Assurances from oil companies at home and abroad about the safety of their operations aren’t enough to prevent increasingly unparalleled environmental disasters and it is up to all levels of government to protect the environment with stronger regulations, safety requirements and harsher penalties.
It is the unthinkable, the chains of events never anticipated that have created two environmental catastrophes — one in Alberta’s past and one unfolding right before our eyes, which is affecting the drilling industry in Canada. But both the growing oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico created by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig on April 20 and the trial of Syncrude here in St. Albert for the 2008 deaths of 1,600 birds that landed on the Aurora tailings pond are proof that industry assurances of safety simply aren’t enough.
While no verdict in the Syncrude case is expected until June, testimony to date paints a scenario in which, according to the company, the perfect storm of events prevented crews from deploying scare cannons on the Aurora pond in time. Lawyer Robert White has argued that a snowstorm and warm weather created “quicksand-like” conditions that made it impossible to properly deploy the scare cannons. Frozen water in the area meant Aurora was the only body of water on which birds could land. White subsequently argued that, “Syncrude didn’t make it snow. Syncrude didn’t raise the temperature.” That is obviously true, but given the northern location of the pond, severe weather is a factor that should have been considered when the company drafted its waterfowl protection plan. More so, the government rejected the plan but because there is no requirement for such a document in any oilsands operation to be approved — only implemented — there is no reason to hold such plans to a more rigorous standard. In the most extreme of circumstances, as White stated in court, Syncrude’s plan could not be implemented because there was no alternative.
While no one yet knows what caused the Deepwater Horizon to explode and sink, opening the 210,000-gallon-a-day gusher to the open sea that has yet to be capped, it is clear well owner oil giant BP believed its singular back-up should have prevented if not the explosion, then the ongoing flood of oil into the ocean. The blowout preventer, which should have sealed the well, was activated but did not work and has not, despite repeated attempts using remotely operated submersibles. The ultimate backstop — drilling a relief well — will take weeks if not months as the company tries to find a stopgap measure to slow the leak.
The situation has prompted a look here at home at Arctic offshore drilling proposals. The National Energy Board is reviewing regulations for offshore drilling, specifically the reliability of blowout preventers. But relief wells are another issue altogether as companies are asking the board to eliminate the need to be able to drill them, saying that in locations such as the Beaufort Sea, it might not be possible. Again companies are trying to prevent an environmental disaster with one technology, one that has proven to have failed. They are trying to get away with the absolute minimum required when that just won’t cut it.
Whether it’s human health or the safety of the environment, safety and protection should be of utmost concern. Disaster prevention should not be left to chance or to one catchall approach. If we’re going to continue plundering the planet for its oil, we should at least require companies to offer the best possible protection. It can’t be enough that they have a plan; they need to have a plan that actually works.
