to flood the Northern BC coast to the Great Bear Rainforest.

Now there's a short documentary that captures it all...

Watch it here, and please spread the word!

Photos by Tom Middleton

Study Reveals Massive Oil Plume in Gulf of Mexico

A new study carried out by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts, US, published in the journal Science, has revealed that there is a plume of crude-oil based chemicals that extends 35km from the spill site, is 200m high and 2km wide. Apparently, the plume represents a relatively small amount (0.1%) of the total oil spilled when the BP Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in April 2010.

According to Dr. Chris Reddy, one of the scientists involved in the research carried out by WHOI, the impacts of the plume on marine life are not yet clear. WHOI did, however, find the plume to be degrading slowly, meaning it would remain in the Gulf for some time - and consequently be transported long distances by currents before being degraded.

These findings go against speculations about oil in the subsurface being easily biodegraded and are indicative of the unknown impacts that may arise in the future. They also give reason to caution against offshore drilling in Canadian waters, particularly fragile ecosystems such as the Arctic.

Gulf Spill Lessons Not Heeded by Canadian Government

Yesterday BP and the US government announced that the oil spill in the Gulf has been tamed, more than three months after oil began gushing into the sea. Capped a few days earlier, their latest reports are that about 75% of the almost five million barrels of oil that spewed into the Gulf had been eliminated – roughly 25% was “dispersed”, 25% had evaporated and 25% was scooped up by all of those barges. That leaves only about 1.25 million barrels, about five times more than the Exxon Valdez spilled into Prince William Sound in Alaska 20 years ago.

The so-called dispersed oil is turning up in water and sand samples at toxic levels, but officials are not talking about this. It appears as if the “out of sight, out of mind” approach is taking hold. In fact, a seemingly contradictory federal report released Wednesday indicated that roughly half of the more than 200 million gallons (750 million litres) of oil that gushed from the well before it was capped could still be in the gulf environment in some form as tiny dispersed droplets, tar balls, surface slicks or oil buried in sand and ocean sediment.

Yet even as the clean-up efforts continue, it seems that Canada’s government is ignoring some of the lessons of the Gulf disaster.

Today, the Globe and Mail reports that Chevron has been awarded rights to explore a 205,000 hectare deep water parcel in the Beaufort Sea for oil by Canada’s department of Indian and Northern Affairs. This award was granted despite the National Energy Board’s hearings that have yet to start on Arctic offshore drilling, called in response to the Gulf oil disaster.

Chevron and its buddies, including Exxon and BP, were pressuring our government to further relax our already lax regulations for drilling onshore in Canada’s Arctic by removing the requirement for companies to demonstrate capacity to drill same-season relief wells. They argue that they have a new technology that makes the relief well unnecessary.

Heard this before? Can you imagine a Gulf-like leak in the Beaufort with its very small ice-free window – Mackenzie delta nearby, birds, sea mammals, fisheries, and indigenous communities that live off the sea and the land?

This is exactly the wrong approach Canada should take to development in the North.

Now is not the time to relax offshore drilling regulations. Rather than do away with the requirement to have advance plans for drilling relief wells in case of a spill, oil companies should be required to actually have relief wells in place before working wells are built. Also, blow-out preventers of the type that failed in the Gulf should be tested regularly.

Unlike the United States, Norway and Britain, Canada lacks a regulatory process governing whether or where oil and gas development can happen in the Arctic. Licenses are granted, and contracts signed with oil and gas companies before any environmental assessment by the NEB takes place.

The result: exploratory licenses exist in environmentally sensitive areas in the Beaufort Sea, where a blowout would have immediate negative effects on the delicate ecosystems there.

Strict regulations, and the will to adhere to them, are absolutely essential for safe, sustainable oil and gas development off of Canada's shores, and in the Arctic.

Oil Spill in Michigan Threatens Birds, Fish

It's becoming a wearying -- and worrying -- refrain. For (at least) the third time this year, an oil pipeline has burst, birds and fish are being killed, water is being fouled, and local residents are asking, How could this happen?

The site this time: Battle Creek, Michigan, where a pipeline belonging to Calgary-based energy giant Enbridge Inc has leaked at least three million litres of oil into the Kalamazoo River.

The pipeline, which normally carries about 30 million litres of crude oil a day from Griffith, Ind., to Sarnia, Ontario, sprung a leak on Monday, but cleanup crews didn't begin work until Wednesday. Once again, initial estimates from the company of the amount of oil spilling from the pipeline were lower than reality, and once again townspeople were left surprised that a pipeline was so close to one of the state's major waterways. From the Associated Press:

"I just can't believe they allowed that to happen, and they're not equipped to handle it," said Owen Smith, 53, of Galesburg.

Sound familiar?

This is just the latest in a string of spills that have been reported this year. All of these spills, particularlythe tragedy unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, serve as a reminder that oil production is never safe for the environment or for the communities along our coasts and waterways. Oil in the water is dangerous for fisheries, wildlife and ecosystems no matter where it happens.

This spill, harmful though it is to the area's wildlife and people, is at least smaller in scale than the BP spill. Check out how much of Ontario would be covered by the Gulf of Mexico spill!

Care to pay for an oil spill?

Does the BP Gulf spill have you wondering who would pay for the economic and environmental damages in case of an off-shore spill in Canada?

Will Amos from Ecojustice has figured it out: Canadian taxpayers.

Learn why and what could be done to change this.

Good news from the Gulf - Endangered turtle species gets helping hand!

Have you heard about the sea turtle rescue efforts being coordinated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, the U.S. National Park Service, NOAA, the Sea Turtle Conservancy and other conservationists, and even NASA, along the U.S. northern Gulf of Mexico coast?

An expected 700 sea turtle nests that were laid along the north Gulf coast (particularly in Florida & Alabama) are being excavated and moved into a climate-controlled NASA facility in Cape Canaveral until they hatch. FedEx carried the special cargo to the facility.

I'm very happy to pass along news that the program has had its first success! Baby Kemp's Ridley sea turtles have successfully hatched and been released into the Atlantic off of Florida’s east coast at Cape Canaveral. The Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle, an endangered species in the United States, is one of three sea turtle species known to migrate into Canadian waters (on the east coast) during the summer and early fall months.

You can track the migrations of many sea turtles and other species at SeaTurtle.org.

Who’d have thought that the multi-billion dollar space program would ever benefit endangered species so directly?

Image credits: NASA, Kennedy Space Center (Photos were shot with a red filter to protect the newborn turtles)