Athabasca Tar Sands Oil Pipeline Threatens Bears And Other Animals In Pristine Canadian Wilderness (PHOTOS)

From the iLCP:

The International League of Conservation Photographers (iLCP) was invited by the Gitga'at Nation, one of Canada's First Nations, to conduct a RAVE (Rapid Assessment, Visual Expedition) in the Great Bear Rainforest in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

An international group of iLCP Photographers, working with partners Pacific Wild, Save our Seas Foundation, LightHawk, TidesCanada, and the King Pacific Lodge documented the beauty of this delicate ecosystem, part of the largest remaining coastal temperate rainforest on the planet. This region is threatened by the development of a pipeline to transfer oil from the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, Canada to the coast for shipment by supertankers.

The Canadian Parliament is voting on this development on December 7, 2010. Let your voice be heard. Join this petition drive to urge Parliament to support the conservation of this unique landscape. Ask them to protect coastal jobs, the coastal environment, and coastal cultures.

The Athabasca tar sands in northern Alberta, Canada are arguably the world's most environmentally devastating oil extraction industries. And now there are plans to expand the tar sand operations to increase exports of oil to the United States and Asia. This would double the size of the tar sands and increase the release of green house gases and cause further impacts to the boreal environment of northern Alberta.
 However, the tar sands cannot expand without building a 2,000 mile pipeline across British Columbia and through the Great Bear Rainforest on British Columbia's wild coast. Moreover, a moratorium on large oil tankers would need to be created to prevent the enormous vessels from plying the waters of the fragile coast to receive the oil and carry it to oil-hungry Asia.

1 of 12

1 of 13

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

A Kermode bear (Ursus americanus kermodei), also known as a Spirit bear, in British Columbia's Great Bear Rainforest. Revered by First Nations and long a part of their cultural mythology, these bears are not albino, rather a subspecies of the American black bear. Subsisting primarily on a diet of salmon, their habitat and survival would be severely threatened by construction of a pipeline to move oil from the tar sands to the coast. ©Ian McAllister/ Great Bear Rainforest RAVE/ iLCP

Cicadas!

gadgets/slideshows/298353/slide_298353_2481215_small.jpg

May Tornadoes 2013

10 Worst States For Animal Abuse Laws

Top U.S. Renewable Energy Sources - 2011 (MOST RECENT DATA)

America's Most Endangered Waterways (2013)

Top 10 Costliest U.S. Hurricanes

A Kermode bear (Ursus americanus kermodei), also known as a Spirit bear, in British Columbia's Great Bear Rainforest. Revered by First Nations and long a part of their cultural mythology, these bears are not albino, rather a subspecies of the American black bear. Subsisting primarily on a diet of salmon, their habitat and survival would be severely threatened by construction of a pipeline to move oil from the tar sands to the coast.

©Ian McAllister/ Great Bear Rainforest RAVE/ iLCP

comments(51)

Total comments: 51 | Post a Comment

1 of 13

This Photo

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Not That Special Incredibly Beautiful

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Best Pics

loading...

Best Pics

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

The iLCP Great Bear Rainforest RAVE team included the following iLCP Photographers: iLCP Fellow Wendy Shattil, Photographer and iLCP President Cristina Goettsch Mittermeier, National Geographic Photographer Paul Nicklen, the youngest founding member of the iLCP Florian Schulz, Emerging Photographers Joe Riis
and Jed Weingarten, World Press winner Daniel Beltra, Pulitzer prize winning photographer Jack Dykinga, Save Our Seas Chief Photographer Thomas P Peschak, photographer and Pacific WILD President Ian McAllister.

Guest photographers included Renee Harbers, Pat Freeny, Marven Robinson, and Andrew S. Wright.

Comments

[conkm44]

04:07 PM on 12/30/2010

As a world we must move away from ever increasing consumption. As the most voracious of the consumers, we have to show a way to live that is in harmony with the earth.

[canoehead]

08:02 PM on 12/23/2010

Another example of how addicted humanity is to oil. We are fighting wars in the middle east for it. People die every day for it, but we hide it behind "threats" from weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda. The US congress just appropriated another $165 Billion for wars for our national drug. This pipeline is just another example of how much the human junkies will do for their drug. Nothing else matters to a junkie but staying high, even when it is killing them.

[Lorianne]

08:46 PM on 12/11/2010

The one we won't talk about.
Peak Oil.

[PartyOfMaybe]

01:51 PM on 12/09/2010

good grief, a the right-of-way is probably less than 30 yards wide and the pipe itself would only be three feet wide

[The last sane American]

06:27 AM on 12/10/2010

And buried, and it is the only pipeline that has been built in the world.

I suppose ir will cause the same devastation that Alaska has experienced with the building of TAPS. Why I do not think there is one moose left in all of Alaska?

[canoehead]

08:13 PM on 12/23/2010

Sure its only a corridor, but look into the effects of habitat fragmentation and invasive species before deciding it has no impact. You can't punch a hole through a functioning ecosystem without having many effects.

[tercio]

12:07 PM on 12/08/2010

That landscape is priceless. Wow

[The last sane American]

06:29 AM on 12/10/2010

And it will continue to be except for the disturbance during building along the tens of feet ROW.

[QuantProgrammer]

09:00 PM on 12/11/2010

One thing that isn't factored in is ecosystem fragmentation. I think we need the pipeline and can manage it the same way we did with the Alaska pipeline (underpasses and bridges for migratory species), but it's something to keep in mind.

Folks in 100 years, when the oil is taken out of the tar sands, the ecosystem will be back to normal. In the meantime, though, we can either get oil from Ahmanuttajob and Chavez or we can get it from the Canucks. I say we get it from the Canucks.

[BlueZoo]

11:42 AM on 12/08/2010

Better yet, why isn't Asia developing their own oil and gas reserves? China and Russia have enormous as yet untapped reserves but prefer buying from the rest of the world. Why? China certainly has the wherewithal to pay for their own R&D on this subject! One other query...What would one spill the size of that of the Exxon Valdez do to this extraordinarily beautiful Canadian wilderness? Is no place on this earth safe from our quest of fossil fuels?

[foolonthehill]

12:36 AM on 12/10/2010

Russia is now the biggest oil exporter in the world.

"During 2009, Russia exported 7 million bbl/d of oil. The majority of Russian exports (80 percent) are destined for European markets, particularly Germany and Netherlands. Around 12 percent of Russia’s oil exports go to Asia, while 6 percent are exported to North and South America, with the majority of those exports going to the United States (5 percent of total exports)."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Russia/Oil_exports.html

China does not, relatively speaking, have "enormous as yet untapped reserves."

[The last sane American]

06:33 AM on 12/10/2010

Actually if you think about it,even with the recent spill almost all of the earth shows little evidence of despoliation from that quest.

Now driving our cars and using the refined products of fossil fuels may be another matter.

But no, we could not possibly part of the problem..

[HLL]

10:38 AM on 12/08/2010

"If the human race is to survive,
then we must respect the rights of other species to survive.
Sharing bedroom space with a grizzly bear is not practical
but sharing wilderness space is.
We must therefore, restrict human activity in spaces where threatened
or endangered species live.
We must stay out of their bedroom.
Set aside some wild spaces while they yet exist.
Closing the wild spaces after all of the wild things are gone will not work."

~ Bob McMeans (member, Virginia Outdoors Writers Association) ☮

[QuantProgrammer]

09:03 PM on 12/11/2010

Maybe it's time to start talking about people rather than bears.

The pipeline will be less than 10 meters wide, will have passes for migratory animals to mitigate ecosystem fragmentation, and will allow us to get oil from Canada rather than third world dictators. In 100 years, when the oil is extracted and we are getting energy from solar satellites, the ecosystem will be back to normal.

[Jonny Mnemonic]

11:06 PM on 12/11/2010

Lol, in 100 years NOBODY will be going into space. Peak oil hit in 2006. By 2030 oil production will be about 30% of what's needed to meet demand. A 5% supply-demand gap in the 70s quadrupled the price of oil. What will a supply-demand gap FOURTEEN TIMES higher do to the price of oil? We are going to find out.

Oh yeah, oil production/usage and GDP are VERY highly correlated. A 70% drop in oil production essentially means a tremendous drop in world GDP, a drop so big that the Great Depression will look like good times in retrospect. And food prices are closely correlated with oil and natgas prices (natgas for fertilizer, oil for all other aspects of industrialized farming). When oil hits $500/barrel, food prices will be triple or so what they are now.

In 2016 demand from China and the U.S. combined will surpass 50% of global oil exports. That will leave less than half the available oil for ALL other countries combined. There will be bidding wars, and the countries too poor to afford oil will cease to exist as functional societies. Eventually, as oil production drops lower, the bidding war will be between China and the U.S., and exporters will have to decide whether they prefer China's cold hard cash or American IOUs. And then WE will cease to exist as a functional society.

The Olduvai cliff begins in 2012. Prepare accordingly. Time is short now.

[rjciraulo]

10:38 AM on 12/08/2010

jeez...i hope sarah palin doesn't read this. she'll be huntin' them bears on her next tv segment.

[nuclearISFreedom]

09:56 AM on 12/08/2010

If environmentalist haven't realized this yet, wind and solar is not coming to the rescue. When you crunch the numbers, and analyze world energy consumption in the next ten years, it can be cleanly supplied by solar and wind at all. America is de-industrializing. We ship so much scrap copper to China we are known as the above ground mine. We had a great past 30 years here in America, and wildlife populations exploded, because the rivers washed clean as a result of many factories going over seas.

This last push for fossil fuel will be like the Lord the Rings. The faster they(bankers, petro-chemical brokers) use the fossil fuel, the more expensive it becomes, the system is set up to be point-of-no return self-destruction. They know and don't care The only way to crush coal, gas, and oil is to have the Nuclear Renaissance, refine bio-diesel with that energy to run our cars on, and watch the coal and gas plants die.

If we do not get the Nuclear Renaissance going soon, gas and oil pipeline will be running through and leaking in every great mountain range and watershed in this country. Wyoming, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virgina, and Arkansas all HAD large tracts of unspoiled land and pure watersheds. NOW, they are being fed the fluids of high volume hydraulic slick water fracturing. The pipes that lead to houses will continue to leak, and the water table corrupted.

[ehorth]

01:48 AM on 12/24/2010

Nuclear Renaissance? We're not so good at taking care of the radioactive waste from those power plants either. Even if we use different plant designs from Chernobyl, we still have the issue of safety. Let's face it, we need a real breakthrough in creating energy that is abundant, cheap and easily usable - it should probably NOT be tied to a profit making corporation if we expect it to be developed, implemented and universally used.

[SukiTheCat]

08:57 AM on 12/08/2010

horrible. can't be just nature alone

[opposingviewsareopposed]

01:55 AM on 12/08/2010

Didn't the libs say the same thing about Alaska, then have been proven wrong for over twenty years now?

Give it up...Al Bores Koolaid is polluted

[ehorth]

01:49 AM on 12/24/2010

I think the Exxon Valdez spill is a perfectly good example of what goes wrong.

[foolonthehill]

01:50 AM on 12/08/2010

Get a map. Here's one:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/forests/forests_new/html/content/news/gbrmap.html

Look at where the Great Bear Rain Forest is.

Now look at where this pipeline will go, to Kitimat, BC, mostly following an existing highway all the way from Alberta.

Just found this map of the pipeline route here on page 41:

http://www.supplychaincanada.org/assets/Asia-Pacific_Gateway_Situational_Analysis.pdf

This pipeline does not go "through the Great Bear Rainforest" at all.

This campaign stretches the truth, to put it very, very mildly. This kind of stuff just destroys the credibility of environmental groups, which is not a good thing.

[foolonthehill]

02:17 AM on 12/08/2010

Little more research revals:

"Under a voluntary agreement, tankers carrying crude oil from Alaska to California do not pass along the B.C. coast. But there is no formal tanker ban in place.

Before the vote on the motion, Transport Minister Chuck Strahl said the voluntary “exclusion zone” is closely monitored and strictly enforced.

“Oil tanker traffic cannot come within 25 to 80 miles off the West Coast depending on where it is,” Strahl told the Commons. “That exclusion zone is in place. It is going to stay in place. We are not going to change it.”

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=3942212

There already is oil tanker traffic "25 to 80 miles" off the coast where the Great Bear Rain Forest actually is, while the planned pipeline is to export oil to Asia, away from that coast, not along it.

So the real oil tanker threat to the Great Bear Rain forest already exists, running from Alaska to California. If this is such an issue, why isn't this group targeting that traffic with this protest?

[kwaut lizard]

03:38 AM on 12/08/2010

Here, this map is a little bit more informative:

http://www.northerngateway.ca/map-popup.html

[kwaut lizard]

03:34 AM on 12/08/2010

Judging from the first map: I think the concern is that Kitimat is at the point where the watershed empties into the coastal deltaic region and oil pollution could ostensibly damage an area extending from Hartley Bay to Klemtu, and possibly even Bella Bella. A watershed map would be more useful in this determination.

The second map in the "Situational Analysis ... with a focus on human resources" obviously isn't accurate at all. It's like looking at a hair on a basketball court. Canada is the second largest country by land area in the world, right? The map of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines proposes to construct and operate two pipelines, 1,170 km in length, between an inland terminal at Bruderheim, Alberta and a marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia, is simply not show in this report. The paralleling pipeline that deviates north to Prince Rupert is well represented. The companies EIA's would certainly be a better source of information.

How many damn names does this project have Asia-Pacific Gateway, Northern Gateway Pipeline, Enbridge Pipeline, The Enbridge Northern Gateway Dual Pipeline,...?

Also the area is obviously primarily under native title, don't they exercise some self-determination in Canada?

And lastly, the frickin pipeline (which has been determined to potentially increase Canada's carbon output by up to 8%) extends for over half the length of Canada. Why is moving its location on the Pacific coast such a big deal? The investment is already gi-normous.

[BurritoT]

12:39 AM on 12/08/2010

The whole idea of Growth is insane and incorrect. You cannot grow forever - you cannot devour forever - it is impossible.

[bogtrotter]

11:57 PM on 12/07/2010

It is insane, our industrial/consumer culture. Incrementally we are destroying the world that made, feeds, and nurtures us .Do we really think that infinite growth in a finite world is rational? We have built an economic system which worships short term profit at the expense of long term health. It is an exponentially growing negative feedback loop folks.

[Master-T]

12:25 AM on 12/08/2010

Ooohhh, you're making sense. You'd better not let any conservatives hear your words, since they'll just attack you for using sensible logic.

In the end, we will destroy everything. In the new issue of The Economist, they cover piece is about how we will live within a world of global warming. One of their suggestions was that Russia take advantage of the thawing permafrost to drill for the oil beneath it. I'm not making that up. I mean, how can you argue using sensible logic with people who think like that? Answer: you can't.

[The last sane American]

06:46 AM on 12/10/2010

And you cannot argue with folk who like to stretch the facts to fit their story.

Ar you aware for instance that all of the oil produced at Pruhoe Bay in Alaska is produced through permafrost? And are you aware that this could not happen unless the companies maintain the permafrost with elaborate cooling systems. Failure to do that would compromise all the equipment used for the drilling and production.

But hey why should I bother you with facts?

[Markrsm]

10:47 PM on 12/07/2010

Dear Friends,

Guess what the world needs energy, and Canada is not broke, they make much better decision than we do.

[Master-T]

10:51 PM on 12/07/2010

Shouldn't you be on the Sesame Street blog? This blog is for adults, and you should leave discussion of issues such as this to the people who understand them.

Perhaps there's an episode of Jersey Shore you can go watch.

[Markrsm]

03:37 AM on 12/08/2010

Dear Master-T

So what type of power would you use, wind and sun. Guess what we used wind and sun, it was 1700 and about 1/10 of the people lived on the earth, and the average life span was about 35.

Please tell me about green, Mr Gore knows all about it, only issue is he has made over 100M telling people stuff that is not true.

1) CO2 is one of the most important elements in the air, without CO2 you have no plants, I am sure you can figure that one out
2) CO2 levels have been much, much higher than now about 20 times,and plants grew so fast that large animals roamed the earth
3) The greatest threat to our life style is global cooling

Please Sir, should me I am incorrect, I am just waiting for a little piece of your knowledge.

[The last sane American]

06:47 AM on 12/10/2010

You think that post demonstrated what an adult you are?