If built, the new pipeline would mean 348 more tankers plying Northwest waters each year, threatening spills throughout the region.
If energy giant Kinder Morgan gets its way, British Columbia will soon be home to a new $7.4 billion oil pipeline carrying 590,000 barrels of Alberta oil per day to an export terminal near Vancouver, BC, on the Salish Sea. The Canadian federal government recently approved the proposal, and it is now likely the single biggest threat to the Northwest’s thin green line, the opposition movement that has staved off countless coal, oil, and fracked gas schemes around the region. If built, the new pipeline would mean 348 more tankers plying Northwest waters each year, threatening spills throughout the region.
Threats to Northwest waters
To date, most of the concern about spills from oil tankers has centered on the ecological riches of the San Juan Islands and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the main shipping corridors for planning exports. But in truth, the pipeline expansion will also endanger the most populated parts of Washington: the core Puget Sound region stretching from the Fraser River to Commencement Bay. That’s because a portion of the exceptionally polluting tar sands oil served by the new pipeline would be delivered by sea to Tacoma.
Tar sands oil is already shipped to the City of Destiny in the South Sound. According to a groundbreaking April 2016 report by Fred Felleman with Friends of the Earth, the US Oil refinery there received a minimum of 10 million barrels of heavy Canadian crude between 2010 and 2014. (As the report notes, the shipments were handled by Sause Brothers, the same tug boat operator responsible for the 1988 Nestucca oil spill disaster in Grays Harbor, Washington.) That works out to roughly one loaded oil barge per week making the passage from Burnaby, British Columbia, through some of the most ecologically (and economically) important waters in the Northwest: Rosario Strait in the San Juan Islands, Admiralty Inlet between Whidbey Island and Port Townsend, and then past Edmonds, Seattle, Bainbridge Island, and Vashon Island, before reaching Commencement Bay.
According to 2010 documents from Canada’s National Energy Board uncovered by the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, which opposes the expansion project, Tacoma’s refinery is among five shippers that have signed ten-year “take or pay” contracts to ship a share of 54,000 barrels from the Trans Mountain Pipeline. And transcripts of hearings with Canadian federal regulators show that representatives from Tacoma’s refinery have been lobbying in support of the pipeline expansion. They argue that more tar sands flowing to the Salish Sea would benefit them directly. Rather than competing with the larger northern Sound refineries that are connected by pipeline to the Trans Mountain Pipeline system, an expansion would free up enough oil for Tacoma to obtain a larger and more predictable share that would be delivered by vessel.
Such a plan poses a huge risk because tar sands spills are notoriously difficult to clean up. Although the Washington Department of Ecology has begun studying cleanup techniques for heavy oil, there’s little question that a spill could do profound damage to the region’s environmental and economic wellbeing.
Complicating cleanup preparation is the fact that the industry keeps secret the exact composition of the product. Known as “dilbit” (or diluted bitumen) in the industry, the fuel is composed of dense and sticky bitumen blended with a stew of chemicals and light petroleum products that render it transportable and usable in a refinery. It’s highly toxic, difficult to predict and contain during a spill, and not well understood even by experts.
The Kalamazoo tar sands spill example
Consider what happened during the best known tar sands spill in the US, when a pipeline ruptured near the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. Once in the river, the constituent parts of the oil separated—the lighter “diluents” evaporated, while the heavier bitumen sank, rendering useless most conventional spill cleanup techniques, like booming and skimming. Instead, cleanup crews had to resort to a time-consuming and expensive process of “poling”—that is, sticking a long pole into the river bottom to dislodge and measure the buildup of bitumen—and dredging.
In aftermath of the spill, the Kalamazoo River became a case study in the challenges of cleaning up tar sands oil. When exposed to sunlight on land or the riverbank, the bitumen formed a dense, sticky substance, likened by some local residents to chewing gum, which was very difficult to remove from rock and sediments. Michigan state officials closed fishing, swimming, and boating on the river and forced 150 families from their homes for the duration of the cleanup. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) found in the bitumen caused extremely foul odors and led to headaches, dizziness, nausea, and vomiting in local residents. The spill killed hundreds of birds and other animals, including many freshwater turtles, while locals took thousands more to wildlife rehabilitation centers.
The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 180,000 gallons of bitumen remain in the river, of which 90 percent will likely persist even after the company responsible completes dredging about 540,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment from the river bed. The Kalamazoo River might be seen as a warning signal for Puget Sound. And it’s a warning that may be difficult to heed owing to huge federal funding cuts for Puget Sound restoration looming in President Trump’s proposed budget.
There have been more local warnings, too. In 2004, in the waters between Point Defiance and Vashon Island, known as Dalco Passage, a vessel leaked or spilled a relatively small amount of oil. Yet patches of oily sheen drifted as far south as the Tacoma Narrows and as far north as Eagle Harbor on Bainbridge Island. Officials closed parks on Vashon and Maury islands and suspended shellfish and seaweed harvesting as cleanup crews worked to recover an estimated 59 tons of oily debris from the shorelines and 6,842 gallons of oily water with skimming operations.
Other Puget Sound spills are illustrative, too, from Point Wells to Fidalgo Head to Padilla Bay. Yet none of them was nearly as destructive as a large tar sands spill, such as that threatened by the Kinder Morgan expansion, could be for beaches and wildlife. It’s a risk that will weigh on Seattle, Tacoma, and many other Puget Sound communities when Kinder Morgan begins work on the new pipeline later in 2017.
Earl Richards
To understand the destructiveness of a toxic, tar sands spill, Google and read, “Michigan oil spill effects can be repeated here,” by Michelle Barlond-Smith.
Steve Curtiss
I understand the importance and political ‘power’ of oil everywhere. Yet I also appreciate the value to populations in BC, and the Pacific Northwest for a clean Puget sound and all the wild life and sea life it supports. This also represents big $$’s for all those who come here from all over the world to visit and enjoy the natural beauty we enjoy for recreation and wildlife in this region.
Understand the value of swimming and fishing in waters we’re actively ‘bringing back’ from past polluting influences to what we’re enjoying today and still working on with continued local clean up efforts. Putting it unnecessarily at risk for the benefits of a quick dollar should be deliberated over with public input from both countries. Leave it up to politicians and local bureaucracies alone, and you’ll find its all about the money and not about safety and clean environment for citizens who live here. It can take a 100 years to recover from an accident. We’ve already seen the result of accidents in the past that shouldn’t have happened , yet did! Our region is too precious to unnecessarily put at risk. Remember the 1% makes these decisions but the 99% has to live with the results when they go foul. Look at the past record for clean up and you’ll see its the 99% that really pays for the clean ups and their consequences. These decisions are made by special interests and not by citizens ( voting ). Lets get our countries back and start operating like real democracies and not industrial puppets. Wake up America! – Wake up BC!
I love my country and the natural resources of the Pacific Northwest. Lets keep them safe and beautiful! Please!
Peter W
This expanded transmountain pipeline will mostly be displacing oil that is transported via ship from Latin America, Alaska, and other parts of the world. This oil sands crude is coming from Alberta. Most of the refining capacity in the Pacific Northwest doesn’t require barging or any sort of marine transport to process these barrels (e.g. BP Cherry Point is the largest refinery in the region). Also, BP is currently offloading a lot of rail barrels from the Bakken and this pipe will displace these rail barrels. Rail has more spills than pipelines (unquestionably in all measures).
Eric de Place
Peter, I don’t necessarily think that’s accurate. Trans Mountain oil *might* displace some barrels, or it may end up being additive. After the Obama Administration lifted the export ban on US crude oil there’s no particular reason to think that the north Sound refineries won’t simply act as trans-loading export facilities for crude by rail and, possibly, oil delivered via the Puget Sound Pipeline — all that in addition tanker deliveries for actual refining. In fact, the 2016 FOE analysis I reference in the post suggests that the refineries are already moving crude out across their docks without bothering to refine it.
Balanced One
Hypocrisy abounds. Never ever forget that you are writing replies on a digital medium that would simply not exist if it was not for all sorts of innovations includin within “Oil Sand” ventures. The hypocrisy of greenies is simply unfathomable. If it was balanced … yes comprehesible … but it never is. It it always click bait worthy.
How many greenies drive a car?; heat their homes? wear clothes?; do not live in caves?; have food to eat?; etc.
I’ve never met a greeny who lives in a cave. Most drive to their latest complaint to protest or employ energy intensive vehicles to protest. Are you aware that even green energy requires oil?
Honestly ask yourselves where you would be without energy products. Maybe you don’t know …. Be honest now.
Think back … even your Puget sound would not be populated if it was not for energy.
If you think forestry and fisheries can sustain you .. take away energy and what do you have? Not even fish hooks or powered boats !!!
Conservation is key … not rejection.
Eric de Place
What a baffling worldview. Never have I (nor indeed anyone I’ve ever met) argued that we should live “without energy products.” That would be a rather bizarre and short-lived proposition. To be clear, the argument greens make is that we should: a) use different forms of energy; b) use our current energy more efficiently; and c) not allow harmful expansions of the most destructive forms of energy.
It’s an argument for transition, and there’s nothing hypocritical about it.
Balanced One
Baffling wordview ? Deep ! I have met a few folks who advocate purging ourselves or most energy forms … yet fail to offer viable alternatives.
Are you implying (or stating) that Oil Sands are our most destructive form of energy? If so, you’ll need further research.
Peter W is completely correct – rail by all measures is far more damaging than pipelines in an oil spill scenario. Do an internet query on ‘Quebec oil rail spill’. You’ll find ample evidence of a ‘real’ (Megantic) disaster that killed people and spilled into waterways instead of a click bait of a hypothetical reference to an Oil Sands spill and fail to address the positivity in his message. I’m rather curious why you skipped over his positive message – incongruent with your thesis?
If the Oils Sands came from Utah’s 12 – 19 Billion barrels, would your view be more favourable? What if the destination remained Puget Sound?
Eric de Place
Many environmental advocates do in fact refer to oil sands extraction, without hyperbole, as “the most destructive project on earth.” So, yeah, that’s what I’m implying.
More broadly though, oil in general is a very destructive form of energy. I’ve written extensively about the manifold spill and fires risks of oil by rail, but the bigger problem is really the impact on the global climate. In my view, we ought to be embarking on a planned transition away from oil—not halting our use overnight—and the way to do that to stop making the problem worse. That is, to stop building more pipeline, terminal, and refining infrastructure that will have the effect of delaying for decades a transition to a cleaner energy portfolio.
Dancing Bee
Thank you Eric de Place………this is exactly what I keep saying…….no more NEW infrastructure! Period! Let’s figure out how to keep going down the road of improving technology, that already exists, that will be more sustainable for EVERYONE! I am fully aware of the big problems that exist in even what is considered ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ and how, usually, the problems mostly affects people who are in economically poor and indigenous, under-developed communities around the world. We all live on this same planet that seems to be getting smaller by the day and if we want to have a habitable planet for our children and our children’s children we really need to come together, hearts and minds, very quickly!, and work on these problems with an eye for the next seven generations in mind. Oil and gas are not going to leave anything worthwhile for seven generations down the road! As far as Balanced One’s comments about how we all drive cars, heat our homes, use technology and don’t live in caves etc…… I have been attacked with this before and the thing is the problem can’t be solved by individuals leaving all this and moving into caves. The problem is much bigger than that! It’s systemic, run by big money and governments and corporations, (and war!), that saturate our lives in every way possible. Of course we all need to do everything we can to be mindful of our ‘footprint’ and what we can do to lesson it. But we also need to work within the system to persuade the powers that be to move in a better direction. I am in the fight in my own way and stand with all who want to stop any new fossil fuel infrastructure and work to find a better way! I also maintain a prayerful heart and mind for all, dancing and singing along the way………as Emma Goldman said, “If I can’t dance I don’t want to be in your revolution!”…………..Blessed Bee…………
carl shalansky
Kinder Morgan Board…do not approve this faulty pipeline project,as proposed…
Had Canada produced an independent risk assessment of this proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Pipeline (TMEP) ,the Canadian National Energy Board review process could have directed that a less risky marine route be chosen… …. In their blissful ignorance our governments can now ‘plan’ for these vital export revenues.
Washington State has produced a comprehensive risk assessment study about shipping in our shared Salish Sea ……Since corporations must protect the long term interests of their shareholders…one should expect an independent risk assessment of any major capital expenditures …to be in the Corporate interest !…Fortunately…such an ‘independent’ risk study exists…and with some updating…and possible collaboration with Canadian governments…this same George Washington University study group should be able to offer an expert opinion about the ‘soundness’ of the TMEP planned marine dilbit laden tanker routing ….! https://www.seas.gwu.edu/~dorpjr/VTRA/PSP/FINAL%20REPORT/PSP%20FINAL%20REPORT%20-%20DRAFT%20012214%20-%20HQ.pdf
In the public AND shareholder interest let the corporation do the due diligence that our Canadian governments failed to carry out !
Yes, with a smarter ,alternative route, there is an opportunity to export …more dilbit…at less cost…and at less risk ….! Think of a joint ,shared capital/operating cost venture
, single pipeline system …(possibly a combined KM /Enbridge Pipeline from Alberta to a terminal near Port Simpson BC …for loading of larger tankers….!
And forego an incident similar to a BC War in the Woods …or another the Sioux Standing Rock incident….?
Carl Shalansky; P. Eng. (Retired);
Blog: https://redfern3359.wordpress.com/;
(604) 986-4657; North Vancouver,BC
Karl Hamson
These posts are all 10 months old. Things are heating up here in BC and the Gulf islands where I live. The bitiumen tankers will pass a few hundred yards from our beautiful coasts both in the Gulf and San Juan islands. The BC government has announced that it demands the right to limit bitumen transport in our waters. The Alberta government has banned the sale of BC wines in the province in retaliation as well as suspending talks about BC hydroelectric power being purchased to enable the phasing out of Alberta’s coal fired power plants.
Mayors and city councils in the lower mainland are opposed to this expansion as is almost all the population of Vancouver Island. This expansion of a sunset industry is putting our environment at risk to benefit big corporations, often foreign owned, workers in the oil sands, and of course Alberta tax revenue.
As we have seen with our “war in the woods” and your Standing Rock there hosts of people quite prepared to be arrested and go to jail to stop things that endanger our environment. This issue is far bigger and I expect massive and persistent protests.