Alberta wants an oil pipeline to Roberts Bank, but shipping bulk liquids has been prohibited there for decades.
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Sid Shniad
Jul 24, 2026, 9:06:35 PM (6 days ago) Jul 24
to
https://vancouversun.com/news/bulk-liquids-arent-permitted-at-roberts-bank-how-does-that-impact-the-plan-for-a-44-billion-oil-terminal-and-pipeline
Vancouver Sun July 23, 2026
Alberta wants an oil pipeline to Roberts Bank, but shipping bulk liquids has been prohibited there for decades
In the 1970s, a federal panel concluded that the shipment of bulk liquids would pose “unacceptable risks" to the Roberts Bank ecosystem.
By Gordon Hoekstra
B.C. Ferries terminal, Westshore coal terminal and Deltaport container facility at
Vancouver Sun July 23, 2026
Alberta wants an oil pipeline to Roberts Bank, but shipping bulk liquids has been prohibited there for decades
In the 1970s, a federal panel concluded that the shipment of bulk liquids would pose “unacceptable risks" to the Roberts Bank ecosystem.
By Gordon Hoekstra
B.C. Ferries terminal, Westshore coal terminal and Deltaport container facility at
Roberts Bank in Delta. Photo by Supplied /Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
A longtime ban on handling bulk liquids at Roberts Bank stands in the way of Ottawa and Alberta’s plan to build a new oil-shipping terminal there.
The prohibition was recommended in 1979 following a federally led environmental review of a proposed port expansion at the time — and remains in place today.
Another federal report, the 1996 final report of the Roberts Bank environmental review committee, a panel put in place to ensure that recommendations to protect the environment were carried out, endorsed the prohibition on shipping bulk liquids from Roberts Bank, noting that no bulk liquids had been shipped and none were contemplated in future.
Bernie Claus, who was a federal government member of the Roberts Bank environmental review committee that delivered the 1996 report, said he doesn’t believe Roberts Bank is the right location for an oil-shipping terminal.
“I don’t know quite where you would build such a terminal or look at alternatives. But it’s not rocket science. The location is not Roberts Bank for such a terminal,” said Claus, who retired from the federal government in 2012, and reviewed the previous reports after Postmedia News contacted him.
Three weeks ago, Roberts Bank was chosen as the end point for a new oil pipeline from Alberta to B.C. after Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that an oil-tanker ban would remain in place in northern B.C.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has been pressing for the pipeline to help diversify exports to Asian markets — and as a way for Ottawa to demonstrate it’s responding to Alberta’s interests — and had preferred a northern route to Prince Rupert.
This week, the federal government said it couldn’t immediately respond to questions, asked Tuesday, on whether it was aware of the bulk-liquids prohibition and, if yes, how it took the ban into consideration when choosing the location for the marine terminal or how the prohibition will be taken into consideration in determining whether the project will move forward.
Pierre Cuegen, a senior communications analyst with the Privy Council Office, said Wednesday that the government continued to work on a response. None was provided by Thursday.
The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority confirmed the bulk-liquids prohibition remains in place today.
“Transportation of bulk-liquid cargoes at Roberts Bank area is not currently permitted,” Haley Hodgson, the port authority’s director of communications, said in a written response to Postmedia. “This restriction also applies to (fuelling) services in this area until such time as a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts is conducted and appropriate control measures are developed.”
While the northern B.C. oil-tanker ban is enacted in federal legislation, under the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, the bulk-liquids prohibition is a policy put in place by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, which the port said it has a responsibility to do so under the Canada Marine Act.
In the 1970s, a federal panel reviewing a proposed expansion for coal, bulk dry goods and bulk liquids at Roberts Bank concluded that the shipment of bulk liquids, the fuelling of ships and the discharge of ships’ dirty ballast water represented “unacceptable risks” to the Roberts Bank ecosystem.
The report of the environmental assessment panel, delivered in March 1979, said bulk liquids such as petroleum hydrocarbons presented a more serious problem than bulk solids at a terminal on an estuary, referring to the Fraser River estuary.
“The bulk liquids can be readily distributed by currents over the whole delta. An oil spill of moderate size, 1,000 tonnes or more (about 7,300 barrels of oil), could, under certain conditions, put the inter-causeway area out of biological production for some months or more,” noted the panel report.
“It could also affect other parts of the delta. In spite of the most stringent controls, spills of bulk liquids inevitably occur at terminals handling such liquids,” said the six-member panel.
The proposed pipeline and oil-shipping terminal, estimated to cost up to $44 billion, will be 90 per cent owned by the Alberta government through its petroleum marketing commission and by Canada through its ownership of the pipeline company Trans Mountain. The Pembina Pipeline Corp. has taken a 10-per-cent stake.
The proposed timelines for the project are tight.
The project has already been submitted to the recently created Major Projects Office for consideration of being designated a project of national interest, which would expedite its environmental assessment.
Canada is anticipating making that decision by Oct. 1, with construction potentially starting by Sept. 1, 2027.
Western sandpiper spring migration at Roberts Bank. Photo: Isabelle Groc Photo by Isabelle Groc
Misty MacDuffee, the Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s wild salmon program director, was unaware that there has been a prohibition on shipping bulk liquids from Roberts Bank.
“Any removal of such prohibition would have to go through an entire environmental review and a hearing process,” argued MacDuffee.
Her organization was among environmental groups that launched an unsuccessful legal challenge of a $3.5-billion second container terminal planned at Roberts Bank on a new 1.3-square-kilometre artificial island, with a hoped-for construction start in 2028.
MacDuffee said she’s concerned that if the oil pipeline and terminal project is designated to be of national interest that the normal, deep process for reviewing such a project and its impacts on the environment will be overridden, including examining the bulk-liquids ban.
The bulk-liquids prohibition at Roberts Bank was also raised by Trans Mountain in 2013 during its environmental assessment application to expand its existing pipeline between Alberta and B.C. to a terminal in Burnaby.
A report filed as part of its application, which requires proponents to consider alternative sites, noted the storage and transhipment of oil had been of concern at Roberts Bank dating to the 1970s.
The report said that while it was unclear to what degree the premise of undue risk to the environment had been tested and whether potential mitigation measures were considered, the condition was adopted in regulatory reviews and permitting in subsequent developments, and that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority doesn’t allow the transfer, loading or storage of bulk liquids at Roberts Bank.
Rendering of proposed expansion of the Roberts Bank Superport in Delta. It would
The prohibition was recommended in 1979 following a federally led environmental review of a proposed port expansion at the time — and remains in place today.
Another federal report, the 1996 final report of the Roberts Bank environmental review committee, a panel put in place to ensure that recommendations to protect the environment were carried out, endorsed the prohibition on shipping bulk liquids from Roberts Bank, noting that no bulk liquids had been shipped and none were contemplated in future.
Bernie Claus, who was a federal government member of the Roberts Bank environmental review committee that delivered the 1996 report, said he doesn’t believe Roberts Bank is the right location for an oil-shipping terminal.
“I don’t know quite where you would build such a terminal or look at alternatives. But it’s not rocket science. The location is not Roberts Bank for such a terminal,” said Claus, who retired from the federal government in 2012, and reviewed the previous reports after Postmedia News contacted him.
Three weeks ago, Roberts Bank was chosen as the end point for a new oil pipeline from Alberta to B.C. after Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that an oil-tanker ban would remain in place in northern B.C.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has been pressing for the pipeline to help diversify exports to Asian markets — and as a way for Ottawa to demonstrate it’s responding to Alberta’s interests — and had preferred a northern route to Prince Rupert.
This week, the federal government said it couldn’t immediately respond to questions, asked Tuesday, on whether it was aware of the bulk-liquids prohibition and, if yes, how it took the ban into consideration when choosing the location for the marine terminal or how the prohibition will be taken into consideration in determining whether the project will move forward.
Pierre Cuegen, a senior communications analyst with the Privy Council Office, said Wednesday that the government continued to work on a response. None was provided by Thursday.
The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority confirmed the bulk-liquids prohibition remains in place today.
“Transportation of bulk-liquid cargoes at Roberts Bank area is not currently permitted,” Haley Hodgson, the port authority’s director of communications, said in a written response to Postmedia. “This restriction also applies to (fuelling) services in this area until such time as a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts is conducted and appropriate control measures are developed.”
While the northern B.C. oil-tanker ban is enacted in federal legislation, under the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, the bulk-liquids prohibition is a policy put in place by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, which the port said it has a responsibility to do so under the Canada Marine Act.
In the 1970s, a federal panel reviewing a proposed expansion for coal, bulk dry goods and bulk liquids at Roberts Bank concluded that the shipment of bulk liquids, the fuelling of ships and the discharge of ships’ dirty ballast water represented “unacceptable risks” to the Roberts Bank ecosystem.
The report of the environmental assessment panel, delivered in March 1979, said bulk liquids such as petroleum hydrocarbons presented a more serious problem than bulk solids at a terminal on an estuary, referring to the Fraser River estuary.
“The bulk liquids can be readily distributed by currents over the whole delta. An oil spill of moderate size, 1,000 tonnes or more (about 7,300 barrels of oil), could, under certain conditions, put the inter-causeway area out of biological production for some months or more,” noted the panel report.
“It could also affect other parts of the delta. In spite of the most stringent controls, spills of bulk liquids inevitably occur at terminals handling such liquids,” said the six-member panel.
The proposed pipeline and oil-shipping terminal, estimated to cost up to $44 billion, will be 90 per cent owned by the Alberta government through its petroleum marketing commission and by Canada through its ownership of the pipeline company Trans Mountain. The Pembina Pipeline Corp. has taken a 10-per-cent stake.
The proposed timelines for the project are tight.
The project has already been submitted to the recently created Major Projects Office for consideration of being designated a project of national interest, which would expedite its environmental assessment.
Canada is anticipating making that decision by Oct. 1, with construction potentially starting by Sept. 1, 2027.
Western sandpiper spring migration at Roberts Bank. Photo: Isabelle Groc Photo by Isabelle Groc
Misty MacDuffee, the Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s wild salmon program director, was unaware that there has been a prohibition on shipping bulk liquids from Roberts Bank.
“Any removal of such prohibition would have to go through an entire environmental review and a hearing process,” argued MacDuffee.
Her organization was among environmental groups that launched an unsuccessful legal challenge of a $3.5-billion second container terminal planned at Roberts Bank on a new 1.3-square-kilometre artificial island, with a hoped-for construction start in 2028.
MacDuffee said she’s concerned that if the oil pipeline and terminal project is designated to be of national interest that the normal, deep process for reviewing such a project and its impacts on the environment will be overridden, including examining the bulk-liquids ban.
The bulk-liquids prohibition at Roberts Bank was also raised by Trans Mountain in 2013 during its environmental assessment application to expand its existing pipeline between Alberta and B.C. to a terminal in Burnaby.
A report filed as part of its application, which requires proponents to consider alternative sites, noted the storage and transhipment of oil had been of concern at Roberts Bank dating to the 1970s.
The report said that while it was unclear to what degree the premise of undue risk to the environment had been tested and whether potential mitigation measures were considered, the condition was adopted in regulatory reviews and permitting in subsequent developments, and that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority doesn’t allow the transfer, loading or storage of bulk liquids at Roberts Bank.
Rendering of proposed expansion of the Roberts Bank Superport in Delta. It would
involve a new container terminal on a second artificial island, foreground.
Photo: Port of Vancouver Photo by Port of Vancouver
So far, Alberta and Canada have also not been able to answer questions on whether there is enough room for an oil-shipping terminal at Roberts Bank, which is already the location of a B.C. Ferries terminal, the Roberts Bank Superport that contains the Westshore coal terminal, and Deltaport, Canada’s largest container-handling facility.
The second proposed container terminal, a project of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, was only granted because it was determined the project was key to supporting Canada’s economic growth and the Pacific Gateway trade corridor. A lengthy environmental assessment determined the project would cause significant adverse effects on the environment, threatening species like chinook, orcas and birds.
ghoe...@postmedia.com
x.com/gordon_hoekstra
The second proposed container terminal, a project of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, was only granted because it was determined the project was key to supporting Canada’s economic growth and the Pacific Gateway trade corridor. A lengthy environmental assessment determined the project would cause significant adverse effects on the environment, threatening species like chinook, orcas and birds.
ghoe...@postmedia.com
x.com/gordon_hoekstra
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages