While much of the country’s attention was focused on the rapidly escalating stand-off between Alberta and British Columbia over the Trans Mountain pipeline this week, another major environmental announcement went largely unnoticed.

On Thursday, the federal government quietly approved BP Canada’s plan to drill up to seven deep exploration wells off the coast of Nova Scotia between 2018 and 2022. In her decision statement, Environment and Climate Change minister Catherine McKenna wrote the project “is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.”

That conclusion ran contrary to serious concerns that environmental and fishing organizations have raised about the project — including BP’s role in the catastrophic 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, the proximity of the project to critical fish and marine mammal habitats, the company’s dependence on toxic chemical dispersants in the case of an oil spill, and a blowout containment strategy that would require at least two weeks to ship and equip a capping device from Norway.

“We feel like we’re under assault,” said John Davis, director of the Clean Ocean Action Committee, in an interview with DeSmog Canada. “The coastal communities and fishing industry of Eastern Canada is just under assault by this government.”

The Clean Ocean Action Committee is a coalition of fish plant operators and fishermen representing more than 9,000 jobs in southwestern Nova Scotia.

The BP wells off the southeast coast of Nova Scotia are slated to be at least 3.5 times the distance from land and up to twice the depth of the well beneath the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig, which exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

ICYMI: BP Wants to Drill Underwater Wells Twice the Depth of Deepwater Horizon in Canada

McKenna’s approval isn’t the last word on the project: the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board still needs to oversee some final processes, including the creation of a spill response plan and issue a licence approval to drill.

But the offshore boards aren’t exactly known for interfering with development.

For all intents and purposes, this decision was the last opportunity for the federal government to make an intervention on a number of different issues: spill response, impacts of routine activities on marine mammals such as right whales, Indigenous rights or greenhouse gas emissions. While some legally binding conditions were included with the approval, none fundamentally addressed the major issues critics have with the project.

The 700 kilometre Scotian Shelf, which effectively divides the Continental Shelf and the deeper Atlantic Ocean, serves as the site of remarkable biodiversity, including whales, seals, sea turtles, fish, corals and birds. That contributes to highly successful fisheries such as the nearby Georges Bank.

“The edge of the Scotian Shelf is a remarkably productive area and important for a lot of animals,” Hal Whitehead, professor of biology at Dalhousie University, told DeSmog Canada.

“It’s that the drilling is actually on and near the shelf that worries me most.”

‘We’re Under Assault’: Feds Quietly Approve Deepwater Oil Drilling Off Nova Scotia https://t.co/4YwqVi9tLQ #offshore #NovaScotia #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/nF6vq0swy7

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 3, 2018

Limited Consultations Resulted in No Major Changes, Critics Said

There wasn’t much of a chance for the public to articulate its concerns at any point during the process, despite McKenna’s assurance there was “meaningful consultation and input from Indigenous groups and the public.”

“We were denied any opportunity for public hearings,” Davis said. “Any comments that we had to make about BP or the Environmental Impact Statement would have to be written briefs. And quite frankly, I work with a lot of really confident and thoughtful people, but most of my fishing community aren’t into writing briefs. But they would be happy to have a discussion. And we were denied that discussion. That really aggravated us.”

In its Environmental Assessment Report, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency reported that it received submissions from five organizations and 26 individuals.

But it’s unclear that the submissions had any discernible impact on the outcome, despite overwhelmingly opposing the project.

“Comments went in, but looking in particular at the spill response plan, I don’t see much change between the draft environmental impact statement and the environmental assessment report that just came out with McKenna’s approval,” said Gretchen Fitzgerald, director of Sierra Club Canada’s Atlantic region chapter.

The announcement occurs during a time of flux for the offshore boards and environmental assessment process in Canada

Next week, it’s expected that the government’s long-awaited overhauls of the country’s various environmental laws will be announced — with the new Impact Assessment Act and Canadian Energy Regulator Act having the potential to further entrench the regulatory responsibilities of the two petroleum offshore boards.

“We’re really going to be watching to see what the legislation is going to look like in regards to offshore oil and gas,” Fitzgerald said.

ICYMI: Canada’s Offshore Petroleum Boards Under Fire for Conflict of Interest

In addition, the federal government has been amalgamating regulations on offshore oil and gas activities under the primary consultation of industry players, moving from a prescriptive to a performance-based approach that gives companies far more flexibility in how it manages risk and prepares for situations like blowouts — such as not requiring a capping device nearby.

“When you’re drilling that deep, you better know exactly what you’re doing,” Fitzgerald said. “With the poor regulations and industry oversight that we perceive out there, we’re not reassured that’s happening. They’re very far from emergency and spill response.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

BP Canada plans to drill up to seven exploratory wells off the southeast coast of Nova Scotia that are at least 3.5 times the distance from land and up to twice the depth of the well beneath the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig.

The Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 after the Macondo well, located 1.5 kilometres below surface, blew out — resulting in the deaths of 11 men and the largest marine oil spill in history.*

The company’s proposed solution if a catastrophic blowout happens in Canadian waters relies on shipping a capping device from Norway, a process that is estimated to take between 12 to 19 days — but it could take between 13 and 25 days total to actually cap the well with the device.

In the meantime, two critical fisheries and countless marine species would be seriously endangered. The Sable Island National Park Reserve is less than 50 kilometres away.

“When you’re drilling that deep, you better know exactly what you’re doing,” said Gretchen Fitzgerald, Atlantic director for the Sierra Club Canada Foundation, in an interview with DeSmog Canada. “With the poor regulations and industry oversight that we perceive out there, we’re not reassured that’s happening. They’re very far from emergency and spill response.”

BP Canada declined multiple requests to be interviewed for this article.

Scotian shelf currently a ‘remarkably productive area’

The company’s four leases cover 1,398,180 hectares — about a quarter the size of Nova Scotia. Almost all of the leased area falls within an “Offshore Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area.”

It’s the specific location that is of concern to many.

The 700 kilometre Scotian Shelf, which effectively divides the Continental Shelf and the deeper Atlantic Ocean, serves as the site of remarkable biodiversity, including whales, seals, sea turtles, fish, corals and birds. That contributes to highly successful fisheries such as the nearby Georges Bank.

“The edge of the Scotian Shelf is a remarkably productive area and important for a lot of animals,” Hal Whitehead, professor of biology at Dalhousie University, told DeSmog Canada.

“It’s that the drilling is actually on and near the shelf that worries me most.”

“This is the kind of thing that terrifies us.” https://t.co/JPOyWt7y1o

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) January 15, 2018

BP proposes use of booms and dispersants after blowout

One proposed solution that BP mentioned in its environmental impact statement is using “booming and skimming operations” which help to physically contain oil within a particular area.

Fitzgerald called such a proposal “kind of laughable” given the incredibly large waves, sometimes as high as 10 metres during storms, that can occur off the coast.

In a 2010 interview with New Orleans’ Times-Picayune following the Deepwater Horizon spill, civil engineering professor Robert Bea said a boom’s rate of effectiveness in choppy saltwater is around 10 per cent: “In open turbulent water, you can’t catch the oil,” he said.

Then there’s the use of chemical dispersants, which break apart oil into smaller droplets and allow it to more easily mix with water. Almost seven million litres of a dispersant called Corexit was used following the Deepwater Horizon spill.

In the years since, a plethora of research has been published suggesting that the impacts of dispersants are far from harmless — and is actually toxic to coral and many microorganisms, including plankton. A recently published study by the National Institutes of Health also linked human exposure to Corexit with symptoms including coughing, wheezing and chest tightness.

“The efforts by the oil industry to convince our regulators that dispersant is a good idea are highly suspect,” said John Davis, director of the Clean Ocean Action Committee, in an interview with DeSmog Canada.

“Given the fact that it’s in major dispute from the scientific community, you should use the precautionary principle and not use the stuff until you understand its real impact.”

Shell drillboat dropped two kilometres of pipe during rough weather

Critics point to yet another major reason for concern — this time, a lot closer to home.

In 2016, a Shell Canada ship encountered harsh weather off the coast of Nova Scotia while attempting to drill an exploratory well. Two kilometres of pipe were lost, landing a mere 12 metres from the wellhead.

“If they had hit their own wellhead and if they had been at an oil-bearing site in terms of their drilling activity, they would have had a major disaster,” Davis told DeSmog Canada. “Nothing more than the luck of the draw allowed them to escape that. Nothing to do with their technical capabilities, nothing to do with their safety mechanisms: just plain luck.”

“This is the kind of thing that terrifies us,” Davis said.

Davis has a personal connection to the region: he’s been a fisher for almost half a century and his organization currently represents about 9,000 people involved in the fishery on the Scotian Shelf and nearby Georges Bank.

He said that a worst-case scenario — losing control of the wellhead during the middle of the winter with high northeasterly winds — would push oil and dispersant into the very successful fishing grounds within a week or two thanks to the strong, consistent Labrador Current.

He said that his group was very open to working with the oil and gas industry in the early stages of the process. But after encountering little success with regulators or industry to improve spill mitigation, they now oppose any oil and gas development in the region.

“We are working carefully to protect the sustainable resources that we have and to use them in a sustainable fashion,” he said. “We can demand that the oil and gas industry, if they’re going to try to function on the Scotian Shelf, have the same high level of regulatory process that we work under. That’s not the case.”

Offshore drilling produces drilling fluids, plastics, noise

Even if a catastrophic blowout doesn’t happen, the oil and gas activity from the exploratory wells may still have significant impacts on marine species that reside on the highly biodiverse Scotian Shelf.

Whitehead of Dalhousie University said that offshore oil and gas operations can produce toxic drilling fluids and plastics that are blown or dumped overboard, potentially having hazardous impacts on local whale populations.

The industry’s “very, very noisy methods” of drilling also impede the vital ability of whales and dolphins to sense and communicate.

“It can deafen them at the worst, drive them away from areas which are important to them and affect their ability to use natural sounds for things like avoiding predators and finding mates and social relationships,” he said.

BP plans to begin drilling by mid-2018, following approvals

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency released its draft environmental assessment report on November 22.

A month-long window followed allowing for public comment on the draft. Following the finalization of the report, it will be submitted to Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna who will then provide BP Canada will an environmental assessment decision statement with a series of conditions.

Notably, the draft environmental assessment report included a recommended condition that in the case of a blowout, BP Canada should “begin the immediate mobilization of at least one capping stack and associated equipment to the project area to stop the spill,” seemingly endorsing the company’s plan.

BP Canada has indicated that it seeks to start drilling its first exploratory well in mid-2018. Each well takes 120 days to complete. It has committed to spending $1 billion in the exploratory process.

Environmental critics appear to be pessimistic about the situation, especially given the decisive role that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board — which some describe as a captured regulator — plays in the approval and regulatory process. Fitzgerald added that now is not the time to approving new offshore processes given the deaths of 16 critically endangered North Atlantic right whales in 2017.

“It’s one thing to say that we’re going to be improving our environmental regulation in Canada and tackle climate change and protect the right whales,” she said.

“But if you’re not going to deal with some of these issues in the offshore, you’re not going to see much progress in those areas. The stakes are high. It could have huge implications if there was a disaster out there.”

*Correction made Feb. 2, 2018, at 9 p.m. The article originally incorrectly stated the depth of the Macondo well.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canada’s Environment Minister, Leona Aglukkaq, gave Shell Canada up to three weeks to cap any subsea blowout that might result from future petroleum exploration off Nova Scotia’s South Shore. Similar legislation in the U.S. requires companies to cap a ruptured well within 24 hours.

The three-week time period is included in Shell Canada’s capping plan, a part of the company’s proposed Shelburne Basin Venture Exploration Drilling Project. Minister Aglukkaq green-lighted the project on June 15 following an assessment by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Under the plan, a blowout would spill oil or gas into the ocean for up to 21 days before Shell would be required to have a capping stack or marine well containment system in place.

Capping stacks buy time for engineers to plan a permanent seal or a diversion of hydrocarbons at the site of a blowout. Because they can weigh 50 to 100 tons, transporting and maneuvering stacking caps to the site and onto a blowout can be time consuming and difficult.

Allowing Shell up to three weeks to contain a blowout means that the company does not have to retain the expensive capping equipment on shore in Nova Scotia or aboard a nearby vessel. Rather, Shell states in the assessment that the equipment can be deployed from Norway with backups in Scotland, South Africa, Brazil and Singapore.

Nova Scotia Decision Pending

John Davis, a photographer for National Geographic, is taking some credit for exposing this issue to public scrutiny and for forcing the regulator to defend its position rather than simply rubber-stamping the environmental assessment.

“We’ve called them on it,” said Davis in an interview with DeSmog Canada. Davis is also a concerned citizen with a lifetime of experience on the oceans as a former fisherman, fish plant owner and resident of Nova Scotia’s South Shore.

“The only good thing is we got them to say, ‘We are reviewing this and maybe something will change.’”

Stuart Pinks, CEO of the Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, the joint regulator of the industry in Nova Scotia waters, told the CBC in an August 6 interview he is still “knee deep” in the review of the Shell application.

In a statement posted to the regulator’s website the board notes it is conducting an “extensive review” of Shell’s proposed exploratory program and has yet to make a final decision based on the federal environmental assessment.

“The CNSOPB will only authorize Shell Canada’s proposed drilling program once it is satisfied that they are taking all reasonable precautions to ensure that the program proceeds safely and in a manner that protects the environment.”

Following the regulator’s interview with the CBC, Davis said, “Now they’re going to have to consider the environmental safety of the South Shore of Nova Scotia and the fishing industry and communities that exist there.”

Pinks claimed that blowouts are a rare occurrence and that a capping stack is just one piece of equipment among a whole set of systems and processes assessed for the prevention and mitigation of incidents like blowouts. “Blowout prevention would be the main line of defence,” said Pinks who was adamant that his board will require and review a well-capping plan.

In response, Davis pointed out that exploratory wells are particularly dangerous.

“The largest oil well spills are from exploration wells,” he said, citing recent accidents off Australia, the Caspian Sea and in the Gulf of Mexico with the Deepwater Horizon. Davis said the danger of blowouts in exploratory wells comes from the inability of oil companies to predict the backpressure of a well until a drill breaks into a reserve.

In 2010, the BP Deep Water Horizon platform exploded during a blowout that killed 11 workers and dumped 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico at enormous cost to wildlife, habitat and livelihoods. Crude flowed for 87 days before the well was finally sealed. A report in 2012 found that the well still leaks.

Davis is troubled by this recent history. “If you look at Deep Water Horizon, they were in about 1000 metres. Shell is going to be in about 3000 metres of water. [BP was] 80 or 90 kilometres offshore. Shell is going to be 250 kilometres offshore.”

“They are in deeper water, in environments that are much harsher, at the very edge of their technological capability.”

Contrasting U.S. Regulations

In comparison to the leeway granted Shell by the Canadian government, U.S. regulations require marine blowouts to be capped within 24 hours. To achieve this goal, companies need to keep stacking caps close to offshore wells.

For a marine drilling project off Alaska, Shell keeps a stacking cap aboard a nearby vessel as required by the American equivalent of the Canadian Department of the Environment.

Pinks said the Alaska comparison is not a fair one because ice can move in very quickly, making the presence of a capping stack nearby essential.

But Davis does buy Pinks’ claim: “He’s blowing smoke. Ice floats at the surface and the capping stack is at the sea floor. Shell knows when the ice is coming. The drilling stops well before any ice arrives at their site. That was a red herring. That was Mr. Pinks pretending that Alaska has a problem we don’t have here.” 

Pinks would not say whether or not the Shell Canada plan for the Shelburne Basin would require the presence of a stacking cap as in other jurisdictions around the world.

“We don’t look at each component in isolation,” he said.

Whatever equipment is brought into play, Davis is asking for one assurance. “Surely we can clean up oil in the offshore. That’s the simple request everyone on the South Shore should be making to our Minister of the Environment and to our Alberta-based, petrochemical government.”

Image: Shell

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.