Twenty five years after the Exxon Valdez crashed in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling some 11 million gallons of oil, its shadow is still cast over oil tanker policy debate.
As Canada considers increasing oil tanker shipments with the Northern Gateway project, which would add over 200 oil tankers on the B.C. coast a year, environmentalists charge Canada isn’t prepared for spills.
Karen Wristen heads Living Oceans, a B.C. based environmental group calling for a ban on oil tankers near the B.C. coast.
“The first step of prevention for a marine oil spill would be to keep the oil we have on the continent and use it for Canada’s energy security.”
She said Canada’s tanker regulation framework doesn’t adequately cover prevention, response or compensation.
“Immediately south of the boarder there’s a far better example of a regulatory regime equipped to deal with oil,” she said. “Our own is virtually non-existent.”
The U.S. put in place tighter regulations following the Exxon Valdez spill and Canada followed suit with its own policy review.
It changed the Canada Shipping Act, making polluters legally responsible for spill preparedness, paying for damages and creating private sector pollution response organizations.
Canada also now only allows double-hull tankers, which are better for controlling spills, and recently announced more monitoring and prevention measures as opponents voice concerns over ramping up oil exports.
But Wristen said meantime the coastguard has seen cutbacks, regional emergency response personnel have been moved out of province and there’s no West Coast response plan.
And so far B.C.’s inner coasts have had a “voluntary tanker exclusion zone” which keeps tankers away from risky areas. “Of course we’ve got a good track record. We haven’t had to deal with the traffic,” Wristen said.
That’s not how industry sees it. Philip John is the marine fleet manager at the Woodward Group of Companies.
“Canada’s current shipping regulation framework is among the strictest in the world and it’s proved to be very effective,” he said.
In a 2012 policy paper that argues Canada should export more oil off the West Coast, he said the number of reported shipping accidents in Canadian waters declined by as much as 38 per cent over the previous ten years.
He said industry knows they’re well policed so they comply with regulations before they have to be enforced.
John said enforcing a ban would force oil to get shipped by other means, and recent rail disasters like the one in Lac-Megantic have shown marine shipping is less risky.
“Since Exxon Valdez, there has been really no major oil spill. So the marine industry is probably the safest bet.”
Scott Pegau researches herring fish stocks in Prince William Sound, Alaska, and directs the Oil Spill Recovery Institute, which was created in response to the Exxon spill.
“If you were visiting here, you’d never know where it was,” he said.
On a sunny day there it’s picturesque with sparkling ocean water, mountain ranges that shoot up out of the ocean, and plenty of whales and wildlife.
He said it’s very difficult to recover oil from a major spill: only about 8 per cent can be picked up.
“There’s a fair amount out there but it’s not easy to find,” he said.
Much of it is still trapped in layers of sediment. But sea otters and other animals become exposed when they dig it back up.
And the area still hasn’t recovered from a major drop in herring stocks following the spill — although there’s debate over whether the oil caused the fish to disappear.
“It’s affected a lot of families here. They actually still all hold onto their permits in hopes there will be a herring fishery sometime soon.”
While the spill remains a symbolic image of environmental destruction, Pegau said the community’s blackest day was when the U.S. Supreme Court significantly reduced the payout for damages.
“The litigation tears more people up than the environment in the end,” he said.