If the oil spills in the forest, does anyone notice?

Apparently not. At least, that seems to be the alarming reality with recent oil spills. While pipeline companies try to convince us things are under control, there are several cases where they don’t even know a pipeline is leaking. Which is the case with Red Deer, when the company in charge didn’t even know the pipeline was leaking until someone else told it.

This is small comfort for the people of Red Deer, facing 1,000-3,000 barrels of oil spilling into the river that provides their drinking water. Oil spills have real victims, and real human and natural costs. One local resident, Gord Johnston, told The Globe and Mail that "My place is destroyed...My whole life's work is gone. I've pretty well lost it all here." He described the headaches and nausea caused by the oil, which now pollutes much of his property.

This isn’t the first time a pipeline company hasn’t even been aware when one of its pipelines starts spewing oil. Just last month, another oil spill in Alberta went undetected for days, eventually spilling 22,000 barrels of oil. And, Enbridge’s massive tar sands oil spill in Michigan in 2010 went unnoticed, with it taking the company 17 hours to respond and shut off the flow of oil.

The longer it takes the company to clue in that there’s a problem, the more oil that spills, the further it travels and the greater risk to local residents and the environment. The people who live near the Michigan spill are still contending with giant blobs of oil at the bottom of the Kalamazoo River, contaminating it for tens of kilometres.

Consider that in 2011, there were 165 pipeline incidents reported to the federal government. Yet the Environmental Emergencies Program at Environment Canada, which responds to oil spills, is being forced to close most of its offices. These, naturally, are close to where oil spills may happen. The one across the river from Ottawa is staying open. Phew.

One office for 71,000 kilometres of pipelines in Canada. And more, perhaps, if powerful oil interests get their way. I'm referring to Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline proposed to run from the tar sands to the Pacific coast—through largely sparsely populated land, where no-one will even be able to let the company know there’s a problem.

And a problem is possible, because risky tar sands proposals could make the situation worse.

When normal oil spills, it floats. When tar sands oil spills, it sinks. That’s why there’s such a mess in Michigan—still—two years after the spill.

Tar sands oil is also hotter and more corrosive than normal oil, making a spill more likely.

So how do you feel now, knowing that no fewer than 800 streams and rivers, many of which support healthy salmon populations, are between the tar sands and Pacific coast?

Central Canada is at risk, too, because Enbridge also wants to push tar sands oil through Ontario and Quebec. Yes, very close to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, which, like the river in Red Deer, provide drinking water for lots of people.

Some people think this a great time to make environmental laws weaker and do what powerful oil interests want more often. In light of the evidence, chances are high they are wrong. Because the sad fact is pipelines spill—all the time—and Big Oil wants to put riskier tar sands oil through more of them.

Comments

We would love to hear from you - leave a comment below, or reply to a previous comment. We have a comments policy that you should know about.

If the oil spills in the forest, does anyone notice?

back to the issue

topics

related posts

tags

Comments