That the two premiers finally are singing from the same song book marks progress but means little in terms of broadening popular support for the pipeline megaprojects being planned for B.C.
Enbridge continues struggling to sell its Northern Gateway project and Kinder Morgan soon will face long odds in pitching its Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.
Corporate assurances about safety, and promises of economic benefits, remain worthless to British Columbians who continue to have doubts about tanker safety, Canada’s capacity to respond to a spill and who bears ultimate liability for a cleanup.
A comment by Clark in early October — “we are woefully under resourced” — only reaffirmed negative feelings about the pipeline proposals, as did a subsequent provincial study pointing to the likelihood that only two-thirds of any oil would be recoverable after a spill.
“We’re going to improve it to the extent necessary,” federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver quickly responded. “We’re utterly committed to world-class safety.”
That’s reassuring. But, for now, British Columbians have every right to tell both the pipeline-happy feds and companies involved: “Go away, and come back when you’re ready.”
It would be presumptuous for the Harper government to approve Northern Gateway — as many believe it’s poised to do early next year — in the absence of clarity about the above-mentioned trio of uncertainties.
A federal panel studying tanker safety, appointed by Ottawa last spring, is set to deliver its report any time now.
But here’s what we know so far should a spill occur off B.C.:
• The oil and pipeline companies would not assume responsibility. As Kinder Morgan states in a June submission to the tanker safety panel: “Our strict obligation for tanker safety ends once the tankers leave the Westridge Marine Terminal [in Burnaby].”
• That suggests the tanker companies would bear responsibility. But, according to maritime law, their maximum liability is $1.3 billion. Canadian taxpayers would be on the hook for funds beyond that. And note, estimates of the potential cost of a B.C. spill run in excess of $20 billion.
• Tanker companies have proven to be notoriously disinterested when it comes to accidents. “Oil tanker companies have found ways to limit their liability,” warns a YouTube video prepared by the Coastal First Nations in B.C. “They form one-ship companies whose only assets are the ship itself.”
Tankers often are registered in Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands, the aboriginal organization points out. Under Panamanian and Liberian flags of convenience, tankers avoid the rigorous regulations of the ship owner’s country. They also become legally anonymous and difficult to prosecute.
• Another problematic issue: Canada’s preparedness for a spill. Transport Canada requires responders to be prepared to handle oil spills only up to 10,000 tonnes — a much lower capability than in the U.S., where responders must be ready for a 30,000-tonne spill.
Clearly none of these facts offer comfort to British Columbians fretting about a spill.
And making necessary upgrades and improvements will take time. While a major stumbling block to the Northern Gateway project has been identified as aboriginal objections, an equally thorny challenge is posed by public opinion.
People aren’t stupid. They’ve figured out oil and pipeline companies and the Harper Conservatives want to get oil to the coast for their own economic reasons.
Those reasons bear little relation to the imperative of preserving B.C.’s magnificent and life-sustaining coastline for public benefit and enjoyment.
Original Article
Source: vancouversun.com
Author: Barbara Yaffe
No comments:
Post a Comment