I mistakenly thought I had mused about the potential for Sarah Palin experiencing guilt in a recent blog. In fact, I had written that for a local, and quite terrific, paper called "Island Tides."
Now that the "Islands Tides" article has been published, I thought it might be worth sharing it. There is great news to add. As of today, the moratorium on oil and gas on the Georges Bank in the Atlantic (referred to below) has been extended for another five years. That is news worth celebrating. We need to extend those coastal bans!
Remember the U.S. Republican Convention in 2008? Ecstatic delegates chanted “Drill! Baby, Drill!,” led by a euphoric Sarah Palin. She of Alaska yearns to destroy the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herds of the coastal plain, within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They chanted to open up the coastal zones of the eastern seaboard and California. Their constant pressure led U.S. President Barack Obama to yield, opening some of those off-shore areas, in hopes of a leaky Congressional deal to reduce greenhouse gases. As the oil gushes from 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, will those who were so reckless have the decency to experience shame? Don’t hold your breath.
Drilling enthusiasm was not confined to the U.S. Republicans. Here at home, the drillers have been pushing hard for exemptions and new drilling in Atlantic Canada’s off-limits fishing grounds in Georges’ Bank, the coast of British Columbia and the increasingly ice-free Beaufort Sea. The irony that the Arctic ice is disappearing due to fossil fuel burning around the world, and that such melting is itself a danger sign, creates an irony entirely lost on the drillers. The Harper government’s 2010 Speech from the Throne and Budget spoke of the great wealth and prosperity that awaits from Canada’s oil and gas resources. Opening up the fragile Arctic environment to oil and gas, expanding the tar sands export opportunities to Asia with pipelines through British Columbia and oil tankers on our coast are all part of the vision of Canada as “energy super-power.” All this development simply awaited the recent government moves to reduce the barriers to development by “modernizing the regulatory system.” Energy projects were exempted from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
And along comes the BP disaster in the Gulf. Even now, some in the oil patch look for silver linings. Only the National Post could dream up this front page headline: “Gulf’s pain oil sands’ gain, agree experts.” (May 5, 2010.)
What do we learn from the Gulf of Mexico disaster? In many ways, it is too soon to tell. As I write this on May 5th, the situation is in flux. The weather has temporarily improved. Heroic efforts of local fishermen to protect their livelihoods are underway, to lay booms and curtains that may or may not work. Efforts to stop the flow of oil may or may not succeed, and may take up to three months to arrest. The head of BP admitted in May 5th’s New York Times, that the flow of oil may not be 5,000 barrels of oil, but may be ten times as much.
One sad lesson is the sad fate of an oil company that tried, briefly, to divest itself and become an energy company. Former BP CEO, Lord John Brown, actually meant it when he moved to “Beyond Petroleum.” Sadly, he was undermined by his board. His replacement, Tony Hayward, knew where his bread was buttered. BP dropped its green sheen and now lives with a destroyed reputation.
Still, a few lessons are clear. Technology cannot be perfected. Off-shore oil imposes huge risks. Governor Schwarzenegger has announced that plans to open up California’s coasts are cancelled, stating “The money is simply not worth the risk.”
BP among other oil giants has insisted catastrophic failures in the off-shore do not merit planning. BP’s Deepwater Horizon well, the one currently emitting oil into the Gulf, lobbied for, and received on April 9, 2009, an exemption from the National Environmental Policy Act. Termed a “categorical exclusion” it was granted by the Minerals Management Service. Eleven days before the disaster at Deepwater Horizon, BP was pushing for more exemptions.
Rather than “worst case” scenarios, the industry in the US and globally have treated out of control blow outs off-shore as too unlikely to merit preventative measures, and too far off shore to threaten coastal damage. (As though dumping oil into the open waters outside territorial limits has no consequence worth consideration.) Both assumptions are now proven wrong. But we always knew they were wrong.
There have been blow-outs in off-shore wells in Nova Scotia, one of which, the Uniake G-72, took nine days to be brought under control. The Santa Barbara California disaster in 1969 was due to a Union Oil well blow-out in only 190 feet of water leaked for 100 days. Then there are the routine spills. It has been estimated that 75% of all the oil spillage along all US coasts was from the Gulf of Mexico rigs, in non-accident conditions. And then there’s the tanker traffic: the 1970 Arrow spill in Nova Scotia (9,000 tonnes), the 1989 Exxon Valdez (38,800 tonnes), the 1996 UK Sea Empress (72,000 tonnes), and on and on.
This litany of despoiled ocean and coast-line share two features: hubris and short memories. We are always told the technology is “state of the art.” Regulations are new and improved. The old days are just that, dead and gone. And we forget.
“I'm of the opinion that boosterism breeds complacency and complacency breeds disaster," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). “That, in my opinion, is what happened.”
In recent days, the Conservative Government, through both the Prime Minister and the Environment minister, have been practicing our own boosterism, proclaiming that we have the toughest regulation in the world. Nonsense. The recently revised regulations are of a new type. They move away from “prescriptive regulations” to a “goal-oriented approach.” The difference is that the companies are able to propose what they want to do to reach a goal of, for instance, environmental protection, without having the kind of technology required dictated by regulation. As explained in the regulations for oil and gas in the Canada Gazette: “Modernizing the Regulations improves the existing regulatory framework to support the frontier and offshore oil and gas industry’s continued growth and contribution to Canada’s economy and competitiveness while maintaining the highest standards for safety, environmental protection and management of resources.”
The goal of the regulatory change was to increase development and remove regulation, just as the goal of exempting energy projects from the environmental assessment act was to speed up approvals.
The clear lesson from all of this is clear. We must ensure no offshore drilling in Canada’s remote and fragile Arctic environment. No drilling along BC’s coast. And no oil tanker traffic along our coast. The short-term rewards go to those who don’t live here. Any accident devastates our fishery, our tourism, our way of life and the existence of a complex web of life.