Letter to the Kitimat Sentinel Editor

It didn’t take long for the “any development, at any cost, anywhere, at anytime” crowd to respond to the first hint of opposition to the Gateway Project.  Malcolm Baxter and Allan Hewitson would have us all believe that Enbridge and the energy industry want nothing more than for our communities to prosper.  I lived in Alaska when the pipeline went in there, and I well remember the promises then that an oil spill was impossible, and if it happened there was “state of the art” technology in Valdez to clean up any spill anyway.  Taking Allan Hewitson’s advice, or Enbridge’s, on the safety of oil tankers, is like getting advice from a tobacco company on the safety of smoking.  

As for Malcolm Baxter it’s hard to understand what his point is; it seems to be something like “I don’t like the way the press release was written so tankers are safe, conservation is bad, and we should build this project irrespective of the risks”.  What’s hard to take seriously are journalists who can find nothing better than sarcasm and ad hominem arguments to counter opinions they don’t agree with.  This is a serious issue that requires serious consideration, from serious people.  But let’s look at some facts instead.

Enbridge told me, personally, that a marine terminal in Kitimat would employ about 30 people.  The hardware store in Terrace employs about that many people.  Sorry Malcolm, Terrace is indeed local and also affected by this project.  Nothing against the hardware store, sorry to drag them into this, but the analogy illustrates a rather important point that both Malcolm and Allan have ignored – this project is not going to transform the local economy, that is unless some catastrophic accident happens, in which case the whole northern economy will most certainly be transformed. 

The question they could have asked, if they were serious, is are the known risks of the project worth the projected benefits? Even the Enbridge engineers who I have spoken with conceded that this is a very legitimate question that needs examination.  This is hot crude oil at 1500 pounds of pressure, not milk and cookies.   Some idiot shot a hole in the Alaska pipeline a few years back.  Want to guess how much oil can get through a 30 caliber hole at 1100 pounds of pressure in the three days it took them to plug it?  Try over 285,000 gallons. 

Or let’s try this one on if you don’t like hearing these messages from CPAWS; Pat Agnew, the Senior Pipeline Engineer contracted to the Gateway Project, who is an expert on this issue unlike Allan Hewitson or Malcolm Baxter, said that if a breach in the line occurs there is nothing they can do to prevent a lot of oil getting into the environment, and it may take days to even determine if a breach has occurred. Hewitson would like us to believe tankers are safe because they are modern and some of them have double bottoms.  But tankers, even those with double bottoms, sink with alarming frequency all over the world.  That’s a fact. 

Is it inevitable that a tanker coming into or leaving an oil terminal in Kitimat will have a catastrophic accident?  No.  Is it possible that it will happen? Absolutely.  Is it true that the complexity of this coastline and the severity of the weather make an accident more likely? Yes. Is it true if a spill happens on the scale of the Exxon Valdez, the consequence could be almost beyond comprehension? Yes. 

Hewitson seems to be saying in his column that the Queen of the North sailed the north coast for years and only sank once! Boy that makes me feel better. The point is this; there are serious risks associated with transporting enormous quantities of crude oil, and the consequences of a mishap are serious, and attacking folks who want to discuss the risks is not being responsible. Or particularly useful.

 It would be one thing if this terminal was resulting in employment or opportunity on the scale of the smelter, and that the environmental risks were manageable, and more importantly, mitigable in the case of mishap.  But they are not.  The most successful cleanups of major marine oil spills have recovered about 10% of spilled oil.  And that’s a best case scenario, in calm, warm waters.  Apologists for the oil industry, and Enbridge, would have us believe that spills will not happen, and if they do, they can be cleaned up.  That is simply a lie and they know it. 

 
Thirty jobs will not transform Kitimat, but a massive oil spill, which is possible if this project proceeds, will devastate this region for decades to come.   If Allan Hewitson really wants thirty more jobs in Kitimat he should convince his friends at Alcan to be a bit more civic minded than they have been of late, instead of his attacking a respected Canadian conservation organization.  For the record, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society does not oppose all development in the north, and we never have.  Our 20,000 members across Canada are, in fact, known for working with energy companies, forestry companies, and mining companies, in pursuit of the best possible outcomes for communities.  That a usually very conservative and careful organization like CPAWS found it necessary to adamantly oppose this project speaks volumes about its sanity though.  

Independent polling shows that 75% of the people in BC are opposed to oil tankers on this coast.  First Nations along the pipeline and tanker route have serious and growing concerns.  I would contend it is Allan and Malcolm who are out of touch with their communities, not CPAWS. This proposed pipeline is an important part of a very serious issue we all face as humans.  Unless you are completely in denial that the earth’s climate is changing, you want to be part of that discussion.  It’s a discussion that needs serious people of good will and fairness.   Allan and Malcolm need to get serious.