As Vopak Development Canada’s proposed fuel storage facility and export terminal near Prince Rupert, B.C., enters its final public comment period, environmental groups say the project fails to address risks associated with marine and rail transport. 

If approved, the Vopak Pacific Canada facility would bring up to 240 rail cars carrying fuels like diesel, propane, methanol and gasoline through northwest B.C. every day. The fuels would be shipped on the CN rail network from sources in B.C. and Alberta to Ridley Island, an industrial site near Prince Rupert. The terminal would also bring up to 171 tankers to the Skeena River estuary annually.

“Vopak brings the risk of a spill of highly toxic diesel oil and gasoline from train derailments, tanker accidents and spills at the offloading facility,” Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, told The Narwhal. “Such spills are very difficult to clean up once they enter the river or marine environment.”

Retired biologist Dawn Remington with Friends of Morice-Bulkley said the project poses a risk to communities along fuel transportation routes and not enough information about how these communities will be protected has been made available to the public. 

“We’re going to be a corridor for hazardous petroleum products. And if this is the case, I want it to be done safely,” Remington told The Narwhal, adding her concerns aren’t about trying to stop the project. 

Remington said the Vopak project presents an opportunity to address the risks of rail transportation associated with several projects in the region, including another proposed fuel export facility and one that’s already under construction.

Vopak recently submitted its application for an environmental assessment certificate along with its report on the project’s potential environmental impacts to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office. The public can now review and comment on those documents until Dec. 30. 

A map showing the location of the proposed Vopak Pacific Canada facility on Ridley Island. Map: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

Northwest B.C. communities want Vopak-associated rail traffic assessed

During the initial public comment period in 2018, members of the public and environmental groups asked that increased rail traffic associated with the Vopak project be included in the facility’s review.

And during the First Nations consultation process, each of the six nations involved flagged increased rail traffic as an important issue that should be addressed as part of the environmental assessment.

The B.C. Environmental Assessment Office said it would not include rail traffic in the assessment, deferring to Transport Canada, the federal agency responsible for regulating the rail network.

“Concerns of potential spills from train derailments are not being assessed in the environmental assessment and are being completely ignored by CN, Vopak and the provincial and federal governments despite strong public concern,” Knox said.

CN’s rail accidents have been steadily increasing, according to a 2019 Transportation Safety Board of Canada report. Last year, there were 169 accidents involving dangerous goods, like the ones that would be shipped to the Vopak facility. Eight of those accidents resulted in spills, twice as many as the previous year.

The number of CN accidents involving dangerous goods is on the rise. Photo: Transportation Safety Board / Flickr

In March, a train carrying coal and propane derailed near an elementary school east of Prince George, B.C., spilling coal into a creek and causing an emergency evacuation of the school. Other derailments in the region over the past few years have resulted in coal and wood pellets spilling into creeks and rivers.

Read more: B.C. committed to regional environmental assessments, but experts warn they might never happen

Remington has been working with communities along the rail corridor in northwest B.C. to formally request Transport Canada conduct a risk assessment of rail traffic in the region. Even though the potential for a rail accident resulting in an explosion or deadly spill is low, Remington worries a single event could have catastrophic effects. 

Propane — also referred to as liquified petroleum gas — is a highly-combustible fossil fuel captured as a by-product of fracking for natural gas. More propane travelling through the region means more risk, she said. 

“Risk is the probability of something happening times the severity of the consequences if it happens,” she explained. “So even if the probability is low, the consequences are enormous.”

She stressed that without knowing the risks, the communities along the rail corridor aren’t equipped to deal with an emergency should one arise. “How do you evacuate this entire town if people have no idea?”

People are worried about the increased rail traffic the proposed Vopak Pacific Canada project would bring to Prince Rupert and other communities along the route. Photo: Prince Rupert Port Authority

The concern is shared along the transportation corridor, even in towns hundreds of kilometres from the proposed Vopak facility.

In a recent public comment on the project, Jeanette Weir, from Hazelton, B.C., said the threat the export terminal poses to communities along rail lines has effectively been overlooked.

“This project is completely ignoring the communities through which an enormous increase of rail transport of explosive dangerous goods is proposed. It should not be evaluated for the sole risks at the Prince Rupert storage facility because it will affect all of us living along the rail line.”

In a document provided to First Nations outlining the potential effects of increased rail traffic, Vopak said the project would contribute to an incremental increase in the risks associated with rail transportation, including moose strikes, collisions and derailments. It also stressed that all regulations related to rail safety fall under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada.

Tankers could disperse toxic sediment into the marine ecosystem

Public requests that the environmental impacts of marine traffic be included in the projects assessment were also denied by the Environmental Assessment Office, leading to lingering concerns the project will harm marine ecosystems.

The proposed facility would include a number of holding tanks for fuel and a marine berth where tankers would be filled over 40-hour periods. Vopak would only be responsible for products during storage, unloading and loading.

For nearly 50 years, a now-shuttered pulp mill near Ridley Island discharged contaminated materials into the marine environment, much of which is now sequestered in a layer of sediment on the ocean floor — including where Vopak would provide mooring for tankers.

Although Vopak scrapped its initial plan to dredge up the contaminated sediment to make way for a permanent jetty, many worry the current plan to leave sediment — which contains highly toxic dioxins and furans as well as copper and arsenic — undisturbed is unrealistic.

An artist’s rendering of the proposed Vopak Pacific Canada facility. Photo: Vopak Canada

According to Luanne Roth, north coast campaigner for the T Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation, the new plan was submitted after the initial public comment period, so any public concerns about the redesign have yet to be addressed.

“Before, with the big dredge, all of that contaminated sediment would have been gone from the area,” she said. Now the issue is what happens to the sediment when tankers are mooring. 

“When the boats are docked, they’re docked by really powerful tugs, so there’s going to be really powerful propeller wash,” she said. 

The effects of propeller wash, the movement of water by ships’ engines, on the sediment have not been studied for the Vopak project, but they were when the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal was on the books for neighbouring Lelu Island. Roth said those studies estimated five centimetres of sediment would be resuspended every day.

All of that toxic sediment would then be distributed by tides and currents within the surrounding marine ecosystem. Opposite Lelu Island, and within sight of the proposed Vopak project, is Flora Bank, which has been noted as a critical juvenile salmon habitat. Given the dramatic declines in Skeena salmon populations, the effects could be felt throughout the entire Skeena watershed.

The proposed Vopak Pacific Canada facility is close to Lelu Island (middle), which nearly became an LNG export facility, and Flora Bank (bottom right), an important juvenile salmon habitat that’s protected by a development moratorium. Photo: Prince Rupert Port Authority / Facebook

Roth said there may be solutions to the problem, but the absence of any mention of the effects of propeller wash in Vopak’s environmental effects evaluation is troubling, especially because the chemicals are known to have negative effects on human health, including increased risk of autism, cancer and diabetes. 

“There’s a tremendous amount of food gathering in the Skeena estuary, so it’s a really big concern,” she said.

In an emailed statement, Vopak communications director, Stefany Cortes, told the Narwhal “the tugboat propulsion is focused higher in the water column and, therefore, is not expected to resuspend sediment during mooring.”

Increased marine traffic poses significant risks

Roth also raised concerns about the increased marine traffic and the potential for a catastrophic spill. As The Narwhal previously reported, many of Prince Rupert’s designated anchorages are situated in water that lies atop a thin layer of mud and sediment on smooth rock. In high winds — very common during fall and winter — a ship can drag its anchor and potentially end up smashing against coastal rocks. 

Even just one ship spilling its fuel, not to mention its cargo of fuel, would have catastrophic effects on the marine ecosystem. 

Anchor-dragging incidents in the Prince Rupert port are common due to the weak anchoring environment and the stormy weather. Photo: Prince Rupert Port Authority

According to a T Buck Suzuki study, between 2004 and 2017, the Prince Rupert port had three times as many anchor-dragging incidents as the Port of Vancouver despite having 86 per cent less vessels. This works out to 2,360 per cent more incidents per visit.

Roth said there were 29 incidents in Prince Rupert last winter.

Earlier this year, T Buck Suzuki commissioned an independent report to assess the safety risks associated with anchoring in the Prince Rupert area. Prepared by Ivan Todorov, a master mariner and former senior officer on oil tankers, the report noted that “delaying and cancelling of the cargo operations because of adverse weather is something well implemented within the oil and gas industry.”

But Todorov added that the Vopak project should be subject to a formal risk assessment of grounding and collision incidents.

Prince Rupert Port Authority says it will implement strict policies and procedures

The Prince Rupert Port Authority, which is responsible for federal lands and waters in the area and is the coordinator of the environmental assessment for the proposed project, recently commissioned an independent navigational risk assessment. But when The Narwhal asked to review the document, the port said it would not make the report available to the public.

Port communications director Monika Cȏté told The Narwhal in an emailed statement that the port authority has strict policies and procedures in place for the movement and anchorage of ships coming and going from the Ridley Island Propane Export Terminal, of which Vopak is part owner, and similar policies and procedures would be implemented for the proposed facility. Those procedures include port-assigned pilots and tugboat assistance. 

“Procedures vary depending on vessel, cargo and terminal they are going to, and what is required to mitigate navigational risk,” she wrote. “Vopak-specific procedures will be determined through a multi-agency effort that includes vessel simulation trials.”

Vopak Canada has a 30 per cent stake in Canada’s first propane export facility, the Ridley Island Propane Export Terminal, and is hoping to expand that interest with the proposed Vopak Pacific Canada facility. Photo: Prince Rupert Port Authority

She said it is uncommon for ships to remain at anchorage once they’re loaded. “In the very rare circumstance that a loaded vessel would move to anchorage, the tug would remain in attendance with the vessel while it is at anchor,” she wrote.

Roth said if the port is not able to prevent fully loaded ships from anchoring during storm events, Vopak could contractually refuse to fill a tanker if extreme weather was in the forecast. “That’s something we’d really like them to address,” she said.

Last chance for public to weigh in

In the new year, Vopak Development Canada will compile all of the comments received during the public comment period and submit them to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office. The office will then consult with the province, the port authority, local First Nations, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada and other stakeholders to resolve any outstanding issues. 

If no red flags are identified, the stakeholders will sign off on the project and a final decision will be made by provincial ministers. 

Vopak projects it will start construction in late 2021.

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.

Ridley Island in Prince Rupert, B.C., is a busy industrial hub that could get a whole lot busier if a proposed cargo sorting and loading facility goes ahead. The Prince Rupert Port Authority wants to build the facility, known as the Ridley Island Export Logistics Park, to support its expanding container shipping business. 

The project would have a footprint of approximately 107 hectares — about a quarter the size of Vancouver’s Stanley Park — and would be built on what is now rainforest and wetlands. 

Ridley Island is on federal land, which means it’s subject to the federal Impact Assessment Act. However, this project isn’t required to undergo a full environmental assessment due to its size and low potential of impacting the environment. Still, locals are concerned about the effects on the environment and human health. 

“The port has been great for the economy and Prince Rupert, that is for certain,” Colleen Fitzpatrick, a member of the Prince Rupert Environmental Society, said in an interview. “However, with it comes a lot of changes to our community.”

The public can comment on the project until Sept. 25. 

The port hopes to start building the Ridley Island Export Logistics Park in 2021, with it going into operation in 2023, according to the project description. 

Here’s what you need to know. 

What is the Ridley Island Export Logistics Park?

The Ridley Island Export Logistics Park would be a receiving, storage and loading centre for a variety of goods such as cereals, grains, metals, minerals and lumber. It would be built at the south end of Ridley Island, across from Lelu Island. 

It would include a facility to receive bulk goods and load them into containers, a facility to receive so-called break-bulk goods like lumber and a large container yard to receive and store empty containers as they return from destinations across North America. All of these facilities would be connected by rail infrastructure that would accommodate full-length trains with 100 to 120 cars.   

Trucks would move containers from the proposed Ridley Island Export Logistics Park to the Fairview Container Terminal for shipment overseas. Photo: Prince Rupert Port Authority

The goods would arrive by train from across Canada, be loaded into containers and be transported by train or truck to the existing Fairview Container Terminal, where they would be shipped overseas. 

The trucks would travel on a port-owned road that follows the shoreline. This road, currently under construction, is being built to reduce industrial traffic through the city, including residential areas. The Ridley Island Connector Corridor is scheduled to be completed next year.

To support the expansion, CN is proposing to build a new rail bridge and causeway to service Ridley Island, increasing total rail capacity and helping offset rail traffic along Prince Rupert’s waterfront. 

Last year, the federal government committed more than $150 million to support work on the rail network and other infrastructure projects to support the port’s proposal and overall expansion plans.  

Why is the Ridley Island Export Logistics Park needed?

The port has been growing steadily since loading its first container ship in 2007.

Capacity in the container business is measured in 20-foot equivalents, or TEUs. The existing Fairview Container Terminal can handle 1.35 million TEUs per year. 

In 2019, the port released a container terminal master plan outlining potential future development — including expanding the existing container terminal and adding a new one — which could add up to seven million TEUs. The Vancouver port, for comparison, can handle about three million TEUs per year.

As more and more goods are shipped through Prince Rupert, the port needs a place to receive raw materials, manage the increased activity and store empty containers.

The port had a record year in 2019, and 2020 is going strong despite the pandemic, Brian Friesen, vice-president of trade development and communications with the port, said in an interview. “We are certainly faring quite well this year to date, from a volume perspective, and with respect to growth and expansion, [the pandemic] has no real impact on projects that are currently under construction or those that are planned.”

The Prince Rupert Port Authority wants to build a cargo sorting and loading facility to accommodate its growing container shipping business. Photo: Prince Rupert Port Authority

The logistic park would allow the port to diversify its business by storing and shipping a wider variety of products. 

The proposed project would also support the port’s goal of having an equal flow of goods in and out. Containers imported from overseas arrive at the port full and are shipped by rail across the continent. “Most of them have to come back through Prince Rupert,” Friesen said. 

When empty containers arrive back at the port, they are stored until they can be filled for export. “Those empty containers provide a real opportunity for Canadian exporters to fill those boxes and access markets overseas, particularly in the Asia Pacific region,” Friesen said. 

How much capacity would the project add to the port?

The proposed project would fill empty containers already moving through the terminal, with the capacity to handle 400,000 TEUs and expand to 900,000 in the second phase.

During the first phase of the project, between 300 and 360 rail cars would arrive at the facility every day, requiring about 1,400 daily round trips by truck to the container shipping terminal. 

If continued growth warranted a second phase, construction could start five to 10 years after completion of the first phase. This would add up to 180 more rail cars and increase the trucking to 2,000 trips every day.  

The Ridley Island Export Logistics Park would increase capacity at the Prince Rupert port by 400,000 20-foot equivalents per year. Photo: Prince Rupert Port Authority

How are the potential environmental impacts being assessed?

Because the project doesn’t meet the threshold to trigger a full environmental assessment and Ridley Island is on federal lands, the Prince Rupert Port Authority is both the proponent and the federal authority responsible for coordinating what’s known as an environmental effects evaluation.

As part of this evaluation, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada are working with the port authority to determine if the proposed project is likely to have adverse environmental impacts and prepare a mitigation plan. 

When a proposed project undergoes an environmental assessment, stakeholders, such as First Nations, can access funding to undertake independent studies and provide input to help inform final decisions. These studies will not take place, but numerous studies that were done for previously proposed projects will be considered in the effects evaluation. 

“There’s a lot of in-depth environmental research, baseline studies, et cetera that go along with each one of those projects,” Veldman said. “So even for projects that don’t go forward for whatever reason, the research that’s done within those contributes to a much deeper knowledge.”

What are the potential environmental impacts?

The port identified 14 species listed as threatened, endangered or of special concern under the Species At Risk Act that potentially use the landscape that would be cleared to make way for the project, including the endangered little brown myotis bat, the threatened marbled murrelet and the western toad, a species of special concern. 

The little brown myotis has suffered a sharp decline in population due to the rapid spread of a fungal disease called white-nose syndrome, which has killed 94 per cent of the bat’s Eastern Canada population. In Western Canada, the bats have managed to avoid the syndrome thus far, but according to the federal recovery strategy, the disease is spreading at a rate of 200 to 250 kilometres a day. 

The south end of Ridley Island is designated by Environment Canada as potential critical nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet, but whether the bird actually uses the landscape is unknown. Veldman said the potential impacts on birds like the murrelet can be mitigated by scheduling construction plans to ensure no overlap with the nesting season.

Marbled murrelets nest on land, mostly in trees. Environment Canada has designed the south end of Ridley Island as potential critical nesting habitat for the birds. Photo: Eric Ellingson / Flickr

According to the port’s report on potential impacts, much of the south end of Ridley Island is wetlands, a key habitat for western toads. One of the biggest threats to the species is loss of habitat or fragmentation of habitat due to urbanization and development. 

The Narwhal reached out to Environment and Climate Change Canada with questions about its role in protecting these species but did not receive a response.

When a project has a negative effect on an ecosystem, the port offsets that impact by contributing to conservation and restoration projects elsewhere, whether locally or farther afield. 

“We follow the principle that there will be no net loss in terms of habitat as these kinds of projects move forward,” Veldman said. Two to one is the ratio that we try to get to. So, for example, if you impact one hectare of wetlands, you’re aiming to develop or revitalize two [hectares] in some other area.” 

For wetlands specifically, he said there are few projects in the Prince Rupert area the port can invest in, so in the past it contributed to a wetlands revitalization project on Haida Gwaii. In 2017, for instance, the port funded restoration work on the Delkatla Slough, a tidal wetlands at the north end of the archipelago. 

Because the proposed facility would be on land, the potential impacts on the shoreline and marine life would be minimal, according to the port’s report. However, the project does have the potential to affect fish habitat through the construction of rail infrastructure crossing waterways. These effects would be mitigated by timing construction activities to coincide with low tides. 

How would the project impact human health?

Residents of Prince Rupert and nearby Port Edward have been concerned about the increasing rail traffic and corresponding noise pollution for years. While the proposed project would divert some traffic away from Prince Rupert, the additional activity this project would bring to the area would mean significant increases in industrial noise overall. 

In August, the City of Prince Rupert denied the port’s request for a temporary use permit to develop a 12-hectare container storage facility close to the terminal, in part because of residents’ concerns about noise, air quality and traffic.  

Fitzpatrick, the member of the Prince Rupert Environmental Society who also lives on a street above the waterfront in Prince Rupert, said she is regularly disturbed by all the industrial noise. “Last night, I was awake from one o’clock in the morning ’til about three with the shunting,” she said in an interview. 

Prince Rupert residents are worried about increased noise from rail transportation and other industrial activities associated with the Ridley Island Export Logistics Park. Photo: Prince Rupert Port Authority

Shunting is the process of rolling rail cars together to form a complete train. If not done with perfect precision, it results in loud noises and strong vibrations. Shunting can literally shake a house.  

The port follows guidance from Health Canada to keep its noise levels under maximum allowable decibel levels for day and night activities — 55 and 45 decibels, respectively — but averages those levels over a 24-hour period. People can access real-time noise data through an online monitoring system.

“I’ve had hits of like 100 or 110 dB,” Fitzpatrick said. 

HealthLink BC recommends ear protection for anything above 85 decibels, and lists the sound of a chainsaw as an example of something in the 100 to 110 decibel range. 

Repetitive loud noise can contribute to a range of physical and mental health effects. Headaches, sleep disorders, depression, hearing problems and even cardiovascular disorders have all been linked to noise pollution.

The rail network’s mainline into the area passes right through the town of Port Edward, which sits across Porpoise Harbour from Ridley Island. Veldman said the development would retain a “significant natural buffer” between the proposed project and the town. 

“We don’t believe that there’s going to be a significant impact to Port Edward from this development,” he said, adding that the planning process includes an opportunity to look at potential impacts like noise and find ways to mitigate the impacts. 

Fitzpatrick is supportive of the port and development in general but would like to see the noise issue addressed as it continues to expand. “It’s never been about getting rid of the port,” she said. “It’s about trying to live in a common area together.”

What are the connections between this project and others proposed in the area?

Several other projects have been proposed in the vicinity of the Ridley Island Export Logistics Park.

The proposed project overlaps the area that would have been used for the Prince Rupert LNG project, a proposed LNG terminal that was cancelled in 2017. Another project on Ridley Island, the Canpotex potash export terminal, was also axed in 2016, after nearly a decade of planning, investment and environmental assessment.

The proposed Ridley Island Export Logistics Park is close to Lelu Island (middle), which nearly became an LNG export facility, and Flora Bank (bottom right), an important juvenile salmon habitat that’s protected by a development moratorium. Photo: Prince Rupert Port Authority / Facebook

The proposed Vopak bulk liquids terminal, which is currently undergoing a provincial environmental assessment, would be located on Ridley Island, adjacent to the new development. Vopak Pacific Canada would be encircled by the logistics park’s rail and road network but would not otherwise be impacted by the development.

The cumulative impacts of all these developments is what worries residents like Fitzpatrick. “The story is big, big, big. There’s a lot of aspects to it, not just the noise.”

Updated on Sept. 10, 2020, at 11 a.m. PST: A previous version of this article suggested the Ridley Island Export Logistics Park is not undergoing an environmental assessment. While it is not subject to a full independent federal environmental assessment, it is undergoing an environmental effects evaluation. A previous version of this article also incorrectly stated that a second container terminal is expected to be operating by 2028. 

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.

Ridley Island in Prince Rupert, B.C., is home to the region’s primary export terminal. Freight trains rumble in 24/7, carrying goods like grain, coal and — more recently — liquefied petroleum gas, commonly known as propane. Massive ships in the adjacent deep waters are loaded with this cargo, mostly destined for transport across the Pacific. 

All this noisy industriousness is a striking juxtaposition to the quiet ruggedness of the north coast landscape. A stone’s throw away is the thickly forested Lelu Island, which nearly became a liquefied natural gas export facility before Petronas abandoned the project in 2017. Flora Bank, an important habitat for juvenile salmon that’s protected by a development moratorium, is just around the corner. And the Skeena River estuary is nearby, where innumerable marine species thrive. Increased industrial activity in the area puts all these important places at risk. 

And if a new project gets the green light, Ridley Island is about to get a lot busier.

Vopak Development Canada is working on a plan to construct a bulk liquids terminal that would store propane, diesel, gasoline and methanol before it’s exported. Vopak is now working its way through B.C.’s environmental assessment process and hopes to be operating by 2022.

Here’s what you need to know about the proposed project.

A map showing the location of the Vopak Pacific Canada project on Ridley Island. Map: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

1) Who is Vopak anyway?

Vopak Development Canada is a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Vopak — the world’s largest independent oil storage company. Royal Dutch Vopak operates 66 terminals around the world, storing materials like liquefied natural gas, crude oil and various refined petrochemical products.

Vopak Canada already has a stake in Prince Rupert as a co-owner (with AltaGas) of Ridley Island Propane Export Terminal, the first propane export terminal in Canada. Its first shipment to Japan left Prince Rupert in May 2019. At full capacity, it can fill approximately 20 to 30 tankers per year. The proposed facility would be capable of shipping 150 tankers per year and would allow for additional types of refined fuels to be stored and shipped. 

Vopak declined an interview request from The Narwhal and referred us to its website.

Vopak Canada has a 30 per cent stake in Canada’s first propane export facility, the Ridley Island Propane Export Terminal, and is hoping to expand that interest with the proposed Vopak Pacific Canada facility. Photo: Prince Rupert Port Authority

2) What would the Vopak Pacific Canada facility do?

Vopak Pacific Canada would be a storage facility for companies selling their bulk liquid fuels to international markets.

Products such as propane, diesel, gasoline and methanol would be transported on the existing CN rail network from their sources in B.C. and Alberta to the storage facility. Propane — a fossil fuel primarily captured as a by-product of fracking LNG — would be pressurized for transport at its source. The companies shipping the fuels are responsible for them while they’re in transit.

At Vopak Pacific Canada, the rail cars would be unloaded and the fuels would be transferred to holding tanks. (Prior to being transferred, the propane would be cooled to -42 C.)

The facility would have a footprint of roughly 30 hectares. The land is currently forested and would be cleared for construction. Seen from above, the facility’s fuel storage tanks would look like giant Lego blocks. There would be a rail unloading system and cooling equipment. To facilitate export, the site would include a jetty and a berth — or a system of mooring buoys — suitable for very large oil tankers. These ships — contracted by Vopak’s clients — would be loaded over a 40-hour period.

An artist’s drawing of the proposed Vopak Pacific Canada facility. Photo: Vopak Canada

At this point, Vopak’s role would be complete, and the oil tankers would head out across the Pacific to sell the fuels to Japan, China and other countries. According to Vopak, methanol would be shipped to China, where it’s in high demand for use in manufacturing and as fuel additive, while propane would be shipped throughout Asia Pacific for heating and other industrial applications. Diesel and gasoline would be used for transportation. 

On its website, Vopak says the project would take two years to complete, creating 200 jobs during that period. The company also says it would hire up to 50 people for permanent positions at the facility and provide skills training and jobs for local First Nations people. 

3) What kind of environmental assessments are being done?

Both provincial and federal environmental assessments are required for this project, but there’s a catch.

Ridley Island is owned by the federal government and a provision in the legislation allows for a project on federal land to undergo a significantly scaled back version of the federal environmental assessment depending on its size, scope and level of risk. 

While a standard federal environmental assessment is a rigorous, multi-step process, this scaled-back version is essentially a planning process for the project. 

Gavin Smith, a lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law, says even calling it an environmental assessment is generous. In 2018, West Coast Environmental Law asked the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to designate the project for full federal assessment, but that request was denied.

The Prince Rupert Port Authority manages Ridley Island and is also managing the federal assessment, despite it having a vested interest in the project going ahead. Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, says the fact that the port authority is running the federal assessment “is problematic given their conflict of interest.”

Ken Veldman, vice-president of public affairs and sustainability with the port authority, says the port is coordinating the assessment process with the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office. While the federal review is a separate process, the port uses the provincial assessment to consult with the public and Indigenous nations, he says. “The federal legislation isn’t as specific with regards to public consultation,” he adds. 

As part of the B.C. environmental assessment, Vopak consulted with First Nations and held a public comment period in 2018. 

Each of the six First Nations involved in the consultation process — Metlakatla, Lax Kw’alaams, Kitselas, Kitsumkalum, Gitxaala and Gitga’at — expressed concern about the increases in rail traffic, as did members of the public during the commenting period.

However, rail travel is not included in the provincial environmental assessment because the CN rail network is under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada.  

According to an April 15 letter from the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office to Transport Canada, Vopak has committed to providing additional information regarding the potential effects of increased rail traffic to First Nations when it submits its application for an environmental assessment certificate.

Assessing potential marine risks is required as part of the provincial assessment. 

Killer whales swim past a train on Ridley Island. Assessing Vopak Pacific Canada’s potential effects on the ocean is part of the provincial environmental assessment, but assessing the potential impacts of rail transportation is not. Photo: Caitlin Birdsall / Ocean Wise

4) What are the risks associated with rail transport?

The proposed project would see 240 rail cars travel through B.C. on the CN network every day, intersecting numerous communities and, for long sections, following the province’s largest rivers. Derailments are becoming more common, rising at a rate of about 10 per cent each year, according to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

While explosions are relatively rare, the increased rail traffic means increased risk, and the proximity of the CN line to northern communities puts the region’s population in harm’s way. 

Earlier this year, a derailment near Prince George forced the closure of an elementary school. Seven of the cars that derailed were full of propane headed for Prince Rupert.

“Those kids are so lucky,” says Knox. “It’s astonishing that our communities don’t even know the risks.”

Those risks include potential impacts on fish, wildlife and vital habitat.

“We’ve had several derailments right into the Skeena,” he says.

If diesel in particular were to spill into the river, the impact on aquatic species would be deadly. “Diesel is one of the most highly toxic substances to fish,” Knox says.

In 2007, two CN trains carrying diesel and gasoline collided near Prince George and exploded, spilling fuel into the Fraser River. And in 2018, a train derailed near South Hazelton, spilling coal into Mission Creek.  

“With CN’s increased rail traffic, there are huge risks our communities are exposed to,” says David DeWit, natural resources department manager for the Office of the Wet’suwet’en in Smithers.

Given the risks, he says a proposed increase in rail traffic of this size should be clearly communicated to all communities along the route, yet he had not heard of the Vopak project. He says CN has shown a lack of transparency that is frustrating to First Nations whose communities would be directly impacted by a derailment. “Something is amiss in all this.”

CN media representative Jonathan Abecassis explains that CN works directly with municipalities to keep communities informed about any dangerous goods travelling through their regions. “Rest assured, our emergency protocol has to be operational across the country.”

But Knox isn’t convinced. “I don’t have a lot of faith in CN,” he says. “They tend to pat you on the head and say, ‘Everything is OK.’ We need a better understanding of the risks.”

5) What are the risks associated with ocean transport?

Prince Rupert has deep waters that can accommodate very large ships, but because its ocean floor is a thin layer of sediment on top of smooth rock, it’s unsuitable for anchorage. During a storm or hurricane — relatively common on the north coast — a ship can drag its anchor, potentially becoming grounded. If that happens, the ship’s hull can breach and its fuel and cargo spill. 

“I think there is a definite potential for catastrophe,” says Luanne Roth of T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation. 

Given Vopak’s proximity to important habitats like Flora Bank, the effects of a spill would be felt across the entire Skeena watershed. Especially if it were diesel.

The proposed Vopak Pacific Canada facility is close to Lelu Island (forested island to the right), which nearly became an LNG export facility, and Flora Bank (bottom right), an important juvenile salmon habitat that’s protected by a development moratorium. Photo: Prince Rupert Port Authority / Facebook

“People think diesel just evaporates, but it doesn’t,” says Roth. Both she and Knox point to the Nathan E. Stewart, a tugboat and articulated barge that ran aground in Heiltsuk territory in 2016, spilling thousands of litres of diesel.

“They’re still dealing with that four years later,” says Knox.

If a significant spill — even just the fuel tanks of one of the large vessels — were to happen at or near Ridley Island, the impact would be severe. 

In a report commissioned by T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation, Chris Kennedy, an aquatic toxicologist at Simon Fraser University, looked into the effects of a spill if one of these supertankers were to become grounded near Ridley Island. “A spill of the magnitude suggested in this area will undoubtedly have extremely large biological impacts on the region, impacts which will affect the entire ecosystem and its components, possibly for decades; recovery to pre-oil spill conditions may never occur,” Kennedy concluded.

Roth has been investigating anchor dragging for years. Back in 2016, she did a study that found that Prince Rupert’s anchor-dragging incidents were 2,300 per cent higher than the Port of Vancouver’s — and they’re still increasing. 

But she is optimistic. Her take is that the Vopak project presents an opportunity to solve this persistent problem, which would decrease the risks already facing Prince Rupert and its surrounding landscape. If the anchorage issue is addressed for this project, the same solution could be applied to all marine traffic in the region.

6) Wait, what about the ban on oil tankers?

On June 21, 2019, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act became law. 

This act bans oil tankers from travelling in northern B.C. waters, protecting huge parts of the coastline. But, and this is the clincher, it only applies to crude oils. Vessels carrying refined oils like propane, methanol and diesel — such as the 150 takers the Vopak project would bring to Prince Rupert — are excluded from the moratorium.

7) Where are things at in the process?

Vopak is in the pre-application phase of the B.C. environmental assessment process, which means it’s preparing its draft application for an environmental assessment certificate.  

According to Roth, Vopak’s draft environmental assessment certificate application should be submitted around early August. The federal part will also be submitted at this time. At this point, the public will be given another chance to comment on the proposed project. Once the draft application is revised, the company will submit its official application. The Environmental Assessment Office then reviews the application and conducts an assessment of the effects on the environment, at which point the public gets one last chance to comment. 

After the public comment period is closed, the Environmental Assessment Office takes those comments into consideration and consults with the provincial government, the six First Nations, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada and several other stakeholders to identify any risks still associated with moving forward. All of these stakeholders have to sign off on the project.

If everything checks out and all involved agree: green light.

Update June 27, 2020 at 11:05 a.m. PST: This article was updated to clarify that the Vopak project could service 150 tankers carrying liquid gas and not oil as previously stated in the story’s deck head. A separate update was made to clarify the relationship between Ridley Terminals and the Vopak project. The company is not “working with” Vopak on the latter’s project proposal as the story previously incorrectly stated. 

Update June 30, 2020 2:11 p.m. PST: This article was updated to remove reference to Ridley Terminals, a private coal and petroleum coke export terminal on Ridley Island. A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Ridley Terminals managed all the unloading, product storage and vessel loading operations on the island. 

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.

CN Rail is considering shipping crude oil by rail from Alberta to Prince Rupert, BC, for export to Asian markets in capacities matching Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

According to the Canadian Press, "internal memos obtained by Greenpeace under the Access to Information Act show the rail carrier raised the proposal last March with Natural Resources Canada."

A briefing note for the March 1 meeting reportedly states that China-based Nexen Inc. is "working with CN Rail to examine the transportation of crude oil on CN's railway to Prince Rupert, B.C., to be loaded onto tankers for export to Asia."

A CN presentation paper attached to the briefing note assures that "CN has ample capacity to run seven trains per day to match Gateway's proposed capacity."

According to a 2013 report by Malcolm Cairns, an ex-CP Rail employee, a single tanker train can carry 63,000-78,000 barrels of crude. Going by that number, seven trains per day would bring CN's proposed capacity to 441,000-546,000 bpd, matching or exceeding Northern Gateway's starting capacity.

The market for shipping crude oil by rail has been steadily growing since 2009, during which CP Rail moved 500 carloads and CN moved none. Cairns' report states that in 2013, CN anticipates moving approximately 60,000 carloads of crude oil.

If undertaken, CN's proposal to ship bitumen crude from Alberta to Prince Rupert would significantly raise the volume of crude oil shipped by rail in Canada per year.

Map of CN Rail Routes in North America. Credit: CN Rail.

Greenpeace researcher Keith Stewart reportedly said that the CN proposal seemed to be a possible "Plan B" in the case that Northern Gateway is blocked, but raises "the same or greater risks."

The risks of transporting crude by rail were put into sharp relief by the derailment and explosion of a train carrying crude in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, this July. The incident took a tragic toll, resulting in 47 deaths and about 5.5 million litres of oil burned or contaminating the environment of Lac-Megantic, with the fire burning for four days.

Spokesman Mark Hallman denied CN made any project proposal, telling the Canadian Press that "no specific crude-by-rail project to Prince Rupert (was) discussed" at the March meeting with Natural Resources Canada.

Hallman did say that "the company will consider concrete crude-by-rail proposals, including any specific project to move crude to Prince Rupert," though there is currently "no infrastructure in place at Prince Rupert to transfer crude oil from train tank cars to vessels."

Hallman added that Natural Resources Canada asked for the March meeting, not CN.  

The documents obtained by Greenpeace confirm the federal government's strong interest in shipping oil by rail, at least before the Lac-Megantic derailment.

Cheadle reports that an undated memo for Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver says "NRCan is currently meeting with Transport Canada to mutually understand how rail could be part of a solution to current market access challenges," and calls rail an "increasingly viable option." The memo also notes that CP and CN Rail "have indicated that the potential to increase rail movements of crude oil is theoretically unlimited."

Another memo for International Trade Minister Ed Fast and Dennis Lebel, then transport minister, claims that Transport Canada "has identified no major safety concerns with the increased oil on rail capacity in Canada, nor with the safety of tank cars."

The memo observes that "transportation of oil by rail does not trigger the need for a federal environmental assessment," though "proposals to construct new infrastructure to support the activity" might, under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The "Departmental Position" on shipping oil by rail was redacted from the memo.

"If the government or industry imagines they can use these regulatory loopholes to do an end-run around opposition to tar sands moving through those lands or waters, they will be in for a rude awakening," said Greenpeace's Stewart.

There has been strong opposition to the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines in Canada and the US. But the memo to Joe Oliver suggests that the federal government doesn't see this as too much of a threat to the industry's expansion, with "Canadian crude producers…unlikely to slow down production and [turning] to rail to ensure their product reaches market," should the pipelines meet with "difficulties."

The memo says that "there hasn't been a project to bring crude by rail to port for tanker export, however rail officials indicate that such a project is likely in future."

Top Image Credit: Rocco Rossi / Wikimedia Commons

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.