Impact and Opposition Surrounding Canadian Oil Pipeline and Tanker Ban
In October, the Nathan E Stewart spill released approximately 110,000 litres of diesel near the Seaforth Channel after the American-flagged tug grounded off central British Columbia coastal waters. A large diesel sheen prompted the coast guard to assess a worst-case scenario. The Heiltsuk Nation, based in Bella Bella, reported that the spill contaminated primary harvesting sites, causing immediate and ongoing economic harm alongside lasting damage to traditional harvesting and cultural sites including clam gardens.
Cleanup efforts lasted about 40 days, involving 45 vessels and more than 200 people. Although under 700 barrels were spilled, the incident caused significant ecological and cultural losses within the territory.
Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Mark Carney has shown support for a pipeline project intended to transport at least one million barrels of oil per day to Asia, alongside considerations to lift a 53-year-old tanker ban and streamline permitting and approval processes. However, Coastal First Nations, comprising nine nations, oppose both lifting the tanker ban and any pipeline crossing their region. Chiefs representing over 600 First Nations voted to uphold the oil-tanker ban.
Opposition voices warn that tanker routes would traverse the Gulf of Alaska and Hecate Strait, areas known for dangerous weather conditions for large oil vessels. British Columbia Premier David Eby emphasized that the tanker ban is non-negotiable and condemned any project requiring its lift as a grave mistake. He also noted that there are other regional projects which have First Nations’ support.
First Nations have highlighted that current maritime law fails to compensate for cultural losses caused by spills. In response, a delegation traveled to London to lobby the UN International Maritime Organization to address these deficiencies.
