Current events should help get the message across

A couple of incidents separated by half of a world away could bring home the message better than all the symposiums and lectures combined.

If a visual aid was needed to emphasize the dangers of oil tanker traffic to the world’s eco system, then two high profile accidents in the last few days should provide the images to help make a point or two

Last week a Russian oil tanker split in half in the Black Sea, caught in a wild storm and sending its cargo of crude into the sea and threatening beaches and wildlife with an ecological disaster.

In San Francisco the politicians are busy pointing fingers, after a lethargic response to an oil spill from a container ship calling on the port there. The Cosco Busan crashed into the Golden Gate Bridge on Wednesday, spilling oil into the Bay Area resulting in San Francisco's worst oil spill in two decades.

The twin incidents are like a home study session for those who participated (even more so for those that didn't) in last Wednesday’s oil tanker symposium at Fisherman’s hall. The Daily News had details of their findings and presentations published in Friday’s paper.

Group fleshes-out tanker argument
By Kris Schumacher
The Daily News
Friday, November 09, 2007

Pages One and Five

The fact that the government is considering oil and gas projects for the coast of British Columbia is premature while there is an existing tanker moratorium in place, according to a West Coast legal organization.

Representatives from West Coast Environmental Law were in Prince Rupert on Wednesday to provide an overview and discussion of the North Coast oil tanker traffic moratorium, which it argues is in fact valid despite what the government is arguing.

"As it stands, there isn't a piece of paper that says the moratorium exists, but since 1972 it's been respected by all provincial and federal governments except the current one," said Margot McMillan, an oil and gas lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law.

"It is very much a policy-level moratorium, but the government has a duty to both consult with First Nations communities and alert the public before lifting a longstanding moratorium."
For the past several years, the federal government has been arguing there is no oil tanker traffic moratorium in the waters of Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound.

The federal government has maintained this stance despite a 2003-04 three-part federal review process recommending the moratorium be kept in place. The conclusion that panel made was that crude oil tanker traffic could not be made safe enough to justify traffic on the North Coast, due to the treacherous natures of the waters.

West Coast Environmental Law, among other organizations and politicians, has argued that the moratorium does exist, and cite a 2003 Natural Resources Canada statement as confirmation of the moratorium: "In 1972, the Government of Canada imposed a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic through Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound due to concerns over the potential environmental impacts. The moratorium was subsequently extended to include oil and gas activities."

They say that the federal government allowed a company to violate the 34-year old moratorium in the summer of 2006 when a tanker full of condensate was transported to the Methanex terminal in Kitimat.

"It seemed to happen without consulting anybody. All of a sudden condensate tankers started pulling into the Methanex port," said McMillan.

"Condensate is very similar to crude oil, not methanol, yet it just slipped in with no separate environment impact assessment and no public consultation."

McMillan says none of the advocating organizations or individuals have been able to get a clear answer from government as to why the usual process was by-passed.

According to the government's legal duties to First Nations, the Crown has a duty to consult and accommodate First Nations in any actions that could negatively impact their Aboriginal Title and Rights, which McMillan and others believe the current government has circumvented.

"If there's not a legal duty for government, there's certainly a moral obligation to be transparent," she said.