Enbridge

Anyone in the media business knows that a headline writer’s goal is to attract a potential reader to an article. So when a provocative headline says something like Green Party MLA supports refinery, you can bet that heads will turn. In this age of sound bites and 140 character tweets, too often the subtleties explored within the full article are overlooked. And that is precisely what is wrong with much of our political discourse in British Columbia. Issues are not black and white; they are nuanced shades of grey.

In what follows, I provide an analysis of the issues surrounding the expansion of tar sands and proposed pipeline projects in North America. I am hoping this piece will provide a catalyst for further discussion.

1. Bitumen by rail

In British Columbia, oil is currently being brought by rail to Vancouver. In fact bitumen by rail is on the rise and frankly, there is little we can do about that.

Under the Canada Transportation Act there are a number of obligations that rail companies must comply with. If they do not comply with these obligations they can be taken to court. Here are three examples:

• Section 113 – “a railway company must provide, according to its powers, adequate and suitable accommodation for the receiving, loading, carrying, unloading and delivering of all traffic offered for carriage on its railway”.
• Section 125 – “No railway company shall, by any combination, contract or agreement, express or implied, or by any other means, prevent traffic from being moved on a continuous route from the point of origin to the point of destination.”
• Section 137 – “A railway company shall not limit or restrict its liability to a shipper for the movement of traffic except by means of a written agreement signed by the shipper or by an association or other body representing shippers.”

So what does this all mean? If a company based in Alberta wishes to ship heavy crude to Prince Rupert or Kitimat they can choose to ship it through a railway corporation. Legally CNI or CP would be obligated to accept such a cargo, as long as it met the current regulations (e.g. type of tanker car, adequate loading and unloading facilities, proper labeling and quantities). They could negotiate on liability concerns but must sign an agreement dividing the proportion of liability if an accident was to occur. But in other words, the rail company cannot say ‘no’.

Numerous derailments have been in the news of late. I am reasonably confident that I am not alone in British Columbia in wanting to slow down the flow of bitumen by rail though Vancouver and numerous communities in the BC interior.

2. The Kinder Morgan pipeline

In British Columbia, diluted bitumen (dilbit) is also being piped through the Kinder Morgan line to Burnaby where it is loaded onto tankers. About one tanker a week laden with dilbit is passing along the coast of the Oak Bay-Gordon Head riding on its way to refineries in Asia or California. In the fall of 2013, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Natural Resources Canada published a report entitled Properties, Composition and Marine Spill Behaviour, Fate and Transport of Two Diluted Bitumen Produc ts form the Canadian Oil Sands. Its findings were clear. These include:

• When fine sediments were suspended in the saltwater, high-energy wave action mixed the sediments with the diluted bitumen, causing the mixture to sink or be dispersed as 
floating tarballs
• Under conditions simulating breaking waves, where chemical dispersants have proven effective with conventional crude oils, a commercial chemical dispersant (Corexit 9500) had quite limited effectiveness in dispersing dilbit;
• Application of fine sediments to floating diluted bitumen was not effective in helping to disperse the products;

Now one thing is certain, with the Fraser River outflow, we have no shortage of sediments suspended in the waters of Juan de Fuca and Georgia Strait. Can you imagine the economic and environmental costs of a dilbit spill in Vancouver Harbour or the coastal waters along Vancouver Island? This is why I called for moratorium on dilbit tanker traffic from the Burnaby port on September 19, 2013.

In fact a recently released government-commissioned risk analysis has identified the southern tip of Vancouver Island (which includes the riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head) as one of the most probable areas for a major heavy oil spill. The report notes that both the Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan proposals would lead to “very high” risk of a major oil spill. That’s frankly unacceptable.

3. The Alberta tar sands and climate change

I’ve worked as a climate scientist for more than 20 years and served as a Lead Author on the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I acted as the Chief Editor of the Journal of Climate published by the American Meteorological Society for five years and I’ve published numerous papers on the topic. Rest assured, I understand the profound consequences that global warming has and will have on our natural environment. Frankly, witnessing British Columbia drift away from its position of leadership on this file is one of the main reasons I decided to run for office.

In 2012 Neil Swart, a PhD student working in my lab, and I published a paper examining the global warming potential of a variety of resources. I further expanded upon this in a piece I wrote in the Huffington Post. We asked the specific question as to how much global warming would occur if we completely burned a variety of fossil fuel resources. Here is what we calculated for the following resources:

1. tar sands under active development: would add 0.01°C to world temperatures.
2. economically viable tar sands reserve: would add 0.03°C to world temperatures.
3. entire tar sands oil in place which includes the uneconomical and the economical resource: would add 0.36°C to world temperatures
4. total unconventional natural gas resource base: would add 2.86°C to world temperatures
5. total coal resource base: would add 14.8°C to world temperatures

In other words, the global warming potential of the Alberta tar sands, and in fact all global conventional and unconventional oil reserves, pale in comparison with the potential from coal and unconventional natural gas. This does not mean the tar sands get a “get out of jail free” card. They represent the largest source of greenhouse gas emission growth in Canada and are the single largest reason Canada is failing to meet it’s international climate commitments and failing to be a climate leader.

There are many problems with the rate at which tar sand development is expanding as I note in this Youtube video. This is why I joined Chief Adam of the Chipewyan Nation and Neil Young in a press conference on January 12 to launch the Honour the Treaties tour. I support Chief Adam in his Draw a Line in the Sand campaign. To quote Chief Adam from the press conference: “We don’t want to shut down the tar sands, we want to slow down the tar sands”. The Chipewyan First Nation is asking that their Treaty 8 rights be respected. They want promises of reclamation to keep pace with expansion; and they want assurances that they will have access to clean water.

What does slow down mean to me? It means fulfilling promises to reclaim the land that has been disturbed by existing tar sands exploration. It means ensuring that production doesn’t exceed the present rate of around two million barrels per day. It means reclamation must be ramped up because expansion of the tar sands to date has vastly exceeded reclamation. And it means the implementation of a national strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our reliance on fossil fuels using the wealth of today to position ourselves for the economy of tomorrow, much as Norway has done in Europe.

4. The Keystone XL pipeline

The discovery of enormous reserves of shale oil in the Bakken and Eagle Ford formations in the United States means that for the first time since 1973 (when a ban on crude oil exports was introduced), the US is considering exporting crude oil abroad. At the same time, President Obama is mulling over a long awaited decision concerning the Keystone pipeline approval. The US State Department recently released their Final Environmental Impact Statement providing the necessary background information to inform President Obama’s decision.

I believe that President Obama will reject the Keystone pipeline application. While I expect his rationale will be cloaked in environmental concerns, I suspect that central to his decision will be a desire to ensure a domestic market for Bakken and Eagle Ford formation shale oil. That is, the construction of the Keystone pipeline will mean a commitment to dependence on dilbit from the tar sands and further pressure to export US produced shale oil. By rejecting the Keystone pipeline application, there will be a US market for US shale oil thereby keeping in place the 1973 ban on exports.

So where does the drying up of the US market leave Canadian tar sand production? There will be enormous pressure from an industry that has invested billions and a federal government that has gone all-in on tar sands bitumen extraction as a catalyst for the Canadian economy to push this land-locked product to foreign markets. I, like many of you, did not vote for this government. And I, like many of you, believe that Mr. Harper has done enormous damage to our country’s identity and international reputation. But does this mean I am trying to shut down Canada’s oil and gas industry? Of course not.

5. The Northern Gateway pipeline

The proposed Northern Gateway project would see 525,000 barrels of the heavy oil diluted bitumen (dilbit) transported across British Columbia each day and loaded onto super tankers for shipment to international refineries. I’ve been opposed to the Northern Gateway project for quite some time for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, Northern Gateway does not have a social license to proceed. Virtually every First Nation is opposed to the project and the Northern Gateway pipeline would go through their traditional territories so their wishes must be respected. The overwhelming majority of British Columbians are also against this project. As far as I am concerned, Northern Gateway has burned too many bridges, alienated too many First Nations and lost the trust of the people of BC. It’s time for the Northern Gateway proponents to move on.

Second, tanker traffic along the BC coast is an accident waiting to happen as the waters are hazardous to navigate. Were a dilbit spill to occur, the Environmental destruction would be profound. To date no oil spill response study has been able to account for dilbit; studies have only analyzed what would happen in the case of a spill from more commonly shipped crude oil. According to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ own recent submission to Treasury Board: “Behaviour models specific to dilbit spills do not exist, and existing commercial models for conventional oil do not allow parameter specific modifications.” But dilbit is unlike other crude oils in that whereas most oils will float on the surface, dilbit can sink. Once that happens, we don’t know where it will go, how it will interact with currents and tides or how we could reasonably clean it up. In some areas it is projected that only 3% of floating crude oil could be cleaned up in the event of a spill. That number is already dismally low. With dilbit it would be even lower. We need to keep dilbit out of our coastal waters.

Third, I am troubled by the potential for lasting environmental degradation should a dilbit leak occur in the pristine wilderness regions of Northern BC. This is particularly concerning if such a leak occurred in the vicinity of a stream or river. We have to look no further than the July 2010 Kalamazoo River dilbit spill to see what the effects might be. Three and a half years later, they are still trying to clean up the remnants of the 3.3 million litre spill.

Fourth, shipping raw products abroad means shipping jobs abroad. Other nations need propane, jet fuel, diesel, lumber and paper. They do not need dilbit and raw logs. We should be providing increased value here in Canada.

6. The BC Government’s five conditions.

The British Columbia government has outlined five conditions that must be met for their acceptance of heavy oil pipelines projects. These are

• Successful completion of the environmental review process. In the case of Enbridge, that would mean a recommendation by the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel that the project proceed;
• World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines and shipments;
• World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines;
• Legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project; and
• British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers.

I support these five conditions. But in addition and for the reasons outline above, the BC Green Party has added a sixth condition:

• A moratorium for dilbit transport along the British Columbia Coast.

On December 19^th, the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel recommended that the federal government approve the Northern Gateway project subject to 209 conditions that should be met. This decision partially meets the first condition above. The final decision on project approval now rests with Mr. Harper and his cabinet. They have until June 17, 2014 to respond. If Obama does not approve the Keystone XL pipeline, Harper will be under increased pressure to give the go ahead to Northern Gateway despite the wishes of British Columbians and the fact that 2015 is an election year.

Were this to occur, it would be particularly ironic since in 1980 when Trudeau introduced the National Energy Program, Albertans were outraged. They argued that it was utterly inappropriate for the federal government to interfere with their energy policy as it was deemed to be within provincial jurisdiction.

7. Future pipelines

While continuing to oppose the unbounded growth of bitumen extraction from the tar sands and to highlight the dangers of transporting it across our province, we must be honest about the immense economic pressure to transport it across BC so that it can be exported overseas.  While the safest solution for BC would be no new pipelines, we have a responsibility to educate ourselves about what proposals are on the table.

David Black is one of my constituents, and I met with him to explore the details behind his refinery proposal. From what I gathered he too wants to protect this coast and, in my view, it is his opposition to the sheer recklessness of proposing to load super tankers with impossible-to-clean-up dilbit that has caused him to search for alternatives. He too is apparently concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, which is why he proposed to build a refinery using the more expensive Fischer-Tropsch technology.

As with any fossil fuel project, the Kitimat refinery proposal poses serious environmental risks, not the least of which concerns a pipeline he would need to build to feed the refinery. Even if British Columbia insisted that bitumen be upgraded to synthetic crude in Alberta prior to its shipment, any transport of oil beneath our rivers is risky business, and so far I haven’t seen any appetite by British Columbians to take on these kinds of risks.

Any major project like this across the unceded territories of our First Nations fundamentally requires First Nation support as partners from the onset, not after the fact. Any major project like this would require a social license from British Columbians for it to proceed.

The Kitimat refinery proposal goes a long way to addressing the second of the five BC Government conditions. It meets the 6^th condition of the BC Green Party since he would propose shipping diesel, propane and jet fuel rather than heavy oil. These products are already shipped to the Islands along our coast to meet local needs. But he certainly has his work cut out for him if he wishes to meet the other conditions.

8. Positioning ourselves for tomorrow

As the Green MLA for Oak-Bay Gordon Head, the first Green MLA in North America, and as someone who has spent my life working in the area of climate science, for anyone to suggest that I am “pro-oil” or “pro-pipeline” is frankly ridiculous.

Do I believe that we should strive to build value-added industry and to create good, long term jobs for British Columbians? Absolutely. Did I say that the Kitimat refinery proposal has merit? Yes within the context outlined above and as we transition to a low carbon economy.  Am I in advocating for pipelines? No.  Am I endorsing a specific project? No.

Let’s move beyond the eye-popping headlines and see what I actually said in the articles that appeared in the Georgia Strait here and here, the Victoria Times Colonist and the Prince George Citizen.

1)     “I like to think the Green Party as a science-based, evidence-based common sense party,”

2)     “It’s a party that realizes that we need gasoline in our cars but we also need to have a strategy to wean ourselves off that.”

3)     “We’ve always said we’d like to see a transition as quickly as possible away from fossil-fuel dependence to renewable forms, and if we can use some of the wealth of today to assist us in that transition rapidly, so much the better,”

4)     “Rail is bad news, dilbit in the water is bad news, dilbit on land over rivers and streams is potentially very bad news”

5)     “B.C. Greens have agreed and accepted the five conditions of the B.C. Liberal government”

6)     “There should be no transport of diluted bitumen both on land, which means through a pipeline, and coastal waters.”

7)     “Obviously as the Green Party [MLA], I’d prefer to keep it in the ground as much as possible and start to invest sooner than later into the low-carbon economy of tomorrow, but I’m pragmatic and I recognize at some point one may need to develop a compromise and a compromise solution is one that would actually give jobs in B.C.”

8)      “He said the upgraded synthetic crude, while still posing some environmental challenges, would be better than a diluted bitumen pipeline similar to the one proposed by Northern Gateway.”

9)     “As far as I’m concerned, the Northern Gateway project is dead”

10)  “But you don’t move society forward by only saying no to everything.”

That sure doesn’t look like advocating for a specific project. In fact, you’ll also note:

11)  “Weaver doesn’t think its appropriate for an MLA to endorse or advocate for a specific project”

We must find solutions to transition our society away from fossil fuels in general, and coal in particular.  However we must also recognize that this transition will not happen overnight. The coming decades will still see oil in our plastics and gas in our cars.

The British Columbia Green Party is a party of solutions, principled, pragmatic, and focused on building a prosperous Green British Columbia. To do this, we must be prepared to think outside the box and give any proposal a fair hearing, assessing it on its merits and then deciding what is in the best interest of the Province.

But it is British Columbians alone who can make these decisions.  I believe that our democracy should be healthy enough for us to discuss the options we have and difficulties we face, without rushing to judgment.  Our province has great potential, but it is only when we can talk together, that we can move toward the future we deserve.

And finally, let’s be clear, the BC Green Party is not a protest movement. We are a political party trying to move us forward towards a sustainable world recognizing that we are not there now. That is why I am hoping to reinvigorate the energy debate in BC. We need to discuss uncomfortable issues in an open and honest way. To those politicians who claim to be so concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, where are your voices in opposition to the proposed expansion of thermal coal exports? To those politicians who claim to be concerned about heavy oil spills, where are your voices with respect to existing dilbit transported to Burnaby and through our coastal waters? You should be joining me in demanding that bitumen is upgraded to synthetic crude in Alberta and that heavy oil be kept out of our coastal waters. To those politicians who claim to be against pipelines, where are your voices with respect to the growing trend of rail transport and the fact that the common carrier obligation prohibits a rail company from saying no to transport.

It’s time to get politics out of environmental policy and environmental policy into politics. After all, the environment really doesn’t care what political party you belong to.

Media Statement December 19, 2013
BC Greens call for sixth condition for heavy oil pipelines
For immediate release

Victoria BC – In response the NEB Joint Review Panel’s final decision to approve Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline, BC Green Party MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, Andrew Weaver, and BC Green Party Leader Adam Olsen are calling on the BC Government to establish a 6th condition for support of heavy oil pipeline projects: A moratorium on dilbit transport along the B.C. coast.

“We are quite disappointed with the JRP report in respect to the risks related to dilbit,” says Andrew Weaver. “The key issue is dilbit because it’s different from refined oils that float on the surface–up to 50% of dilbit sinks making clean-up significantly more difficult if not impossible. We have no way of knowing what would happen if dilbit were to spill on our coast. The science isn’t there to allow for effective spill response and this was not reflected in the report.”

According to the report “Northern Gateway and other hearing participants did not agree on the behaviour of diluted bitumen spilled into water.”

Meanwhile, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has made it clear that “Behaviour models specific to dilbit spills do not exist, and existing commercial models for conventional oil do not allow parameter specific modifications.”

“Clearly the report did not do an adequate job of addressing the risks of dilbit on our coast.” says Adam Olsen. “We have a choice as British Columbians: We can continue to play Russian roulette with our pristine coastline, or we can stand up for British Columbia and put a moratorium on dilbit transport along our coast.”

Mat Wright – Press Secretary Andrew Weaver MLA

mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

1 250 216 3382

Media Statement December 19, 2013
Northern Gateway, Joint Review Panel – Conditional ‘Yes’
For immediate release

Victoria BC – Today the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel released its report to the Federal Cabinet on Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline. The panel’s conditional ‘yes’ is deeply concerning, considering the opposition by the BC Government, First Nations, environmental groups and the majority of the people of the province.

However, it is the 209 conditions that apply for the project to proceed which require emphasis. The Federal Cabinet must ensure that these conditions will be fully met before approving the project. It is unclear how the marine spill response conditions can be fully met, given the lack of scientific research and understanding of how diluted bitumen behaves in a marine environment.

“To date, not a single oil spill response study has adequately accounted for what would happen if DilBit were to spill in the ocean. The BC Government has said they require world class, effective spill response capacity, but don’t yet know how they will evaluate this. How can we possibly gauge how well prepared we are for a DilBit spill if the science, the studies and the evaluative criteria don’t even exist?” Andrew Weaver MLA

The question remains if the recommendations will meet the five requirements outlined by the BC Government, or even if the Northern Gateway Project itself can satisfy the conditions outlined by the Joint Review Panel. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs remain firmly opposed, and their participation is vital for the project to move forward.

“It is deeply concerning that the Joint Review Panel has recommended the approval of the Northern Gateway Pipeline. The vast majority of British Columbians have made it clear they are opposed to the pipeline. My question to the Christy Clark is: Will you stand up for BC like you promised during the election and stop this pipeline, or will you stand by while the Federal government impose its will on our province?” Adam Olsen, Interim Leader BC Green Party

Mat Wright – Press Secretary Andrew Weaver MLA
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca
1 250 216 3382

Photo above: Matt Babicki and Edson Ng,  G4 Insights Inc.

The National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel (JRP) has now released its final report approving the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project. The project would see 525,000 barrels of the heavy oil diluted bitumen (dilbit) transported across British Columbia each day and loaded onto super tankers for shipment to international refineries. The project is yet another manifestation of a pattern of digging up Canada’s raw resources and shipping them to other countries with no value-added manufacturing or refining done locally. Yet what makes this proposal particularly problematic is the significant economic and environmental risk that we in B.C. face, should a spill occur.

If you look at the numbers, B.C. is projected to receive roughly $1.2 billion in tax revenue from the Northern Gateway pipeline over the span of 30 years—that’s only $40 million a year towards a $44 billion provincial budget. Yet, according to the UBC Fisheries Economic Research Unit, the economic cost of a single major tanker spill is estimates to be between $2.4 and $9.5 billion—that’s between 2 and 8 times more than the total 30-year economic benefit of the pipeline—in one spill.

Meanwhile, to date no oil spill response study has been able to account for dilbit; studies have only analyzed what would happen in the case of a spill from more commonly shipped crude oil. Unfortunately dibit is unlike other crude oils in that whereas most oils will float on the surface, up to 50% of dilbit will sink. Once that happens, we don’t know where it will go, how it will interact with currents and tides or how we could reasonably clean it up. In some areas it is projected that only 3% of floating crude oil could be cleaned up in the event of a spill. That number is already dismally low. With dilbit it would be even lower. According to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ own recent submission to Treasury Board: “Behaviour models specific to dilbit spills do not exist, and existing commercial models for conventional oil do not allow parameter specific modifications.”

Yet, we have an opportunity now to shift away from our old economic model of selling our raw resources solely for short-term profit and instead position ourselves for the long-term.

Let me offer two examples.

If we are going to develop the tar sands, and if we must transport oil along our coast, then at the very least let’s refine it first. This would offer two benefits: First, it would offer greater economic benefit for all British Columbians, as we would benefit from a value-added refining and spin-off petrochemical industry instead of shipping those jobs to Asia. Second, it would significantly decrease the environmental impact of a marine-based oil spill, as refined oil products (such as gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel) are much easier to clean up than dilbit. Let me be clear, this on its own is not an ideal solution and it does not protect us from the ecological consequences of a marine-based oil spill, but it certainly mitigates the risk when compared to shipping dilbit.

However, building a future economy based solely on the exploitation of a depleting resource will not steer us towards the low-carbon pathway that so many other nations are choosing to follow. That’s why British Columbia should seize the opportunity of promoting the expansion of our clean technology (cleantech) industry. With our abundance of renewable natural resources, our highly educated workforce, our-business friendly tax structure and our reputation for innovation, British Columbia is uniquely positioned to become a leader in this sector—a sector that focuses on the production, storage, transmission and end-use of renewable energy. Just yesterday I toured Burnaby-based G4 Insights Inc’s portable thermochemical facility designed to produce compressed natural gas for vehicular transport from wood waste. We need to grow our nascent cleantech companies, like G4 Insights, rather than allow them to be scooped up and exported to the US. The cleantech sector offers long-term, high-paying and local jobs. Yet developing this industry to its full potential requires the market to be sent a strong signal from government that this is the direction we want to head.

Today’s JRP’s decision is simply a recommendation to the Federal Government. Ultimately it will be Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet who decide if the Northern Gateway pipeline project is approved. My challenge to both our Federal and Provincial governments is this: Let’s keep dilbit out of our coastal waters, keep the jobs in Canada, and position ourselves for tomorrow by building Canada’s capacity for cleantech.

Facts and Questions

Fact 1: Currently, 300,000 barrels of heavy oil are transported across B.C. in Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline each day. Kinder Morgan plans to nearly triple this capacity while Enbridge has applied to build a new pipeline to the west coast. If approved, the two pipelines would increase the amount of heavy oil coming to our coast to a total of 1,415,000 barrels per day. In addition to the pipeline proposals, rail options are also being considered to transport up to 525,000 barrels of heavy oil to the B.C. coast each day.

Fact 2: According to (1) Premier Christy Clark, (2) the reports commissioned by the Ministry of the Environment and (3) the Province’s submission to the Joint Review Panel on the Northern Gateway Pipeline, British Columbia is woefully unprepared for a heavy oil spill. The Province’s submission also states that regardless of whether or not additional resources are committed, effective spill response is “impossible or severely constrained” in certain regions of the province.

Comment: I applaud the Premier for being consistent in requiring five conditions to be met before supporting enhanced heavy oil tanker traffic on the coast. I also applaud her for publicly recognizing the fact that B.C. is woefully unprepared for a heavy oil spill. Yet at the same time as the Premier is recognizing this, she is also signalling that progress is being made in meetings with Alberta Premier Alison Redford towards meeting her government’s five conditions.

My concern is that because global knowledge of diluted bitumen is so limited, the government’s current standard of “world-leading” is actually a very low standard that, frankly speaking, could easily be met without ever developing a truly effective spill response capacity. In other words, “world-leading” standards will not protect our coast from a heavy oil spill. I have therefore asked the Premier in an open letter to clarify what criteria her government uses to evaluate a “world-leading” or “effective” spill response capacity. Only by having this information can we make a fully informed choice about whether the likely benefits outweigh the enormous risks.

Fact 3: Proposals to build refineries that can turn bitumen into value-added products prior to export are already being considered in both B.C. and Alberta. Proponents of these refineries argue that it would stimulate more investment and jobs here in Canada, meaning we would exact greater gains from our limited natural resources.

Fact 4: Refined oils are, comparatively speaking, much safer to transport than diluted bitumen. There is significantly more knowledge of how to clean up refined oils, including existing procedures, protocols, equipment and expertise. According to documents from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), this knowledge does not currently exist for bitumen, meaning it is much more dangerous to transport.

Comment: The plan to transport diluted bitumen by pipeline across B.C. for export to international markets is both environmentally risky and economically short-sited. It is looking for the quick dollar at the expense of a potentially bigger dollar—and our environment.

If we are going to continue developing the Alberta oil sands, and if oil sands products are going to be transported across B.C., then shouldn’t we seriously consider exporting refined products like gasoline and jet-fuel instead of diluted bitumen?

Refined products could sell for higher prices and stimulate the development of value-added industries (including petrochemical industries). Exporting refined, as opposed to raw, products could create more local jobs in Canada while eliminating the risk of a dilbit spill on our coastline. Taking this further, refining bitumen close to where it is extracted would also minimize the risk of a land-based dilbit spill from a leaking pipeline.

My Assessment

The threat of a heavy oil spill on the B.C. coast is not a distant possibility. Tankers leave from Vancouver habour ever week and if the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain pipeline proposals are approved, the number of tankers will increase dramatically.

Some risks are necessary; others are not. While Premier Christy Clark has publicly recognized that B.C. is “woefully” unprepared for a heavy oil spill, the Province’s submission to the Joint Review Panel for the Northern Gateway pipeline has clearly stated that effective spill response is “impossible or severely constrained” in certain regions of the province. Meanwhile, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has made it clear that not enough is known about what would happen to diluted bitumen were it to spill into the ocean.

The chances that a heavy oil spill will occur may be small, but the risks are massive—not just the environmental risks but also the economic risks. What would happen to the tourism or fishery industries if there was a spill in or near Vancouver habour?

The more we increase the number of heavy oil tankers, the higher the chance that a spill will occur. We need to be smart about how we manage this risk and to recognize that, in some cases, if we cannot manage the risk, we should not be shipping the product.

I have therefore proposed two ideas:

1. I have called for a moratorium on tankers carrying diluted bitumen on the B.C. coast.
2. I have proposed that if we are going to continue developing the Alberta oil sands, and if that oil is going to cross B.C., then at the very least, we should seriously consider refining it into value-added products prior to transportation and export, in order to increase the economic benefits and decrease the environmental risks.

Further Reading

Christy Clark’s statement to Mansbridge: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christy-clark-warns-canada-unprepared-for-tanker-oil-spills-1.1876514

Five conditions for heavy oil pipelines: http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2012/07/british-columbia-outlines-requirements-for-heavy-oil-pipeline-consideration.html

Spill response reports: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/main/west-coast-spill-response-study/

Province’s submission on Northern Gateway: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/main/docs/2013/BC-Submission-to-NGP-JointReviewPanel_130531.pdf

Oil by rail: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cn-feds-eyeing-oil-by-rail-to-prince-rupert-b-c-1.1863916