Is this the risk we should take?
March 18, 2009
Smithers Interior News
On March 24, 1989 the Exxon Valdez began spilling what amounted to approximately 40 million litres of crude oil into Prince William Sound. While the incident ranks well down on the list of the world’s largest oil spills by volume, it is considered one of the most devastating.
As we commemorate the 20th Anniversary of the Exxon Valdez, it’s worth looking at the trauma that 40 million litres of misplaced oil can cause, and comparing it to what is being asked of Northern communities today.
The drama of the Exxon Valdez was exacerbated by where it occurred. Prince William Sound is not only remote and sparsely populated, it is also pristine and home to a rich diversity of marine life we value as a society.
This meant clean-up was difficult and that the oil exacted an ecological price and human risk far higher than the value of the economic activity generated by filling the tanker alone. The spill killed an estimated 22 orcas, 250,000 sea birds, 2,800 sea otters, 1.9 million salmon and 12.9 billion herring.
Today, Enbridge Inc. and its partners in the tar sands are asking Northern communities to accept huge risks for a scale of development that could permanently transform the face of the North. The proposal is to build two 1,170 kilometre pipelines between Alberta’s tar sands and the port of Kitimat.
One pipeline would move 525,000 barrels/day of dirty oil (three times the greenhouse gas emissions of conventional oil), and the other would import 100,000 barrels/day of condensate (a petrochemical by-product) to thin sticky bitumen. While Enbridge seems proud of their environmental record, they recorded 67 spills in 2006 and 65 spills in 2007. Despite best practices, spills can and will happen.
On paper, a pipeline may seem like a minor development project, but the Enbridge Gateway proposal threatens our values and way of life.
Do we want the risk these pipelines carry to cross some 870 streams and rivers, many in the Skeena and Upper Fraser watersheds? Do we want the risk of bringing hundreds of supertankers into some of BC’s most narrow, and pristine inlets and channels every year?
Do we want to be complicit in supporting expansion of the tar sands, one of the most destructive projects on earth, and the number one source of new greenhouse gas emissions in Canada?
Are all of these developments worth the mere 45 ongoing pipeline maintenance jobs promised by the company?
Personally, I have a hard time seeing the logic of exposing some of Canada’s most pristine natural environments to the risks of piping millions of barrels of the world’s dirtiest oil overseas.
The risks from the pipeline and tankers to our region are too great. It is not if, but when leaks and spills will occur. As we look back on the Exxon Valdez oil spill, we must take a good look at the Enbridge Gateway proposal and decide together what kind of development we want.
Do we want to sacrifice the safety and beauty of our region while aiding and abetting the acceleration of global climate change, or instead do we want to work as a region to promote and develop the green jobs and green energy projects of the future?
http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/interior-news/opinion/41343514.html
