BC Orca's last sanctuary.

deleted

Was in the news, at least regionally, a couple months back.

The Sierra Club claims:

Fourteen breaches of the inland tanker traffic moratorium have occurred since January, 2006. The tankers were carrying condensate, a highly-toxic mixture of imported chemical and petroleum derivatives that is needed to dilute crude oil from the Alberta tar sands so it will flow through pipelines. The tankers were operated by EnCana, Canada’s largest private oil company, and Methanex Corporation, the Canadian company that used the North American Free Trade Agreement to sue the U.S. government for California’s phase-out of the toxin MTBE from gasoline

That would be tankers in and out of the giant Methanex terminal near Kitimat on the Northern Coast.

The Sierra Club issued a media release on June 3, 2007 showing strong public support for the moratorium.

The Georgia Strait Alliance makes the same claims:

Oil tankers are being allowed to secretly enter BC’s fragile inside waters despite widespread public opposition and a 34-year old federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas activities, which includes oil tanker traffic. Natural Resources Canada most recently confirmed the moratorium in 2003, stating: “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.”

This past weekend an oil tanker carrying approximately 350,000 barrels of “condensate” entered BC’s inside passage bound for Methanex’s marine terminal. This tanker traveled through Caamano Sound and 166 km up Douglas Channel to Kitimat, along the route where the BC ferry Queen of the North recently sank.  The tanker offloaded its condensate, a toxic mix of chemicals and petroleum derivates used to dilute thick crude oil, onto railcars for transport to Encana’s operations in Alberta.

Now, I would like you to keep that statement from Natural Resources Canada in mind.  In 1972 the Federal Gov't imposed a moratorium...

It seems someone doesn't know that.

(June 24, 2007) (BC Provincial) Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn is fuelling those fears with comments that there is no moratorium on oil tanker traffic on the West Coast because nothing was ever written down back in the 1970s.

The minister insists that doesn't mean an increase in such traffic would be allowed without oversight, but federal and provincial politicians want Ottawa to institute a full, formal ban on oil tankers in B.C. coastal waters, a move being backed by environmentalists and some First Nations.

"There actually is no moratorium for (oil tanker) traffic coming into the West Coast," Lunn told The Canadian Press. There is what he called "a voluntary exclusion zone" that historically has applied to U.S. tankers carrying Alaska oil to terminals in Washington state through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which separates the United States and the southern tip of Vancouver Island.

"This is something that was brought in quite a long time ago and is being respected."

Hmmm... So is there or isn't there a tanker moratorium? A former Federal Environment minister seems to think there is indeed a moratorium (from same Cnews link)

Lunn's denial of the existence of a tanker moratorium exasperates long time anti-tanker crusader and former federal environment minister David Anderson.

"This is not something that the people of British Columbia want done (and) we never have in the 35 years I've been involved in this issue," said the retired Victoria Liberal MP.

"It doesn't make logical sense to say we did not commit to keeping tankers off the coast," he said. "That is basically wrong. We did!"

The U.S. went to great lengths, and great expense, to route tankers bound from Alaska well away from Canadian waters, he said.

"Why would they have done all that to protect the Canadian shore unless Canadians were willing to do the same to protect their own coast. I mean, it just doesn't make sense."

In bilateral talks in the Trudeau era, it was made clear to the U.S. that Canada would similarly ban east-west tanker traffic to Canadian West Coast ports, Anderson said.

So, why are politicians like Lunn so gung-ho about disputing there is a moratorium? Because there's a lot of stuff going on up the Coast. A lot of stuff involving oil, gas, condensate and tankers (same link again): 

The issue has gained prominence mainly due to several proposals to construct pipelines linking Alberta with the coast at Prince Rupert or Kitimat.

Crude oil from the oilsands would be pumped west for export, while 'condensate' used to thin the thick crude in the pipeline would be removed and sent back eastward along a parallel pipe. There is also a proposal that could see a liquified natural gas, or LNG, terminal built in Kitimat to accept cheap gas from Asia for distribution to North American markets.

The Kitimat LNG terminal proposal is now dead, but the same company is now looking to build it on Texada Island, right in the middle of Strait of Georgia.

LTE to the Victoria Times-Colonist, June 13, 2007:

Lunn’s “no tanker moratorium” claim is pure fiction. Since 1972, dozens of government documents, commissions, panel reports and official statements have attested to the existence of the tanker moratorium. In fact, as recently as 2003 the staff of Natural Resources Canada (Minister Lunn’s own ministry) prepared a chronology (quoted in the article) which confirms the existence of the tanker moratorium.  Yet, Minister Lunn has yet to produce one federal government document dated before the Harper government took power that proves his claim that no oil tanker moratorium exists. 

Lunn is trying to reverse long-standing government policy. Since 1972 the governments of eight Prime Ministers (5 Liberal and 3 Progressive Conservative) have acknowledged and respected the tanker moratorium. In contrast, since coming to power in 2006, Garry Lunn and Stephen Harper have been spinning various excuses for side-stepping the tanker moratorium and fast tracking six tar sands related projects that could require up to 320 oil and gas tankers in the treacherous northern waters. After initially saying that the tanker moratorium only applies to north-south tankers (as if the risks of oil spills vary with a tankers direction) now they are saying there is no tanker moratorium, and there never was.

Also notice that the North Coast ports (Prince Rupert, Kitimat et all) are in the federal riding of Skeena-Bulkley Valley. The land area, including islands, of the Inside Passage, are part of the federal riding of Vancouver Island North. Texada Island, for it's part, is not in either of those two, but it is part of West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea-to-Sky.

Wonder where I've heard of all three riding mentioned together in the past week? You can see here how they are 'joined at the hip'.

Oh, and oddly enough (not really), Texada is the only one of BC's Gulf islands that does not fall under the mandate of the Islands Trust. Although the much smaller Lasqueti Island, which lies only about 5km off the southern tip of Texada is part of the Trust. 

Everything's cheaper than it looks.

STOP THESE MADMEN!

Here's the deal with Puget Sound and Maria Cantwell.
Senator "Tubes" Stevens of Alaska introduced a bill to that would repeal the Magnuson Amendment of 1977 - which aimed to protect Puget Sound from oil spills by restricting tanker traffic.

Ferndale, WA is home to BP's Cherry Point Refinery. I used to be able to see it from my living room window when I lived in Bellingham, and wondered why the hell gas was so much more expensive on the west coast since I could pracitcally walk to the damn refinery with a gas can for a fill. But I digress.

Tubes wanted to repeal this environmental legislation because BP asked him for help after bi-partisan pressure thwarted a previous attempt. It's like if you ask your mom for something and she says no way, so you go ask your dad and he says, "Your mother is a bitch. I'll take care of it".

So Tubes introduces a bill which would repeal the Magnuson Amendment, and Maria Cantwell, who also was a vocal and fierce opponent of drilling in ANWR, says oh HELL no. You are not making Puget Sound a supertanker highway. As you can imagine, residents of western Washington state were pleased with Cantwell's stance on this. And in an election cycle, no less.

Her opponent in the 2006 Senate race, Mike! McGavick, wanting to look more like a good guy and less like the Republican douchebag that he really is, tried to take credit for the withdrawal of Steven's bill. He talked to Ted, over the wires, I'm sure, not the tubes, and asked him to withdraw so that the proposed tanker parade didn't become an issue in the election. Of course, being a member of the party of slime, Stevens also had an ulterior motive for pulling out prematurely:

But oil tankers and McGavick's promised civility weren't the only issues in play yesterday. In withdrawing his bill, Stevens noted that Washington state issues should be decided by Washingtonians, and Alaska issues by Alaskans. One of those issues, Stevens said, is his 25-year effort in Congress to open up oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

McGavick supports drilling in ANWR, while Cantwell led the Senate charge in ultimately killing the issue — for now — in December. Stevens has vowed to bring it back.

You see how that works - ok, I'll back off of Washington state with my big leaky oil tankers, letting Washingtonians decide what happens in the water that is to the left of them, but you should back off of Alaska, Maria.

Well, the election didn't go so well for Mike. He pretty much got trounced by about 16%. Loser.

We're still not drilling in ANWR. For now.

Ted Stevens is a laughing stock. And Puget Sound is not a supertanker highway. But. I wonder if the SPP might change that?

There is no justice in Candy Land.