January 12, 2006

“I’m disappointed with the federal Liberal government’s recent statement that reveals their interest in allowing exploratory oil drilling in BC’s coastal waters. To do exploratory drilling means the moratorium would have to be lifted,” states Ken Wu, Campaign Director of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee in Victoria. “But at the same time, they’re sending mixed and contradictory messages. Yesterday they emailed a letter saying that the issue still requires ‘further investigation’ before a decision is made and that they’re taking a ‘conservation first’ approach.”

Wu is responding to last week’s statement by the federal Liberal Party to Greenpeace’s pre-election questionnaire on whether they will maintain the 35 year old moratorium on coastal oil and gas development in BC. In response, the Liberals state that “the environmental effects of offshore oil and gas exploratory drilling are, in general, minor, localized, short in duration and reversible,” and that exploratory drilling off BC’s coast would be subject to a simplified “screening assessment” instead of a comprehensive environmental assessment. Along with recent remarks by the BC Minister of Energy and Mines, Richard Neufeld, that “the province is getting positive signals from the federal government about offshore oil exploration” (Canadian Press, Jan.6, 2006), the warnings are ominous for the fate of BC’s wild coast.

However, yesterday the Liberals contradicted their recent pro-drilling stance in an email (January 11, 2006) by federal Minister of Environment Stephan Dion to WCWC supporters that “Environment Canada has consistently advocated that conservation issues need to be addressed before any decision on the moratorium can be made. Based on the information received to date, it is clear that there are many things we do not know about the impact of oil and gas development on British Columbia's offshore and this will require further investigation. I strongly believe in promoting a ‘conservation first’ approach.”

Their pro-drilling response to Greenpeace also contradicts the federal Minister of Industry David Emerson’s comments before Christmas, where he told the media that the government is “in no hurry to develop the currently protected West Coast and are a long way from taking any action”. (24 Hours, Dec.14, 2005). And it contradicts the position of Liberal candidate for Victoria, David Mulroney, who supports maintaining the moratorium, as does outgoing Victoria Liberal MP David Anderson (who helped implement the moratorium in 1971). The federal NDP favours strengthening the moratorium, while the federal Greens would ban coastal oil development.

“Are the federal Liberals being two-faced, or are they just confused? It seems like a party in disarray that can’t harmonize its positions within itself. But we’ll have to go with the worst case scenario to be on the safe side – which means we’ll be fighting the stated pro-drilling stance of the Liberals” states Wu.

Meanwhile the Conservative Party, in all its arrogance, hasn’t even responded to the Greenpeace questionnaire, and is also the only major political party with no “Environment” or “Environmental Policy” section on their website (see recent media release). However, the Conservative National Campaign Coordinator and former party leader John Reynolds has stated his support for lifting the moratorium, saying “It’s providing much wealth off Newfoundland. We can do the same off the West Coast.” (The Province, Nov.21, 2004).

“Whether it’s the Conservatives or the Liberals who take power, they will step into an explosive situation with BC’s largest environmental organizations, with coastal First Nations, and with fishermen all over the coast should they move to allow seismic testing, exploratory oil drilling, and commercial oil extraction here,” states Wu. “These Conservative and Liberal politicians are as slick as oil on water, and they’ll leave BC’s taxpayers to clean up the mess when the oil spills.”

Some of the problems that coastal oil and gas development in BC include:

• Seismic testing, where underwater sonic blasts are used to locate potential oil deposits, is perhaps the most destructive part of coastal oil development aside from major oil spills. It kills fish, crabs, and marine larvae, and it drives fish and whales long distances away from their feeding and migration areas. It is a precursor to exploratory drilling.
  
  
• Daily chronic pollution from exploratory and commercial oil rigs. This pollution comes part and parcel with all offshore oil development and includes the discharge of toxic drilling fluids and drill cuttings, toxic waste waters, oil leakages, and small spills that contaminate the marine life.
  
  
• Catastrophic oil spills in Canada’s most earthquake-prone region, which would hit the sensitive coastlines of the Queen Charlotte Islands and the mainland coast. In Newfoundland, the Hibernia project is 300 km offshore, whereas in BC the rigs would be as close as 20 km to shore. Currents in Newfoundland take oil spills away from shore, currents in BC would take the spills onto the sensitive shores.
  
  
• Substantial greenhouse gas emissions, which contravenes Canada’s commitment to Kyoto. Offshore oil and gas rigs are major greenhouse gas emitters.
  
  
• Jobs would go in large part to foreigners. Oil companies are not looking for unemployed loggers and fishermen in coastal BC as their main labour source, but rather already trained and experienced workers with the specialized skills, generally to be hired from abroad.

For more info contact:

Ken Wu, WCWC Victoria Campaign Director

(250) 388-9292