Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s November proposal to ban oil tanker traffic from B.C.’s north coast received kind reception on the west coast of Canada where the Heiltusk First Nation was still busy responding to a devastating diesel spill from the Nathan E. Stewart, a sunken fuel barge tug that was leaking fuel into shellfish harvest grounds near Bella Bella.

The tanker ban, however, won’t protect the coast from incidents like the Nathan E. Stewart from happening again, nor from the threat of future refined oil tankers passing through the same waters, according to a new analysis by West Coast Environmental Law.

Reviewing the tanker ban proposal, which has yet to be passed as legislation, West Coast identified numerous loopholes and exclusions that allow for the continued transport of oil on B.C.’s north coast via foreign fuel barges and even, potentially, in supertankers full of refined oil products like jet fuel.

Tanker Ban Leaves Door Wide Open for Refined Fuel Supertankers

“I would describe the bill as sort of a mixed bag,” Gavin smith, staff counsel with West Coast, told DeSmog Canada.

“It’s very positive in that it is strong enough to prevent projects like Northern Gateway from proceeding in the region, but it is not strong enough to prevent oil refinery and refined oil supertanker projects in the region.”

As it stands the proposed legislation does nothing to prevent the movement of supertankers laden with refined oil from traversing north coast waters.

And that’s of significant concern, Smith said, “because those projects are currently proposed and those applications have been submitted to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.”

There are currently two major oil refinery projects proposed for the Kitimat area.

Kitimat Clean, which is undergoing review with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (although that review was temporarily suspended in October), would refine 400,000 barrels of oil per day during it’s projected 50-year lifespan.

Kitimat Clean proposes to refine oil into products such as gasoline, jet fuel and propane for export in Very Large Crude Carriers or supertankers.

The Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project, proposed for 32 kilometres north of Kitimat, would refine 200,000 barrels of oil per day for a project lifespan of 60 years. The Pacific Future refinery is in the final stages of review with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Tanker Ban Maintains Current Situation, Introduces New Risks

The tanker ban does restrict vessels larger than 12,500 tonnes from carrying crude oil products but not refined oil products.

Smith said Transport Canada was previously considering a 2,000 tonne threshold, but dramatically increased that figure to 12,500 tonnes.

“The 2,000 tonne was raised up in a Transport Canada discussion paper that was made public earlier this summer,” Smith said.

That 2,000 threshold really walks the line because it allows community shipments of fuel products to continue while not being so high as to allow for large-scale shipments of bulk oil products, he said.

West Coast has asked the federal government to provide an explanation for the increase in threshold.

“We recommend they provide a rational because from our perspective it came from nowhere.”

The 12,500 threshold is slightly higher than the highest recorded shipments in the regions, Smith said, “so they’ve tried to cap it at the highest level of shipments that have been occurring there.”

Jess Housty, council member of the Heiltsuk First Nation and responder to the sunken Nathan E. Stewart, said the current tanker ban is “simply inadequate” because it changes nothing.

“I think it’s important to note the tanker ban wouldn’t have prevented the Queen of the North from sinking and that’s still polluting waters. It wouldn’t have prevented the Nathan E. Stewart. It won’t prevent this kind of incident from happening again.”

The tanker ban as proposed is frustrating, Housty said, because Transport Minister Marc Garneau traveled to Heiltsuk territory to witness the diesel spill in November.

Housty said the tanker ban actually doesn’t affect any current vessel traffic on the North Coast, meaning all ongoing fuel barge traffic remains entirely untouched.

“I would challenge the federal government to give me a list of vessels that are actually impacted by this legislation. I can’t think of one.”

Housty concedes the tanker ban is significant in light of the rejected Northern Gateway pipeline proposal.

But she added, “I think it’s important to note for the Heiltsuk, we weren’t just fighting Northern Gateway because it was crude oil. There were a million reasons why we had issues with that project.”

And many of those issues will still be relevant if those supertankers were carrying refined projects, Housty said.

“This tanker ban, not only does it not help us minimize the current risks we face, it gives permission for massive new risks that we don’t fully understand and I don’t think the general public would be comfortable with.”

Although a Voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone already exists off the coast of British Columbia to prevent international transport of oil from entering internal coastal waters, U.S. shipments of oil have maintained a ‘right of innocent passage.’

That right has been the subject of criticism, which was renewed after the grounding of the Nathan E. Stewart, an American fuel barge tug (which was pushing an empty fuel barge at the time of grounding). 

To avoid provoking international tensions, the tanker ban does not alter this right and limits its cover to only import and export marine facilities.

North Coast Oil Tanker Ban Won’t Actually Ban Tankers Full of Oil Products on B.C.’s North Coast https://t.co/UDhLH6cZ1Y @dogwoodbc #bcpoli pic.twitter.com/wSg3h4sJM9

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 7, 2017

Tanker Ban to Be Locked in But Details Subject to Change

Smith said the federal government did not include a sunset clause in the tanker ban, which means the legislation is not likely to be undone going forward unless by act of Parliament.

However, the types of oil covered in the ban are subject to a definition that has yet to be determined and could change over time.

“The federal government has to answer this question of what do you want covered or encompassed in the oil tanker ban,” Smith said. “In the legislation itself it will say any crude oil cannot be carried in an oil tanker and crude oil will have a definition that will include things that you would expect like bitumen and so on.”

A ‘schedule’ appending the legislation will list other types of products, known as persistent oil products, will also be included in the ban. The types of oil products listed on that schedule can be changed however.

“That approach give the federal government some flexibility to decide what it does and does not want to include in the moratorium,” Smith said.

The federal government has not disclosed what types of fuels will listed on the schedule but did note that products such as jet fuel, propane and LNG will be permanently excluded from the ban.

Tanker Ban Could Still Be Strengthened

The tanker ban feels like another one of Justin Trudeau’s broken promises, Housty said.

“ I think this is a case were they have ticked a box and completely ignored the sprit of what needs to be done,” Housty said.

“I hoped there could have been more trust on this file.”

Smith said the federal government has plans to pass the tanker ban bill by March.

“In terms of what types of improvements, we feel the 2,000 threshold would ensure a good balance between community supply and preventing large-scale bulk shipments,” he said.

“We also think the types of oil kinds should be refined and crude oils writ large. It shouldn’t be quite as narrow as the federal government set out. And we propose the ban cover the entire Hecate Strait, Dixon Exit and Queen Charlotte Sound.”

Smith said ultimately the North Coast Tanker Ban is meant to protect the North Coast from oil tanker spills.

“These are the changes we feel would make the act the strongest legislation possible.”

Image: Sunken Nathan E. Stewart tug near Bella Bella, B.C. Photo: April Bencze/Heiltsuk Tribal Council

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.

With news of the Port of Vancouver ruffling the feathers of the federal government by issuing a permit for a jet fuel pipeline without so much as a heads up, the port authority’s integrity has been thrust into the spotlight yet again.

While the port has apologized to Transport Minister Marc Garneau, the thorny issue of the port conducting environmental reviews of projects, while profiting from the same projects, remains.

Complicating matters, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (which regulates the Port of Vancouver) is a member of the Coal Association of Canada — a lobby group that glosses over the impacts of burning coal on climate change and that has gained notoriety in recent weeks for spreading misinformation about the phase-out of coal-fired electricity in Alberta.

The port authority has also been outed in the past for a covert and intimate relationship with the Vancouver-based Coal Alliance, an aggressive lobby group with a membership that includes rail companies, export terminals and other lobby groups.

Meantime, the port authority was responsible for reviewing the $50-million Fraser Surrey Docks coal-transfer terminal that would export more than four million tonnes of thermal coal to Asian markets — which it approved in December 2015.

“If you’re going to be a member of some other organization or alliance and you approve the projects that are related to that membership, it puts into question the fairness of the decision-making process and leads one to question whether or not they’re biased — whether or not things are predetermined,” says Paula Williams, who co-founded Communities and Coal, a Vancouver-based organization that opposes the export of thermal coal from the port.

Port Authority Part of Coal Lobby, Also Responsible for Regulating

The transportation of coal has been critical to the port’s recent financial successes. In 2015, the port sent out 35 million tonnes of the stuff, compared to 25 million tonnes of grain, speciality crops and feed and 23 million tonnes of forest products — and that was a slow year on the coal front.

If the port authority was just serving as landlord, it would make sense for it to collaborate with coal lobby groups to push for increased exports and generate as much profit as possible for its owners.

But the port authority’s mandate also requires it to fulfill duties such as the “safety and security of all land and waters” and the “permitting of all projects proposed for the use of federal port land.” In a single word: regulating.

“They shouldn’t be doing both,” says Voters Taking Action Against Climate Change (VTACC) director Kevin Washbrook, who notes the port authority has approved every coal export project that’s come before it in recent years.

VTACC is one of four plaintiffs that have taken the port authority to court on allegations of bias and failing to consider climate change impacts when approving the permit for the Fraser Surrey Docks coal terminal.

A federal court is currently evaluating a request by Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and Fraser Surrey Docks to toss out the lawsuit filed against them.

“That’s really why we’re taking them to court: we think the public interest isn’t being met by this dual mandate,” Washbrook told DeSmog Canada.

Port Authority Covertly Sponsored Coal Conference in 2013

A series of disturbing revelations about the port authority’s intimate relationship with the coal industry came out in late 2013, courtesy of digging by Voters Taking Action Against Climate Change.

First came the news the port authority had been swapping e-mails with National Public Relations (a firm connected with the Coal Alliance that has lobbied the federal government on behalf of Fraser Surrey Docks). The Vancouver Sun described the exchange as seeming “as if they were allies, rather than as a public regulator and private proponent.”

In one instance, the two entities traded information on a VTACC protest, with the port authority directing media inquiries to Alan Fryer, a senior consultant for National Public Relations and lobbyist for the Coal Alliance.

A month later, it was revealed the port authority covered up its sponsorship of the 2013 Coal Association of Canada conference, including a $5,000 contribution and golf swag, because it was concerned about “press and public backlash.” The Vancouver Sun noted the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority had publicly sponsored the conference in 2012.

“They get it in the sense that it doesn’t look good,” Washbrook says. “Whether they think that it’s actually a bad thing: I’m not sure.”

Washbrook notes the port authority’s response to pressure for more regional involvement and transparency has been to launch a Twitter feed, YouTube channel and run some TV commercials. None of those PR products mention coal at all, he says.

Tangled Web of Business Relationships 

Williams of Communities and Coal suggests it may also be worth paying attention to some other business relationships that encircle Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and Fraser Surrey Docks.

In 2011, SNC-Lavalin, the embattled Montreal-based engineering services firm, bought a 23 per cent share in AltaLink (an electricity transmission company) from Macquarie Essential Assets Partnership .

The partnership is owned by a subsidiary of the Macquarie Group, a member of which owns Fraser Surrey Docks.

In 2013, Fraser Surrey Docks contracted SNC-Lavalin to prepare the environmental impact assessment, which was described by Vancity credit union as “entirely inadequate” and criticized by activists as being limited in scope.

Then, in 2014, SNC-Lavalin sold AltaLink to Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, which owns BNSF Railway, the company transporting the coal to the Port of Vancouver. Both BNSF Railway and Fraser Surrey Docks are members of the Coal Alliance.

Williams emphasizes that a trail of prior business isn’t necessarily a problem. But given the port authority’s habit of getting a bit too cozy with private industry, it’s a trend that might be worth paying attention to in the future.

“[Vancouver Fraser Port Authority] should not have a say in the decision of whether or not to approve a project at the port,” she reiterates. “This should not happen. They should be removed from that. They can have an opinion and give their input, but they shouldn’t be part of the decision-making process.”

Citizens Push for More Input

Opposition to the way the port is doing business continues to build.

Washbrook notes that people in North Vancouver are fighting the proposed G3 grain terminal, while folks in Delta are concerned about the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project. Meanwhile, people in Richmond worry about Agricultural Land Reserve property being bought up and the small leaseholders the port is “shaking down” for exorbitant increases in water lot lease rates.

All have common interests, he says: more regional inputs, more representation, a more transparent and open processes.

If the VTACC lawsuit doesn’t get derailed by the port authority and Fraser Surrey Docks, the verdict could help shape the future conversation. But ultimately, solving the issue seems to come back to the federal government and its power to amend the Canada Marine Act to redefine the mandate of port authorities.

“I think there are discussions happening in Ottawa right now about how to reform the ports,” Washbrook says. “The question will be about how much of that is an inside discussion that tweaks things, and how much of it brings about meaningful reform.”

Image: Jason Mrachina/Flickr.

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.