Nov 18, 2010
A History Of Oil Off Our Coast
Many British Columbians are up in arms over the threats oil expansion and oil transportation
are posing to our communities. The devastation that oil production and transportation can
cause has become all too clear this past year with the infamous Deepwater Horizon offshore
oil rig explosion.
Where do we sit in terms of oil exploration and transportation in BC? What is the history
behind this issue and where do we currently stand?
Opposition to oil and gas transportation in our province in coastal waters has been building
this year with many meetings and rallies being organized by such groups as No Tanks, Forest
Ethics, The Dogwood Initiative, The Western Canadian Wilderness Committee and
Greenpeace. Their efforts to inform and engage the public are commendable. Some citizens
voice confusion, however, as they are under the impression that there is a moratorium on
offshore oil exploration and transportation on our coast. What exactly is the status of
regulations on oil exploration and transportation off our coasts? Having been involved in
lobbying on this issue since the 1970s, SPEC wishes to provide some clarity on this complex
issue.
Offshore oil and gas
According to a BC Ministry of Energy website, the first offshore oil well in BC was dug in 1913
in the Queen Charlotte Basin. Over the next decades oil exploration increased alongside the
debate over the propriety of the seabed of the Salish Sea (Georgia Straight). Public
awareness of the risks of oil exploration and NGO opposition also rose, culminating in a 1972
federal policy decision to not approve any new exploration permits or programs off the west
coast and to suspend all work obligations under existing permits (BC Ministry of Energy
Website). In 1984 the Straight of Georgia was declared the property of the Province of BC by
the Supreme Court of Canada and independent reviews of the environmental and socioeconomic risks and benefits of offshore oil development began the same year. From 1984 to
2007, various studies and consultations were conducted, in general offering the opinion that
exploration could go forward if 92 specific recommendations were met. However in 1989 BC
made a “policy announcement that there will be no drilling offshore for at least five years” and
Canada announced “it will not consider any development in the offshore until requested to by
British Columbia” (BC Ministry of Energy Website). In 2007, BC’s Energy Plan included
details on a request to lift the federal ban and subsequently lift the provincial ban on offshore
oil exploration, however most recently, in May of 2010, the federal government re-affirmed its
commitment to maintaining the moratorium on offshore oil development in BC (Vancouver
Sun article).
Oil Transportation
The status of a moratorium on offshore oil transportation is similarly complex. In addition, the
south coast and north coasts have been subject to different histories. In general,
transportation of oil in southern waters is a long standing practice. Concerns over the risks of
oil transportation through more treacherous northern waters have done much to stem oil
development and transportation north of Vancouver.
North coast –
The first proposal for the building of a pipeline and oil transportation port in Kitimat, BC came
from Kinder Morgan in the 1970s. Public opposition resulted in the commissioning of a report
by then Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau and a subsequent Canadian policy against
increased oil development off our coast and, according to our BC of Energy Website, in the
1971 passing of a “BC legislature resolution opposing tanker traffic off the west coast”.
Unfortunately, again, these agreements appear to be not wholly binding. The below slide
from the Fisheries and Oceans Canada is the only evidence SPEC was able to find at this
time of the moratorium (note that this information does not match exactly with that provided by
the BC Ministry of Energy). Another is SPEC’s records, which follow.
From the Dogwood Initiative
From SPEC archives
Seemingly taking advantage of the non-binding nature of the so-called moratorium on oil
tanker traffic in BC’s Northern waters, Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Project submitted its
project application to the National Energy Board on May 27, 2010. The project would see an
entirely new pipeline constructed from the Alberta tar sands to Kitimat. In fact, the project
would consist of two elements, a westerly flowing oil pipeline carrying “an average of 525,000
barrels of petroleum per day” and an east flowing pipe carrying 193,000 barrels of condensate
per day (condensate is used to thin oil for transport) (Northern Gateway Project info online).
The review process is slated to continue into 2012, with construction planned for 2013. The
chief purpose of this pipeline is to supply Chinese markets with oil from Alberta. Prior to
2006, Enbridge signed a memorandum of understanding with PetroChina “to supply 31 800
m3/d (200 Mb/d) of crude oil to China” (2006 National Energy Board report).
Opposition to the project has been widespread, with some calling for Enbridge to withdraw its
application solely on the basis that the Environmental Assessment process would be a waste
of taxpayer money. Enbridge’s track record has similarly been tarnished this year by three
pipeline leaks (September 2010 Globe and Mail article).
According to the Living Oceans Society, 2006 saw the federal government allow tankers
carrying oil condensate through the inside passage to the port of Kitimat. LOS states that
“Although chemically condensate is classified as a crude oil, the government has argued that
the properties of condensate make it more like a gas than an oil and therefore have allowed it
to be transported” (Living Oceans Society Website). Again, the ability for governments to
reinterpret the loosely held moratorium is a continued point of contention for those concerned
with the preservation of our pristine northern coastline and its resident communities.
South coast –
Vancouver has long served as a transportation port for oil travelling to the United States from
Alberta. This is because oil pipelines from Alberta’s tar sands lead to the oil refinery in
Burnaby, BC. See the below image “Major Canadian and U.S. Crude Oil Pipelines and
Markets” for a visual representation of the extent of oil pipelines in North America.
However, south coast oil tanker traffic has been a hot media topic of late due to concerns
over increased volumes of oil through our waters. According to a June 2010 article by the
Tyee, oil tanker traffic in Vancouver’s harbour has increased from 45 per year in 2008 to 65 in
2010 (Anderson, June 3 2010), The tankers transport oil from Alberta’s tar sands to California
and Asia. Last year exports hit four million metric tonnes, or about 29 million barrels,
according to Metro Port Vancouver.
from Canada’s Oil Sands: Opportunities and Challenges to 2015: An Update: An Energy Market
Assessment June 2006, National Energy Board/Government of Canada publication. Online:
http://www.neb.gc.ca/clfnsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/lsnd/pprtntsndchllngs20152006/pprtntsndchllngs20152006-eng.pdf
From Alaska Canadian oil moving within Canadian waters is, unfortunately, not the only area for concern.
Oil travelling along our coast from Alaska is also a threat, especially to northern communities.
In 1988, one year before the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaskan waters, the Canadian Coast
Guard, the US Coast Guard and representatives from US tanker industry groups agreed to a
Tanker Exclusion Zone (TEZ). The agreement is managed by the Coast Guard and
specifically requires that tankers traveling from Alaska to the continental states remain west of
the zone depicted in the below image. The agreement has tankers remain “77 miles to the
west of Cape St. James, 60 miles from Triangle Island, 40 miles from Estevan Point”
(Canadian Coast Guard Website). The existing Tanker Exclusion Zone does not, however
apply to tankers traveling to and from northern BC ports and anecdotal reports suggest that
low enforcement has resulted in tankers not observing this agreement.
Tanker Exclusion Zone from Canadian Coast Guard Website
In addition to the TEZ, Coastal First Nations from the North and Central Coast of British
Columbia and Haida Gwaii have declared a moratorium on oil tankers within their traditional
territorial waters.
Encouragingly, in 2010 all federal opposition parties committed to a legislated tanker ban in
BC’s northern waters.
For example, the Liberal Party pledged to, among other actions “formalize the existing B.C.
crude oil tanker moratorium, through regulation, legislation or both, to prevent crude oil tanker
traffic through the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound” (July 7th, 2010,
communication from the office of M. Ignatieff).
Conclusion
The potential harm of an oil spill off our coast has been brought vividly to life many times,
including in 1989 by the Exxon Valdez oil spill and this year by the Deepwater Horizon oil rig
explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. The issue is compounded by the fact that the expansion of
oil transportation infrastructure to our coast allows for increased oil sands development, a
source that is widely seen as the dirtiest form of oil (for more see Andrew Nikiforuk’s Tar
Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent, Greystone Books 2008).
The potential for oil tanker traffic in BC’s coastal waters to harm human and ecosystem health
is great. SPEC supports efforts to formalize a ban on oil transportation on our north coast, to
enforce the agreed upon Tanker Exclusion Zone and to reduce with an eye to eventually
eliminating tanker traffic in all our waters. Increasing our capacity to feed dirty oil to local and
overseas markets is counterproductive to our communities’ efforts to mitigate climate change
and build healthier, more sustainable cities.