[PublicAnimalNo9]

Xort Xort:

Gunnair Gunnair:

'One maybe' suggests you can't be bothered to read answers or conduct any research.
In fact, your intellectual laziness in this thread has been remarkable.

I'm not the one making claims of fact.
I'm asking questions.

I'm not the one trying pass off early last century ships working the great lakes as ships working the Douglas Channel.

The point was, the whole coast of BC has storms that make the storms on the Great Lakes look like a kid splashing in the bath tub.
200km/h winds, 25 metre waves. What is truly distressing is, marine engineers have stated that a supertanker would have a "stress life" of about 2 voyages through any storm in the region.
You may not know this but, the Hecate Straight is considered to be the 4th most dangerous body of water on the planet! That ain't David Suzuki making that claim, it's mariners making that claim. Yet you act like the Douglas Channel is the only body of water these ships will have to traverse. Yep, Douglas Channel is the only thing that matters.

Captain Mal Walsh is a Master Mariner from Comox, BC. He has over 40 years of experience in the international oil exploration and shipping industry—both commanding vessels on the seas and working ashore in management. He served on deep-sea ships in the British Merchant Navy before working in the offshore oil industry in the North Sea. When he came to Canada, he worked for Dome Petroleum during their exploration in the Beaufort Sea then came ashore and became General Manager of Marine and Environmental Services with Canadian Marine Drilling (CANMAR). This is what his assessment of the whole situation is http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/ ... ker-routes
And since you don't like "last century", from 2000-2009, there were an average of 3 tanker spills per year worldwide. Meanwhile Enbridge in envisioning some 200 tankers PER YEAR servicing Kitimat and having to travel through the Hecate Straight to do it.
Double hulling doesn't help either. In 2010 there were two separate supertanker collisions resulting in 4.6 million barrels of oil being spilled. There were more but those were the notable ones. 2011 saw its share of spills as well.
Then there is this:
Unlike the waters around southern Vancouver Island and the south BC coast generally, none of the sea areas, inlets, arms, passages or any other tidal waters area ( in or near the Hecate Strait) or port have coastal radar coverage intended to monitor or aid marine traffic. In fact, there is not even a traffic separation scheme intended to prevent the interaction of ships in the restricted waters of the inside passage.

Yeah, this was well thought out

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

...Captain Mal Walsh is a Master Mariner from Comox, BC. He has over 40 years of experience in the international oil exploration and shipping industry—both commanding vessels on the seas and working ashore in management. He served on deep-sea ships in the British Merchant Navy before working in the offshore oil industry in the North Sea. When he came to Canada, he worked for Dome Petroleum during their exploration in the Beaufort Sea then came ashore and became General Manager of Marine and Environmental Services with Canadian Marine Drilling (CANMAR). This is what his assessment of the whole situation is http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/ ... ker-routes

Interesting read, thanks. The guy comes acorss as quite reasonable.

I'm just reading about teh Enbridge release in Michigan too (NTSB report). They attributed the spill to a failure of organization. The promise of more skookum pipeline technology doesn't address this issure. In teh Kalamazoo spill, teh NTSB says:

$1:

The failure of Enbridge's control center staff to recognize abnormal conditions related to ruptures. Enbridge's leak detection and supervisory control and data acquisition systems generated alarms consistent with a ruptured pipeline on July 25 and July 26, 2010; however, the control center staff failed to recognize that the pipeline had ruptured until notified by an outside caller more than 17 hours later. During the July 25 shutdown, the control center staff attributed the alarms to the shutdown and interpreted them as indications of an incompletely filled pipeline (known as column separation). On July 26, the control center staff pumped additional oil into the rupture pipeline for about 1.5 hours during two startups. The control center staff received many more leak detection alarms and noted large differences between the amount of oil being pumped into the pipeline and the amount being delivered, but the staff continued to attribute these conditions to column separation. An Enbridge supervisor had granted the control center staff permission to start up the pipeline for a third time just before they were notified about the release.

Interestingly, this is exactly what happened in the Pine River oil spill some years ago (which I believe was BC’s largest on-shore oil spill) when an oil pipeline ruptured. The operators ignored all the alarms because, they said, the alarms were always going off.

[Gunnair]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Xort Xort:

The topic is ships going in and out of Kitimat, how many ships have had problems in the Douglas Channel? (One maybe?)

You know very well what the question is, but still refuse to answer it. I will take it that you don't know and have no actual reason to fear the Douglas Channel being unreasonably dangerous.

'One maybe' suggests you can't be bothered to read answers or conduct any research.

In fact, your intellectual laziness in this thread has been remarkable.

I would add insulting and rude to that list.

You know, I would certainly understand the Alberta posters on this site getting pissy if the BC posters on this site were agreeing with Clarke triying to squeeze more cash out of them in exchange for the pipeline.

But I think we all have said we do not want the pipeline and we do not want the money.

What's with the pissyness over that?

[BeaverFever]

Xort Xort:

The topic is ships going in and out of Kitimat, how many ships have had problems in the Douglas Channel? (One maybe?)

I already supplied this previously, but I will repost since your'e obviously not reading:

$1:

Between 1999 and 2008, the routes Enbridge intends to use for Gateway tanker traffic experienced five major accidents in large vessels. Those include two "striking" accidents (where a ship contacts another object, like the shore or a dock), one instance of heavy weather damage, a grounding, and a grounding and a sinking. The latter is well-known: The Queen of the North lies buried deep in waters that supertankers would transit. It sank after hitting Gil Island in 2006. Two bodies were never found.

In 2009, the Petersfield, a bulk carrier sailing through Douglas Channel, also hit land after a failure in its navigation equipment. According to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, "the vessel sustained extensive damage." Supertankers, however, remain among the safest vessels on the seas. According to the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Ltd., the number of large oil spills declined from 79 in the 1970s to 17 in the past decade.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/static/national/kitimat/index.html?id=3

[andyt]

http://islandtides.com/assets/reprint/oil_20120726.pdf

$1:

Who will pay for Gateway spills?

First of all, she has found that there is currently no guarantee
that the project will have sufficient ‘leak and burst’ insurance.
In fact, it might not have any insurance, as this appears not to be
a requirement for the project.

Second, it is possible that there will not be any company
money to deal with a major spill, as the project’s financial plan
states that any profits will be distributed annually as dividends
to the shareholders (unit-holders). Money will not be retained or
reinvested in the company.

Finally, the Northern Gateway project is structured as a
limited liability partnership (LLP). Enbridge intends to own only
half of the project. Rights to the rest of the units are being sold to a number of companies, including Sinopec, a national oil
company owned by the Chinese government. One unit was
reserved for First Nations participation in the project.
LLPs are not an unusual structure; they make it easier to
secure financing and can protect investors from tax and other obligations, such as the inability of Northern Gateway to pay for
liabilities. However, with assets consisting solely of the pipeline and the marine terminal, says Allan, Northern Gateway is
unique as a stand-alone project. As an LLP that will have no
cash, very few assets, and little to no insurance, this project is a threat to the public purse.

Says nothing about the risk of a tanker spill. Presumably the owners of the tanker would be liable. We all know how well that worked with the Exxon Valdez spill, with lawmakers voting to limit their liability and some lawsuits still not settled 20 years later.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

http://islandtides.com/assets/reprint/oil_20120726.pdf

$1:

Who will pay for Gateway spills?

First of all, she has found that there is currently no guarantee
that the project will have sufficient ‘leak and burst’ insurance.
In fact, it might not have any insurance, as this appears not to be
a requirement for the project.

Second, it is possible that there will not be any company
money to deal with a major spill, as the project’s financial plan
states that any profits will be distributed annually as dividends
to the shareholders (unit-holders). Money will not be retained or
reinvested in the company.

Finally, the Northern Gateway project is structured as a
limited liability partnership (LLP). Enbridge intends to own only
half of the project. Rights to the rest of the units are being sold to a number of companies, including Sinopec, a national oil
company owned by the Chinese government. One unit was
reserved for First Nations participation in the project.
LLPs are not an unusual structure; they make it easier to
secure financing and can protect investors from tax and other obligations, such as the inability of Northern Gateway to pay for
liabilities. However, with assets consisting solely of the pipeline and the marine terminal, says Allan, Northern Gateway is
unique as a stand-alone project. As an LLP that will have no
cash, very few assets, and little to no insurance, this project is a threat to the public purse.

Says nothing about the risk of a tanker spill. Presumably the owners of the tanker would be liable. We all know how well that worked with the Exxon Valdez spill, with lawmakers voting to limit their liability and some lawsuits still not settled 20 years later.

Like I said earlier, we need to grab the politicians (ie: our employees) by the balls and squeeze until their view of the environment matches our own.

[andyt]

Well they are us. We're plenty willing to rape the environment unless it's right in your backyard. But I agree. I'm not totally against the pipeline, if the risk is sufficiently managed and lies on the shoulders of those that profit from the project.

PA9, tho, wrote some pretty scary stuff about how dangerous the waters are on the coast, even if they ship from Prince Rupert. I'll take it with a grain of salt, since Prince Rupert ships all sorts of cargo and we don't hear about frequent wrecks. But of course an oil spill is much worse than a grain ship losing it's cargo.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

Well they are us. We're plenty willing to rape the environment unless it's right in your backyard. But I agree. I'm not totally against the pipeline, if the risk is sufficiently managed and lies on the shoulders of those that profit from the project.

Yeah, that's pretty much my attitude as well. I'd like to see it get done to lessen our dependence on the US as a trading partner as well as the boon to the economy it will be. However, I'm not interested in doing it at any cost.

[andyt]

Suncor has just announced a major pullback from projects. Looks like things are cooling down. But is the Enbridge fiasco causes us to instead go east young bitumen, that would be all to the good. Lemmy talked about large scale stimulus projects. Wouldn't building pipelines and refineries to serve eastern Canada be a good investment of that sort?

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Suncor has just announced a major pullback from projects. Looks like things are cooling down. But is the Enbridge fiasco causes us to instead go east young bitumen, that would be all to the good. Lemmy talked about large scale stimulus projects. Wouldn't building pipelines and refineries to serve eastern Canada be a good investment of that sort?

They would be, but the jobs and derivative jobs would only be in the thousands. And only for a few years at best.

[andyt]

Yes, but that's true of any major infrastructure project. But what would the effects on the economy be of Canada having energy self sufficiency?

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Yes, but that's true of any major infrastructure project. But what would the effects on the economy be of Canada having energy self sufficiency?

No idea. I'm just a computer geek.

Is there an Economist in the house?

[andyt]

I guess if we can buy oil for Eastern Canada cheaper than we can sell the Alberta stuff or ship that back East, then it's a loss. Hell, right now it sounds like Alberta may leave some of that tar in the ground because prices are heading down. But if oil prices rise again or supply becomes unstable, that would be a huge advantage to Eastern manufacturers. Of course that's reason enough right there for Albertans to oppose it.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

I guess if we can buy oil for Eastern Canada cheaper than we can sell the Alberta stuff or ship that back East, then it's a loss. Hell, right now it sounds like Alberta may leave some of that tar in the ground because prices are heading down. But if oil prices rise again or supply becomes unstable, that would be a huge advantage to Eastern manufacturers. Of course that's reason enough right there for Albertans to oppose it.

Albertans don't have a problem with selling oil at market prices to Easterners - it's when they are forced to sell below market prices (and at a loss at that), that's when they get pissed off.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

Well they are us. We're plenty willing to rape the environment unless it's right in your backyard. But I agree. I'm not totally against the pipeline, if the risk is sufficiently managed and lies on the shoulders of those that profit from the project.

PA9, tho, wrote some pretty scary stuff about how dangerous the waters are on the coast, even if they ship from Prince Rupert. I'll take it with a grain of salt, since Prince Rupert ships all sorts of cargo and we don't hear about frequent wrecks. But of course an oil spill is much worse than a grain ship losing it's cargo.

It's not just that. The bulk of the tankers travelling through will be a helluva lot larger then anything currently sailing to and from Kitimat,(none of them would even be able to traverse the Panama Canal). High winds and running seas have much more surface area to push against on these ships. On the chance of mechanical failure/breakdown during a major storm, I have serious doubts a single tug will be all that effective in 150+km/h winds and 25 metre seas.

You can take it with a grain of salt, but when it comes to matters of sea-faring, I ain't gonna listen to the Fed, the ALTA or BC gov't, Enbridge, tree-huggers or FNs. I'm gonna listen to the guys that make their living on the water, and Mal Walsh has double experience as a mariner AND having worked in the oil industry.

I I:

Unlike the waters around southern Vancouver Island and the south BC coast generally, none of the sea areas, inlets, arms, passages or any other tidal waters area ( in or near the Hecate Strait) or port have coastal radar coverage intended to monitor or aid marine traffic. In fact, there is not even a traffic separation scheme intended to prevent the interaction of ships in the restricted waters of the inside passage.

Those aren't my words, those are the concerns of several mariners who have plied their trade through those waters.