A significant diesel spill at a fish farm off Vancouver Island has raised alarms regarding the response strategy employed by Grieg Seafood. On December 14, 2024, the company successfully conducted a fuel transfer from a barge. During this cleanup process, an estimated 8,000 litres of diesel fuel spilled all over Zeballos Inlet. Grieg Seafood co-led a unified command to manage the situation under a polluter-pays model, but its approach has drawn criticism for potential conflicts of interest and a lack of urgency in addressing the environmental impacts.
Greig Seafood’s actions have faced harsh criticism, especially after it announced it would not be testing the waters surrounding the spill site. This decision raised alarm from local stakeholders over the possible long-term damage to marine life and the surrounding area. Moreover, the spill has hindered local shellfish harvesters’ access to critical resources such as oysters and clams for six months, impacting local First Nations reliant on these species.
An international, multi-million-dollar controversy has erupted after Grieg Seafood’s Nov. 20 announcement. The business will be sold in Canada and along the western coast of Norway to Cermaq Group AS for US$990 million. The company’s strategic withdrawal from Canada raises questions about its pledge to be a corporate environmental steward. This is especially crucial as it embarks on its final run across the region.
Unified Command Structure Under Scrutiny
Grieg Seafood’s dual role in the incident command structure has sparked concerns regarding its ability to effectively manage the spill response while simultaneously protecting its interests. Critics insist that Grieg cannot be the face or leader of a new command structure. They want him to be the one directly accountable for the crash to admit that he failed.
An anonymous Canadian government official expressed concerns about the message it would send to have such a polluting company in such a high-profile position. He recognized that if the players in this were larger corporations with lots of legal teams at their disposal, it could get out of hand very quickly. The official pointed out that “where this could really bite is if we have a large shipping company that is very well versed and has good lawyers — this turns into a different game.”
Despite these concerns, Grieg Seafood’s communications manager, Jeanette Galtung Døsvig, defended the company’s actions during the spill response. She claimed that “our only goal was to determine and minimize the impact from the spill, then determine when [the] food source was safe for human consumption.” Døsvig maintained that Grieg Seafood acted responsibly throughout the incident, stating, “All through this we have done everything in our capability to minimize damage.”
Delays and Communication Issues
The environmental response to the diesel spill was sorely lacking and very delayed. Confounding last-minute questions from government officials and the hectic holiday shopping season too. Grieg Seafood’s sampling plan was pushed back, leaving stakeholders who pushed for an early delivery of environmental assessments angry with the decision.
D’Arcy Segoe, an environmental advocate, called these delays egregious. He remarked, “Delaying sampling by another two weeks will likely show no impacts, which raises the question: why would we prioritize sampling quickly for other spills if waiting is an option?” Critics counter that these delays make real environmental protection impossible.
Roger Dunlop, a local representative for commercial finfish fisheries, indicated that he was very doubtful that Grieg would follow through on sampling and assessment. He suggested that telling people not to touch any dead animals limited the amount of sampling that was able to happen. Dunlop stated, “Their objective is to have minimum liability,” criticizing Grieg’s approach as focused on financial protection rather than genuine environmental responsibility.
Local Impact and Future Consequences
The legal, financial, and reputational effects of the spill reach far beyond its environmental impact. The diesel leak has disrupted local shellfish harvesting activities, particularly affecting First Nations communities that rely on these resources for sustenance and cultural practices. The six-month closure has enraged local residents, a lot of whom say they’re being pushed apart by company choices.
Dunlop further criticized Grieg Seafood’s operational philosophy, asserting that “it was absolutely wrong for the industry, whose objective is to cover their ass, to be in charge of an environmental response where they’re trying to minimize their liability.” He noted that companies like Grieg will have to be more focused on protecting the environment than on maximizing profit margins.
Even then, Døsvig was determined to do everything possible to calm worried minds. He repeated that injuries to animals due to the spill were not reported. Countless stakeholders are still skeptical of that optimistic assessment. They contend that a focus on corporate interests can result in incomplete and ineffective responses and can cause permanent harm to local ecosystems.
