As the National Energy Board鈥檚 recommendations on Enbridge鈥檚 oil tanker and pipeline proposal for B.C. were released, I tuned into CBC Newsworld and CTV News Network to see the coverage unfold live.
Over and over again, the opposition to the project was described as 鈥淔irst Nations and environmentalists.鈥�
Wait a second. Just six months ago, the province of British Columbia submitted its final argument to the National Energy Board鈥檚 joint review panel, requesting the panel reject the project. 鈥淭rust us鈥� isn鈥檛 good enough, the report read with regard to Enbridge鈥檚 promises about oil-spill response.
鈥淭he province cannot support the approval of or a positive recommendation from the [panel] regarding this project as it was presented,鈥� said the province.
The report was covered by all major media. And, as far as the panel was concerned, that was B.C.鈥檚 final word on the project. Why then, when the panel recommended approval of the project last week, did most reporters fail to reference the fact the decision directly overruled the will of the province?
It seems most of the media were successfully carried away with Premier Christy Clark鈥檚 politicking about her government鈥檚 鈥渇ive conditions鈥� and her agreement with Alberta on a 鈥渇ramework鈥� to meet those conditions. There鈥檚 just one problem: That鈥檚 all irrelevant as far as the panel鈥檚 decision is concerned.
So, while many pundits outside B.C. point to the panel鈥檚 report as proof Enbridge鈥檚 oil tanker and pipeline project is safe and in the public interest, one important question remains unexplored: How is it that the province of B.C. and the federal panel came to such vastly different conclusions?
Let鈥檚 take oil spills, for example. In its report, the joint review panel acknowledges nobody really knows what happens when bitumen hits salt water. In its 209 conditions, the panel asks Enbridge to establish 鈥渁 scientific advisory committee to study what happens to diluted bitumen when released into the environment.鈥�
The report is sparse on the details of how oil could be recovered after a major spill and parrots Northern Gateway鈥檚 claims about 鈥渘atural recovery鈥� of oil in the environment.
鈥淣orthern Gateway said that microorganisms capable of degrading hydrocarbons are known to be present in the coastal waters of British Columbia, and their role in degrading oil in Prince William Sound following the Exxon Valdez oil spill is also well documented,鈥� the report said.
However, look at what the province鈥檚 exhaustive 99-page final argument said on the same matter and you discover a very different conclusion.
Citing an Enbridge witness, the province states: 鈥淲ith respect to ... most open-ocean spills, no oil from a spill is recovered; the oil remains in the environment.鈥�
It continues: 鈥淭here are significant periods of time [68.5 per cent of the time during fall/winter in the 鈥渙pen water area鈥漖 during which spill response will be impossible or severely constrained.鈥�
Where bitumen is concerned, the province鈥檚 position is based on the fact the heavy oilsands product to be transported by Northern Gateway poses special risks because it can sink into the water column or all the way to the riverbed or seabed.
The report says: 鈥淸Enbridge] acknowledges that it knows of no techniques to effectively remove dissolved oil from the water column,鈥� and adds, 鈥淸Enbridge] acknowledges that the fraction of the total oil volume that sinks can exceed 50 per cent,鈥� and 鈥渞ecovery and mitigation options for sunken oils [e.g. weathered bitumen] are limited.鈥�
Ultimately, the province says Enbridge must prove its ability to effectively respond to oil spills before a project certificate is granted. 鈥淭rust us isn鈥檛 good enough,鈥� it says.
Huh. So while the National Energy Board鈥檚 review panel (whose members are appointed by the federal government) ruled 鈥渢rust us鈥� is good enough, the country鈥檚 media developed a case of amnesia and forgot to ask the B.C. government how it felt about the panel coming to a drastically different conclusion than it did.
B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak was let off the hook easily by referring back to the province鈥檚 鈥渇ive conditions.鈥� And, just like that, the polar-opposite conclusions of two reports on the same matter were swept under the rug.
听
Emma Gilchrist writes for Desmog Canada.
