Derek 2.0

One more time, and I'll type very slowly for you, when an oil tanker presently transits through the Burrard Inlet to the Chevron refinery, those vessels that would be tasked to respond to an oil spill, are either accompanying the tanker or are alongside and able to respond in minutes (not hours) to a potential spill.

I'm sorry, but you're talking out of your ass.........the potential risks are directly related to the differing types of ships transiting the harbor.......clearly a bulk carrier full of rice is less a potential risk than a tanker........or an LNG carrier........or a visiting warship etc......as such, the ability to mitigate and respond to said risks is a differential.

You have no point........as the rules governing the navigation, anchoring, mooring/berthing, likewise the transfer of cargo (fuel oil) , for oil tankers (contrasted with other commercial shipping) is vastly different........In the case of the Burrard Inlet, transiting oil tankers are accompanied by tugs with spill response kits aboard, likewise the speciality vessels being in a greater level of readiness, in addition to the three differing fireboats in the harbor being fully manned.

The rules encompassing the transit of oil tankers, LNG carriers and warships within Canadian waters is vastly different then other commercial shipping.

Again this was a bulk carrier, not an oil tanker.......the laws and regulations encompassing oil tankers, LNG carriers and warships is vastly different..... Under the current laws governing commercial shipping, a six hours response, that then managed to clean up and contain 80% of a spill seems rather good.....what is clearly a failure, is either the response from the City of Vancouver or the Province or CCG in notifying the City of Vancouver, which would have allowed city workers to start containing and cleaning the remnants of the spill that washed ashore on the cities beaches. Going forward, would you have every bulk carrier, container ship, car carrier, BC Ferry and cruise ship treated as a oil tanker?

Reread your own words:

Ahhh no, 80% will represent the amount of bunker oil that leaked from the tank........ Now your "six hours" is just a number, with no tangible meaning.....how long should it take for equipment to arrive?

Hence, as I said, a failure in communications..........not in actually cleaning up oil spills.

It refutes your baseless claim that oil spills only happen in calm waters...........the largest tanker spill ever, occurred in bad weather, likewise the worse (and last) oil tanker spill in Canadian waters.

Containing and cleaning oil spills is far from suspect, as evident by 80% already being cleaned up........what is in question is the failure, at some point in the chain, of communications between the differing levels of Government..........You can't judge a fire department's ability to fight fires if nobody calls them.

Yet the largest oil tanker spill in Canadian history, over four times the scope of the Exxon Valdez, which fostered in a whole host of the current regulations encompassing oil tankers in Canadian waters, did break up in "mid ocean", in 25' waves........

Do you have proof most spills happen in calm waters? The last actual oil tanker spill in Canadian waters, over 25 years ago, was in anything but calm waters

And this spill was not even a fraction of that of the Exxon Valdez..........are you suggesting we ban bulk carriers and container ships from Canadian waters?

You can only boom and "extract" it in very calm waters.........

It did for (the far worse) Prince William Sound.......as mentioned, ~80% of the spill is already contained/cleaned-up.....perspective please.

No, they aide the environment in diluting the oil.

No dispersants aide in the biodegradation of the oil........the alternative of course is to do next to nothing. Do you wash yourself with soap? If so, the soap you use is more toxic than dispersant agents used in offshore spills.

I know.......that's how offshore oil spills are namely cleaned up......from Exxon to Deepwater Horizon.

That the United States is the baddest of the bad.........

Right, as historically they're far worse........

No, to disperse chemicals/solvents to clean up the oil spill......clearly a hovercraft has advantages over a conventional boat in both speed and operation in shallow depths/beaches/marshes etc......And I know they're the primary responders at Sea Island.....I said as much, with oil spills, around the lower mainland being namely the purview of private companies...

Actually, you're wrong......the CCG's Hovercraft (from Sea Island), pioneered the use of hovercraft for oil spill response nearly 30 years ago....... With that said, the CCG's hovercraft aren't the primary responders.

An added twenty minute response from Sea Island played little in the crapping of the bed here.......more so the massive failure in communication between multiple layers of Government...

No, the skimmers are moored near the Chevron refinery in Burnaby and Robert's Bank/Delta Port.......

Like the Spratly Islands and Tibet, or Georgia and the Ukraine..........