Northern Gateway -
National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel – January 15, 2013
Submission
by: Captain Randy Burke - Managing Director, Bluewater Adventures Ltd
- Director, Gwaii Haanas Tour Operators
Association
- Director,
Commercial Bear Viewing Association of BC
Panel members: Sheila Leggett, Kenneth
Bateman and Hans Matthews
Recognition:
This meeting is happening in the traditional territory of the Coast Salish.
Introduction:
I have been a
professional mariner and Captain for the last 30 years along the British
Columbia coast and since 1988 been the owner of Bluewater Adventures Ltd.
Bluewater Adventures is an award-winning nature cruise company, based in North
Vancouver. Founded in 1974, we are one of the first ecotourism companies in BC.
I have 8 year round employees and an additional 20 seasonal employees. Bluewater
Adventures sells the “Super Natural BC” coast, and relies upon intact wildlife
populations, the protection of wildlife habitat, and dynamic Coastal First
Nations communities for our business to survive and flourish. I believe this coast
provides the finest tourism experience in the world – it equals the beauty of New
Zealand and Norway, and no where else do you find whales in such abundance, and
wilderness dependent species like grizzly bears and wolves to watch.
Great Bear Rainforest:
· One of our main destinations is the Great
Bear Rainforest; and lower Douglas Channel is critical to our operations.
· Researchers at Cetacea Lab estimate there are
100 humpback whales regularly in the lower Douglas Channel area. It is
recognized as critical habitat for northern resident orcas, and one of the only
places on the coast where fin whales – the second largest whale on the planet -
come inshore to feed.
· In 2012, we found there were more whales in
the lower Douglas Channel area than anywhere else on the coast.
· Northern Gateway puts a
superhighway right through the living room of these whales. The sounds from
these ships will impede whales from communicating, feeding and destroy this critical
habitat. Collisions with big ships have already been reported, with two cruise
ships entering Vancouver with dead fin whales wrapped around their bows.
· The industrialization of
this area is in direct opposition to the wilderness product I provide.
· Bluewater Adventures’ Great Bear Rainforest
trip was named one of 50 Canadian Signature Experiences by the Canadian Tourism
Commission. They designated a visit to the Great Bear Rainforest as iconic of
Canada; one of the truly unique experiences Canada has to offer visitors from
around the world.
· The January, 2013 edition of National
Geographic Traveler magazine names the Great Bear Rainforest one of “20 must-see places”.
· Bluewater Adventures has
signed First Nation protocol agreements with the Gitga’at of Hartley Bay, the
Haisla in Kitimat, and Kitasoo / Xaixais in Klemtu recognizing their inherent
rights and traditional territories. We operate with their permission and stand
with Coastal First Nations in opposition to this project.
Statement:
- Northern Gateway and specifically, tankers
transiting from Kitimat, through Hecate Strait
and Dixon Entrance, risks the very existence of my business.
Why
are the risks too great?
Inappropriate
accounting of the risks of weather
In
their submission Enbridge uses averages for weather and wave height that
grossly underestimate the risks of high winds and high waves. In particular,
the submission does not address the risks if winds, waves, currents or poor
visibility are combined.
Environment
Canada
employees at Cape St James reported 100 foot waves just offshore. These
occurrences are not mentioned in the averages submitted by Enbridge. As a
mariner who has spent the last 25 years sailing Hecate
Strait, I can assure you it is not the placid ocean depicted in Enbridge’s
submission. Hecate Strait has been described
as one of the most dangerous bodies of water in the world.
Carriage of oil by
third party carriers. Enbridge presents a misleading picture as
IF they are responsible for all of the transportation of bitumen and
condensate. In reality, they would buy and sell from the Kitimat terminal and
have no responsibility after that point. The carriage of the bitumen and
condensate would be arranged using foreign ships, mostly operating under “flags
of convenience”. It is the ship owner who is
responsible, not the product owner in the event of an oil spill. In many
cases, the ship owner is merely a holding company and when a major liability
arises each individual ship can be written off bringing into question who is
accountable for costs of cleanup. (Major Marine
Vessel Casualty Risk and Response Preparedness in British Columbia EnviroEmerg
Consulting for Living Oceans).
The
legal limit of liability in Canada combined with available international funds
for oil spills amounts to just $500 million. When we have examples of both the
Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon spills costing billions, if we had a major
spill in Canada the citizens
of Canada
would be responsible for the clean-up. It is entirely irresponsible for
Canadian citizens to be taking the risks for the profit making efforts of
Enbridge.
No
Details on what would happen in the event of an oil spill
Enbridge
does not detail the effect of an oil spill, only the likelihood of its
occurrence. Again the use of averages in the submission distorts the picture so
it appears so unlikely, it is hardly worth worrying about. Yet as pointed out
in the combined submission of Raincoast Conservation and partners, who quote
Anderson & Labelle in Spill Science Technology Bulletin, “Enbridge Gateway
would be expected to experience 7 spills from tankers or port operations over
1,000 barrels during it’s 30 year life”.
Before this project can be considered
for approval I want Enbridge to show how it would clean up a major spill and
what effect it would have on the BC coast. 20 years after the Exxon Valdez, oil
is still just under the surface on the beaches, some wildlife populations have
never recovered; what exactly did the expenditure of billions of dollars in
clean-up efforts achieve?
Oil
spill clean-up technology ineffective on bitumen
Almost
all the clean-up technology on the BC coast is designed for surface clean-up
and containment of crude oil. Yet bitumen is likely to sink. How can the Joint
Review Panel approve a project without viable, mitigation clean-up technology?
It is not acceptable to have 10% or 30% recovery and call that success. And Deepwater
Horizon demonstrated the use of dispersants is dangerous, with many unknown
effects, particularly on human health (WWF Canada).
Gwaii
Haanas Tour Operators Association:
- The purpose of the Gwaii Haanas Tour
Operators Association is to represent the interests of visitors and tour
operators to the Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site.
There are 20 member companies in the Association.
- National
Geographic rated Gwaii Haanas the number 1 national park in North
America.
- My
company's Gwaii Haanas tour was rated “One of 50 of the Worlds Best Tours”.
- The southern tanker route would come right
past Gwaii Haanas and an oil spill that affected Gwaii Haanas would ruin a
world-class gem.
- I note the southern tip of Gwaii Haanas, Cape
St. James has the distinction of having the “highest average winds of any light
station in Canada”.
- The Association opposes Northern Gateway
Commercial
Bear Viewing Association of BC:
The
Association was formed to promote sustainable bear viewing and the protection
of wild bears and their ecosystems.
- Bear viewing is demonstrating tremendous
growth and interest from around the world. The British Columbia coast is not only one of
the last remaining places in the world where you can view grizzly bears, but it
is home to the unique, Kermode or Spirit bear (Ursus Americanus Kermodei). This
all-white bear is a black bear created by the prevalence of specific recessive
genes in one small area of the BC Coast.
- The area with the highest concentration of
Kermode bears is right on the tanker route down Douglas Channel.
- The Kermode bear is the provincial mammal of
BC, yet Enbridge’s submission does not recognize this animal, provides no evidence
how their proposal would affect these animals or how they would mitigate
negative effects from increased shipping or an oil spill.
- The value of Kermode bear viewing alone is
estimated at $1.5 million in 2012.
Reputation
of the BC Coast:
- Our reputation is paramount. It is very
difficult to put a figure on the value of a good reputation, or the cost of
losing it. What we are proposing here is risking the very reputation that British Columbia has spent decades and millions of
tourism dollars promoting – namely a beautiful British Columbia coast, full of wildlife.
- I was in business when the Exxon Valdez spill
happened over 700 km away. I received several concerned calls asking what
effect the spill would have on our tours and whether we were going to cancel
any tours. People do not understand regional geography.
- After the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the
Gulf of Mexico, how do you feel about spending your holiday on the Alabama coast. Hesitant?
Do you know if all the oil has been cleaned up? How many years does it take
before we let go of that fear, or is it spoiled in our minds forever?
- After this process, any oil spill on the BC
coast is going to get tremendous media attention. Any significant spill will “tar”
the reputation of the BC Coast for decades to come.
- And the effect will be well-beyond its
geographical boundaries. It won’t matter that the spill may be near Hartley Bay,
people will cancel their holidays to Gwaii Haanas and northern Vancouver Island.
- I can assure you a major oil spill in the
Great Bear Rainforest will reduce our business by an estimated 20-30%, and that
is enough to put us out of business. Not just Bluewater Adventures, but the 20
members of the Gwaii Haanas Tour Operators Association and the majority of the
members of the Commercial Bear Viewing Association.
Conclusion:
The
precautionary principle says this project should not be approved. There are
greater risks than the proponent has recognized, and specific ones that cannot
be mitigated effectively. When one industry’s proposal jeopardizes thousands of
tourism jobs, simply to create a few hundred mostly short term jobs it does not
make sense. When the risks of this proposal can ruin coastal tourism for
decades, it does not make sense. Coastal ecotourism cannot co-exist with
Northern Gateway. I urge you to turn down the application.
I appreciate this opportunity in
democracy. I trust that my voice and the voices of British Columbians will be
heard, respected and acted upon.
Thank you
