VICTORIA – The Exxon Valdez oil spill, which occurred over 36 years ago off the coast of Alaska, continues to impact discussions about a proposed pipeline from Alberta to northern British Columbia. Rick Steiner, a former academic and one of the first responders to the disaster, warns that the risk of a similar incident along the B.C. coast remains, despite industry assurances of improved safety measures.

Steiner's concerns are echoed by First Nations and environmental groups who reference both the Exxon Valdez spill and a 2016 diesel spill from the Nathan E. Stewart tugboat as reasons to maintain a ban on tanker traffic in the region. Recent incidents, such as the grounding of a container barge near Bella Bella, have further fueled these concerns.

Steiner emphasized that the lessons learned from the Exxon Valdez spill should inform current policy-making. "You don’t drive the risk of this thing to zero," he stated. The disaster occurred on March 24, 1989, when the supertanker struck a reef in Prince William Sound, resulting in an estimated 260,000 to 760,000 barrels of crude oil spilling into the water. The spill's devastating effects, including images of oil-coated seabirds and polluted shorelines, have become emblematic of the dangers associated with oil transport.

Steiner, now an environmental consultant, noted that the ecological damage from the Exxon Valdez spill is largely irreversible. "There will never be full ecological recovery in Prince William Sound from this," he said. He views the disaster as a cautionary tale for the Canadian government, particularly as discussions about easing the 53-year-old moratorium on tanker traffic in northern B.C. gain traction.

Recently, Alberta and the federal government signed a memorandum of understanding to advance the northern pipeline project. However, Coastal First Nations quickly opposed the plan, declaring it "would never happen" and insisting that the tanker ban is non-negotiable.

Steiner warned that the northern B.C. coast is already at risk from American tankers passing by Haida Gwaii. He argued that establishing a pipeline terminal in northern B.C. to ship bitumen to Asian markets would exacerbate this risk. He urged the Canadian government to consider the potential socio-economic impacts on communities along the coast, stating, "The answer from my standpoint would be to strongly advise the Canadian government against this. This would be a fool’s errand."

Some industry groups, including the Chamber of Shipping, have criticized the tanker ban. In a 2017 submission to a parliamentary committee, they argued that the legislation lacked "tangible evidence" and pointed to improvements in tanker safety due to new regulations and better emergency response systems.

Steiner acknowledged that the Exxon Valdez disaster led to significant changes in maritime safety, such as the introduction of double-hulled tankers and enhanced vessel tracking systems. However, he cautioned that these measures do not eliminate the risk of another disaster. "It’s spectacularly dangerous to conceive of putting a pipeline to northern B.C. and hauling that oil across the Gulf of Alaska to Asian markets," he said. "It should not see the light of day."

He believes that maintaining the tanker ban is crucial for protecting existing sustainable economies in British Columbia. This sentiment is shared by First Nations along the northern and central coast, including the Heiltsuk Nation, which is still recovering from the Nathan E. Stewart spill that released approximately 110,000 liters of diesel oil. They stated, "Our cultural and harvesting areas have remained closed since then. That was a spill under 700 barrels in size and polluted over 1,500 acres of our territory. In contrast, supertankers can carry two million barrels of oil. We cannot imagine and will never allow that kind of risk in our territory."

Steiner, who has collaborated with Coastal First Nations, noted that any spill of 1,000 barrels is considered catastrophic in his field. He anticipates that discussions about the northern pipeline will revive interest in the Exxon Valdez disaster. "Exxon Valdez does tend to get raised in any debate about transporting crude oil around the world … and rightfully so," he said.

David Tindall, a sociology professor at the University of British Columbia, explained that the Exxon Valdez disaster has become ingrained in North American culture due to its visual impact. He noted that the powerful imagery from the spill has influenced public perception and shaped debates surrounding other pipeline projects, such as the Northern Gateway and the Trans Mountain expansion.

Tindall acknowledged that while younger generations may not be as familiar with the Exxon Valdez incident, the images of oil spills remain impactful. He stated, "When people see birds that are covered in oil, or they see rescue workers trying to clean up birds or seals, that is a very big impact."

As the debate continues, Tindall expects various groups opposed to the pipeline to utilize different strategies, including public relations campaigns and legal actions focused on Indigenous rights, to express their concerns about potential oil spills and their consequences.