British Columbia Key Conflicts
Offshore oil and gas exploration
There have been both federal and provincial moratoria on offshore oil and gas exploration in the Queen Charlotte Basin (which includes the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound) in British Columbia since 1972. While the federal government has maintained their moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration in the Queen Charlotte Basin, the provincial government formally requested removal of the federal moratorium in 2001. Several reports have since been published which examine the environmental risks associated with offshore oil and gas exploration in the Queen Charlotte Basin (QCB) and the implications of removing the moratoria–including the Royal Society of Canada’s scientific review panel report; the Report of the Public Review Panel, commissioned by Natural Resources Canada in 2004 (known as the Priddle Report); and several reports conducted under the Northern Coastal Information and Research Program (NCIRP). A First Nations perspective on the risks of removing the moratoria is provided within the Rights, Risk and Respect report commissioned by the federal government. While there were varying conclusions on whether to lift or maintain the moratoria, all reports highlighted the significant information gaps that must be filled in order to ensure precautionary environmental protection. These information gaps include, but are not limited to, a lack of oil spill trajectory modelling, baseline and monitoring data on ecologically important and harvested species, modelling of currents, winds and waves,and earthquake modelling(Royal Society 2004, 116). Other controversies highlighted in these reports included:
- Unknown impacts on marine species from seismic exploration;
- Creation of exclusion zones and Marine Protected Areas to protect species considered ‘endangered’, ‘threatened’, or ‘of special concern’–as outlined by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC);
- Lack of consensus between stakeholders (community members, environmental groups, business associations, and fishermen);
- Unanimous support for maintaining the moratorium amongst First Nations (see Rights, Risk and Respect report linked above);
- Increased GHG emissions; and
- Environmental risks including the disposal of waste water, the use of contaminants in mud cuttings, the possibility of oil spills or blowouts, and an increase in noise and the impacts of this on marine mammals and other marine life.
Royal Society of Canada Scientific Review Panel Report
http://www.rsc.ca/creports.php
Report of the Public Review Panel
Northern coastal Information and Research Program
http://www.unbc.ca/northern-communities-in-transition/oil-and-gas/ncirp
Hydraulic fracturing
The oil and gas industry purports that extracting unconventional natural gas from both shale plays and coalbed methane in British Columbia will play a significant role in Canada’s energy future. However, many environmental groups, Treaty 8 First Nations and farming communities are protesting the environmental and health risks associated with these unconventional fuel sources. Shale gas, or the gas trapped in hard shale rock, is mined through horizontal gas wells, and then extracted through hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ (A Primer for Understanding Canadian Shale Gas, 2009). Coalbed methane extraction, while still largely in the exploration phase in British Columbia, employs the same technique, with the added risk of ‘dewatering’ coal seams prior to fracturing (Holroyd and Campbell, 2007). The 2013 report on Oil and Gas Land Use in Northeastern British Columbia identifies the total natural gas production in BC during the 2012/13 fiscal year at 1.5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), half of which came from the two most active basins in the province located in northeastern BC. Over 85 per cent of a total 444 wells drilled during the 2012-2013 fiscal year were targeting unconventional sources (339 in the Montney Basin and 39 in the Horn River Basin, the most active basins in the province).
Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting a fracking fluid (composed of water and chemicals which are often unknown due to industry proprietary rights) and proppant (generally sand) into the shale rock or coal seam, causing new fractures which allow the natural gas to be extracted from horizontal wells. Environmental impacts or risks associated with hydraulic fracturing include contamination of drinking water, pollution of land and surface water, extensive water abstraction, waste water/fracture fluid treatment, the everyday impacts from increased traffic, noise and light pollution (see Parfitt 2010), and increased road infrastructure (see Adams 2010). Further controversies include: 1) increased GHG emissions due to the 12% carbon concentration in the Horn River shale basin (A Primer for Understanding Shale Gas, 2009, 13), and 2) the lack of consultation with Treaty 8 First Nations regarding the excessive water abstractions necessary for fracking (Parfitt, 2011, 36). A 2013 documentary, Fractured Land, identifies some existing struggles First Nations are having with these developments on traditional and treaty lands due to the growing fracking industry in northeastern BC.
Several states in the US have implemented more precautionary environmental policies for unconventional natural gas extraction, including implementing ‘no-go zones’ in New York following a 3 year moratorium, and implementing bills which require drillers to disclose which chemicals are found in fracking fluids in Wyoming, Michigan and Texas. Neither of these policies have been adopted in British Columbia. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also in the midst of conducting a national study to examine the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water.
Since 2010, several ENGOs and community groups, including the BC Tap Water Alliance, the Wilderness Committee, and the Sierra Club, are urging British Columbia to follow in Quebec’s footsteps by instituting a temporary moratorium to give the province time to investigate possible health risks, and for further community and First Nations consultation on possible ‘no-go zones’, more stringent regulations, or permanent fracking bans.
A Primer for Understanding Canadian Shale Gas
EPA’s Study of Hydraulic Fracturing
http://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/index.html
BC Tap Water Alliance
http://www.bctwa.org/FrackingBC.html
Wilderness Committee
http://wildernesscommittee.org/sven/stop_fracking_now
Sierra Club BC
http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/our-work/global-warming/issues/issues
Pipeline expansion
Several proposals are currently underway in British Columbia to expand the capacity of existing pipelines or to construct new pipelines for shipping various oil and gas products, including liquefied natural gas, condensate, and oil sands bitumen. These projects have each come under criticism from First Nations communities, the tourism industry, fishermen, and environmentalists. While the Enbridge Northern Gateway project is perhaps the most well-known and controversial pipeline proposal, other projects ( including the several LNG plants and terminal at Kitimat, the Pacific Trail Pipeline, and the expansion of the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline) carry heavy risks. The controversies surrounding each will be discussed below.
Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines
The Enbridge Gateway Project, initially proposed in 2005, has gone through the required Aboriginal and public review process under the joint review panel. Subject to approval, the initiation of construction was scheduled for 2013 and commercial start-up in late 2016. However, because of the controversial nature of this project, the process was delayed.The JRP report was submitted by the panel in December 2013 recommending the approval of the project subject to 209 mandatory conditions. This project involves construction of a marine terminal with 2 ship berths and 19 tanks near Kitimat, BC, a pipeline shipping condensate (also referred to as diluent) eastbound to Bruderheim, Alberta (near Edmonton), and a pipeline shipping diluted bitumen (dilbit) westbound to Kitimat, BC. It is expected that about 220 super tankers per year will be required to move the dilbit to expanding Asian markets.
This project is the most well-known and has received the significant opposition from First Nations and the public as well as media attention. A 2014 poll indicated that 2/3 of the provincial public opposes Northern Gateway. After the federal government’s June 2014 approval of the project, the provincial government warned that it remained opposed if specific conditions are not met. Following the landmark Supreme Court Tsilhquot’in decision of late June 2014, granting aboriginal title to unceded land in the province, media commentators declared the Northern Gateway project dead. Controversies include the following:
- The route crosses over 1,000 streams, including the salmon-bearing Upper Fraser and Skeena Rivers. Out of these 1,000, the line is proposed to cross at least 650 spawning rivers. This poses a significant risk to the salmon population in BC, as well as possible negative downstream impacts on BC’s fishing industry (Levy, 2009). In fact, salmon populations in BC are already at risk from industrial development. Beginning in late 2009, there has been an inquiry into the decline of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River, known as the Cohen Commission. Pipeline construction in these watersheds may exacerbate already declining salmon populations.
- Pipeline ruptures are a prominent concern due to the high-risk terrain, including land prone to avalanches, landslides, and flooding, and the Rocky and Coast Mountains. Several reports have highlighted Enbridge’s less than desirable pipeline spill history (Environmental Defence, 2011; Polaris Institute, 2010)–a history which includes 610 leaks between 1999 and 2008 (ForestEthics, 8).
- The proposed pipeline crosses no less than 64 First Nations territories, with many other territories being impacted indirectly. In late 2010, 61 First Nations gathered in Williams Lake to sign the Save the Fraser Gathering of Nations Declaration. Since then, more First Nations have signed the Declaration, with a total of 130 First Nations in British Columbia and Alberta opposing the project. The Coastal First Nations have also publicly announced their opposition to the Northern Gateway Pipeline.
- The construction of additional pipeline capacity may support and encourage further oil sands development (Brown et al. 2010). In fact, according to ForestEthics the tar sands production growth cited by Enbridge is based on unrealistic projections. In Enbridge’s application for the Northern Gateway Pipeline, not only do they use the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producer’s (CAPP) most optimistic scenario of Canadian oil production, but they make an ‘extended forecast’ that is not sanctioned by CAPP (ForestEthics 2011, 17). The extended forecast projects an increase of 1.0 million barrels per day by 2035 in Western Canadian oil production–this equates to a tripling of the 2010 oil sands production (ForestEthics 2011, 18).
- Some reports claim that there is an overcapacity for oil shipments in British Columbia (Lemphers, 2010). In fact, the Pembina Institute (2010) estimates that if neither the Enbridge Gateway Pipeline nor the Keystone XL pipeline were built, there would still be an overcapacity until 2022. Enbridge has done little to assuage the fears of overcapacity as they have yet to disclose shipper agreements for the pipeline—an unheard of phenomena in projects of this magnitude.
- The Enbridge Gateway Pipeline may be linked to further impacts offshore (see below).
- The commitment of increased production in Alberta arising from development of the pipeline.
- The increase in Tanker Traffic associated with this project is a major concern. First nations and environmental groups have highlighted the serious consequences of a spill for the ecology of the region, with enormous economic and environmental impacts on habitats and fishery-based livelihoods. For a summary see: http://www.coastalfirstnations.ca/programs/anti-oil-tanker-campaign.
Pacific Trails Pipeline and Kitimat Liquefied Natural Gas (KLNG) Terminal
The Pacific Trail Pipeline project—a partnership between Apache Canada, EOG Resources Canada, and Encana Corporation—is developing a natural gas pipeline system from Summit Lake to Kitimat BC to service the proposed LNG export facility located in Bish Cove, near Kitimat. This pipeline will further facilitate growth of British Columbia’s burgeoning shale gas industry and support shipments of natural gas to Asia. Construction of both projects is expected to begin in 2012, with commercial operations beginning in 2015.
The pipeline has met some community opposition similar to the Enbridge pipeline described above. While LNG accidents occur relatively rarely, it is a highly volatile gas and can cause much more devastating damage when accidents do occur; these fires burn at a much higher temperature and for longer periods of time than oil or gas fires (Dogwood Initiative, 12, 2009).
Despite these environmental and safety risks, the KLNG terminal is the product of an unprecedented economic deal between the Haisla First Nations and Kitimat LNG Inc. The Haisla First Nations have negotiated a five per cent equity share in the multi-billion dollar project, and other benefits include deciding the project’s location in Bish Cove, job-readiness programs, and assurances that their band members will be hired by the project.
TransMountain Expansion (TMX)
The TransMountain pipeline, owned and operated by KinderMorgan Canada Inc., carries crude oil and refined products from Edmonton, Alberta to Port Moody, BC, ending at the Westridge Marine Terminal. This project underwent a twinning of the pipeline in 2008 when capacity was increased up to 300,000 bpd. They have recently submitted another proposal to yet again increase their pipeline capacity up to 700,000 bpd. Kinder Morgan conducted open season from November 2011 to April 2012, and announced in early April that they received strong binding commercial support for the pipeline expansion. While this proposed expansion has so far been under the radar as media attention has focused on the Keystone XL and Enbridge Gateway projects, several Vancouver ENGOs, as well as the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, are opposed to KinderMorgan’s expansion and the concomitant increase in oil tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet.
Oil Tanker Traffic
There have been significant increases in oil tanker traffic through the Port of Vancouver since 2007, and the proposed Enbridge Pipeline through Kitimat would commence traffic of massive oil supertankers on BC’s Northern coast as well.
Increases in oil tanker traffic carry many environmental risks: damage to endangered species and ecologically sensitive habitat; economic damage to other BC industries such as tourism or fisheries; air and noise pollution; and marine oil spills. The high winds, currents, and narrow passages through the Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance in northern BC further augment the risk of a large oil spill. These risks are compounded as the emergency management planning in British Columbia is insufficient to manage the risks associated with increasing oil tanker traffic. There have been several government and non-profit reports published which highlight the various gaps in oil spill contingency planning in BC, including the Living Oceans Society report and the Auditor General Report Oil Spills from Ships. Furthermore, much research demonstrates that the impact of chronic, small-scale, illegal oil discharges can be just as devastating to sensitive marine environments; this underscores the importance of adequate monitoring and enforcement of existing regulations (Serra-Soga et al. 2008; see also Wiese and Robertson, 2004).
Furthermore, the federal government has withdrawn from the Pacific North Coast Integrated Marine Area (PNCIMA) Initiative. PNCIMA is an integrated management plan, guided by a multi-jurisdictional Steering Committee (including Federal, Provincial and First Nations governments) and an Integrated Oceans Advisory Committee. The Harper government, however, has however withdrawn from PNCIMA, reportedly due to lobbying by Enbridge and concerns that that the initiative was overly influenced by US environmentalists (see West Coast Environmental Law).
Increases in oil tanker traffic are opposed by many actors, including the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM), members of parliament, the First Nations signatories of the Save the Fraser Declaration, the Coastal First Nations, Raincoast Conservation and several environmental non-profits, including Tanker Free BC, the Wilderness Committee, and the Georgia Strait Alliance .
*
The content for this province was peer-reviewed in Oct 2013. We’d like to acknowledge the assistance of the external reviewers and Leanne Ross, Annette Angel and Amanda Chrisanthus who contributed to this webpage content.
