Many fear spill would imperil ecosystems

Several alternatives have been considered — some more viable than others. Pipelines north, south, east and west have been suggested. But the Keystone XL pipeline has stalled in the Oval Office and offers for an unimpeded pipeline north are impractical at best. Increased capacity carrying oil to the East Coast is in the works, but it’s not enough.

Cenovus is already transporting 5,000 barrels a day by rail. The company president says he’d like to double that in the coming year, but railways are a limited and expensive, stop-gap measure at best.

Kinder Morgan is proposing an expansion of its existing Trans Mountain pipeline from Alberta to Metro Vancouver, more than doubling capacity, but already there is opposition. Vancouver city council has voted to oppose the expansion and some area First Nations have voiced objections.

Like Enbridge’s Northern Gateway proposal, any plan that involves a tanker port on the West Coast faces the same hurdles, chief among them is the fear that an oil spill from the pipeline or from a tanker at sea could cause irreparable ecosystem harm. On land, a pipeline must cross the Rocky and Coast mountain ranges. It would traverse the habitats of severely endangered mountain caribou and endangered white sturgeon. As it nears the coast, it would enter a lush forest that accounts for a quarter of the world’s remaining temperate rainforest. At sea, tankers half as long as the CN Tower is tall would ply the ocean.

For the people living in the area around any proposed tanker terminal, the pros and cons boil down pretty simply.

“For this to be acceptable to the Haisla people, the Haisla would have to see a 100-percent guarantee that there would be no spills,” said Ellis Ross, chief councillor of the Haisla Nation.

“We all know that isn’t possible.”