Front falls off Fraser Institute tanker argument

In a November 24th opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun, Taylor Jackson and Kenneth Green ask: Ban on oil tankers? What happened to evidence-based policy? I’d love to take them out for a little boat ride from Kitimat through Dixon Entrance some time this month, for a reality check on their views on the science behind the North Coast tanker ban. Only a dedicated policy analyst sitting in the warm, dry confines of the Fraser Institute could have come up with the reality-starved thesis that there is no scientific rationale for banning tankers on B.C.’s North and Central Coast.

I remind readers that tankers were banned from this area following the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 and that ban, although not legislated, has been in continuous effect since that date. Put simply, we’ve had no oil tanker spills because we’ve had no oil tankers plying these waters. Traffic between Alaska and the Lower 48 states observes not only the ban, but an additional Voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone off the West Coast, designed to ensure that when the tankers lose power or steerage, they cannot be driven onto rocky shores by wind and waves.
A December excursion through Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance could be really enlightening for Taylor and Ken. December is the month most likely to see storm-force winds that can build in a matter of hours from nothing to 60 knots or more—which is to say, the wind can come up on a ship that has left port 18 hours earlier in fair weather, leaving it exposed and without a place of refuge.

Those winds often build the seas to heights of 18-20 metres—that’s about a six-storey building’s worth of water crashing down on the decks. The highest waves recorded in Hecate Strait are over 30 metres: more like a 10-storey building. In places along the proposed North Coast tanker route, there are also strong currents and when the wind meets a current going the other way, things get to be what mariners call “chaotic.” It’s a little different from the chaos at the Fraser Institute when a Liberal government gets elected. Things get broken.

Some of the things that could get broken in such seas are the thousands upon thousands of welds that hold double-hulled oil tankers together. A few tankers have gone that way, flexing in nasty seas until they just gave up; the ships broke into pieces and sank, spilling much of their cargo in the process. In 2010, 20 years after that particular design weakness was immortalized by the comedy team Clarke and Dawe in their sketch “The Front Fell Off”, the International Maritime Organization’s working group on oil tanker design came up with “goal based design criteria” to apply to tankers built after July 1, 2016: basically, an agreement that tankers ought to be designed such that their fronts won’t fall off. It is estimated that there are some 2,400 oil tankers in service that predate this breakthrough agreement.

In addition to the sciences behind meteorology and naval architecture, there’s also biology arguing in favour of a tanker ban on the North Coast: large ships are noisy beasts under normal operating conditions and the underwater acoustic disturbance is harmful to whales and other marine mammals. Six species of whales that are listed under the Species at Risk Act frequent the North and Central Coast. To the extent that the Canadian government has proceeded with recovery plans for them, those plans identify acoustic disturbance and ship strikes as threats to the species’ recovery. Adding ship traffic to this region, accidents or not, is bad news for whales.

Against these real-world considerations of navigation on the North and Central Coast, Fraser Institute policy analysts reference only global tanker safety statistics that are conspicuously not derived from traffic on our B.C. coast. I agree entirely with their assertion that tanker safety has improved over the past 30 years with the development of new technology. What I contest is the suggestion that this means oil tankers may safely ply all waters on the globe.

English Bay Oil Spill Response is Instructive

The grain freighter Marathassa at anchor in English Bay, surrounded by a boom the day after it leaked an estimated 2,700 litres of bunker fuel into the ocean.

If you ever wondered what the federal government really meant by “World Class” oil spill response, now you know. The English Bay spill on April 8 proved out a lot of the criticisms that Living Oceans has been making about spill preparedness in B.C, yet to listen to federal government pronouncements, you’d think the response was perfection itself. This, then, is a world class spill response.

The Coast Guard has spared no effort to praise its own efforts and those of Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, the oil-company owned outfit contracted to pick up the oil. Commissioner Jody Thomas in “enormously pleased”; Assistant Commissioner Roger Girouard says the response was by the book and advised the CBC on April 11 that only about six litres of oil remained in English Bay. Girouard maintained that 80% of the oil had been cleaned up by skimmers working the water’s surface. "You don't contain 80 per cent of a spill inside 36 hours and call that inadequate," he said. "I will not accept that definition of my team."

On the response time, Commissioner Thomas was very specific: "Within 25 minutes of notification, we were on the water. And with [Western Canada Marine Response Corporation], we worked through the night to skim the water and boom the ship."

The only statement above that is entirely correct and complete is that the response was by the book, which is to say that the WCMRC was on the scene with recovery equipment within the time prescribed by Transport Canada. From the handbook: “[I]n Port Metro Vancouver it is required that WCMRC maintain a dedicated package of equipment that is capable of responding to a 150 tonne spill within 6 hours.” The fact that they didn’t actually deploy their booms until somewhere between midnight and 2:00 a.m. takes them a little outside that response time, but hey, they couldn’t figure out where the oil was coming from.

Clearly, a textbook spill response will result in the oiling of Vancouver’s beaches, as it has here. This was said to be a two-tonne spill (2700 litres); Kinder Morgan’s idea of a “credible worst case” spill is 10,000 tonnes, just to put the question of beach oiling in perspective.

But what about the size of the spill and the “80% cleanup”? By April 13, Coast Guard was admitting that the spill size estimate they were using was a conservative estimate made by flying over the area to determine the spill’s visible dimensions and multiplying that by estimated spill thickness. That sounds quite reasonable, unless you knew from the time of the initial report at 5:05 p.m. on Wednesday that much of the oil was already under water and thus invisible from the air.

Rob O’Dea, a sailor who reported the spill, said, “… it was an oil slick about ½ km long and 250 m wide. The surface was covered with a blue sheen and just beneath the surface there were globules of oil by the thousands per square metre. They were within the top few inches of the water… Some were the size of a pea, many were the size of a fist.”

And where was it coming from? Rob apparently had no difficulty figuring that out: “When we passed by the stern of the offending freighter there were larger, sticky globs of black goo a meter long and as thick as your arm. Oil was everywhere at and below the surface. The crew of the ship were madly trying to load 50 gallon drums from a small boat onto the ship while at the same time they were dropping small pails over the side of the ship and hauling up water. It was a keystone cops kind of scene and the Port Metro boat passed by in close proximity but did not intervene.” (That Port Metro boat is apparently the one that “we” had on the water “within 25 minutes”; Rob says it showed up about 6 pm. WCMRC wasn’t there at 8 pm when he decided to go in.)

Unconfined oil will spread to a thickness of about 0.4 mm. Sticky globs of black goo a metre long and as thick as your arm don’t. Yet there was Girouard, insisting that “physics tells us that it will float” (a direct quote, by the way, from one of Enbridge’s experts at the hearings on the Northern Gateway Pipeline hearings) and reporting on the reductions in surface oil as if it were all that required response.

The truth is that nobody will ever accurately estimate how much oil spilled, given that within a very short time after the spill, so much of it submerged beneath the water’s surface. The water in English Bay right now will be low in salinity and high in suspended particles because of the plume coming out of the Fraser River and those are the ideal conditions for sinking the oil into the water column, perhaps even to the bottom. We may be finding tarballs from this spill washing ashore for years to come.

As recently as two years ago, Coast Guard had a dedicated spill response vessel and a trained crew at the [former] Kitsilano base who, according to retired Coast Guard Capt. Tony Toxopeus, could have responded within an hour and perhaps contained the surface spill before it hit the beaches. “They’re downplaying it to such a degree it’s shameful, it’s terrible, it’s dishonest,” Toxopeus said.

“There was a 40-foot boat that was purpose built for oil pollution response,” said Toxopeus, adding the base also had 150 metres of Kepner self-inflating boom, 150 metres of 24-inch fence boom, 30 metres of oil absorbant boom, a skimmer and absorbant pads. “That was probably the best equipped station on the B.C. coast.”

Even that equipment would have been inadequate to respond to submerged oil, which could pass under the floating booms and travel with the current. Note that this was bunker C oil, carried by nearly every vessel in the Port. It’s much like the bitumen that Kinder Morgan wants to ship—a heavy oil, given to forming dense, sticky mats and globs, rather than just spreading on the surface.

In summary, “World Class” oil spill response apparently means critically disabling the ability of Coast Guard to respond to spills in the harbour of the B.C. city most liable to experience an oil spill and denying that you did so; handing the task over to a corporation owned by the oil companies themselves; and legislating response times that are clearly inadequate to protect the Greenest City from beach oiling. Add in the power of the federal government’s communications machine to spin the facts—80% recovery, 25 minutes to have “a boat in the water” and “physics tells us it will float”—and repeat ad nauseum that you’re doing an excellent job.

I don’t buy it and judging by the public response, neither do most in Vancouver.

Simushir: Lessons Learned?

By Karen Wristen

I was glued to the computer all weekend, watching the agonizingly slow progress of the tugs steaming out to the west coast of Haida Gwaii, to rescue the disabled container ship Simushir. Early Friday, it was reported that the ship had lost power only 19 nautical miles off the coast of Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Cultural Area, in heavy seas with winds gusting up to 75 kph.

The National Park Reserve is one of this coast’s treasures. From an ecological perspective, it is an area of incredible biodiversity. Off the west coast, the ocean floor drops away sharply to depths of over 760 meters, while near shore, the continental shelf is home to rich kelp forests and eelgrass beds. These two, quite different ecosystems existing in such proximity mean the region is home to creatures from the deepest ocean right through to the skies—millions of seabirds either live there or use it as a rest stop in their long migrations.

Map of Haida Gwaii habitats at risk

The sad legacy of past oil spills is that we’re learning more every day about how oil affects different species and the news is not good. The iconic oiled seabird is just the tip of the iceberg: long term and genetic damage has now been linked to oil exposures for species as diverse as birds, otters and whales. There was a lot riding on the wind and waves this weekend; and on the progress of the several tugs headed for the Simushir.

The Simushir was carrying about 400 tonnes of bunker C fuel as well as some diesel. That’s not much, compared with the supertankers that are proposed for this coast; but it was still enough to lay waste to the west coast of Haida Gwaii. Carried along on the Alaska current, the oil would have worked its way northward, oiling steep rocky shores and the innumerable inlets and bays along this rugged coast.

Russian-flagged container ship Simushir was first reported adrift 19 km off Gowgaia Bay, South Moresby Island (Gwaii Haanas). Photo: DND Pacific Maritime Command

“Cleanup” would have been impossible in these conditions—with 4-6 meter seas and high winds, none of the conventional oil spill response equipment could have been deployed effectively. Booms would have been useless against the waves crashing ashore. Most of the oil would come ashore, fouling habitat before anything could be done. The area is far too remote and rugged to contemplate deploying crews to attempt to remove oil from the rocks and beaches.

Against this scenario, the Simushir was helpless. The nearest tug proved, happily, to be just 17 hours away and that was the Coast Guard’s Gordon Reid—a patrol vessel underpowered to tow a vessel the size of Simushir. And remember, Simushir is less than a third the size of a supertanker. The Gordon Reid might have been anywhere on the coast that day; it is pure luck that it was in Hartley Bay.

The Gordon Reid

I have nothing but respect and gratitude for what the crew of the Gordon Reid accomplished, with an underpowered boat and tow lines too light for the job. In that awful weather, they managed to get tow lines aboard the Simushir on three separate occasions, only to see them snap under the enormous strain of wind and waves. Nevertheless, they managed to put a little more sea room between the ship and shore, giving the crew some respite from an experience that was surely harrowing.

Still, the Canadian boats were forced to stand by and watch, waiting for an American commercial tug to put the vessel under tow. It was again pure luck that the tug Barbara Foss was heading into Prince Rupert when the emergency unfolded: the tug is usually stationed in Juan de Fuca Strait. Had it not been for this good fortune, the Simushir would have had to await a rescue tug from Alaska.

The Barbara Foss

Leaving Rupert by mid-day Friday, the Barbara Foss encountered Hecate Strait on one of its bad days: 6-8 meter waves and a southeast wind that blew fitfully in the 30-40 knot range, according to Environment Canada. It took the high-powered tug until Sunday to reach the drifting vessel and during all of that time, the Simushir remained at risk from a change in the wind.

A south or southeast wind was keeping the Simushir offshore for most of Friday, but when storms of this intensity blow through they generally bring changing wind patterns. A shift to westerly was predicted and that would have driven the ship toward shore. Depending on wind speed, the Gordon Reid might, or might not, have been able to keep her off the rocks. The best they’d been able to do when towing with the wind was 1.5-2 knots. It’s unlikely that they’d have made any headway at all towing against the wind.

Tugs like the Barbara Foss are expensive and the crew’s training is highly specialized for ocean rescue and ship salvage. In years past, it may have been good sense for Canada to rely on our neighbour to provide rescue services—they were the ones with the commercial vessel traffic that needed the rescue capacity and so why not let them pay for it, and borrow it when needed? But the volume of shipping passing through Canadian waters has increased dramatically over the past decade and capacity to respond to it has not. If anything, capacity has been decreased by federal cuts to Coast Guard.

To be clear, we have never had towing capacity for ships of the size that now regularly ply our waters. Response times being what they are from the U.S., it is now clear that we need that capacity. It’s also clear that we need some public dialogue on where to locate any new tug. I would vote for Haida Gwaii—it’s right on the shipping route and closest to the worst waters on our coast.

In addition to a salvage tug, we need:

• Agreement on “places of refuge”—protected areas where ships in distress can shelter, potentially putting those areas at risk of a spill;
• A legislated zone of protection, through which ships do not pass—wide enough to ensure that if they lose power like the Simushir did, they cannot drift into shore before a tug can get to them;
• Investment in recruitment and training for coast guard rescue capacity; and
• A ban on oil tankers on the North Coast.

Little bird in a big ocean

In the black hours of early morning, a tiny bird emerges from its shallow burrow on the top of a wind-swept rocky island and launches itself out over the wild Pacific Ocean. This female Cassin's auklet is not much to look at – barely larger than a robin and considerably less colourful, with only a tiny white eyebrow as a marking. She has been described as a 'flying tennis ball', built more for diving than for flying, but she has a long way to go to find food for her chick. While her mate rests for the day, she takes her turn at flying out to the edge of the deep water, a one-way trip of up to 100 km. It will be dark again before she returns from her exhausting flight with food for her young safely tuck away in a special pouch in her throat.

Photos from the coast: the good, the bad and the hopeful

Unless you've been hiding out under a rock in a cave on the dark side of the moon, humming to yourself really loudly with your fingers in you ears, you've probably picked up on a bit of the recent media frenzy over the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline and associated tanker route through some of B.C.'s most treacherous waters.

Wow, that was a long sentence. But that doesn't make it any less true.

The controversy over the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Project, which could see as many as 320 supertankers visit the heart of the Great Bear Rainforest every year, has surfaced in the media to varying degrees over the past couple of years. But coverage of this proposed development really kicked into high gear last week when B.C. Premier Christy Clark announced that she was taking a long-awaited stand on the project by laying out a list of five requirements the project would need to meet in order for the B.C. government to support it. Well... sort of.

In fact, the first four requirements laid out by the premier are measures that are either already required or will do nothing to safeguard the B.C. coast. The only relevant demand that Premier Clark outlined was the requirement for B.C. to receive it's "fair share" of the profits from this project. Putting aside the legal and constitutional can of worms that this opens, the Premier is saying basically this: If the price is right, we are willing to accept the admittedly grave risk that the Northern Gateway Pipelines Project presents to the B.C. coast.

Hmmm...

Oil, Acid and Tankers: Why the campaign against Enbridge Northern Gateway is more than a pipeline – it’s a path to our future.

Sheila Muxlow is the Energy Campaign Manager at Living Oceans Society.

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking I’m going to rant about the evils of fossil fuels and the horrors of climate change and the devastation we are going to leave for future generations if we continue on with the status quo. And your right. Kind of. Because I’m going to write about another sinister related issue; something that is terrorizing the oceans right now, eroding coral reefs and disintegrating seashells. It’s real and it’s horrifying.

It’s ocean acidification.

How, you might ask, does ocean acidification connect to the fight to stop tankers from degrading the natural environment of the BC coast with noise pollution and the constant threat of an oil spill? Good question! Thanks for asking!

You see, the proposals to cover the Pacific coast with hundreds of super tankers are directly linked to the tar sands: the largest industrial project in the world. The tar sands are a relatively recent form of fossil fuel extraction that has become financially viable due to the decreasing availability of conventional oil resources. Tar sands mining rips up thousands of square kilometers of Boreal Forest every year, displacing both Indigenous and settler communities while creating tailing lakes of toxic waste. The extraction process pumps thousands of tonnes of carcinogenic chemicals into the air, not the least of which is carbon — the tar sands process is three times more carbon intensive than conventional oil extraction.

Carbon, as you might have guessed, is the major cause of ocean acidification. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the ocean has been absorbing 25% of the carbon that we pump into the atmosphere, resulting in more than 500 billion tonnes of CO2. When it’s absorbed into the ocean the carbon changes the pH levels of the water by increasing the carbonic acid. The colder waters of the polar regions allow CO2 to be absorbed more quickly, making the oceans more acidic, faster. Today the ocean is 40% more acidic than it was in pre-industrial times. Researchers have concluded that oceans haven't seen a rapid change like this in 60 million years.

Scientist publishes study, media completely miss the point!

Many of you were likely surprised to see an article in the Globe and Mail this past Sunday that cited a recent study by world-renown climate scientist, Dr. Andrew Weaver, on the impact on global warming of the Alberta tar sands vs. the world's coal reserve. Surprised that is, because the article left the impression that Dr. Weaver's work gives carte blanches to unrestricted oil development in Canada.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. In Dr Weaver's own words:

It would be a huge mistake to interpret our results as some kind of a "get out of jail free" card for the tar sands. While coal is the greatest threat to the climate globally, the tar sands remain the largest source of greenhouse gas emission growth in Canada and are the single largest reason Canada is failing to meet its international climate commitments and failing to be a climate leader. The world needs to transition away from fossil fuels if it wants to avoid dangerous human interference with the climate system. That means coal, unconventional gas, and unconventional oil all need to be addressed.

Compelling testimony at Prince Rupert Northern Gateway pipeline joint review panel

The following is the testimony of Lee Brian at the Enbridge Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel hearings in Prince Rupert on February 18, 2012.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak today.

Who am I? My name is Lee Brain, and, I am no one in particular.

I want to say that I'm not here today as a representative of any political party, business organization or special interest group. I have no agenda today but to simply offer my personal experience about how this project will impact me, and my community.

I am here today as sovereign, natural being of the planet who has been born into a certain time, and into an already established system of institutions.

As an independent observer of our collective reality, in coordination with 7 billion others, I am here regulated by my own internal self-governance process.

At the ripe age of just 26, I am old enough to have been humbled by the lessons of life, yet, not old enough to fully appreciate the whole journey it has to offer.

In Prince Rupert, I work as an After School Activities Coordinator, working with children in elementary schools. I also run a computer skills education company as a sole proprietor.

But I am truly here today representing a new generation of leaders that is emerging at this time, and speaking on behalf of a younger generation than myself that is still coming into awareness.

Enbridge pipeline decision delayed a year? Whhaaat?

You heard correctly. As reported by the Vancouver Sun, a final decision on whether to approve or reject Enbridge’s controversial Northern Gateway Pipeline project has been delayed until late 2013 – almost a year later than anticipated.

Why you ask? Because of the unprecedented number of individuals who have signed up to have their voices heard during public hearings for the project.


The original time schedule saw public hearings lasting only a couple of months. Due to widespread public concern regarding Enbridge’s risky project, people came out in numbers to sign up to voice their concerns, and numbers speak.

Tankers on our Coast: Public risk vs. Private Gain

Once in a while, a video comes along that explains, in a few minutes, everything you've been trying to say for years. Two days ago such a video was released by filmmaker Ben Gulliver: Tipping Barrels – Journey into the Great Bear Rainforest. With beautiful footage by Ben Gulliver and Ian McAllister, Tipping Barrels follows surfers Arran and Reid Jackson on a trip into the heart of the Great Bear Rainforest.

[Unfortunately, the video is no longer available online]

I love this film because it beautifully illustrates everything that we stand to lose from oil development on this coast. The film's release also coincides with that of a report (PDF copy) by the Living Oceans Society, National Resource Defense Council and Pembina Institute, which outlines the considerable risk to local communities, salmon-bearing rivers and coastal ecosystems associated with transporting bitumen along the Northern Gateway Pipeline and connecting tanker route.

Breaking up is not so hard to do

Just ask Rena. She's Liberian (not to be confused with librarian), a real looker, and a bit of a mess. She also happens to be the source of New Zealand's worst marine environmental catastrophe in history.

Last week the container ship Rena ran into Astrolabe Reef off the coast of New Zealand at full speed. She's now leaning precariously, perched on the top of a rock, being battered by an onslaught of high winds and waves determined to bring her down, as a growing crack spreads up her side. Rena is breaking up, and she's not holding it together very well. So far she's lost 70 of her cargo containers (don't worry, none of the 11 containers carrying toxic chemicals have fallen overboard yet), at least 350 tonnes of bunker fuel oil, and all crew who were evacuated due to her extremely dangerous position. 1,700 tonnes of fuel remain onboard, ready and waiting for the open ocean or the tank of a salvage vessel (whichever comes first), and her beloved captain and first mate have been charged. It's looking like Rena may have found her final resting place.

The container ship Rena is reported to be breaking up after she and her crew ended up on the rocks.

It's mildly ironic that Rena sits where she does. Astrolabe Reef is indeed named for the ancient astronomical device used for maritime navigation prior to the days of the sextant and GPS. You'd think they would have seen it coming on their chart plotter or at least radar. It's clearly visible during the day for Pete's sake, regardless of modern or old-school navigation equipment (Okay. Okay. They ran into at night). Yes, the ship was two miles off course. Yes, there really isn't an answer as to how a ship with modern technology could run aground going 17 knots. Yes, the crew may have been celebrating the captain's 44th birthday. But alas, when have well-known, visible reefs stopped collision courses before? Think Pathfinder. I think the crew there was playing video games.

The things we can learn from Cuttlefish and Whaling

Ever wished you could blend in with your surroundings? It's incredibly useful for avoiding predators, sneaking up on unsuspecting prey and forestalling that guy who always wants to start awkward conversations (you know the one). There are many fine examples of this ability in vertebrates and invertebrates alike, but none are quite as sophisticated as the cuttlefish. Here's what I mean by that:

So sophisticated, in fact, that researchers at the Marine Biology Laboratory at Woods Hole recently received a $6 million grant from the US Navy to study these cephalopods in greater detail. The ultimate goal of this research is to emulate the system which allows the cuttlefish to mimic the colour and texture of their environment, and develop some nifty new materials for stealth suits and such.

Such forms of camouflage would also have come in handy for shareholders entering the Enbridge Pipeline offices in Calgary last week, as members of the Yinka Dene Alliance held a protest and drum ceremony in front of the building. First Nations along the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline route have consistently voiced their opposition to the project because of the substantial environmental risks it poses to their territories. How much risk? Try 5000 spills in Alberta alone between 1990 and 2005, 52 of which were greater than 100,000 liters. Not to mention the massive spills this in Northern Alberta this month, and in the Kalamazoo River last year.

And what has this to do with the ocean (being that this is a blog about marine conservation and all)? Well for one, increased tanker traffic on the coast (as a result of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline) would create the potential for an environmental disaster orders of magnitude larger than those caused by pipeline ruptures and much more difficult to clean up.

But in a more fundamental sense, many parallels can be drawn between the development (and potential fate) of the modern oil industry and that (those) of the whaling industry of the last century, according to an insightful piece by Andrew Nikiforuk in the Tyee last week. Not only are there parallels, but the oil industry basically sprung out of the demand for energy created by the whaling industry. To illustrate this transition, I'll leave you with a classic Stan Rogers tune.

The more things change...

Well, a couple of days have passed since the 'exciting' election on Monday, and the buzz is finally wearing off. While Canada woke up Tuesday to the same government as before, we have a brand new opposition and have finally joined most other industrialized democracies in the world (with apologies here to the United States) in electing a Green Party member to Parliament. I would love to talk about what all this will mean for the environment, but others have already covered this both here in terms of climate, and here in more general terms. Heed the bottom line in both these accounts; the environment, the climate and the ocean need your help more than ever. Stay engaged, dear readers, and above all (in the words of my favorite science fiction author):

-Douglas Adams, author and environmentalist, 1952-2001

What Enbridge’s Oil Spill Response Plan (Doesn’t) Tell Us

With the election mere days away and oil tankers shaping up to be a major voting issue in B.C., it’s surprising that the Conservative party still supports introducing crude oil tankers to B.C.’s North Coast and Enbridge’s extremely controversial Northern Gateway project.

We found yet another reason why the Conservatives might want to rethink their position.


Well, it might not be quite that dramatic, but it's still pretty scary. Enbridge recently released their General Oil Spill Response Plan (GOSRP) for the Northern Gateway Project. Unfortunately, the plan is like an extended warranty – not worth the paper it’s written on. It’s thick on words. Thin on actions.

Taxpayer pockets at risk for cleaning up oil spills

The ongoing environmental disaster from the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico might have you asking yourself the following question: “What would happen if a similar spill were to occur here at home?” As BC currently has in place a moratorium on offshore drilling, we will hopefully never find out. However, we do not have a ban on oil tankers, and they’re currently a serious threat. For the sake of argument, let us say that a slightly smaller spill than the Deepwater Horizon occurs, somewhere in magnitude around the Exxon Valdez. Aside from the obvious devastation of marine life and local economies (see our oil-spill model), there would be a substantial cost to clean up the oil itself.

One more reason to tell your MP to vote for the tanker ban tonight

The CBC reports that Canada is not prepared to deal with a major oil spill.

In entirely related news, your MP has the chance to vote for a ban on tanker traffic on B.C.'s North Coast. The vote is this evening, at approximately 7:00 p.m. Eastern.

So, if you haven't already, get in touch with your MP and remind them to vote for the ban. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois have indicated that they support the ban. The key thing is getting them to show up.

Remember, the vote is at 7:00 p.m. Eastern time tonight. In the words of Johnny Cash: you've got 25 minutes to go. (Figuratively, at least).

Tanker Bans and Tasty Tar Sands

As discussions on the fate of the climate stutter into their second day in Cancún, an unconventional delegation met in Ottawa today to demand stronger protection of the marine environment. The group of First Nations, fishermen, tourism operators, and environmental advocates called on the federal government to ban oil tankers from Canada's Pacific North Coast. The delegation was brought together by shared concerns over Enbridge Inc's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would see 500,000 barrels per day of toxic bitumen flowing from Alberta's Tar Sands through Kitimat and onto Asia-bound oil tankers (click here for a map of the proposed tanker route).

How I became an Environmentalist

Allow me to introduce myself: my name is Jake, I have been working for Living Oceans Society for about a month, and I am an environmentalist. This last point might not be such a surprise, considering the context in which you're reading it, but it isn't a word with which I have always been that comfortable. For many, environmentalism conjures up images of people who have long hair, live in trees, and listen to whale music. And while I admit that these may all have been accurate descriptions at various times in my life (especially during university), they are not the basis I use for applying the term to myself.

Let me back up a bit. To start with, my parents are lighthouse keepers, and I spent most of my childhood here:

Okay, so perhaps I was doomed to be an environmentalist from the start. But let me explain...

Heads-up: rally against tankers and Enbridge on Tuesday

Quick heads up: if you're in the region on Tuesday August 31, head over to one of these two rallies being held to protest Enbridge's Northern Gateway Project and its tanker traffic.

No Tankers Rally (VANCOUVER)
Date and time: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 12 Noon
Where: Burrard and Pender (Meet across street from Enbridge HQ and march to Art Gallery)
For more information, contact jolan@forestethics.org 

Pipe Up Against Enbridge rally (KITIMAT)
Date and time: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 starting at 11:00 am
Where: Kitimat, B.C.
For more information, contact info@pipeupagainstenbridge.ca
Details: Come out to this family-friendly gathering outside the Riverlodge Recreation Centre. Listen to speakers from across the Northwest and hear live music from the incredible Rachelle van Zanten.

Check out Dogwood Initiative's information on the rally here.

You can still make some noise if you can't make the rally: send an Action Alert to the Prime Minister to ask for a permanent ban on oil tanker traffic off of the B.C. coast.

Oil, plastics, and oceans: news from around the webs

Oceans-related internet news, sliced thin and served raw with dried seaweed, rice and avacado:

From the Tyee : when American cruise ships on the Seattle-to-Alaska beat are in Washington and Alaskan waters, they are subject to waste-disposal regulations with real teeth. So what do they do? They cross their legs until they hit Canada: American cruise ships are using British Columbia's waters as one huge outhouse. I'm going to lean out the window and give the finger to the next one that goes by. That'll show 'em.