“Should someone ask me what I
Consider to be of utmost im-
Portance in this Inquiry, I would
Say, ‘the process itself!’ ”

Those words from commissioner
Andrew Thompson were
Teassuring to the intervenors at the
July 18 opening of the West Coast
Oil Ports Inquiry. They were
Promised, in Thompson’s words,

a full, complete and fair
assessment of the facts and
Issues,”

But as “phase one” of the
Inguiry opened this week in

ancouver, participants were
demanding more than assurances.
The process that Thompson held
Out as the guarantee of a fair
hearing had been riddled with
Compromise and subterfuge. Even
before the Inquiry began its work
jm earnest, there were strong
Suspicions that the Inquiry itself
May be a_ colossal hoax,
Manipulated by the oil companies
and the federal government to
disarm the opposition and open
B.C.’s coast for giant oil ports to
receive the supertankers from
Alaska, Indonesia and Japan.

In March of this year, Thompson
Was authorized by the federal
Sovernment to conduct an in-
vestigation into three proposals for
Supertanker oil ports on the Pacific
Coast. Since then each of the
Companies that propose to build

se oil ports have, one after
another, quit the Inquiry. While
Thompson sough in vain the
“ooperation of the companies, the

ational Energy Board began to
Process an application for one of
the oi] port proposals. In the
Meantime the federal government
ad been busy negotiating a treaty
With the U.S. on  supertanker
traffic in the straits of Juan de

Ca. The coup de grace, though,
Came last month with the com-
Pletion of the Alyeska pipeline and
the maiden voyage of the Arco
Uneau — the first of the tankers
that Thompson is to study — down
BCs coast.

Long before Thompson is near
Making any recommendations, the
Matter may be decided. With the
il companies backing
Proposal, at Cherry Point,

ashington, the project given the
Political stanip of approval by the
National Energy Board, with an
international treaty signed and
€livered, and with the oil tankers
already plying coastal waters to
eerry Point...

€ scenario has not yet been
Played out completely, but the
Script is as favorable to the oil
“Companies as if they had authored

ign mselves. And perhaps they

e \
Whether Thompson is a part of
© intrigue, or a victim to it, is not
yet clear. He will provide the
Swer to the question himself by
and sec lusions he finally reaches,
f m the meantime, by his ac-
ons, to restore credibility to his
Nquiry.
a ere were more than a few
= ebrows raised when Thompson
«8 given the job to head up the
Serger style’? Inquiry into the oil
Ports. After all, it was only weeks
ore, on February 5, that the
“Ncouver Sun gave over page six
the UBC law professor to ex-
Pound his views on the subject.
ee his credentials as past
airman of the B.C. Energy

pommission, Thompson argued
cia the issue is not whether there

aS be an oil port and pipeline,
ut rather how many oil port
ystems are needed.”
© ey nevitability of it all was not
> Clear, however, to the United
'Shermen and Allied Workers’
non, the Union of B.C. Indian
ang, the Kitimat Oil Coalition
da host of other groups. Their
Sition was, and is, no oil port
Ywhere on or near B.C.’s coast.
+4 for the companies, .oil ports
Supertankers are their

an

"siness. At present they have
hae Projects on the drawing
ards. The first, and most

one

-plication

By Fred Wilson

criticized, is that of the Kitimat
Pipeline Company to build a
supertanker oil port at Kitimat, to
hook up with a pipeline across B.C.
to Edmonton, and from there to the
U.S. midwest. The project has been
temporarily shelved, but it’s far
from dead. - .

The second proposal was never
the favorite of the oil companies,
but it played a key role in their
overall strategy as the “‘spoiler’’.
The Northern Tier consortium’s
plan to build a superport at Port
Angeles, Washington, with a
pipeline across the northern U.S.,
came across as the ‘‘best of. the
worst’’. Influential groups such as
the B.C. Wildlife Federation were
won for the Port Angeles proposal
because it offered the least en-
vironmental hazards.

But it was Cherry Point,
Washington, 12 miles from the
Canadian border, that the com-
panies keyed on. Here, Atlantic
Richfield Company proposed to
expand their existing small oil port
and to utilize the already existing
Trans Mountain pipeline to Ed-
monton. Trans Mountain is
presently before the National
Energy Board to get permission to

reverse the flow of the pipeline —
‘back to Edmonton, and from there,

as all roads lead in the energy
business, to the U.S.

©
Thompson’s troubles with the
companies began on the first day of
the Inquiry. Reneging on a
previous commitment, the Nor-
thern Tier (Port Angeles) group
gave Thompson a Dixie Lee Ray
style “mind your own business!

Their project was all-American, —

they said, and “not relevant” to a
Canadian inquiry. To save face,
Thompson’s _ staff found a
Washington State professor who
consented to “describe the
proposed port to the Inquiry.
Just prior to the opening of the
Inguiry, the Kitimat Pipeline
Company announced that they
were withdrawing their ap-
for the She
nton pipeline previously
Sine the National Energy

Board. KPL was throwing its lot in,

i Trans Mountain, but, it
ie it maintained the right to
revive the Kitimat deal at a future
date. There wasn’t likely to be
much competition between these
two companies in any event, but as
a final slap in the face to Thomp-
son, KPL announced in August that

THE OIL PORT,

nies ee eons Si Seg SET TES |
— EE 3 —se, ac. ~ een wee
eae PY ee we... ae |

it would follow suit with Northern
Tier and boycott the Inquiry.

That left Thompson in the
unenviable position he presently
finds himself in. The only company
left in the Inquiry is Trans
Mountain Pipeline Company,
which, ironically has no oil port
proposal of its own. It’s Trans
Mountain’s partner, Atlantic Rich-
field, that will build the oil port, but
they too have boycotted the
Inquiry, presumably allowing
Trans Mountain to represent them.

The companies have skilfully
manipulated the Inquiry to exploit
Thompson’s terms of reference.
Thompson’s mandate is to study
the oil ports and tanker traffic.
Pipelines are outside his reference
and will be studied and approved
by the National Energy Board. The
oil companies have rigged the
Inquiryso that the only participant
is a pipeline company that already
has its pipeline built. The same
company is also before the
National Energy Board for ap-
proval of the simple task of
reversing the flow of the pipeline.
And oil tankers are already
docking at the Cherry Point port.
There is little to criticize here, as
the real villains, the oil companies,
hide behind the skirt of Trans
Mountain.

O)

The companies will do everything
they can to keep vital information
from the publicity of the Inquiry

ee ee

eum ead eaten aco sn eer a ol ge ~
=-~ wee :

ge Sy Sane haa igs y) nl ee a

+ CL BIC Sea

eas ee, 4 ; RAE pie Reema

and wait for the National Energy
Board to deliver the goods. If the
Trans Mountain pipeline proposal
is approved by the NEB, as it most
likely will be, it will undercut
Thompson’s opinion, whatever it
may be. The oil companies used
the same ploy earlier this year to
condition the outcome of the Lysyk
Inguiry that gave the go-ahead for
the Alcan pipeline.

So why doesn’t Thompson call on
the federal government to call off
the National Energy Board and
pressure the companies to
cooperate? The federal govern-
ment seems as intent on un-
dermining the Inquiry as _ the
companies. To conclude a treaty on
supertanker traffic, as _ the
government is presently doing,
presumes tankers in Canadian
waters, which presumes oil ports
— presumptions that are yet to be
investigated by the West Coast Oil
Ports Inquiry.

Enter the Department of
Energy, ‘Mines and Resources,
which, days before phase one
began revealed that it had its own
“study” of oil ports. What the
study says, no one knows yet, but it
would be a safe bet that some oil
port will get the nod. And how
much credibility does Thompson’s
Inquiry have when the government
sees fit to conduct a separate in-
vestigation?

e
There are other problems that

Se
ee
na

th af

-Thompson

continue to beset the Inquiry. With
a deadline of December 31, 1977,
this ‘‘Berger style’’ inquiry hardly
had time to make a show. The
protests of the UFAWU and other
groups were rewarded this week
with the announcement that the
Inquiry would be extended to
March, 1979.

It may be extended, but the
funding for the seven opposition
intervenors has not. If funding is
not extended for the length of the
hearing, the empty company
tables will soon be matched by
empty opposition tables, leaving
Thompson and Trans Mountain to
cross-examine each other over a
year of “‘investigation’’.

It all adds up to an inevitable
outcome Thompson prognosticated
in February, when the West Coast
Oil Ports Inquiry was still a
strategy insome federal minister’s
head. Unless there is a change in
the course of events, there will be
little for Thompson to decide — and
indeed, he will be in a difficult
position to make any reasoned
judgment.

What will it all mean? To begin
with, 800 tankers each year, or
more than two per day will travel
through the Gulf of Georgia and
along our coast to Alaska and back
again. Many more will come from
Indonesia and Japan.

When the spill comes, as it will, it
will spread from the straits of Juan
de Fuca, through Georgia Strait
and curl past Alert Bay. If it’s a
giant spill, traces may drift to
Hawaii.

For 10,000 fishermen and a $250
million fishery, the oil spill will
mean disaster. There is no worse a
marine pollutant than oil.

For native peoples on the coast,
the oil spill will mean genocide.
Their economy and culture, based
on the sea, will be ruined. The land
claims will be emasculated.

For Canada, the oil port and
pipeline will bea giant right of way
through Canada to serve the U.S.
We'll take all the risks and give up
control over valuable territory.

All of this will be the final
chapter of the deadly serious
drama of the West Coast Oil Ports
Inguiry, unless commissioner
stands up and
challenges the credibility gap
separating his Inquiry from
reality.

Eventhen, an aroused public will
be needed to make the voices of
fishermen, natives and _ en-
vironmentalists heard in the
Inguiry proceedings and in the
federal cabinet where the ultimate
decision will rest.

A final thought: the end of the
story, as it’s presently written, is
not likely to be at Cherry Point.
The capacity of the Cherry Point
terminal will not be sufficient even
for the oil coming out of the
Alyeska pipeline. It will merely be
the first oil port, to be followed by
Kitimat, to be followed by yet
another horror port on our coast.

It is still not too late to re-write
the end of the story.

“Credibility gap” separates Andrew Thompson’s West Coast Oil Port Inquiry from reality as phase one of the

investigation commences.

—Sean Griffin photo

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—SEPTEMBER 30, 1977—Page 3