Skip to main content

British Columbia Gateway panel struggles over ‘world-class’ oil-spill response

A cleanup worker walks past oil-slicked rocks on the shores of Burrard Inlet, B.C., Thursday July 26, 2007. The Northern Gateway pipeline project is mired in arguments over the proponents’ spill-response plan.

SAM LEUNG/CP

The B.C. government says its support for the Northern Gateway pipeline is partly contingent upon a world-class oil-spill response plan, but the federal review panel weighing the project has heard that what constitutes "world-class" is open to a great deal of interpretation.

Enbridge's response plan exceeds standards simply because it has taken extended responsibility beyond the pipeline and tanker terminal, testified Ed Owens, a project consultant from Polaris Applied Sciences and one of 10 company experts being questioned under oath this week on marine oil spills.

"In reality, there is no standard, there is no number against which one can compare. International best practices are a combination of a number of things – not just equipment, not just how much boom, how many pumps you have – but how do you design the overall system," Mr. Owens said under questioning by B.C. government lawyers.

Story continues below advertisement

Even an agreement on world-standard response times and clean-up capacity eluded the panel. Northern Gateway has committed to a capacity to contain 36,000 cubic metres, or 32,000 tonnes, of oil within 10 days of a spill. Canadian regulations require a capacity of 10,000 tonnes. Alaska, in the wake of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, requires a capacity to clean up 47,700 cubic metres within 72 hours.

But the two cannot be compared, experts said. The type of skimmers, emulsifying of the oil in the water, the weather – all affect the response, the review panel was told.

Trying to eliminate the differences – even between Prince William Sound, where the Exxon Valdez dumped 41,600 cubic metres of oil into the Pacific, and the north coast of B.C. – is challenging, said Owen McHugh, another expert on the company panel.

"I'd like to remind you that we are operating in Canada, under Canadian jurisdiction, and the Canadian laws are for 10,000 tonnes within a very different model than what we're proposing," Mr. McHugh said. "We're proposing a similar style of response to a lot of other areas around the world, where we're planning on having major equipment on site to be able to deal with an incident."

According to a report issued Tuesday by the federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, regulations are not adequate to deal with major oil spills or an expected 300-per-cent increase in tanker traffic off the West Coast.

Paul Stanway, spokesman for Northern Gateway Pipelines, said that is an issue the company recognized from the outset, and that is why the project includes offshore emergency response.

"With or without the Gateway project, we're going to see vastly increased vessel traffic on the north coast, and we need to be prepared for that," Mr. Stanway said Tuesday.

Story continues below advertisement

While Northern Gateway has said it will go above and beyond the regulatory requirements, B.C.'s Environment Minister sayd it should not be up to individual companies to do so.

"We don't want a voluntary system," said Terry Lake, who attended the hearings Tuesday. "We want a regulated, legislated system that assures British Columbians that we have the best system available in the world to minimize risk and respond to any incidents.

"And we've been urging the federal government to do the same thing on the marine environment because, of course, British Columbians are very concerned about their coastline yet we don't have the regulatory ability to ensure that it is protected."

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter