Whales, Oil and Politics

[Derek 2.0]

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.

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.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

Right, so responding to a bulk carrier with a leaking fuel tank would warrant more a response than a fishing boat, but less than an oil tanker........like I was saying.......

Use your grade 3 math skills and regale me with what 20% of not very much is, when contrasted with the Exxon Valdez.......

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

Typing very slow is fine, thinking slow, not so much. The response here was shoddy, and for a very small spill. This does not give people who think a little faster much confidence in the idea of any major expansion in tanker traffic such as a new pipeline would create.

[Derek 2.0]

Typing very slow is fine, thinking slow, not so much. The response here was shoddy, and for a very small spill. This does not give people who think a little faster much confidence in the idea of any major expansion in tanker traffic such as a new pipeline would create.

That is because, people like you, are ignorant to the current rules and regulations encompassing tanker traffic in Canadian waters.

[On Guard for Thee]

That is because, people like you, are ignorant to the current rules and regulations encompassing tanker traffic in Canadian waters.

Yeah right. In any case here is a reality check for you, rules are one thing, reality is what just happened in English Bay.

[Wilber]

Right, so responding to a bulk carrier with a leaking fuel tank would warrant more a response than a fishing boat, but less than an oil tanker........like I was saying.......

It's not the less we are concerned about.

Use your grade 3 math skills and regale me with what 20% of not very much is, when contrasted with the Exxon Valdez.......

I already did. Maybe you should have read it.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Wilber

[Derek 2.0]

Yeah right. In any case here is a reality check for you, rules are one thing, reality is what just happened in English Bay.

The reality being a bulk carrier had a minor fuel leak, when contrasted with a major spill from a tanker, the CCG and contractors contained and cleaned up 80% of the spill by the next morning, but due to a communication breakdown, the City of Vancouver wasn't notified until the next day..........perhaps a lesson to be learned, so as if it were to occur again, city workers can start cleaning the beaches at night earning triple time versus the next day at regular rate.........

The perspective, the oil released from this spill (~2700 litres) represents ~1% the amount released 8 years ago when some idiot tagged an underground pipeline in Burnaby.........there will likely be more oil and chemicals put into surrounding waterways from the surfaces of Vancouver roadways from this weekend's rain.........further perspective, the amount leaked into English Bay represents the fuel capacity of about two dozen full size pick-ups........

[Derek 2.0]

It's not the less we are concerned about.

I already did. Maybe you should have read it.

An amount of fuel equal to the capacity of 24 Ford F350s........or what is leached from roadways into storm sewers and then into rivers, creeks and the ocean, from Metro Vancouver after a good rainy day........

[On Guard for Thee]

The reality being a bulk carrier had a minor fuel leak, when contrasted with a major spill from a tanker, the CCG and contractors contained and cleaned up 80% of the spill by the next morning, but due to a communication breakdown, the City of Vancouver wasn't notified until the next day..........perhaps a lesson to be learned, so as if it were to occur again, city workers can start cleaning the beaches at night earning triple time versus the next day at regular rate.........

The perspective, the oil released from this spill (~2700 litres) represents ~1% the amount released 8 years ago when some idiot tagged an underground pipeline in Burnaby.........there will likely be more oil and chemicals put into surrounding waterways from the surfaces of Vancouver roadways from this weekend's rain.........further perspective, the amount leaked into English Bay represents the fuel capacity of about two dozen full size pick-ups........

Again you make my own point for me, if the leak was small, which it was relatively, why were those in charge of cleanup left looking so inadequate with their response.

[Derek 2.0]

Again you make my own point for me, if the leak was small, which it was relatively, why were those in charge of cleanup left looking so inadequate with their response.

Government bureaucracy........or the knowledge that in the big scheme of things, more oil was likely burned cleaning it up, and despite the media headlines of the Great English Bay oil spill disaster of 2015, whenever a single train tanker car derails and spills its load, nearly 50 times more fuel is leaked into the environment..........again the amount leaked here would fill ~15-20 standard size bathtubs.........

[On Guard for Thee]

Government bureaucracy........or the knowledge that in the big scheme of things, more oil was likely burned cleaning it up, and despite the media headlines of the Great English Bay oil spill disaster of 2015, whenever a single train tanker car derails and spills its load, nearly 50 times more fuel is leaked into the environment..........again the amount leaked here would fill ~15-20 standard size bathtubs.........

Yeah well we do depend on government to take care of a few things for us. Ya know we depend on Transport Canada to regulate airlines and they seem to do not a bad job of that. But they and other agencies seem to be screwing up elsewhere. I have no idea what these references to bathtubs full of oil are meant to convey. Is that the way you can understand volumes perhaps.

[Wilber]

An amount of fuel equal to the capacity of 24 Ford F350s........or what is leached from roadways into storm sewers and then into rivers, creeks and the ocean, from Metro Vancouver after a good rainy day........

Wouldn't mind a link for that but I'm sure it is a fair amount after a long dry spell. Not crude, bunker C or bitumen though.

[Derek 2.0]

Yeah well we do depend on government to take care of a few things for us. Ya know we depend on Transport Canada to regulate airlines and they seem to do not a bad job of that. But they and other agencies seem to be screwing up elsewhere. I have no idea what these references to bathtubs full of oil are meant to convey. Is that the way you can understand volumes perhaps.

Perspective........I'm not the one likening this spill with major oil tanker disasters.......And how do you know, in this case, Transport Canada is to blame? Its been reported that the CCG notified both the Province and Port of Vancouver as soon as they confirmed the spill.......what appears murky, more so then the water, is the actual timeline according to CTV:

Much ado about nothing, or a failure at Vancouver City Hall?

-------------

Though big picture the spill was a tiny event, akin to a minor train derailment or a tanker truck accident on the hwy...my concern, and what I feel should be the focus from this story going forward, is piss poor intergovernmental communications between the Province and the Cities........which could have severe consequences in the event of an actual disaster.....like an Earthquake.

[On Guard for Thee]

Perspective........I'm not the one likening this spill with major oil tanker disasters.......And how do you know, in this case, Transport Canada is to blame? Its been reported that the CCG notified both the Province and Port of Vancouver as soon as they confirmed the spill.......what appears murky, more so then the water, is the actual timeline according to CTV:

Much ado about nothing, or a failure at Vancouver City Hall?

-------------

Though big picture the spill was a tiny event, akin to a minor train derailment or a tanker truck accident on the hwy...my concern, and what I feel should be the focus from this story going forward, is piss poor intergovernmental communications between the Province and the Cities........which could have severe consequences in the event of an actual disaster.....like an Earthquake.

Exactly. So why load the gun by filling the harbour with tankers if there is a lack of ability to handle that actual disaster you speak of

[Derek 2.0]

Wouldn't mind a link for that but I'm sure it is a fair amount after a long dry spell. Not crude, bunker C or bitumen though.

How many people wash their cars in their driveways in Metro Vancouver?......

And no, its not bunker C, but a sustained problem overlooked by most.....

[Derek 2.0]

Exactly. So why load the gun by filling the harbour with tankers if there is a lack of ability to handle that actual disaster you speak of

As said numerous times to you, unlike the majority of commercial shipping, oil tankers (in all Canadian waters) are governed under a different set of regulations, set in place to mitigate such a disaster (as said, spill response teams accompanying transiting vessels, likewise emergency vessels under heightened readiness when said tankers are transiting busy water ways).........

such rules being put in place after the last oil tanker disaster in Canadian waters in the later 80s.......and there hasn't been a single incident, within our waters, since.

[On Guard for Thee]

As said numerous times to you, unlike the majority of commercial shipping, oil tankers (in all Canadian waters) are governed under a different set of regulations, set in place to mitigate such a disaster (as said, spill response teams accompanying transiting vessels, likewise emergency vessels under heightened readiness when said tankers are transiting busy water ways).........

such rules being put in place after the last oil tanker disaster in Canadian waters in the later 80s.......and there hasn't been a single incident, within our waters, since.

Which is why we dont want to re open the exposure by creating a scenario where we would have endless tankers traversing Douglas Channel.

[Derek 2.0]

Which is why we dont want to re open the exposure by creating a scenario where we would have endless tankers traversing Douglas Channel.

"We" as in the ignorant to reality.........The Douglas Channel has seen endless LNG tanker traffic since the 70s......without a single incident........The last "oil tanker spill" in BC waters was a barge nearly 30 years ago, years before the current rules and regulations were implemented.......the only recent major oil spill, within all BC waters since, resulted from the sinking of the Queen of the North.

[On Guard for Thee]

"We" as in the ignorant to reality.........The Douglas Channel has seen endless LNG tanker traffic since the 70s......without a single incident........The last "oil tanker spill" in BC waters was a barge nearly 30 years ago, years before the current rules and regulations were implemented.......the only recent major oil spill, within all BC waters since, resulted from the sinking of the Queen of the North.

No, endless taker traffic wont start unless the dilbit lie is built to Kitimat. And do you understand the difference between an LNG tanker going aground and one carrying dilbit...big difference.

[Derek 2.0]

No, endless taker traffic wont start unless the dilbit lie is built to Kitimat. And do you understand the difference between an LNG tanker going aground and one carrying dilbit...big difference.

Sure, one could go BOOM!!!

By all means, explain why oil tankers are more at risk for accident than LNG tankers, that have been traversing those very waters without incident for nearly 40 years.........

[On Guard for Thee]

Sure, one could go BOOM!!!

By all means, explain why oil tankers are more at risk for accident than LNG tankers, that have been traversing those very waters without incident for nearly 40 years.........

Put the pipeline in from Ft. Muck and the traffic down Douglas will increase well beyond anything you have see so far. They will want year round use so then multiple tankers i the shit weather. And, since you ask, where do you think LNG goes as opposed to dilbit. Give you a hint...crack open the tank on your backyard BBQ, and then go and pull the drain plug out of the oil tank on your vehicle...note the difference.

[Big Guy]

If that pipeline is built and those oil tankers start filling the bays - what is a better chance of occurring; a major oil spill or an external terrorist attack on Canada?

[msj]

Premier Christy Clark wants the Feds to provide a world class response system at the federal level as one of the justifications for the Northern pipeline.

We all know what will happen: the Feds will promise, maybe even deliver something for a while, then a major spill will occur and a royal commission will determine that the BC coast was decimated thanks to poor intergovernmental communication etc ad nauseum.

We know this will happen if a pipeline is built.

The solution is simple: don't build the pipeline.

That's how I will be voting in any future elections.

Edited April 11, 2015 by msj

[TimG]

The solution is simple: don't build the pipeline.

Resources are Canada's competitive advantage in the world economy and generate a large portion of Canada's exports. We need a solution to get our resources to market. The simple solution is set up mechanism where self interest ensures the correct outcome. BC has an interest in ensuring an adequate spill response then BC should run it. The money should come from a levy placed on the oil going through the pipes which means it is paid for.

If people insist on mindless obstructism then we should start cutting social programs now so we can get used to life without resource exports.

That's how I will be voting in any future elections.

I find it amazing that given the complex issues facing us that you would choose to make a decision based on hypothetical future event that would likely never occur. Edited April 11, 2015 by TimG

[msj]

Stop the nonsense.

Canada is not going to go down the tube because we can't sell oil to China because people in BC don't want to see our environment ruined.

The problem here is that you have guys like me, investments in oil and gas, votes fiscally conservative, who are saying to Harper: "no."

Sure, this is a " not in my backyard" attitude but that's what self interest gets us. As it should.

Those who can speak up and vote appropriately can stop something if we fight for it.

As for the unlikely oil spill to happen nonsense: I have seen enough spills in my time to know that that is a crock of poop.