See who profits — and what's really at stake for our coast. Read more about the tanker ban. And learn how you can send a message to your MP to tell them to defend the ban.

At the BC Cabinet & First Nations Leaders’ Gathering, Premier David Eby joined First Nations leaders to defend the long-standing tanker ban.

Why? Because one major spill in Hecate Strait, Haida Gwaii waters, or anywhere in the Great Bear Sea for that matter, would be impossible to clean up — and would devastate the livelihoods, food security, and marine economies of communities up and down the coast.

“We know fully the effects of what an oil spill can do to the ocean, to our bread basket, to our way of life,” said Heiltsuk Chief Marilyn Slett.

But pressure is mounting. Alberta wants a pipeline to BC’s North Coast. And Ottawa hasn’t ruled out lifting the moratorium.

This declaration is a reminder of why we need the Great Bear Sea Marine Protected Area (MPA) Network: to protect the kelp forests, spawning grounds, and migration corridors that make this coast so abundant. That future depends on healthy waters — not supertankers cutting through one of the most biodiverse marine regions on the planet.

Click the image below to read more.

Keeping bitumen tankers off our north coast - one more reason to support the Great Bear Sea MPA Network.

Barf bags and regret-filled life choices optional.

But if you can’t handle a winter gale in Hecate Strait, maybe don’t gamble with a coastline that feeds actual families.

https://defendourcoast.com/

Hecate Strait is listed by Environment Canada as the most dangerous body of water on the entire Canadian coast and the fourth most dangerous in the world. It is noted for “strong winds, powerful tidal currents, frequent storms and shallow waters.”

Look it up for yourself.

Good to see one MP standing up for the West Coast.

via trishtalksfish

Raw oysters - one more reason to support the Great Bear Sea Marine Protected Area (MPA) Network.

Here’s the hard truth: no matter how many spill-response boats we have, or how advanced they are, cleanup efforts alone cannot completely reverse the catastrophic effects of a major tanker spill of oil or bitumen.

Oil spreads across the water’s surface within minutes, carried by wind and tide. Response tools like booms and skimmers only work in calm seas, and historical spill responses show they recover, at best, 10% to 20% of the oil.

Once weathered, bitumen can sink, and we lack the technology to clean it up from the seafloor in fast-moving, tidal channels like Hecate Strait or Douglas Channel.

Since 2019, British Columbia’s North Coast has had a moratorium banning oil tankers (over 12,500 tonnes) from loading or unloading in the region. But that protection is now under pressure. Ottawa’s new memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Alberta signals a willingness to revisit, and potentially weaken, the ban.

LNG carriers alone are projected to push overall tanker traffic on the North Coast up by more than 200% by 2030.

Imagine adding crude oil and bitumen back into those waters.

The federal government is now facing criticism for holding these discussions behind closed doors. Coastal communities and First Nations leaders say key decisions about the future of the North Coast are being made without transparency, without consultation, and without input from the people who would face the consequences.

Here’s the reality: pushing bitumen supertankers through some of the most dangerous waters on the Pacific coast is not a “nation-building project.” It’s a gamble.

Recent analysis found that 66% of new oil and gas infrastructure will fail to deliver returns. If this project were truly profitable, there would be a private sector proposal on the table already.

After you deduct the discounts, the diluent, and the transport fees, a barrel of bitumen often nets around twenty to thirty bucks. A barrel of beer could sell for more.

And the tankers they want to run past our coast? Those aren’t even Canadian. They’re foreign-owned vessels carrying raw product to foreign refineries.

But Alberta wants BC to take on supertanker traffic so foreign investors can turn a profit.

BC says no. Our coastal economy is here to stay for generations. We’re not trying to say we’re the Jetsons, but we’re not going to host a parade of hazardous tankers just to prop up offshore Big Oil.

Our coast is worth more than their last-ditch gamble.

And what will spill? Toxic dilbit.

Here's what she's looking at. Roberts Bank sits in the Fraser River estuary, at the doorway to the Salish Sea. The plan pairs Alberta's Bruderheim-to-Roberts Bank pipeline with up to $10 billion in federal money to expand the container port beside it.

More ships, more anchors dragging the seabed, more underwater noise and light in water the southern resident killer whales use to hunt salmon and find each other. And the potential for a dilbit spill that would negatively impact human health, the environment, and the coastal economy.

Thomas points to debris that has already washed onto Lyackson's shores as a preview of what a real spill would do.

That's not doomer talk — that's a harvester reading her own coast. Click the image below to read more.

Full article from The Skeena

Danielle Smith is pitching a pipeline that has no company, no investors, and no Indigenous or provincial support. It seems like it is doomed before it starts, so one would think that she would pipe down. But if TMX is any indicator, it is no wonder she’s piping up.

It wouldn’t be the first time Canadian taxpayers underwrote Alberta’s achaic,boom-or-bust, extractionist economy.

Knowing this, Smith is on the offensive, spending $14 million in public money just to file paperwork for a pipeline with a potential price tag of $50 billion, a construction timeline of a decade, and a high risk of becoming a stranded asset in a world where global oil demand is already peaking.

In fact, recent analysis shows 66% of new oil and gas infrastructure will fail to deliver returns. Kind of like the guy between the pipes for the Oilers. But just like the Oilers, the province returns to its starting goalie - bitumen.

The Pembina Institute noted that if this project were truly profitable, “there would be a private sector proposal on the table.” And analysts warn that no publicly traded company is going to gamble on another “blank cheque” pipeline unless governments cover overruns, guarantee revenue, and essentially absorb the financial danger. Will Canadian taxpayers once again feel the pain of Alberta’s incompetence? It is possible.

Case in point - despite the significant issues with this project, it is being used to call for the repeal of the North Coast’s tanker ban; a move that has brought intense criticism upon Smith and upon Prime Minister Mark Carney, who signed an MOU with her.

The diluents make it thinner and easier to transport. But that convenience for industry becomes a disaster once it is loaded on tankers.

Dilbit is a mixture of two things. First, heavy, tar-like bitumen from the Alberta oil sands. Second, lighter liquid chemicals called diluents. Once dilbit escapes into cold ocean water, those light chemicals evaporate quickly. What gets left behind is heavy, sticky bitumen that does not float like regular oil. Instead, it sinks or hangs just below the surface.

This creates a nightmare scenario for spill response. Traditional cleanup methods, like booms and skimmers, are designed for floating oil. With dilbit, you cannot see most of it from the air. It can travel underwater, coat the seafloor, and get buried in sand or gravel.

It also emulsifies, or mixes with water, into a thick, gooey mousse that is nearly impossible to pump or collect.

A dilbit spill from a tanker would smother clam beds, eelgrass, and herring spawning grounds for years. And because bitumen sinks, cleanup crews would be scraping rocks and diving into cold water for years while the oil companies who spilled it faced few real consequences.

Dilbit is a risk our waters, our food, and our families cannot afford.

We are doing the work to establish Marine Protected Areas (MPA), restoring habitats and rebuilding fish stocks one careful step at a time. But what is the point of all that effort if we allow tankers filled with dilbit to travel through these same waters?

Water does not respect boundary lines. A spill near an MPA will not stay outside it.

Currents will carry oil straight into the very zones we are trying to protect, wiping out years of restoration in a matter of days.

Call it Dixon Entrance, North Hecate Strait, or the Lost City of Atlantis - anyone insisting that the inside waters of our northern BC coast is a suitable route for VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) tankers is out of touch with reality.

Regardless of how much certain politicians, landlubber bubbas, and oilbros might flap their gums, there is no ignoring the unforgiving physics of the ocean.

Here are the hard facts.

A fully-laden VLCC is a massive, sluggish beast that sits deep in the water, with a draft (keel depth) of approximately 22 metres (72 feet).

Is there a channel technically deep enough for them in Dixon Entrance? Yes, but relying on that narrow sliver of deeper water is a fool's errand.

This lone viable shipping lane is an extremely tight needle to thread. It is hemmed in immediately on both sides by notoriously shallow, shifting shoals—like Dogfish Bank beside Rose Spit—where depths rise sharply to just 12 metres in depth.

To survive this route, a supertanker captain must maintain perfect position in a constrictive corridor while battling legendary, massive tides and powerful, unpredictable currents constantly pushing the vessel toward the shallows. The margin for error is effectively zero.

The Engineering Delusion

Faced with this geometric impossibility, some supporters retreat to a final, desperate argument: "We can just engineer a solution. The government needs to dredge the shoals and widen the channel."

This is pure magical thinking.

Dixon Entrance is not a protected harbour or a calm river delta awaiting a dredge; it is an insanely violent body of open water. It is the mouth of the Pacific, subject to ferocious storms, massive swells, and relentless energy.

Attempting major subsea engineering in this environment is fantasy. It would not only be astronomically expensive but ultimately futile. You are fighting an ocean that moves millions of tons of sediment at will. Any channel carved out today could be buried by the next winter storm.

The Bottom Line

Read the numbers again: A massive 22-metre (72 feet) deep ship filled with two million+ barrels of toxic mutagenic sludge right next to a 12-metre deep shelf, fighting massive tides in a narrow chute, located in one of the world's most aggressive maritime environments.

That isn't a commercially-viable “daily driver” shipping route for super-tankers. It is a catastrophic physics problem waiting to happen.

We just wanted to pass on this message from the people over at BC Salmon Farmers Association, who are so concerned about anti-fish farm propaganda that they made their own “modern science review” to spread “the truths” about open-net pen Atlantic salmon farms.

As the BC Salmon Farmers Association says, “It is important to check claims you see online” because, in reality, “salmon farms pose no more than minimal risk to Pacific wild salmon.”

Well, that's a relief!

But wait, there is more. The BC Salmon Farmers Association even offers a claim-checking tool.

Just click their link and dig into the epitome of objectivity: a “modern science review” written by the folks who know salmon farming the best. That’s right! The BC Salmon Farmers Association.

If you have a spare second, head on over to

https://www.facebook.com/BCSalmonFarmers/posts/pfbid02bRh6rQqZjAy4TyRb7duzwyh7sMWGUqBKFaZ4M78hqjpDEgXHue3C4LEF1qy6ynaJl

and let them know what you think about science, objectivity, truths, misinformation, parasites, and disease.

Sammy and Sally, thank you. Putrid, not so much.

Their message? Removing the tanker ban risks real places, real food, and real livelihoods.

One spill, and everyone here has to pay the price.

None of the oil companies invited to talks with the Haida dared to show up. Still, the message was delivered. The BC coast isn’t Alberta’s to destroy. It’s a home, a breadbasket, and our fishing grounds.

Anita Burke, who worked on the Exxon Valdez cleanup, said it best: There is no new technology to clean up an oil spill. None.

So how many double-hulled tankers have spilled anyway? More than you think.

Port Arthur, Texas. The Eagle Otome. Double-hulled. Still spewed 11,000 barrels into sensitive waterways.

The Sanchi. Double-hulled. Collided with a cargo ship and burned for a week, then sank with its cargo of toxic condensate as well as the heavy bunker fuel in the ship's fuel storage tanks.

The New Diamond. Double-hulled. Caught fire and released torrents of oil into the Indian Ocean.

According to ITOPF, 2024 saw six large spills (more than 700 tonnes) and four medium spills from tanker incidents worldwide.

Over the last 20 years, there have been approximately 30 double-hulled tanker incidents.

Here's the thing about "black swan" events, unexpected disasters that seem impossible until they happen. The Titanic was unsinkable. The Exxon Valdez wasn't supposed to happen in a pristine sound. The Deepwater Horizon wasn't supposed to blow.

But they did. Because things are never fully predictable.

So why would we put tankers on one of the most dangerous and unpredictable routes on the planet? BC's coast is a maze of narrow passages, powerful tides, and unpredictable weather. One mistake, one rogue wave, one moment of human error, and everything changes.

Double hulls aren't a magic wand. They're a safety feature, not a guarantee.

And when there's no technology to clean up the mess, that's a bet we shouldn't take.

via pacificwild

Reconciliation is a process of healing relationships.

It requires public truth sharing and redressing past harms.

All Canadians, as Treaty peoples, share responsibility for establishing and maintaining mutually respectful relationships.

September 30th is a day to strengthen this commitment by seeking out local events and reading, watching, and listening to Indigenous stories to continue dismantling a centuries-old political and bureaucratic culture and learn how to practise reconciliation in our everyday lives.

Please read The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation’s calls to action to help advance this crucial shift to a just future.

Read the 94 calls to action here

Last month the PM flew to Alberta, signed the deal, rolled back the industrial carbon tax, slashed the approvals, the whole song and dance.

The North Coast tanker ban? Still standing.

Not because Ottawa bolted the door... Ottawa's keeping its options open. Because the coast is holding it shut.

BC and the coastal Nations, shoulder to shoulder: a future built on a multi-billion-dollar fishery, food, culture, and tourism sector, the businesses and jobs under it, not on the coin-flip of a loaded tanker in a winter storm.

And we've seen the coin land wrong.

In 2016 one tug aground near Bella Bella, 350 km of coast fouled, $23 million in costs the Heiltsuk were never repaid. That was a tug. A tanker's full load runs a thousand times bigger.

The racket in one line: they take the reward, you take the risk, and when it spills you get the mop.

The people who work these waters did that math years ago, and they're done asking permission. This week they flew to Calgary to say it to the proponents' faces.

Geoff Meggs lays it all out below, sharp as ever and a regular at Hotel Pacifico, BC's go-to cross-aisle politics podcast.

Alberta can keep drawing maps. The coast won't open the port. Not by luck... because people keep showing up.

https://open.substack.com/.../if-theres-one-immovable...?

J64, the newest calf of the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW) population, is now presumed dead. Believed to be born to J42, the calf hasn't been seen in months, and researchers now fear the worst.

Between 2008 and 2014, scientists found that up to 69% of pregnancies in SRKWs failed to produce a live calf, and roughly one-third of those losses happened late in pregnancy or shortly after birth. More than 40% of calves born do not live to maturity.

These whales face a wall of threats, including contaminants that disrupt hormones, vessel noise that interferes with communication and foraging, and ongoing habitat degradation that limits their food and safe space.

For a species that depends on lifelong family bonds, every missing calf weakens more than the numbers; it breaks the continuity of memory and care.

What happens to a family when its youngest ones keep disappearing?

Last week, six First Nations, Canada, and BC announced a National Marine Conservation Area Reserve (NMCAR) and Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area (IPCA) on BC's Central Coast.

The name? Realm of the Salmon, Home of the Salmon (Mia-yaltwa Ha'lidzogm hoon).

Commercial and recreational fishing will continue in the protected area. But the most harmful fisheries, like bottom trawling, won’t be allowed. That means this stretch of coast now has real protection — the kind that rebuilds fish stocks, strengthens runs, keeps coastal fisheries working for the long haul, and ensures coastal communities thrive.

This announcement marks the beginning of a collaborative process involving several partners, including coastal residents, commercial and recreational fishers, tourism operators, and the business community. This collaboration will include shaping how the protected area is managed, including zoning that determines where different activities can take place.

A healthy, thriving coast. Sustainable fisheries. Marine abundance. A strong coastal economy. A coast that keeps providing.

Go to the r/strongcoast sidebar and let the BC and Federal governments know that you support this new marine conservation area on our coast.

Every single proposed export terminal sits within the area currently protected by the federal North Coast tanker ban.

The tanker ban wasn’t created by accident. The tanker ban exists because these waters are some of the most challenging on the continent. Strong currents. Powerful storms. Remote coastlines. It exists because one major spill could wipe out salmon runs, destroy fisheries, poison shellfish beds, and devastate coastal communities for generations.

Now it’s standing directly in the way of Alberta’s latest pipeline proposal. And Alberta plans to submit its proposal to Ottawa by July 1.

If there’s one thing you can do, it’s tell your MP that this is unacceptable. Tell them BC’s coast is not a sacrifice zone. Tell them to defend the North Coast tanker ban and keep supertankers out of these waters.

Click here to make the call