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.

Petition to Protect Canada's Biodiversity

Nature Canada would like to thank all those who signed our letter asking the Canadian government to take action to conserve Canada's biodiversity during the International Year of Biodiversity (IYB). The petition letter, having 1,840 signatures, has been sent to PM Stephen Harper, Environment Minister John Baird and the environment critics from each of the opposition parties, urging them to take the following five actions:

• Protect at least 50 per cent of Canada's Boreal Forest;
• Protect Canada's endangered wildlife by effectively implementing the Species at Risk Act;
• Save one of Canada's greatest grasslands treasures and the wildlife that live there. Close the
door on further industrial development within Alberta's Suffield National Wildlife Area;
• Declare a moratorium on new tar sands expansion until environmental and human health
issues have been fully addressed; and
• Commit to environmentally sustainable development in Canada's North. Demand that the
Mackenzie Gas Project proceed only if it does not negatively impact the region's people and
wildlife.

If you would like to celebrate the IYB, here are five things you can do:

• Do your part to use nature’s resources wisely and conserve energy at home and work.
• Support native birds and butterflies by planting gardens and placing feeders around your home.
• Learn ten new things about nature in your region, and share what you know with ten other people.
• Read at least one book or watch one movie this year about biodiversity, nature, or the environment.
• Participate in at least one outdoor expedition, such as a bird watching trip, to connect with nature.

Once again, thank you all for your efforts and continuous support.

In 2010, we remember that biodiversity is life. Biodiversity is our life.

Climate Change Bill Continues to Collect Dust

As reported by 350.org, on Sunday, 10/10/10, citizens in 188 countries engaged in more than 7,000 organized “work parties” to cut carbon and asked their politicians a simple question, "We're getting to work, what about you?"

Well on Friday September 8, Stephen Harper and his Conservative government answered them by instructing his appointed senators to delay the country’s only federal climate bill and ordering them not to speak on the subject, even though senators had five solid months to review the legislation, and to prevent the legislation from moving forward.

The legislation in question is Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, which was passed in the House of Commons last May by elected MPs and subsequently stalled in the Senate during the summer months. Harper’s instructions came after the prescribed five months to consider the bill. Richard Neufeld, an oil and gas sector veteran is responsible for leading the debate, however the senator has refused to acknowledged the bill, and according to Senate rules, only government can conclude debate on a bill or schedule votes.

This scenario is all too familiar, as a similar bill touching on clean energy was blocked in the US last July by the Senate and to this day there has been no vote and no change.

Support Bill C-311 by writing to your local MP and letting them know that you feel strongly about this issue. You can also join our campaign to stop the tar sands, Canada's largest contributor to climate change.

Contaminants in the Athabasca River

A study, carried out by Dr. David Schindler and several of his colleagues from the University of Alberta, found high levels of mercury, lead and arsenic in the Athabasca River. Their findings challenge data found in government reports and are an indication that the tar sands industry has had a significant impact on the Athabasca River. Local fishermen have realized that migratory species such as ducks no longer land where they used to and have even found fish that were deformed or had lumps on them. The report will become available in the scientific journal 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Science'.

The team has recommended that monitoring must be improved in order to properly assess and control the industry’s impact on the environment. In a press conference on Monday the Edmonton Journal reported Dr. Schindler saying:

"There's no way industry can be belching out hundreds of kilograms of toxins every year and this not be detectable in the environment unless the monitoring program is totally incompetent." ... All of this is in clear violation of the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act is not based on amounts released or concentrations in the river; it just says flatly that there will be no deposition of any deleterious substance to a river or near enough to a river to get into it. Period. ... You have to ask where is Environment Canada on all of this? ... You have to wonder why do we have money for propaganda and not for proper science? Government has been putting money into their propaganda campaign to tell people everything is OK. I just think that's not the way democracy should work. If people can see what's really going on and they still choose to develop in the oilsands that's democracy. But making people think that everything's OK when it really isn't and therefore getting them to agree to this is not the way the government of this country or this province was set up to work.

Both the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) and Alberta Environment are challenging Dr. Schindler's results. Alberta Environment would like to look at supplementary data before making comparisons and Fred Kuzmic from RAMP has said that such high levels are 'associated with naturally occurring compounds'. According to Dr. Schindler, RAMP, an industry led group overseeing the river's water quality, should be replaced with Environment Canada.

Help Nature Canada stop the tar sands from expanding and destroying significant habitat for wildlife by signing our letter to Prime Minister Harper.

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.

Syncrude – Guilty for the Deaths of Over 1,600 Ducks!

Photo: David Dodge

Last Friday, June 25, 2010, Syncrude Canada was found guilty for the death of over 1,600 ducks that dove into the tar sands giant 12 km² tailings pond north of Fort McMurray in Alberta. The company was charged under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act for failing to avoid dumping hazardous waste in wildlife’s way and under the Migratory Birds Convention Act for allowing hazardous waste to be deposited in areas visited by migratory birds.

Syncrude has requested a hearing, saying that both charges are unfair. The hearing is scheduled for August 20, 2010. Upon completion of the hearing, a sentence will be given for one or both charges. Potential fines could be in the amount of $500,000 to the provincial and $300,000 to the federal government.

Syncrude claims the weather conditions at the time would not have permitted them to place the right deterrents although several of its employees stated that the company was not adequately equipped and was understaffed when it came to bird deterrent activities. Judge Ken Tjosvold also stated that Syncrude could have prepared their bird deterrent in advance and that "it was reasonable to take those precautions and Syncrude did not."

Help us make sure tragedies like this one don't happen again. Sign Nature Canada's petition to stop the tar sands!

The case began as a private case that was initially filed by a Sierra Club member and later taken over by the provincial government.

Nature Canada Pipes Up Against Enbridge

Twenty-one years ago, the Exxon Valdez ran aground, spilling 40 million litres of crude oil into Prince William Sound and causing irreversible damage. Now, Enbridge wants to bring the same risk to B.C.'s pristine coastal waters and rainforest.

The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline would carry oil from the tar sands to a port at Kitimat, B.C. Supertankers fed by the Enbridge pipeline would travel the same waters where the Queen of the North ferry sank in 2006.


Nature Canada is one of over a hundred signatories - including First Nations, businesses and prominent Canadians - to an open letter opposing the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and crude oil tanker traffic in BC's northern coastal waters. The risk oil spills pose to First Nations, communities and the environment is too great.

Add your voice and pipe up against Enbridge by sending a letter to Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel today.

The Mackenzie Gas Project: Your Say

Last week, we told you that Nature Canada has submitted its final comments about the Mackenzie Gas Project to the National Energy Board. We also wanted to know your thoughts about the project.

Our most recent quick poll asks: Do you think construction of the Mackenzie Gas Project should proceed?

Overwhelmingly, the responses have been no - the Mackenzie Valley should be off-limits to large-scale industrial development (84% of responses). A further 13% of respondents believe that the project would be acceptable if all 176 recommendations of the Joint Review Panel are implemented to reduce damage to the environment and provide lasting benefits to the people living in the area. Only 3% of the responses indicate that construction should proceed regardless of its impacts because the project is an important source of revenue for the northern economy.

We also asked how you would feel if natural gas from the pipeline was used to expand tar sands operations.

Most responses agreed with this statement that "gas from the pipeline should absolutely not be used to expand tar sands operations."

Among the concerns expressed was the worry that, even if all the recommendations were implemented, there could still be environmental impacts:

"I think it would be a gross misuse of an energy resource, and a massive environmental insult. And the construction of the pipelines, roadways and other infrastructures will cause unforeseen problems to local peoples and wildlife."

Many responses also suggested that the money being directed towards oil and gas development could be better spent on alternative energy sources:

"I would prefer to see alternative energies from wind, solar and tidal sources receive as much investment as is given to tar sands development. Bolster that which is sustainable, not that which is destructive, harmful."

"We need to tap alternate, less invasive energy sources. Pristine habitat is rare in our world and we should be doing everything to protect what is left for the other billions of creatures with which we share this planet."

The overall feeling of the responses can be summed up with this one:

"The pipe line should not be built - we need to preserve the land free from development. If the gas from the pipe line were used to develop the tar sands it would be a double assult on our natural environment."

Your support provides direction for our work. If you haven't made your voice heard yet, why not vote now? Or, check out some of our other quick polls to share your thoughts.

The Northern Gateway: Another unsustainable proposal?

The Great Bear Rainforest; First Nations lands, livelihoods and traditions; grizzlies, wild salmon, orcas and 28 Important Bird Areas; a tanker moratorium; Climate Change... these are just but a few of the many reasons a proposed pipeline to Kitmitat, BC for exporting tar sands oil should be of great concern to all Canadians.

The project should have been reviewed through a public inquiry, but the government has instead established a Joint Review Panel under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Nature Canada recently joined 18 environmental groups in urging the government to undertake a much more comprehensive environmental assessment than is currently planned of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project.

Enbridge's Gateway Pipeline Inc. proposes to construct and operate pipelines, 1,170 km in length, between an inland terminal near Edmonton, Alberta and a marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia. Approximately 500 km of the pipeline will be in Alberta, and 670 km in British Columbia. The project will include an export oil sands product pipeline, an import condensate (a hydrocarbon) pipeline, terminal facilities, integrated marine infrastructure at tidewater to accommodate loading and unloading of oil and condensate tankers, and marine transportation of oil and condensate.

The scope of an environmental assessment is one of the most critical elements determining whether the review can be a meaningful exercise and contribute to sustainability. Does purporting to assess the environmental impact of this proposed pipeline without reviewing the impact of tanker traffic and of the increased oil sands production make any sense? To me, it's like calculating the harm done by a gunshot by considering the trajectory of the bullet, but not what it hits or who pulled the trigger.

A recent Supreme Court decision states that authorities conducting environmental assessments can't scope the review to avoid addressing a project's full environmental impacts. So there is perhaps some hope that Minister Prentice will decide the review of the Enbridge Pipeline will be a meaningful one.

The Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project put sustainability at the center of its assessment, released on December 30, 2009. While I have some reservations about their conclusions, their approach to sustainability should become best practice for all environmental assessments of major projects. It should be applied in reviewing the Northern Gateway project. Many don't want the pipeline at all. Stay tuned...

Photo by Tom Middleton