Blogwood
You are here: Home Blog Kinder Morgan: Under the radar?
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 by Celine Trojand

Kinder Morgan: Under the radar?

Kinder Morgan: Under the radar?

Kinder Morgan would expand the frequency of oil shipments by 405% by 2016. Image: Ecstatacist.


B.C. local governments say whoa there cowboy to Kinder Morgan pipeline and oil tanker expansion plans through Juan de Fuca Strait.

Late one afternoon near the end of September during the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) conference in Vancouver, I watched Victoria City Councillor Philippe Lucas step up to the microphone. He was bringing a special emergency resolution to the floor for a vote. It was the culmination of weeks of hard work by many municipal leaders such as Mayor Derek Corrigan and Burnaby city councillors Dan Johnston and Sav Dhaliwal and Mayor Dean Fortin and Victoria councillor Chris Coleman. Councillor Lucas heaved a sigh of relief when the resolution passed by an overwhelming majority, which I’m sure he shared with those who had worked so hard to communicate the urgency of the issue to other delegates.

 The resolution, “LR6, Oil Tankers and Pipelines in BC”, was co-sponsored by the city councils of Victoria and Burnaby. It shines a light on a pressing though under-reported concern that could affect millions of British Columbians: the planned expansion of oil tanker traffic through the waters of the Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island.

The UBCM conference is like a local government Annual General Meeting, Christmas party and staff retreat all rolled into one week of non-stop action. It’s where our local municipal representatives get together and make decisions on province-wide issues and demand the attention of the provincial government. I showed up this year specifically to talk with representatives about my concerns regarding oil tankers and the planned Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion.

Oil tanker traffic out of the Westridge terminal in Burnaby has increased from 22 tankers a year in 2005 to 71 in 2010. That’s a whopping 322% increase! These tankers fill up with oil sands crude from Kinder Morgan’s existing Trans Mountain pipeline and then ply some of the busiest waters in B.C. from Burnaby through the Burrard Inlet, English Bay, Georgia Strait, Haro Strait and then down Juan de Fuca Strait. If there was an oil spill, millions of people in the most populous communities in B.C. along the southern coast would be affected. Residents of Sidney, Vancouver, Delta, the Southern Gulf Islands, Oak Bay, Victoria, Saanich and Whiterock could all find crude oil washing up on their shores.

Kinder Morgan has plans to further expand the size and frequency of oil shipments by 405% by 2016. That’s 288 super tankers a year! The planning for this expansion is going on largely below the radar of most British Columbians. So far, there has been no active public consultation or solicitation of local government input. This is because Kinder Morgan’s expansions have been pursued incrementally and so haven’t triggered a thorough review process.

Once alerted to this sneaky expansion strategy, Victoria and Burnaby city councillors immediately went to work to co-sponsor and submit their emergency resolution, in which they demand that the National Energy Board and Port Metro Vancouver ensure that any future applications undergo “the highest degree of environmental assessment and meaningful public consultation, including direct engagement with affected municipalities, regional authorities and BC First Nations.”

I managed to catch-up with councillor Lucas shortly after the conference and debrief with him about the resolution. “We managed to pull LR6 and make a strong argument and I think what we did was stand up for the rights of residents and municipalities. We cannot be left out of the consultative process” he told me. Lucas’ experience at the UBCM conference gives him hope, “I always find that municipal politicians are far more progressive on environmental and social issues than at provincial or federal levels. We’re closer to the ground and more in contact with the general population.”

My experience at the UBCM conference underscored how important mayors, councillors and regional directors are when it comes to big issues that matter most to British Columbians. And guess what? We’re moving into B.C.’s municipal election season! If we want to build healthy resilient communities we need to start at home by electing smart and bold leaders. Lucas reminded me that at the UBCM it’s us, the voters, who determine the political outcomes: “motions appear [at the UBCM] because the people of BC say that these things matter.”

If issues like the expansion of oil tankers, the agricultural land reserve or coal mining in BC are important to you, start at home and elect champions on those issues. Find out who your candidates are and ask them tough questions. It’s time local communities organized and asserted their rights alongside First Nations governments to determine how our shared land, water, air and resources are used or protected.

 

Thank you to Ecstatacist on Flickr for the image. Used under a creative commons license.

 




Facebook Share Button Twitter Button

Rob says:
Oct 20, 2011 02:05 PM
Excellent article. Because of joining the Dogwood Initiative I have been able to get the 'other' side of the story as the mainstream media does not present in depth.

Due to this, I have engaged in local politics and DO ask those tough questions, write letters, phone, and basically 'won't go away.'

I want to leave my province and my country in better shape for my future generations and not just the wallets of those that really don't give a damn about our beautiful planet.
Casador says:
Oct 20, 2011 02:06 PM
Did any of those Vancouver Island types ask that the tankers that supply 100% of their liquid fuels to Vancouver Island be banned? Yeah, right! Do we declare war on the Americans to stop their hundreds of tankers annually that ply the St of Juan de Fuca? There is nothiong "sneaky" about the KM application except to those who cannot or chose not to read. Did you check to ensure tht all the products are "tar sand crude oil"?
Celine says:
Oct 20, 2011 03:08 PM
Hi Casador,
In answer to your questions:
- The resolution itself specifically identifies bulk crude oil tankers, so very large oil tankers that are filled with oil sands crude, not smaller tankers carrying fuel to Vancouver Island and other coastal communities.

- Oil transported through the Trans Mountain pipeline system is done in batches of refined, semi refined and crude. The refined products are sent to via pipeline (Trans Mountain is twinned) to the U.S. while the crude is sent to the Westridge Marine terminal. So yes, my understanding is that the 80,000 bpd shipped out of Westridge is all oil sands crude.

- As to declaring war on the Americans, that seems a bit offside. This is an issue of asserting local control. The communities that lie along the tanker route (as principal stakeholders and people who will be feeling the impacts and risks of the proposal) should definitely have a say in any further expansion.
Susanne Shaw says:
Oct 20, 2011 04:43 PM
It's Tar Sands, not an Esso'd invented framing euphemism, like mere oil sands. Be courageous. Say it like it is. It's TAR. Go up there on a sunny day and see and smell for yourself. Go visit the graves of the dead downstream. Anybody who thinks that a pipeline for that stuff is a good idea needs to grab a brain. People need to stop watching global BS and listening to the McScientists from the Fraser Instapuke.
Karl Hardin says:
Oct 20, 2011 04:48 PM
Thanks for the comment Susanne,

In regards to the distinction between 'tar sands' and 'oil sands' terminology I suggest you read the following article by the Tyee's Geoff Dembicki: http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/04/25/TarVsOil/

Here's an excerpt:

As it turns out, suggests statistical data collected by Vancouver pollster Angus McAllister, neither position -- environmental or industry -- seems quite aware of how regular folks interpret the language.

"Both terms are being used consciously by different sides for a desired effect," McAllister told the Tyee. But after trying to get to the bottom of the question, he finds "no data whatsoever to show that using 'oil sands' makes Canadians more accepting of the industry or creates a positive impression."

In fact, there's evidence "oil sands" creates more concern in people's minds than "tar sands."
Doug Brubaker says:
Oct 24, 2011 11:10 AM
People along tanker routes are conserned about their beaches, and quite rightly so! However lets not forget the larger concern. The tar sands industry is one of the most polluting industries in the world. The more we can limit the transportation of this dirty oil, the more we can limit its production. Less production means less water and air will be polluted and the better it will be for the planet.
Anonymous says:
Feb 06, 2012 03:35 PM
A 322% increase in traffic.....and loaded by an overworked and tired dock crew whose staffing levels were established in the 80's, when annual tanker traffic was below 22 tankers a year. A number of worker studies have proven that tired and overworked workers are very prone to mistakes and accidents. Big oil talks about jobs....this certainly has NOT been the case at their Westridge dock!
Add comment

You can add a comment by filling out the form below. Plain text formatting. Comments are moderated.

Protect our Pacific coast from oil spills

Plans to expand pipelines and supertanker traffic along the BC coast to service the Alberta oil sands are moving forward with support from the BC and Canadian Governments.

There's still time to protect coastal communities and livelihoods.

> Sign the petition now