Christy Clark’s ‘five conditions con’

Raincoast's Executive Director explains the Premier's posturing in the Vancouver Sun

Christy Clark at the World Economic Forum in India in 2011

To no one’s surprise, the Government of British Columbia has signed off on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain oil sands pipeline and supertanker project in the Salish Sea.

The announcement confirmed that Premier Christy Clark’s posturing with her “five conditions con” over the past four and a half years has essentially been political Kabuki theatre. The cynical, albeit clever, five conditions con allowed Clark to mask her Liberal government’s support for Trans Mountain, via a combination of faux fence-sitting and feel-good “standing up for British Columbians” rhetoric, at least until the federal Liberal government had taken the brunt of the criticism for approving the project.1

Yet, given the deliberate open-endedness and vagueness of Clark’s demands, it is difficult to believe that anyone bought into the five conditions charade. From the start it was obvious the thresholds for satisfying those requirements would either be conveniently fungible or realistically unattainable; the following examination of what might be the most far-fetched of the five conditions serves to illustrate this point.

When the premier first asserted that “world-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery” was a lynchpin of her five conditions, many felt it was simply empty pandering to the legitimate concerns of British Columbians, as the phrase “world-leading oil spill response, prevention and recovery” is a meaningless platitude.

There is no such thing as world-class oil spill response, prevention and recovery.  Tweet This!

As we have stressed repeatedly, there is no such thing as world-leading or world-class oil spill response, prevention and recovery. The existing yardstick is wholly inadequate as estimates of open-water recovery by mechanical equipment are 10 to 15 per cent of the oil from a marine spill, at best. As we have learned from previous spills, no response is possible in rough weather, high seas and dangerous conditions. Importantly, these conditions often precede, or follow, oil spills. Pumping and skimming recovery options are ineffective in over one knot of tide or in waves and choppy waters. In rough conditions or offshore spills, response is limited to the use of dispersants, as containment is not an option. Dispersants have proven to be largely unsuccessful on water-in-oil emulsions and on oil that has weathered, and will not likely be successful on diluted bitumen. Furthermore, reliable knowledge regarding the extent of dispersant toxicity is lacking.

The Canadian Coast Guard has also identified the uncertainty around the effectiveness of spill response for the diluted bitumen that Kinder Morgan plans to transport from Alberta’s oil sands. In its submission to the joint review panel assessing the Enbridge Northern Gateway project, the coast guard stated it was “not aware of a scientific consensus regarding how these products will behave once introduced into the marine environment or the effects over time of the products being in the water. The Canadian Coast Guard therefore is uncertain whether or not traditional oil spill recovery methods would be effective.”

You can support our research and protect the coast by becoming a donor.

Donate now

The coast guard’s fear that diluted bitumen could submerge or sink has been reinforced by top chemical scientists in a U.S. National Academy of Sciences study. (Parenthetically, the aforementioned study was capriciously refused into evidence for the Trans Mountain federal review by the National Energy Board). But this would not be the only impact of a diluted bitumen spill. If a slick hits the water, it would immediately release dangerous components that are toxic to fish and animals. No technology can recover those volatile components. The bottom line on the B.C. coast, as has been shown elsewhere, is that arriving on the scene within the NEB-mandated 36 hours does not necessarily translate into effective cleanup of an oil spill.

With grossly overstated oil spill response capabilities revealed after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, it was evident that improvements to oil spill technology have been negligible. Responders in the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill indicated that cleanup technology was no further ahead than in the 15 years previous. Responders in the Deepwater Horizon spill claimed that cleanup technologies were essentially the same as in the Exxon Valdez spill. Thus, despite some minor improvements, oil spill recovery remains largely unchanged over the last three decades. Notably, the spill response in these situations was nothing like what had been promised by the oil companies.

Another reality of so-called world-class response and prevention is the fact that human failures account for up to 80 per cent of the world’s oil spills. State-of-the-art navigation does not compensate for human error. Major oil spills show that despite assurances of low risk and advanced technology, poor decisions still lead to major incidents. Groundings, collisions, equipment failures and explosions are all cited as causes for accidents, but these are consequences, not causes. Root causes of incidents are more insidious, with human error and miscommunication foremost among them.


Chris Genovali, Special to the Vancouver Sun, February 9 20172

  1. Feature image of Christy Clark by the World Economic Forum, Cologny Switzerland.
  2. http://vancouversun.com/opinion/opinion-christy-clarks-five-conditions-con