It’s not every day a national drama plays out just down the street, but Confederation’s latest battlefield is Burrard Inlet, which is literally just down the street from almost anywhere on the North Shore.
The battle is about oil. Simply put, Team Alberta says it’s losing $1.5 billion a year because it can’t get its oil sands petroleum to international markets. It supports the expansion of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline to Burnaby, which will provide access to markets it seeks.
Team B.C. says what? That would mean 444 tankers a year, full of something nasty called diluted bitumen, squeezing under the Second Narrows bridge and making their way out to sea. Team B.C. wants to prevent the expansion from going ahead until we’re 100 per cent sure a tanker spill could be successfully cleaned up.
The combatants, strangely enough, are on the same team. Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and B.C. Premier John Horgan are both New Democrats. But this is a giant case of not in my backyard, and party allegiances count for nothing. It all depends how close you are to what could be the worst marine oil spill disaster ever.
In our case, we couldn’t get any closer, could we?
So when Alberta’s Notley says her province will boycott B.C. wine unless Horgan removes his barrier to expansion, we, the citizens of the North Shore, are compelled to remark: Bring it on. And what else have you got?
Even if you are inclined to support the pipeline expansion, it’s at least reasonable to figure out if a spill can be cleaned up. No one knows for sure. Wars are good for rallying cries, and ours should be: “Remember the Exxon Valdez!” Twenty-nine years ago this March, the tanker ran aground, spilling 260,000 barrels of oil into Prince William Sound off Alaska, ruining 2,000 kilometres of pristine coastline. The spill was never fully cleaned up and the area is still recovering.
In the face of this threat, Rachel, you’ll pardon us if we shrug in the direction of your little wine boycott.
The Alberta premier calls Horgan’s threat to stop the expansion while he determines the capacity for cleanup “illegal.” And it is. But is “illegal” worse than “immoral” or “dangerously oblivious”?
Nonetheless, the National Energy Board and the federal government have cleared the project to go ahead, and pipelines are a federal jurisdiction. Prime Minister Justin Selfie keeps insisting the pipeline will get built, but you’ll notice he doesn’t exactly say when ... keeping his options open?
Meanwhile, this national incident is turning into an international incident. Joel Connelly, a columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, has caught wind of Rachel Notley’s wine boycott, and in his Feb. 8 column has called for the good citizens of Washington to stand in solidarity with B.C. His rallying cry? “Lift your cups in support of British Columbia: Buy B.C. wines.”
After looking at a map, Connelly has joined the forces of reason in B.C.: “No way,” he writes, “that a spill would be restricted to Canadian water.” Along with Horgan, he’s not convinced we could clean up a spill even if we have the resources (and that’s another thing – who gets stuck with the bill? According to Maclean’s magazine, the Exxon Valdez spill cost more than US$6 billion to clean up, and after 14 years of court battles, Exxon ended up being liable for US$507 million.).
So, Connelly argues: “British Columbia seems to not be asking for too much, just a modest use of intelligence – thorough studies of what the impact of this stuff would be if it got in the water ... .”
Things just got interesting. Connelly is a Pacific Northwest journalistic institution – he’s been holding forth since 1973 – so there’s an off chance he could have some influence.
However, I’m not sure anything will steer Notley from her course toward the rocks. I’ve thought of inviting her to take a stroll in the hood, particularly on a sunny day along Malcolm Lowry’s trail along the Cates Park shoreline. Maybe then she’ll be able to appreciate the risk.
Later we can have coffee (maybe a glass of B.C.’s best for the white wine socialist) and get serious about making sure this pipeline expansion project is as safe as she says it is. If she’s so convinced, we’ll get her to cover the cost of cleanup. She should realize it could cost more than $1.5 billion – the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill on the Gulf Coast cost a cool US$62 billion.
Then we’ll see if she really thinks it’s worth the risk.
Journalist Paul Sullivan has been a North Van resident since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the rise of Madonna. [email protected]
What are your thoughts? Send us a letter via email by clicking here or post a comment below.
