Speaking Notes from a Presentation to the Public Review Panel of the Federal Moratorium on Oil and Gas Activities Offshore British Columbia
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada,
May 13, 2004
By Gerald Graham, Ph. D.[*]
©2004
Outline
This presentation looks at the threat of oil spills related to hydrocarbon exploration and development in the Queen Charlotte Basin, the probability of their happening and being cleaned up, and their potential consequences. The conclusion reached is that the overall threat level is unacceptable, which translates into a recommendation to maintain the current moratoria on crude oil transport and offshore drilling.
Challenge to the Oilpatch
Those who would seek to explore for offshore oil and gas off the British Columbia coast should show they are committed to protecting the marine environment by demonstrating they have the capability to clean up after a major offshore oil spill. Until such time as they demonstrate this capability, they should not be allowed to operate in this area. The message for the oilpatch is:
Show us that you mean it!
Prove you can clean it!
Vulnerability of the Marine Ecosystem to Oil Spills
Degradation of the physical and chemical environment of the region could have a negative impact on various levels of the food chain, including the eelgrass and seagrass beds, the sand lance, seabed mussels, seabirds and salmon. Sand lance, for instance, are a preferred food for several species of fish and seabirds; they feed on plankton and spend much of the winter buried in the sand, which makes them especially vulnerable to oil spills. Nevertheless, their ecology and biomass are poorly understood[1]. Clearly, more research needs to be done before this key species is subjected to exploration and production.
Likewise, seabed mussels are a keystone species; their dense beds provide cover for hundreds of different species. Being filter feeders, they are sensitive to oil contamination. Moreover, their exposure to oil could seriously impact the entire food web, including fish, seabirds and marine mammals[2].
Seabirds are another valued ecosystem component threatened by marine oil spills[3]. They are an integral part of the marine ecosystem, and are a defining characteristic of the Queen Charlotte Basin. Seabirds depend directly on plankton and fish for food, and are a key prey item for some fish species. They are also a bioindicator species, which means that if large numbers of dead seabirds start washing up on shore, it could be a signal that something is amiss.
Diving birds, or alcids, are among the most vulnerable types of seabirds to oil spills; for one thing, they spend much of their time on or above the water. The Queen Charlotte Islands, for example, are home to half a million ancient murrelets, or half of the world’s population. They are listed as a species of special concern by COSEWIC ( the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). They have a range of twenty kilometres out to sea. In addition, their young are tended at sea. Twenty percent of the world’s marbled murrelet population (66,000 individuals) resides in the Queen Charlotte Basin; they are designated by COSEWIC as a threatened species, which is one rung up from ‘of special concern’ on the endangered species ladder. Eighty percent of the world’s population of Cassin’s auklets (2.7 million individuals) are found within the same region. They are highly pelagic, and dive to 120 feet. Their diet includes plankton, small fish and squid; thus, an oil spill that affected any of these dietary sources could have repercussions on Cassin’s auklets. Lastly, fifty percent of the world’s rhinoceros auklets reside in the Basin. These birds have a range of thirty kilometres and can stay underwater for up to two minutes.
Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of the Queen Charlotte Basin
A total of twenty-one marine species extant in the Queen Charlotte Basin are deemed to be at risk[4]. These include the sea otter, northern abalone and eulachon, the latter of which has special significance for native diet, culture and economy. Then, of course, there are the Hexactinellid sponge reef colonies, of which there are four. Fifty percent of the reefs have been destroyed by fishing trawlers, although they are now protected by regulation.
Tanker Spills: A Clear and Present Danger
While the probability of a tanker spill occurring somewhere on the worldocean is only one seventh of what it was thirty years ago, when the British Columbia offshore oil moratoria were introduced, three and one half major spills still occur each year, on average[5]. Moreover, cleanup and compensation costs for spills have increased dramatically, starting with the ExxonValdez spill in Alaska in 1989.
It is often argued that operating conditions off the North Coast, while severe, are no worse than those encountered in other extreme environments, such as at Hibernia off Newfoundland, and in Cook Inlet off the Alaskan coast. The comparison does not stand up: Hibernia is approximately one hundred and eighty five miles offshore, and the Gulf Stream could be expected to move any oil spilled towards Iceland. As for Cook Inlet, it is a more confined space, and the oil platforms tend to be closer to shore than they ever would be off the North Coast, given the twenty kilometre coastal exclusion zone currently in place.
Were a major oil spill to occur in the Queen Charlotte Basin, the effects could be widespread. Seabirds would be particularly vulnerable; oil could affect them directly, plus indirectly via contamination of their food supply. Oil reduces the insulating properties of seabird feathers, which can have a potentially lethal effect. Oiled birds have a low survival rate, even with cleaning.
Several other species are vulnerable as well. For instance, the insulating properties of sea otter fur are reduced. Whales, seals and sea lions exhibit no oil avoidance behaviour. Many species of fish are vulnerable, including salmon, groundfish and foragers such as herring, sand lance and oolichan. The pelagics, such as halibut, tend to be less vulnerable. Shellfish and invertebrates in the intertidal zone would tend to be extremely vulnerable. Lastly, tainting of fish and shellfish, whether real or perceived, could frighten off would-be suppliers and consumers of British Columbian product, with the potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.
Realities of Operating in the Queen Charlotte Basin
The severity of winter conditions regularly experienced in the Queen Charlotte Basin increases the risk of a spill occurring, and would no doubt hamper the response effort. One in three offshore storms in the region are not predicted. Also, marine bombs are known to develop within the region; these events consist of a rapid drop in pressure and giant waves up to twenty-eight metres in height. Since these storms can develop in a relatively short period of time, i.e. eight hours or so, they implications for offshore oil and gas development[6].
Were an offshore oil spill to occur in Queen Charlotte Sound or Hecate Strait during the winter months, prevailing currents could bring the oil onshore, or even up through Dixon Entrance and on into Alaskan waters. Unfortunately, conventional oil containment and recovery techniques would be of limited use for an offshore spill, such that responders would have no choice but to let nature take its course. Depending on the type of oil involved and its weathering characteristics, a certain amount of oil or oil/water emulsion, aka ‘chocolate mousse’ could at some point wash ashore; the rest might evaporate, dissolve and/or disperse. Given the possible futility of combating the spill at sea, the response effort may have to concentrate on shoreline protection and cleanup, with positioning of the requisite equipment.
The sad fact of the matter is that conventional offshore oil spill containment and recovery techniques seldom work under less than ideal conditions. And, unlike exercises, spills seldom happen under ideal conditions; on the contrary, the worst of them tend to happen when conditions are dreadful. Thus, if the winds exceed twenty knots, or the waves exceed three metres, or the Beaufort scale exceeds 4, then conventional booms and skimmers will not work. These conditions are almost always exceeded in the Queen Charlotte Basin during the winter months. Consequently, response vessels would probably remain tied up in port much of the winter. Other response options, such as dispersants and in situ burning, have limited application: dispersants do not work at the best of times, and burning of the oil must normally occur during the first twenty four hours after a spill. Since this is the period when basic spill data is normally being gathered, burning would probably not be a viable option.
Best, Medium and Worst Case Scenarios
If a small volume oil spill were to occur under ‘ideal’ conditions, there might be minimal impacts, and the consequences might be short-term. ‘Ideal’ conditions would exist if, for instance, the spill occurred close to shore, near an oil spill response depot, in the middle of summer, when the waters were calm and the days were long, the oil involved was light crude, it didn’t spread much or emulsify, and it was quickly contained and recovered. This would constitute a ‘best’ case scenario.
Under a medium case scenario, a large volume of medium crude might spill from an undersea pipeline rupture caused by an earthquake. If this were to happen during the March/April herring spawn, and windy, wavy conditions delayed cleanup, there could be extensive damage to sensitive coastal resources over a wide area. The marine environment might take three to five years to recover.
Under a worst case scenario, there could be a well blowout, or a fully-laden supertanker could break in two, spilling a large quantity of persistent, heavy crude oil. The oil could impact an area from the Alaskan boundary to north central Vancouver Island. Within this zone, the intertidal zone and beaches could be impacted; oil could penetrate the sediment. Seagrass beds, rockfish and juvenile salmon would be particularly vulnerable. Sand lance might be decimated, in which case higher levels of the food chain could be impacted as well. Were the oil to enter low wave energy inlets, it could persist for years; oolichan and salmon stocks could be impacted, in which case native culture, diet and livelihood would all be adversely affected. A number of threatened or endangered bird species could be wiped out. Cleanup and compensation costs could run into the billions of dollars, with the provincial government on the hook for most of that, the P&I clubs and international compensation funds paying out only a small fraction in claims. British Columbia’s carefully crafted image as a tourism and cruise ship destination could be shattered.
Proposed Measures to ‘protect’ the Queen Charlotte Basin
A number of measures have been announced or proposed to protect individual components of the Queen Charlotte Basin. Some, such as the twenty kilometre coastal exclusion zone, are directly related to oil and gas activity, while others, such as the buffer zones around sponge reef colonies, plus various marine protected area proposals, would proceed whether or not oil and gas activity was authorised.
The effect of all of these proposed measures combined would be essentially to confine oil and gas activity to the middle of the basin, i.e. to a zone at least twenty kilometres from shore. This kind of ‘out of site, out of mind’ approach would have the effect of preserving the seascape from the shoreline, in the sense that no oil rigs would be visible from the beach or rocky headlands at least. Regrettably, this approach ignores the fluid nature of the medium we are dealing with here, i.e. water; there is very little evidence to support the notion that once spilled, oil will respect any of these boundaries. In fact, in a version of ‘the law of unintended consequences’, the opposite may in fact occur: shunting oil and gas activity further and further offshore may inadvertently increase the damage.
This is so because the further the spill site is from shore, the longer it may take for response vessels to reach the casualty site and launch a salvage and/or containment and recovery operation. In the meantime, the oil has a chance to spread and emulsify, potentially creating an even larger slick, and impacting an even greater length of coastline than would otherwise be the case if the spill had been closer to shore. This is not to suggest that the alternative, i.e. keeping the oil and gas activity as close to shore as possible, is better; for this option would no doubt be equally unpalatable, especially to first nations groups. What it does suggest, however, is that there are likely to be few if any measures to protect the region from offshore oil and gas activity that are better than the current, blanket, region-wide moratorium.
The Environmental Threat
The threat of oil spills to the marine environment of the Queen Charlotte Basin tends to be underestimated. The general message conveyed to the public by industry and the provincial government alike is that disasters can be averted by preventive measures, but that if they do occur, the appropriate countermeasures will mitigate the effects. This tends to give people a false sense of security, namely that a mid-winter oil spill could actually be cleaned up.
A basic problem is that all too often risk is looked at strictly from a probability angle, i.e. the likelihood of a negative event occurring, whereas it is really the product of two things: the chances of an event happening, multiplied by the consequences if it were to occur. Two analogies are appropriate: wearing seatbelts when driving a car, and wearing a helmet while cycling. In both cases, the probability of a serious accident occurring are perhaps small. But, once a car crash or a bike/car collision has happened, the consequences could be life-threatening if the person involved was not wearing protective gear.
The so-called “Strong Report” commissioned by the province of British Columbia concluded that although the ‘risks’ might be small, oil spills could have impacts which “…may be catastrophic in the short-term and carry serious and possibly irreversible consequences in the long-term”[7]. In effect, scientists are warning us that there is no such thing as zero risk, and that if we are prepared to lift the moratorium, then we also have to be prepared to lose everything we regard as so precious.
The Royal Society of Canada expert panel contends the following:
“Provided an adequate regulatory regime is put in place, there are no science gaps that need to be filled before lifting the moratoria on oil and gas development”[8].
It is submitted that while there are substantial knowledge gaps, what we do know is at least as important as what we don’t know. Furthermore, what we do know is enough to inform a decision one way or the other as to whether to maintain or lift the moratorium.
Conclusion
The prospect of offshore oil exploration in the Queen Charlotte Basin constitutes an unacceptable threat to the integrity of the marine ecosystem of the region. While the probability of a major spill occurring may be relatively small, the consequences which might ensue could be devastating. For one thing, it would be virtually impossible to clean up an offshore spill in the middle of winter, using current technology.
Thus, on scientific and technological grounds, the offshore oil and gas moratorium in the Queen Charlotte Basin should be maintained. Reconsideration of the issue of lifting the moratorium should not be entertained until technology improves to the point where a credible marine oil spill response operation can be launched year-round.
[1] Alan Wood Consulting Inc., “Potential Interactions Between Oil and Gas Exploration and Development and Living Marine Resources in the Queen Charlotte Basin Area”, Appendix 15, British Columbia Offshore Hydrocarbon Development, Report of the Scientific Review Panel, January 15, 2002, pp. 97-115, at p. 105.
[2] British Columbia Offshore Hydrocarbon Development, Report of the Scientific Review Panel, January 15, 2002, pp. 25, 26.
[3] Report of the Expert Panel on Science Issues Related to Oil and Gas Activities, Offshore British Columbia, The Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, February 2004, p. 93.
[4] Table 5.1, Report of the Expert Panel on Science Issues Related to Oil and Gas Activities, Offshore British Columbia, The Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, February 2004, p. 63.
[5] International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation web site: www.itopf.com.
[6] Report of the Expert Panel on Science Issues Related to Oil and Gas Activities, Offshore British Columbia, The Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, February 2004, p. 41.
[7] British Columbia Offshore Hydrocarbon Development, Report of the Scientific Review Panel, January 15, 2002, p. i.
[8] Report of the Expert Panel on Science Issues Related to Oil and Gas Activities, Offshore British Columbia, The Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, February 2004, p. xix.
[*] Dr. Graham is a Victoria-based international expert on oil spill response. Earlier this year, he successfully completed the oil spill On Scene Commander’s course offered by the Canadian Coast Guard at the Coast Guard College, in Sydney, Nova Scotia. In June of this year he will deliver a paper on marine oil spill expert systems at the 27th Arctic and Marine Oilspill (AMOP) Technical Seminar in Edmonton, Alberta.