Omnitrax oil shipping plan “dead in the water”?

Omintrax Canada’s plan to move a test shipment of Alberta crude oil through northern Manitoba to the Port of Churchill next month has been put on hold by Manitoba Transportation Minister Steve Ashton. It’s a harsh blow to the company’s hopes to move nearly 3.3 million barrels of crude through the port as early as next year.

Shipping oil over the Hudson Bay is a new avenue for growth harboring hopes to expand Churchill’s role as an Arctic gateway.

However, apparently  Mr. Ashton is seeing beyond the potential economic benefits to the area and port itself and erring quite wisely on the side of caution on this issue. The Hudson Bay is an extremely sensitive ecosystem that also has current economic and life sustaining benefits to all the communities that reside on its’ fragile coastline. One tragic accident could destroy the Hudson Bay and all the creatures that rely on the body of water for life itself for decades to come. A comprehensive study and subsequent operating plan must be in place before one drop of oil is shipped via this new proposal. Currently some oil is shipped north on barges to sustain Nunuvut communities but in no comparison to the amounts being projected in this international endeavor.

Proponents of the plan stress that oil is already shipped all over the continent by rail, truck and pipeline, and far more dangerous goods have moved regularly on the line for decades. However, shipping over land is far less dangerous and risky than transporting over water…especially so for water that is regularly in the 42 degree F temperature range. Couple that with weather that is unpredictable and harsh much of the year and a clean-up mission in these conditions would be nearly impossible.

File:Ursus maritimus walks over ice.jpg

Mr. Ashton advised Omnitrax to “go back to the drawing board on this,” holding some hope for the company to be able to explore options in the future. In this case the risk of any oil being transported over the bay seems insurmountable.

The Wilderness Committee interpreted Mr. Ashton’s comments as a rejection of Omnitrax’s plans and issued a statement Friday congratulating the Selinger government for offering “exactly the response we were hoping for.” As far as they are concerned, the plan is dead.

The disaster at Lac-M©gantic, where 47 people were killed after a train carrying oil crashed and exploded was cited by the Minister as a reason to be concerned about Omnitrax’s plans.

Lac-Megantic burning on the first day after the rail car derailment sent fireballs and streams of burning oil coursing through the Quebec village.  (Photo:  Surete du Quebec)

Omnitrax is convinced its’ northern rail lines don’t need upgrades to carry oil and the idea of shipping the liquid across the tundra is safe. This opinion flies directly in the face of the numerous grain car derailments that have occurred over the past two decades on those exact lines…at least the birds and some other animals can eat grain when it spills. Although federal approval for the rail shipping plan is required since railways are federally regulated, provincial opposition could be a barrier for such approval.

Once again…money trumps environment

Omnitrax Canada’s plan to ship over three million barrels of oil per year (3.3 to be exact) through the port of Churchill has come upon some opposition. Go figure. Why would anyone oppose shipping light “sweet” crude oil through potentially ice filled waters inhabited by thousands of polar bears, seals, whales and shorebirds…not to mention millions of fish, krill, capelin….ok I mentioned them….and various other marine-life. The only thing “sweet” about this are profits that will be reaped by Omnitrax and parties associated with the Alberta oil sands, the main producer of the product to be exported by tankers…through the pristine waters of the Hudson Bay!

 

Until further serious study of the process is carried out not one drop of crude oil should leave port. Yes, we all know that Nunuvut communities have been supplied via small tankers filled from the tank farm up the hill toward Cape Merry out of Churchill for many years..but that has been out of necessity for pure survival of northern peoples. This venture is for profit and not all the logistics, especially emergency related, have been carefully studied.

Polar bear on the Hudson Bay coast

Polar bear on the Hudson Bay coast

If a spill occurred, the pristine Hudson Bay would be critically damaged indefinitely. Due to the remoteness, cold weather, frigid water and rough weather, spill clean-up would be impossible at best. And since the currents in the bay flow in a counter-clockwise rotation around the bay, the oil would spread all along the coastline. Rivers and tributaries would also be affected as the tides cause water flow in and out of them. The repercussions on animal life would be devastating and thus humans would be severely affected as well. People whose existence depends on hunting from the Hudson Bay would be in grave danger in places north that offer very few alternatives for making a living in economies that support very few. People in places like Churchill would possibly lose their livelihoods from the tourism niche there. Oily polar bears, birds, whales don’t attract people with cameras and dreams of the beautiful Arctic

Please do not allow this to happen….be active in the cause to prevent oil in the Hudson Bay.

Pin It on Pinterest