Sal, this may be overly simplistic, but when building a NW pipeline from Alberta to BC tidewater, the coastal Indians are complaining about oil tankers going down the inner channel between Graham Island and the mainland.
Instead of just going to Kitamaat and then down the waterways to open ocean... why not just go a bit further north to Terrace and then over to Prince Rupert...!
VOILA... You're right on the open ocean!
If the tankers went straight out to sea north of Graham Island, they would go the same route as the tankers coming down from Alaska!
Or am ! wrong?
SAL-9000 said: You’re asking a good question... the short answer is: yes and no!
You’re right to suspect that tankers from Alaska don’t transit the inner channels between Haida Gwaii (including Graham Island) and the mainland of British Columbia in the way you describe — but the reason is regulatory and geophysical, not just convenience.
Here’s a breakdown of the situation, key constraints, and what that means for a proposed pipeline/tanker scenario.
🤔 So, on your specific suggestion
“If the tankers went straight out to sea north of Graham Island, they would go the same route as the tankers coming down from Alaska!”
-
If by “straight out to sea north of Graham Island” you mean launching from a B.C. tidewater terminal and proceeding north into open Pacific then turning south coast-wise, that route wouldn’t exactly mirror the Alaska tankers’ route because the TEZ demands Alaska-bound crude tankers stay further offshore (west of the islands).
-
Also, for a tanker departing a B.C. coast terminal (for example, from a new Alberta-to-B.C. pipeline), there are legal/regulatory limitations: The moratorium prohibits loading/unloading of certain heavy crude at north-coast ports and has implications for tanker transit in the region.
-
Thus while conceptually “go out to sea north of Graham Island” looks simpler, in reality the combination of geography (weather, sea conditions, remoteness), Indigenous and environmental concerns, and regulatory constraints make it far from straightforward or acceptable from many stakeholders’ perspectives.
🔍 Some additional caveats
-
The sea conditions around Haida Gwaii, Hecate Strait etc. are notoriously challenging (strong winds, big seas, few safe anchorages) which heightens the environmental risk.
-
The inner channels (Inside Passage) are used for many ships (ferries, cruise ships, container ships, etc), but large, laden oil tankers are typically routed to avoid the most sensitive and hazardous zones when possible.
-
Even if a tanker was legally permitted to transit those waters, the cost, risk (accidents, spills), and community resistance are very significant.
If you like, I can pull up detailed route-maps showing the typical tanker routes from Alaska, the exclusion zone boundaries, and how a pipeline-to-tanker scenario would overlay on those. Would you like me to fetch those?
You said: Yes
SAL-900 said: Here are some useful maps that show tanker-routes, exclusion zones, and relevant geography for your scenario:
-
The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act covers the waters of the north coast of British Columbia — from the Canada/US border in the north down to a point across from northern Vancouver Island — including Haida Gwaii, the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. Transport Canada+1
-
The Voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone (TEZ) is a zone established in 1985 between Canada and the U.S. for laden oil-tankers (particularly those from Alaska) to stay west of the B.C. coast, i.e., further offshore, rather than hugging the coast or using inner channels. Bennett Jones+2BC Marine Conservation Analysis+2
What this implies for your hypothesis:
-
So your intuitive “if they went straight out north of Graham Island, they’d follow the same route as Alaska tankers” is partially correct in that you’re thinking “less inner channel,” which is desirable.”
-
Also, a tanker route from a new pipeline terminal on the B.C. coast (which would be Canadian-domestic export) is not subject to exactly the same TEZ restrictions as Alaska-bound tankers, but would still face environmental, indigenous, regulatory and logistical constraints, and the existence of the TEZ and moratorium shows many actors consider the inner/coastal channels high-risk and undesirable. (This is up to the government!)
2. Oil Tanker Moratorium Act (Canada) – Zone of tanker moratorium
-
The act sets a moratorium prohibiting oil tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tonnes of crude or persistent oils from loading/unloading at ports on the north coast of B.C., including waters of Haida Gwaii, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. Transport Canada+1 (This will be north of that!@!!!)
✅ Recommended Next Steps for You
-
Where the route intersects or bypasses the TEZ polygon.
How far offshore the route is relative to the zone boundary.
The proximity to Indigenous territories/coastal ecologies and relevant “high-risk” navigation areas. (channels, straits, weather-exposed stretches)
-
Use the visual/map output to inform stakeholder / Indigenous-community discussions, showing both the regulatory overlay and the physical geographic risks.
