News

Oil a Slippery Concern for BC's North Coast Natives

Jobs beckon, but Alaskan brings message of caution.

By Heather Ramsay, 24 Mar 2008, Northword Magazine

Rosemary Ahtuangaruak

Nuiqsut mayor Rosemary Ahtuangaruak.

The difference between what's planned and what actually happens when it comes to oil and gas development brought Rosemary Ahtuangaruak from the North Slope of Alaska to B.C.'s north coast shores.

Ahtuangaruak is the mayor of a tiny community called Nuiqsut, population 523. The Inupiat community is out on the barrens just 160 kilometres west of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but it's surrounded by several oil and gas developments, on land and sea, including ConocoPhilips Alpine Oil, which is within seven kilometres of the village.

While speaking to locals on Haida Gwaii, Ahtuangaruak said her community was one of the first to negotiate with industry on oil and gas development on tribal lands, but a decade later, many of her people feel they were gravely misled.

When the community agreed to the Alpine development, they were told it would impact 14 acres of tribal land. After 10 years, she says, the project has spread incrementally across 500 acres, and the community has found out it has no recourse.

Health concerns cited

Despite the oil industry's claims that Alaskan arctic drilling is the least intrusive ever undertaken, Ahtuangaruak says lack of enforcement of any of the negotiations between her community and industry have left her people facing health impacts and dealing with major impacts on fish and wildlife, which in turn impacts their traditional way of life.

Since 1986, when she first started working in the health field, the number of people needing medical help to breathe has risen dramatically.

Nuiqsut is 15 metres above sea level on the tundra, and Ahtuangaruak says she can see the natural gas flares from the clinic. The nights when they light up the sky are the same nights she, and other medical staff, can't leave the clinic for helping people with inhalers, nebulizers, steroids and antibiotics.

Two hundred decibel booms, the equivalent of a jet engine starting up, have diverted the bowhead whales off shore. They used to be caught within five kilometres of shore, but now whales are more than 30 kilometres out, making hunting even more dangerous.

The community also negotiated a limit on flight activity in the area during June and July, when people traditionally hunt caribou. Planes bring in resources, workers and more, but the 20 flights agreed to during negotiations have turned into 1,900 flights during the summer hunting months.

The added noise has had an impact on the caribou. Before the Alpine oil field got underway, 97 out of 105 households in Nuiqsut successfully hunted caribou. After the development, only three households managed to hang an animal.

Environmental group sponsored visit

So what does this have to do with British Columbia's coastal communities?

Margot McMillan, staff counsel at West Coast Environmental Law, brought Ahtuangaruak to Haida Gwaii and Prince Rupert so locals could talk directly with someone who has lived with the impacts of oil and gas development.

She says that while states like California, Oregon and Washington support a 25-year U.S. ban on offshore drilling, the B.C. coast is no longer safe because the Canadian government is now trying to deny the existence of a 34-year-old moratorium on tanker traffic off British Columbia's north coast.

The moratorium, put in place due to widespread concern over oil spills in the delicate coastal ecosystem in 1972, covers Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. It was followed by a similar moratorium on coastal oil and gas development.

In the 1980s, both the federal and provincial governments considered lifting these and other moratoria on coastal oil and gas activities in B.C., but then in 1989, the Exxon Valdez ran aground.

The day 11 million gallons of unrefined crude oil spewed into Prince William Sound on Alaska's south coast is known as "the day the water died" to local Aboriginal people. Even Environment Canada has done studies that say it's not a matter of if, but when another catastrophic oil spill will occur.

New push to allow tankers

Meanwhile, oil and gas activity as far from the B.C. coast as the tar sands of Alberta is fuelling the Conservative government's new strategy when it comes to the moratorium.

Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn has told reporters and environmentalists the moratorium doesn't exist. "There is only one tanker routing measure in place off the west coast of B.C.... The Tanker Exclusion Zone, in place since 1985, is a voluntarily-adopted measure…" he writes in a letter addressed to the Pembina Institute, another group hoping to uphold the moratorium.

McMillan calls Lunn's response a slight of hand because of the strange fact that no one has found an order in council or a piece of paper documenting that it exists.

"Clearly the intent was there, and the government has operated on that intent for the last 30 years," says McMillan, who along with others has prepared a five-page list of parliamentary and other sources referring to the moratorium.

According to the Dogwood Initiative, a Victoria-based group that supports communities' rights to make their own land-use decisions, 14 tankers loaded with condensate, a chemical byproduct of natural gas needed to dilute crude oil from the Alberta oilsands, have already taken advantage of the confusion.

The port of call was the community of Kitimat, far up the 90-kilometre-long Douglas Channel, and this community is set to become the terminus for more than just condensate. Several tanker and pipeline projects designed to help expand the extraction and transport of crude oil from Alberta to Asia and the United States are proposed for the region.

Pipelines linked to economic growth

Some believe the oil and gas pipeline potential could be the economic boost the area needs. Reliant on Alcan as a major employer over the last 50 years, the company's workforce topped out at 2,700 in the 1970s and has been on the decline ever since. Proposed upgrades to the plant may see another 500 jobs lost in the near future. In the last census, Kitimat had the largest population drop in Canada, falling nearly 13 per cent to below 9,000 people from 10,300 in 2001.

Gerald Amos, chair of the Na Na Kila Institute, a conservation group based in the Haisla village of Kitamaat, and former chief councillor of the Kitamaat Band Council, says that despite the potential economic gain, the community must think long and hard about this type of project before deciding it's okay.

He was sorry that Ahtuangaruak didn't make it to Kitamaat (she was hindered by bad weather), because he doesn't think villagers have heard enough about the downside to the concept of Kitamaat becoming some kind of energy corridor for oil and gas.

The Chamber of Commerce and the present band council may be in favour of the development, he says, but there is a bigger picture.

A coast tied to Alberta

"Decisions made in the tar sands will impact us in Kitamaat," Amos says. And in the same vein, "Decisions made in Kitamaat will have an impact on Hartley Bay, Haida Gwaii and other coastal communities."

He remembers days before even Alcan came to Kitamaat's shores, and he's witnessed the change.

"Some say its progress, but I'm not sure," he says. "I believe we don't have a good grasp on the cumulative impacts of these industries."

His biggest concern is climate change. According to the Dogwood Initiative, "every single barrel of oil produced in the tar sands creates 80 kg of carbon emissions -- more than the average car produces driving from Vancouver to Whistler and back." Tar sands production currently tops 1.1 million barrels a day.

Amos isn't sure he wants to be a part of that. But mostly he wants his community to weigh the pros and cons of this type of development before leaping into the fray.

Related Tyee stories:

 [Tyee]

15  Comments:

  • Van Isle

    24-03-2008

    I would suggest to the

    I would suggest to the Natives on the North Coast to look at Norway and how they developed their oil and natural industry. Don't trust our Governments cuz they'll sell you down the river just as fast as the tar-sands and what a mess that is. Even the former oil man and premier Peter Lougheed says that the Albertian oil and gas industry is completly mismanaged. The Provincal and Federal Governments sold their souls.

  • lynn

    24-03-2008

    A great suggestion, Van Isle

    That's a great suggestion, Van Isle.

    On the recent CBC documentary on the Tar Sands it told how Norway has become ever so quietly the second richest country in the world not only because of its vast oil and gas reserves but more importantly because of how it has wisely managed the resource - for the environmental and economic benefit of the Norwegian people themselves.

  • snert

    24-03-2008

  • lynn

    24-03-2008

    Slip-sliding Away

    That's an interesting article on Norway, snert.

    Seems the Norwegian government and just about every other group has a plan... but no "specifics" as to how things are exactly going to be achieved - no "details" as usual. An ever-present weakness when it comes to the strange brew of environmental conservation meets money-interests....the lack of specifics and details. Wonder why that is? (wink, wink).

    hmmmmm....

    It certainly is the case here in BC as well.

  • greengreen

    24-03-2008

    deceptive democracy

    Has the fact that the Conservative gov't. is pretending that there is no moratorium been covered by MSM?Has Mr. Andersen, who was largely responsible for the moratorium aware of this little bit of deception?
    Does any body really care?

  • Luke Skywalker

    24-03-2008

    Quote:Some believe the oil

    Quote:
    Some believe the oil and gas pipeline potential could be the economic boost the area needs.

    In the last census, Kitimat had the largest population drop in Canada, falling nearly 13 per cent to below 9,000 people from 10,300 in 2001.

    Prince Rupert is becoming revitalized with the cruise ship industry as well as the new and about to be expanded container terminal.

    Hopefully, Kitimat's early 1950's era aluminum smelter will finally receive its $1 billion+ redevelopment.

    Billions of dollars of various pipeline/terminal developments are also planned for the Kitimat area.

    Here's a quote from the 2008 Throne Speech, which still sticks in my mind:

    Quote:
    A new northern energy corridor from Prince Rupert to Prince George will also be pursued. That alone holds the potential for billions of dollars in new investment that will create new high-paying jobs for the North.

    The area definitely needs an economic injection and provide much needed employment inclusive of those in First Nations. Diversification away from forestry will definitely be a key for longer-term prosperity and stability.

  • ME2

    25-03-2008

    Ah yes, statistics.

    Beware persons or groups quoting stats to make their point.

    The German group Germanwatch, (mentioned in the NYT article) produces a "Climate Change Performance Index" which rates the world's nation's yearly improvements in greenhous gas emissions, but tallies nuclear produced energy as if it were from polluting coal-fired plants.

    This is because it disagrees with nuclear energy, and so doesn't want to encourage such by showing this as an improvement in GG emissions !!!

  • lynn

    25-03-2008

    Something to consider

    Norway may be facing some of its own challenges but there is still much to learn from the approach it is taking:

    Quote:
    Norway ranks second in the world in per capita GDP (US$55,000). The most successful among energy producers and exporters in Europe, Norway's non-oil sector is growing faster than oil and gas-close to eight per cent a year. In Stavanger, the oil-boom town to the country's north, where herring and cod fishing and canneries still abound, the writer said you'd find one-third of that country's economy. And it has nothing to with oil or fish. One firm is busy building housing for wind turbines. Another produces medical devices it exports to 22 countries. "Everywhere else in the world a boom in oil has led to a decline, if not a complete devastation, of conventional businesses," the article said.

    Not in this country, where, in spite of its frugality and seeming harshness, it is preparing its people for life after gas and oil. It is making provisions for future generations. "This is no accident: For Norwegians, this is a story of planning, self-discipline and a long learning process.

  • ME2

    26-03-2008

    "The Devil's Excrement"

    Thinking about the Norway issue put me in mind of an article in The Economist entitled "The Devil's Excrement" (oil), but I found you have to be a subscriber to access it now.

    So I Googled "The Devil's Excrement" to find dozens of commentaries on the idea, and suggest to anyone who thinks he/she has the solution to how a country should handle a resource bonanza, that she/he should spent some time there.

    It appears that Norway is among a very tiny minority of nations that have successfully managed the problem.

    Some think, for example, that resource riches should translate into very low taxation. However, Norwegians, with the second-highest GNP per capita in the world, also rank among the world's most heavily taxed.

    Many commentators on those sites noted that if sudden wealth flowing into a country is poorly managed, this can actually dissuade entrepeneurship rather than stimulate it, leading to economic stagnation.

    Food for thought, and for FN peoples too.

  • Skookum1

    27-03-2008

    re Norway

    Not sure if it's still this way, but back in '76 when I visited the ancestral homeland oil development was fairly new; the owner of the one pump station at "our" end of the island had been bought out for ultra-silly bucks by British Petroleum, there were huge drydocks in the tiniestes villages.

    But there was, somewhere, a northward limit to oil-based development; maybe Alesund. This may have changed in the decades since, but back then the Norwegian Sea and the Lofoten Channel were largely off-limits, or at least ground/port support was prohibited in Tronders, Tromso etc, which remained fishing and mining and whatever farming manages to survive there (and survive it does, amazingly).

    The idea is that the Norwegians weren't fool enough to write off their whole coastline. Since the collapse of the cod fishery (which must have hit them in ways similar to Newfoundland, at least the surviving fishing fleet; boiled cod with butter is the national dish...) it may be that they've sacrificed their northern waters so as to be able to import food, essentially.....i.e. to be able to afford it. With salmon there mostly farmed now, and the cod and other fish stocks vanished, maybe oceanic protection's a write-off there; doesn't seem very Norwegian to me to do that but these days, y'never know...

    Iceland also has various limitations on development of various kinds in order to protect food production/supply on land andsea. Not that there's oil around Iceland, but....the conceptual and experienced reality for them is the same as Norway - dependency on the sea for life and livelihood.

    But back in the '70s they were only prepared to sacrifice half their coastline, not all of it....

  • Skookum1

    27-03-2008

    Stavanger

    And, in someone else's quote, not clear if it's from the article or another comment, Stavanger is referrred to as being in the country's north. Nope, absolutely not; it's southwest, and combined with Bergen to its north, is Vest-Kysten, West Coast; Trondheim and northwards, Tromso, Nordland and Finnmark, that's north. And it's as far from Stavanger as Prince Rupert and Telegraph Creek are from Victoria.

  • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.