1754 replies to this topic

[rjag]

Ships hit things. Even with the best modern tech. I assure You.

 

Sam with all due respect, there are hundreds of large ships passing through our waters every month right now. Adding 1 a day will make very little difference, especially if they have tug escorts which none of the US Tankers are required and they are ramping up a lot more of them to service Andover...wheres the concern for them...same waters

[rjag]

 

But a a shitload more tankers (7x more than current), of a size we've never seen in these waters, carrying diluted bitumen (which is non-recoverable), through islands without coastal pilots...... that poses serious concern to me.

 

 

The size isnt going to change, these are mid-size tankers (Aframax) and wont even be filled to capacity as opposed to the dozens per month from Alaska (VLCC)

 

have a look here http://maritime-conn...iki/ship-sizes/

 

You're being fed propaganda

[SamCB]

I am giving my opinion, but its not altogether uninformed. Im happy to be corrected with facts and citations.

The 7x figure comes from the G&M article I linked. If it's wrong, can someone explain how? And you should probably also inform globe & mail of the error... They will be compelled to correct it, no? Serious question.

With due respect, I know a bit about the industry and the risks. I worked for several maritime organizations auditing and investigating safety systems and incidents. I also worked in the engine room on both deep sea and closer to home vessels. You can go on Gcaptain.com and search "accidents" to give yourself an idea of what happens with disturbing regularity in this industry, in spite of the most ambitious SMS plans and reports. The brand new CG vessel backed into the breakwater just the other day, remember ? That was with a contracted local Master at the controls, similar to a pilot. And from what I hear, was not a systems malfunction...

My opinion: The chances of a spill of recoverable crude are non-zero already with the current tanker traffic. Those odds increase significantly when you add more vessels- except dilbit is not recoverable. It sinks.

If (when) it goes, it goes down to the bottom. What will be the ecological impact of that? Do we even know? The first ENv Assessment didnt look at a single marine impact. Thats how flawed this process has been.

My opinion again: If you like seeing killer whales, or fishing for salmon, or catching crabs in the strait, you may want to get your fill now. Because one "minor" incident during the next 50 years might completely collapse those ecosystems. That is a legitimate risk, and one that we cannot afford.

DNV - a classification society responsible for setting vessel design standards (so they can be insured) - acknowledges the risks. Their mitigation report here is worth reading: http://transmountain...ERMPOL_RPTS.pdf

My opinion again: the dollar value cost of a spill is far less important than the ecological cost of a spill. Nobody- not Alberta, not the classification society or insurer, not the shipper, not Justin Trudeau- will pay the true cost of a potential spill.

You and me and everyone who lives here will pay the cost. And it might be realllly bad.

Again, correct me with facts where ive got it wrong, please.

[jonny]

Diluted bitumen is not denser than water therefore it does not sink. In some ways it is better and easier to clean up than conventional crude oil.

https://www.macleans...-sink-or-float/

The “7 fold increase in tanker traffic” angle doesn’t hold water in the sense that in order to do the math to get to a 7 fold increase one has to ignore American traffic in our local waters, which is of course significant. If you only calculate oil tanker leaving Burrard Inlet, the yes, it is a 7 fold increase.

[LJ]

^7 fold increase means about 1 a day, we won't even notice it with all the US tankers plying the same waters.

 

60% of BC residents are in favour of the pipeline only 29% are against it.

 

Get it built now.

 

https://globalnews.c...e-poll-support/

[SamCB]

Diluted bitumen is not denser than water therefore it does not sink. In some ways it is better and easier to clean up than conventional crude oil.

https://www.macleans...-sink-or-float/

The “7 fold increase in tanker traffic” angle doesn’t hold water in the sense that in order to do the math to get to a 7 fold increase one has to ignore American traffic in our local waters, which is of course significant. If you only calculate oil tanker leaving Burrard Inlet, the yes, it is a 7 fold increase.

Thanks for the link on dilbit cleanup.

Ok, so it IS a 7x increase in tanker traffic using Burnaby's terminal and in our Georgia Strait waters. But it's NOT a 7x increase if you include US traffic in the JdF strait?

If so, sounds to me like the "not 7x" camp are the spinsters in this case...

Thanks for the clarification. Cheers.

[jonny]

That’s pretty much it, Sam.

This thing has gotten so toxic it’s hard to know what to believe at times!

Oil spills are definitely very bad. Hopefully we never have to experience a major one in local waters.

[Mike K.]

If so, sounds to me like the "not 7x" camp are the spinsters in this case...

There are two oil tankers passing us right now, both from Vancouver.

The 7x figure is even incorrect for oil tanker traffic out of Vancouver, as clearly there is more than one tanker leaving per day already.

“Our waters” include American vessel traffic, so saying we’re going to experience a 7-fold increase in “our waters” is a purposefully skewed figure that only applies to a singular port and only within the confines of that port because the moment those vessels leave Metro Van they are joined by oil tanker traffic from Bellingham and from points further south in Puget Sound and from along the north coast of Washington.

In short you’ve been sort of duped, we all have, and the media is misreporting (again) the situation based on already debunked information. They know better than to assess bus ridership, or vehicle traffic volumes, or cycling, or walking based on data from a singular point along a very long route, and claim whatever occurs at that singular point applies to the entire route. But why is data from a singular point being used to describe all vessel activity in the Salish Sea, ie in “our waters?”

[Mike K.]

Currently, as mentioned above, there are two tankers sailing past Victoria, six are docked at Bellingham, three in Port Angeles, three in Vancouver and one in Tacoma. One tanker is currently entering the Salish Sea en-route to Port Angeles while a small oil supply vessel is sailing from Seattle to an unnamed destination, quite possibly Port Angeles. One tanker departed early this morning out of Anacortes but it’s well on its way now.

So 16 tankers in our waters (plus one that just departed our waters), three are moving as is a little one. And the day has just begun.

[Mike K.]

Adam Stirling says Tzeporah Berman, a leading anti-pipeline opponent and activist, just blocked him on Twitter when he pointed out a mistake in one of her claims. Others are now opining that the researcher blocks individuals frequently, and it appears as though the blocks have something to do with them challenging her claims with data that refutes her figures or facts.

Stirling had mentioned that Canadian crude is being shipped to Asia out of the US Gulf. I can’t see/find the original post but I assume it had something to do with landlocked Alberta oil.

[rjag]

Adam Stirling says Tzeporah Berman, a leading anti-pipeline opponent and activist, just blocked him on Twitter when he pointed out a mistake in one of her claims. Others are now opining that the researcher blocks individuals frequently, and it appears as though the blocks have something to do with them challenging her claims with data that refutes her figures or facts.

Stirling had mentioned that Canadian crude is being shipped to Asia out of the US Gulf. I can’t see/find the original post but I assume it had something to do with landlocked Alberta oil.

https://www.reuters...._8SR5PmxPwEqxjM

Here’s the link

[Mike K.]

A tanker is leaving Anacortes/Bellingham for Peru.

Now let’s play the statistics game, according to the activists. At this very moment, from adding just a new pipeline to Burnaby, oil tanker traffic will yield 21 actively sailing (not just docked) vessels, if we take the 7x increase at face value. 21! That pipeline would have to be the width of a freeway with a dozen tankers lined up concurrently at the trough in order to make that figure reflect reality.

[Mike K.]

https://www.reuters...._8SR5PmxPwEqxjM

Here’s the link

So much for activists claiming they’ve successfully landlocked Canadian oil, eh?

[Mike K.]

Adding to the 16 tankers in our waters, there are actually 17. One is also docked at Cherry Bank north of Bellingham.

[SamCB]

There are two oil tankers passing us right now, both from Vancouver.

The 7x figure is even incorrect for oil tanker traffic out of Vancouver, as clearly there is more than one tanker leaving per day already.

“Our waters” include American vessel traffic, so saying we’re going to experience a 7-fold increase in “our waters” is a purposefully skewed figure that only applies to a singular port and only within the confines of that port because the moment those vessels leave Metro Van they are joined by oil tanker traffic from Bellingham and from points further south in Puget Sound and from along the north coast of Washington.

In short you’ve been sort of duped, we all have, and the media is misreporting (again) the situation based on already debunked information. They know better than to assess bus ridership, or vehicle traffic volumes, or cycling, or walking based on data from a singular point along a very long route, and claim whatever occurs at that singular point applies to the entire route. But why is data from a singular point being used to describe all vessel activity in the Salish Sea, ie in “our waters?”

Details can be hard, eh Mike?

The 7x claim is the number of additional tankers leaving the Westridge facility. There. Do you understand now?

[Mike K.]

Exactly!

 

But what the G&M reported was this: "The Trans Mountain project and expanded capacity would mean a seven-fold increase in the number of oil tankers coming and going," adjacent to an animated image depicting oil tanker traffic between the Port of Vancouver and the Pacific Ocean.

 

That is deceptive. Also notice that nowhere in the graphic are American vessels represented, which dwarf the volume of vessels leaving Canada. And they'll continue to dwarf vessels coming out of Canada even with the "7x increase."

 

The green bands represent the area where there will be a 7x increase.

 

[jonny]

With or without the "7 Fold Increase", this will still be a lightly trafficked region in terms of crude oil carriers. 

[Jackerbie]

With or without the "7 Fold Increase", this will still be a lightly trafficked region in terms of crude oil carriers. 

 

Meanwhile, Deltaport alone sees something like 110 ship movements each month

[Mike K.]

The Port of Miami has hundreds of oil tankers passing along its golden beaches every month.

 

Get a load of the real-time tanker ballet down in the Gulf. And Canadian oil is part of that fray.

 

[jonny]

Yet we're supposed to believe Canadian tourism and the billions of jobs that rely on the tourism industry are at severe risk! 

 

Nevermind that the Caribbean sees many tens of millions more tourists per year, and that area is literally swarming with crude oil carriers.