Derek 2.0 Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 Let's put that 80% in perspective. If we had a spill that was 10% of the Exxon Valdez spill and 36 hours later, 80% of it was contained, that would still leave 220,000 gallons of oil loose in the harbour. Right now we have a cold front blowing through with associated winds. What do you think would be happening to that oil? Prince William Sound is a lot bigger than Vancouver harbour with bigger tides. 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? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 You can only boom and "extract" it in very calm waters......... Most major spills happen in very calm waters. I dont recall there being any storm on English Bay any time in the last couple of days. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 Most major spills happen in very calm waters. I dont recall there being any storm on English Bay any time in the last couple of days. 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 Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 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 Tankers dont usually sink mid ocean. No rocks to strike. Where did the Exxon Valdez go down for instance. Quote
Wilber Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 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? No, I am saying that our capability to respond to even small spills of fuel oil is highly suspect and our ability to respond to large ones is basically non existant. Until this is satisfactorily addressed, we shouldn't even be thinking of increasing tanker traffic containing large amounts of diluted bitumen. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 Tankers dont usually sink mid ocean. No rocks to strike. Where did the Exxon Valdez go down for instance. 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........ Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 No, I am saying that our capability to respond to even small spills of fuel oil is highly suspect and our ability to respond to large ones is basically non existant. Until this is satisfactorily addressed, we shouldn't even be thinking of increasing tanker traffic containing large amounts of diluted bitumen. 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. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 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........ OK and so that has what to do with our apparent lack of ability to deal with oil spills in coastal waters where most of them occur... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 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. Apparently you ignored my post re the guys who actually found this spill originally. They called everybody and kept getting shuffled from one authority to another. The fire dept was definitely called. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 OK and so that has what to do with our apparent lack of ability to deal with oil spills in coastal waters where most of them occur... 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. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 Apparently you ignored my post re the guys who actually found this spill originally. They called everybody and kept getting shuffled from one authority to another. The fire dept was definitely called. Hence, as I said, a failure in communications..........not in actually cleaning up oil spills. Quote
Wilber Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) 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.People and machinery clean up spills, not chains of command. 80% is just a number, it doesn't represent anything tangible like an actual amount of oil.It took six hours from the time they were notified until equipment started to arrive. Edited April 11, 2015 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
On Guard for Thee Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 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. What refutes it...and did I use the phrase only happen... quote correctly please. In any case ships tend to run aground where there is ground available to run aground on. Not too complicated I dont think. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 People and machinery clean up spills, not chains of command. 80% is just a number, it doesn't represent anything tangible like an actual amount of oil. It took six hours from the time they were notified until equipment started to arrive. 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? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 What refutes it...and did I use the phrase only happen... quote correctly please. In any case ships tend to run aground where there is ground available to run aground on. Not too complicated I dont think. Reread your own words: Most major spills happen in very calm waters. Quote
Wilber Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 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? 20% of 11 gallons is 2.2 gallons. 20% of 11 million gallons (Exxon Valdez) is 2.2 million gallons. See the difference? How long do you think it should take equipment to arrive? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
On Guard for Thee Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 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? Six hours has no tangible meaning...of course it does, its a tangible time frame, when its in your back yard such as right in English Bay, that tangible time frame seems a little extreme. What if it had of been a really serious leak, such as a tanker hitting the rocks... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 20% of 11 gallons is 2.2 gallons. 20% of 11 million gallons (Exxon Valdez) is 2.2 million gallons. See the difference? How long do you think it should take equipment to arrive? 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? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 Six hours has no tangible meaning...of course it does, its a tangible time frame, when its in your back yard such as right in English Bay, that tangible time frame seems a little extreme. What if it had of been a really serious leak, such as a tanker hitting the rocks... The rules encompassing the transit of oil tankers, LNG carriers and warships within Canadian waters is vastly different then other commercial shipping. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 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? Thats just the point. Based on what just just happened you dont have to be an oil tanker to create havoc with YVR oil spill response. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 Thats just the point. Based on what just just happened you dont have to be an oil tanker to create havoc with YVR oil spill response. 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. Quote
Wilber Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 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? From their own website. The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, doing business as Port Metro Vancouver is a financially independent corporation, established by the Government of Canada pursuant to the Canada Marine Act, and accountable to the federal Minister of Transport. Clearly a federal responsibility. 80% means nothing in itself. 80% of nothing is nothing. 80% of a whole bunch is a lot. It's not how we treat different types of ships, it's about our ability to respond to the potential risks each of them represents. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 From their own website. Clearly a federal responsibility. 80% means nothing in itself. 80% of nothing is nothing. 80% of a whole bunch is a lot. It's not how we treat different types of ships, it's about our ability to respond to the potential risks each of them represents. 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. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 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. And you have no point. This was relatively speaking a piddling size spill and the support was slow and weak. If you are trying to tell me a tanker, even with the extra its they carry, is capable of containing a major spill without help from shore, you are dreaming. That shore system showed today it has a log way to go to be able to deal with a serious spill. Quote
Wilber Posted April 11, 2015 Report Posted April 11, 2015 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. Of course it is different so you have to plan for the worst case. If you have .tankers transiting your harbour, you don't plan on a spill from a gill netter as a worse case. No, 80% of nothing is nothing and 80% of a whole bunch is a lot, isn't talking out of my ass, it is grade 3 arithmetic. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.