The spectre of a catastrophic oil spill is haunting the remote, rugged coast of British Columbia as Canada's government considers approving a major new pipeline project. Prime Minister Mark Carney's support for the plan, which includes lifting a 53-year-old ban on oil tanker traffic, has ignited fierce opposition from coastal First Nations who vividly remember the devastation of a previous fuel spill.
A Community's 'Worst-Case Scenario'
The fear is rooted in recent, painful history. In October 2016, the American tugboat Nathan E Stewart ran aground on a reef in the Seaforth Channel, near the Heiltsuk Nation community of Bella Bella. Despite attempts to free the vessel, it began taking on water and leaking diesel. A coast guard helicopter later confirmed the community's dread: a large sheen of oil was visible outside containment booms. In total, 110,000 litres of diesel spilled into the critical marine ecosystem.
"People were devastated. They talked as though we had lost someone in our community," recalled Marilynn Slett, Chief Councillor of the Heiltsuk Nation. The spill contaminated primary harvesting sites, causing immediate and ongoing economic loss. Nearly a decade later, the nation is still fighting for compensation, including for the destruction of ancient clam gardens cultivated for centuries.
The Fight Against Lifting the Tanker Ban
Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Carney's push to build a pipeline moving "at least one million barrels a day" of Alberta bitumen to Asian markets has triggered alarm. Key to the plan is repealing the moratorium on oil tankers along British Columbia's north coast, a ban formalised into law in 2019.
Experts warn the region is uniquely dangerous for large tankers. The Hecate Strait is described as a "malevolent weather factory" with diabolically hostile winter storms. "It's spectacularly dangerous," said Rick Steiner, a veteran of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster. Coastal First Nations, representing nine nations, have declared the project "would never happen" and called the tanker ban non-negotiable.
Green Party leader Elizabeth May stated there is "no chance" an oil tanker will ever move through those inner waters, adding governments cannot "wish away science" or pretend a tanker wouldn't break apart in such conditions.
Cultural Loss and an Unacceptable Risk
For communities like the Heiltsuk, the potential harm transcends economics. The 2016 spill's legacy includes closed harvesting sites and damaged ecosystems that allowed invasive species like the European green crab to thrive. Under current maritime law, they cannot claim compensation for cultural losses, such as lost access to cultural sites—a wrong a delegation took to the UN last year.
"How do you show a receipt for the loss of our ability to transmit our knowledge and our cultural practices between generations?" asked Chief Slett. She emphasised that the Nathan E Stewart spill of fewer than 700 barrels polluted over 1,500 acres, while modern tankers can carry over 2 million barrels.
British Columbia's Premier, David Eby, warned that scrapping the ban would be a "grave mistake," risking both environmental catastrophe and the withdrawal of First Nations support for other projects. For the Heiltsuk, the calculation is stark. "We just cannot accept this risk to our community after seeing what can happen," said Slett. "We can't. And we won't."
