BURST
The agreement signed Thursday by Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith includes an entry point to break Canada’s 53-year-old moratorium on oil tankers off B.C.’s North Coast, provided a new pipeline proposal crosses several hurdles.
The deal accepts that if an Alberta bitumen pipeline is approved, Canada “will enable the export of bitumen from a strategic deep water port to Asian markets, including, if necessary, through an appropriate adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act.”
Thursday’s announcement was deeply opposed by B.C. Premier David Eby, Coastal First Nations and coastal communities that have viewed the tanker ban as essential protection for a North Coast maritime economy based on fishing and tourism.
What is the history of the North Coast tanker moratorium?
Then Esquimalt-Saanich Liberal MP David Anderson led the charge in 1971 for a moratorium to keep oil tankers out of B.C.’s North Coast waters. Ship traffic from the Alaska oil pipeline’s marine terminal at Valdez was Anderson’s key concern. He wanted to keep those tankers away from the sensitive environment of the Inside Passage and outside of Vancouver Island on their way to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and oil refineries in Washington State.
However, Anderson recalled in a 2015 opinion piece in the Victoria Times Colonist that the moratorium, which prime minister Pierre Trudeau first put in place, also put a halt to offshore oil exploration on B.C.’s coast.
It was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government that enshrined the moratorium into law in 2019 following the collapse of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project to build a 1,140 km pipeline from Alberta to an export terminal in Kitimat. The intent was to end future discussions about pipelines across the remote territory of B.C.’s north-central Interior.
“This is not some kind of newly conceived hurdle to somehow block Alberta oil, which is kind of how it’s been characterized,” said Eugene Kung, a staff lawyer with B.C.’s West Coast Environmental Law.
What are the terms of the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act?
The moratorium prohibits any oil tanker transporting more than 12,500 tonnes of crude or persistent oil, defined as partly upgraded bitumen, synthetic crude oil or Bunker C fuel oil, from stopping at, loading or unloading cargo at any installations within the moratorium area.
Tankers or barges carrying shipments of less than 12,500 tonnes, approximately 1,600 barrels, are allowed under the moratorium, which allows remote North Coast communities to receive supplies of fuel, heating oil and other petroleum products.
The moratorium zone starts at the Canada/U.S. border to the north of Prince Rupert. It runs south, including the waters of Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound, to the tip of Vancouver Island, then inland of the Central Coast to cover all coastal inlets within the zone.
The zone also circles the islands of Haida Gwaii and is intended to complement the voluntary tanker exclusion zone established in 1985, which establishes a tanker route off the west coast of Vancouver Island for tankers travelling from Alaska to Puget Sound.
What are the environmental risks of an oil spill on the North Coast?
First Nations and environmental organizations point to the risks posed by treacherous storms experienced in North Coast waters, especially the Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance. And while the shipping industry has improved safety of tanker traffic with double-hulled vessels, sophisticated navigation systems and tug escorts, the scale of any spill is the prime concern.
“Looking at what risk means, you look at probability, but you also look at the magnitude of harm,” said Anna Johnston, a staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law.
The Northern Gateway proposal for a 500,000-barrel-a-day pipeline, about half the size of pipeline being contemplated by Smith, would have meant up to 60 super tankers capable of carrying up to two million barrels of oil among the 190 to 250 tankers a year calling at its Kitimat terminal.
A spill from such a large ship could drift “potentially thousands of kilometres of shoreline and contaminate fish stocks,” Johnston said.
The spectre of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, which spilled 224,000 barrels of oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound, remains in the memory of First Nations and activists. “That toxicity persists today,” Johnston said.
Kung added that a spill “puts other local economies incredibly at risk, you know, the fishing industry, eco tourism, tourism generally.”
“(That) is in the billions of dollars in that area, let alone the local economies of Nations, which happen to be constitutionally protected rights,” Kung said.
What routes could tankers take on the North Coast and do any reduce the risks?
No port or shipping routes were specified in Thursday’s deal, but the Northern Gateway proposal included routes from Kitimat that extended down the Douglas Channel, thread out through the Inside Passage and out to the open Pacific either south through the Queen Charlotte Sound or north through the Hecate Strait to the Dixon Entrance.
“Times have changed since the Exxon Valdez happened,” said Rishi Luthra, director of marine operations for the B.C. Chamber of Shipping.
Luthra said a shipping route from a terminal at Prince Rupert would carry the least risk, because tankers would have a shorter voyage out to open ocean.
On any route, however, Luthra said modern shipping requirements, which include double-hulled tankers, the use of two pilots from the Pacific Pilotage Authority, and tug escorts to open water, make the risks “minuscule.”
“The checks and balances are so robust that there’s very, very little possibility (of a spill),” Luthra said. “I won’t say zero, obviously, but there’s a very little possibility of that happening.”