8°C |
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | ||||
 | |  | | | | ||
| 8° | 9° | 9° | 10° | ||||
| 5° | 6° | 7° | 8° | ||||
Loading ...Saanich by the Sea vs. Enbridge
August 1, 2012 | 
Author By Ed Johnson, Citizen Journalist
During a recent presentation by a member of the BC Ministry of Environment to the Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities (AVICC), local politicians were made aware of the woeful current state of affairs along the BC Coast with respect to oil pollution damage and clean-up.
A proposed Enbridge oil pipeline would stretch from Alberta to Kitimat – a distance of 1177 kilometres and would be the longest Enbridge pipeline in North America with a relatively huge capacity to move 525 thousand barrels per day (bpd). The next longest Enbridge pipeline runs from Alberta to Illinois and only carries 180 thousand bpd over 1086 kilometres.
Concern over the proposed pipeline increased recently when Enbridge was found at fault for a spill in Michigan that is costing over $800 million to ‘clean’ and doesn’t include long-term environmental costs. Of the 56 kilometres of the Kalamazoo river that was impacted two years ago, only a few hundred meters of the river has since been reopened apparently. But this was a land-based spill. What are the risks to the BC coastline of a tanker spill and how well prepared are communities like Sidney and Saanich?
According to Graham Knox, a Manager in the Environmental Emergency Program at the BC Ministry of Environment, whose comments were vetted by a ministry communications officer, the first step when considering a pipeline and tanker traffic should be a risk assessment that includes all levels of government. An assessment would determine spill response prevention, preparedness and response requirements. But no risk assessment has even begun.
Beyond a risk assessment there are also few physical resources in preparation for a spill. Knox informed that there is no readily available chemical dispersant system, no salvage cranes available for the critical first step in securing a vessel to make it safe for emergency response crews, and no regulatory requirement for escort tugs.
As well, Knox stated, the Canadian Coast Guard has no ability or training to deal with a chemical spill and only limited capacity to address hydrocarbon spills. And the lack of preparation apparently gets worse.
Most of the current preparations for spills deal with a type of light oil that floats. Bitumen, the super tanker’s intended cargo, is heavy and rapidly sinks. In a coastal spill bitumen would sink to the bottom of the ocean, attaching itself to organic material and sediment making cleanup next to impossible. “Water befouled by oil, will kill the fish, contaminate the soil, sicken the animals, and reverberate through the whole of the ecosystem” said Stewart Phillip, President and Grand Chief of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) which opposes the pipeline.
Another interesting question is whether Greater Saanich area taxpayers would be liable for cleanup costs in the event of a spill. How much would the company have to pay? According to Knox and the BC Ministry of Environment, the limits of liability for cleanup are set by the federal government and are based on the size of the vessel and cargo involved with the largest tankers having a liability limit of $1.33 billion dollars. However, the costs to cleanup the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska was estimated to range from $3 billion to $7 billion in 1989 dollars. Any costs over the current limit would be paid by taxpayers and not the company. In addition there is no federal or provincial legislation focusing on the costs to natural resources resulting from spills which has led some to call for a polluter-pay system to be in place in BC.
First Nations and municipalities across BC have taken positions and cast their votes regarding the pipeline proposal. Some are opposing the pipeline along with citizens groups readying for protests while others have their eyes set on the profits to be gained from exports.
How do you think the claims and counter-claims regarding this proposal affect the Saanich area including Sidney-by-the-Sea, Island View Beach or Shoal Harbour? Your comments following the online version will form part of the basis for the next month’s instalment.
Share/Bookmark
Posted in Community News
7 Responses to “Saanich by the Sea vs. Enbridge”
Leave a Comment
There is an incredible cost to Canada which the writer ignores – $17 trillion into the Canadian economy from Alberta resource development. New technology will allow Saskatchewan to realize similar windfalls. Personally, I’m tired of working halfway into June just to pay all the taxes we must in Canada. Oil companies pay taxes on profits, oil employees pay taxes on income, investors pay taxes on earnings, everyone pays taxes to buy the oil and gas – it’s going to pay for a lot of social welfare everyone seems to want and maybe even improve the status of healthcare in Canada.
Under Federal Law, the various review panels will not be able to reject the application on environmental grounds, but instead must make a recommendation to the government, including whatever steps need to be taken to mitigate harmful impacts. That the bottom line. We must make it as safe as science can make it. In spite of hysteria, pipelines are much safer than trains and trucks. Efforts to “block” this threaten Confederation. Canada can supply all of North America and eliminate the need to fight wars in the middle-east over oil.
If there is some possible safety measure that could be taken but isn’t – let us all know. Oil has been shipped out of Vancouver since 1915 without an incident. All of Enbridge’s spills were small and contained to their own property. The Michigan pipeline was built in the 1950′s. Much has improved since then.
So what are you really going to do when the bitumen gets to the coast? This is not a water-line. This is not a company with an enviable reputation.
Got a pipeline to Asia? Or, maybe there are tankers travelling through the most pristine, beautiful, dangerous coastlines on the planet.
Got a plan? Your $17 trillion are cute Harper numbers, but peanuts compared to the damage that this project could do.
You say that there are pipelines built in the 50′s. There are millions of kilometers of pipelines sprawling all over western canada. Many have leaked, many more will leak. These corporations need to work within the current footprint, upgrade the current infrastructure. We do not not need more infrastructure. …
If you want to verify the numbers, just multiply the price of a barrel of oil by the amount of oil available in Alberta. When Saskatchewan decides to go, they have as much or maybe more oil than Alberta. The benefit to Canada is beyond comprehension and cannot be dismissed because of fear and hysteria. You ignore all the points I made and just repeated the fear and hysteria. You can’t compare the small leaks of 1950′s pipelines to the 21st century pipeline and safety standards that will be required today building a new one. The vast majority of jobs from the construction will be in BC and BC will get billions of direct benefit every year. You are clearly unaware of the extensive safety and prevention measures required now in Canada for tankers. There’s a good reason why there hasn’t been one in nearly 100 years of oil shipping out of Canada. Of all the pipelines, none connect to the sea. With the US the only possible customer, Canada sells at a $20 a barrel discount. Learn the reality. You don’t know anything but propaganda.
You pay for the clean-up. Put your money where your mouth is and buy shares in the insurance companies that are prepared to back this endeavour. Bitumen is not like oil that floats on the surface and makes pretty colours. Bitumen sinks and kills.
“Canada can supply all of North America and eliminate the need to fight wars in the middle-east over oil.”
I have to disagree here. in 2011 Canada produced roughly 3.7 million barrels of oil per day while at the same time consuming 2.3 million barrels of oil per day. We export only around 1.4 million of barrels of oil per day. The US imports nearly 9 million barrels of oil per day!
Canada would have to triple it’s production (impossible!) and at the same time cut our own consumption to supply just Canada and the US.
Further, we have passed Hubbert’s Peak and have begun the decline so oil extraction (‘production’ is actually a misnomer) will actually become more expensive in terms of net energy. All the low hanging fruit has been picked so to speak…why else is squeezing it out of sand suddenly so viable?
Canada needs to look again to securing our own energy needs.
Who doesn’t like thinking about trees and greenery and happy animals? Who doesn’t want to see steps taken to protect those things, all else being equal? But all else is not equal. Civilization doesn’t work when people treat each tree as if its value is infinite.
Of course, some people want the price of energy to rise. Then we will live in smaller homes, drive less and burn fewer fossil fuels. But if the environmental lobby wants Canadians to be poorer, it ought to come clean about that. Once you decide nature is inherently healthy, moral and beautiful, the reasons to restrict human activity are endless. Every time we move or breathe, we alter the environment. Some environmentalists won’t be satisfied until our carbon footprint is reduced to zero.
Today, we put up with amazing intrusions in the name of environmentalism. A million petty regulations mandate surtaxes on gas, separation of garbage into multiple bins, special light bulbs, taxes or bans on plastic bags and so on. Yet these things are of so little ecological consequence that the Earth will never notice. For this, we must surrender our freedom?
Oct. 26, CBC interviewed Shell involvement – stated 40%-60% environmental destruction with their plan. When the tarsand project is fully examined, along with its huge expansion already approved, what will Alberta’s environment (water, land, air) be worth?
We don’t eat, breathe, drink nor grow oil.
We gouge the earth for oil then transport it elsewhere for corporate profits and the residue is permanent land/water damage which is unrecoverable! As well, we have laws which protect corporate agreements and which allow lawsuits against the Canadian public purse!
Check out municipal TILMA and federal FIPA !
Time our short-sighted politicians gave Canadians the truth about “economy” vs “ecology” . . . and the true cost of transporting our resources under 30-plus year “agreements” . . . by then, we shall be trying to eat, shelter, grow and drink dirty oil because the land will be done for!