Whales, Oil and Politics

[TimG]

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.

Stop the nonsense! An oil or two spill is not going to ruin the environment. They get cleaned up and life moves on. The problem here is risk assessment. You place a priority the "environment" while you ignore or minimize the risks to the economy. That does not mean the risks to the economy are not there. It just means you have chosen to ignore them.

IOW - you have absolutely no business telling me that the risks to the economy are irrelevant. They are real - more real than the alleged risks a hypothetical oil spill. I am saying is you should be honest and say quite explicitly that you are fine with cutting social programs because you think "protecting the environment" is more important that developing the industries that pay for those social programs.

Edited April 12, 2015 by TimG

[msj]

Stop the fear mongering.

The pipeline will not affect social programs in BC at all because BC assumes all of the environmental risk while getting none of the economic benefits.

I can scream hyperbolically too: why don't you care about our coastal economy? Why do you want to increase the pollution on our coast at the expense of tourism, aquaculture, fishing, etc?

And other such nonsense.

[TimG]

Stop the fear mongering.

You are the one that is fear mongering by obsessing over small risks that can be managed. I am looking at the issue rationally and looking for constructive to manage the risk.

The pipeline will not affect social programs in BC at all because BC assumes all of the environmental risk while getting none of the economic benefits.

BS. Thanks to NIBMYs like you Canada is becoming a place where nothing can get built whether it is pipelines, roads, trains or dams. We have a couple decades to go while we can live off the assets that were built in a less NIMBY times but unless something changes Canada's economy will go into a regulation induced depression. This is not a hypothetical concern - many other countries have destroyed their economy (or at least prevented it from growing) by making impossible to build anything. Get your head of the sand. The economic risk is real.

I can scream hyperbolically too: why don't you care about our coastal economy? Why do you want to increase the pollution on our coast at the expense of tourism, aquaculture, fishing, etc?

I am not the one saying "my way or the highway". I am saying the risk needs to be managed. And if properly managed the risk extremely small. A small hypothetical risk is less important that the real economic harm caused by blocking development of our resources. Edited April 12, 2015 by TimG

[msj]

There is no doubt that a pipeline will have regular oil spills.

Over land, near rivers, and in the ocean thanks to tanker traffic.

But, of course, BC is supposed to suck it up while getting little economic benefit in return and, oh yeah, don't forget to deal with any and all spills.

As for self interest: it is good therefore NIMBYism is good too.

Or do you want it both ways?

No, of course shoving a pipeline down BC's throat is not a "my way or the highway approach." What a load of bunk c...

Let's hope solar and wind power and other advances in technology can reduce the oil and gas industry to a hollow shell. But perhaps that's 50 years off which is too bad.

[TimG]

There is no doubt that a pipeline will have regular oil spills.

Of course the will. But minor spills are easily cleaned up and not a reason to block a development. The issue at question are major spills which are extremely rare but can be managed as they have been managed off the BC coast for 40 years with the existing tanker traffic.

But, of course, BC is supposed to suck it up while getting little economic benefit in return and, oh yeah, don't forget to deal with any and all spills.

There is a reason why the constitution gives the federal government exclusive control over these matters because you can't have a country if every province decides they are entitled to block trade passing through from other provinces. So yes, BC benefits from being part of the Canadian federation and for that reason it should "suck it up". If BC wants to separate from Canada then it could justify blocking trade from other provinces.

That said, concerns about ensuring a proper spill response are legitimate and the question is how can such a regime be managed and sustained over the long term needs a good answer.

Let's hope solar and wind power and other advances in technology can reduce the oil and gas industry to a hollow shell. But perhaps that's 50 years off which is too bad.

You are delusional. Solar and wind will never be more than bit players because of their fundamental limitations. 100 years from now the majority of power will still come from fossil fuels and/or some variation of nuclear. Edited April 12, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Of course the will. But minor spills are easily cleaned up and not a reason to block a development. The issue at question are major spills which are extremely rare but can be managed as they have been managed off the BC coast for 40 years with the existing tanker traffic.

There is a reason why the constitution gives the federal government exclusive control over these matters because you can't have a country if every province decides they are entitled to put tolls on trade passing through from other provinces. So yes, BC benefits from being part of the Canadian federation and for that reason it should "suck it up". If BC wants to separate from Canada then it could justify blocking trade from other provinces.

That said, concerns about ensuring a proper spill response are legitimate and the question is how can such a regime be managed and sustained over the long term.

You are delusional. Solar and wind will never be more than bit players because of their fundamental limitations. 100 years from now the majority of power will still come from fossil fuels and/or some variation of nuclear.

If thats the case we wont be here a hundred years from now.

[jacee]

To those who think an 'oil' spill is no big deal, 'just clean it up and move on' ... TimG!

http://www.businessinsider.com/warning-to-gulf-cleanup-workers-almost-every-crew-member-from-the-1989-exxon-valdez-disaster-is-now-dead-2010-6

In a previous article we documented a number of the health dangers from this oil spill that many scientists are warning us of, and now it has been reported on CNN that the vast majority of those who worked to clean up the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska are now dead. Yes, you read that correctly. Almost all of them are dead.

In fact, the expert that CNN had on said that the life expectancy for those who worked to clean up the Exxon Valdez oil spill is only about 51 years.

.

Edited April 17, 2015 by jacee

[Rue]

I amwith msj and West Coast on this and may I point out that in BC please do not label people concerned about the environment as leftist whacko. Be fair. There are as many people on the right as the left side of the political spectrum or smack in the middle that are equally as concerned.

Juan Alava in the journal, "Science" is not some wack hob. He asked a question as to why humpback whales were removed from the" threatened" species

list to the "species of special concern" list under the Canada Species at Risk Act.

He asked that question because humpback whales only feed in the polar regions in the summer and only mate in the winter in tropical and sub-tropical waters which means they migrate upt o and even over a 25,000 kilometre range.

What all marine biologists agree on world-wide is that ALL whale species are in danger of extinction because of several well known reasons; i-sonar radar from ships is literally frying the delicate neurological composition of whale brains causing them to beach themselves en masse rather than die in severe pain and the pain has been fully measured and documented; ii-the radar is causing whales to be unable to navigate and therefore migrate to breed and eat; iii-as the increase in ship traffic continues, so does the death of whales hit by these ships or cut fatally by the propellers and many of those collisions are brought on by the sonar radar impact on whale brains; iv-we continue to dump mercury and other toxic chemicals in the oceans killing whales and other species; v-fishing trawlers today use huge nets that scape the bottom of the ocean sucking up any kind of wild life today whether it be whales, dolphins, sharks, etc.-this in turn has destroyed the fragile food pyramid and depleted fishing stocks that can no longer reproduce.

All that makes not just whales and sharks endangered but so many other species of wildlife including certain seals, walruses, and fish species including wild salmon, Arctic char, and of course on the east coast, haddock, cod, halibut, even lobsters,krill, shrimp.

A moratorium was placed on humpbacks in 1966 but Norway, Russia, Japan, China,Spain and Portugal, to name just a few nations, ignored that moratorium and still do.

Now suddenly a day or so before the announcement of the Enbridge Oil pipeline project which will increase oil cargo vessel traffic on the BC coast we are told humpbacks are just fine?

Give me and BC citizens a break. Scientists estimate there might be 4,000 humpback of which 50% of them must migrate through BC waters to get up to where they eat before they must come back down again to mate.

Do the math-when the oil vessels increase, so will the collisions with this species of whales and all other whales. Its not rocket science.

Also do not insult BC citizens and spin away the dangers of the oil spill while they are dealing with one now in Vancouver. Please do not insult people and say oil spills are no big deal. When you witness them, you know the negative impact they cause.

Excuse me but this is not a left or right wing issue. This is an issue about the environment and as many conservatives as liberals and NDP are equally as concerned in BC. Don't stereotype them.

I can only say this. We have better engineering safety standards for pipelines and the question is, does our federal government push enough to assure the latest state of the art pipeline designs are being used or are they looking the other way? The little knowledge I have is that it appears the actual pipeline to be used is state of the art which means its not 100% safe but it has shut off valves and pressure systems that contain leaks very quickly.

Where the major concern is at sea. We have no navy or Coast Guard let alone Ministry of Fisheries fleet to enforce safe shipping or legal fishing.

Its a joke. Ships come and go as they please illegally fishing, dumping toxic chemicals and bunker fuel. Let's not pretend we spend money on our coast guard, navy or Ministry of Fisheries fleet. We do not. We don't even have helicopters or sufficient air patrol vessels or even submarines to assist.

Right now on the high seas are thousands of ships with flags of convenience carrying fuel and any one of them could leak let alone collide with and kill whales.

Some of you do not give a rats asp about whales I get it. But when you kill off whales, you are killing off a a vital part of an ecosystem that then becomes imbalanced. What we are doing is pissing in the water we drink. It is killing us.

[TimG]

of Do the math-when the oil vessels increase, so will the collisions with this species of whales and all other whales. Its not rocket science.

Whales don't care what the is in a ship's cargo. They care about the ship. Vancouver is a port city and it exists only because ships import and export goods. It is ridiculous to single out oil tankers as a special risk. It is rediclous to cite whales as problem for oil tankers while the BC government is do its best to expand all types of shipping through the port because that is good for the local economy.

Also do not insult BC citizens and spin away the dangers of the oil spill while they are dealing with one now in Vancouver. Please do not insult people and say oil spills are no big deal. When you witness them, you know the negative impact they cause.

The oil spill did NOT come from a oil tanker. It came from a regular cargo ship and no one is talking about closing the port of Vancouver to "protect the whales". It is quite hypocritical to block a pipeline because of increase in tightly regulated and monitored oil tankers when the real risk comes from the poorly monitored cargo and cruise ships.

Right now on the high seas are thousands of ships with flags of convenience carrying fuel and any one of them could leak let alone collide with and kill whales.

Whether you like it or not transport of goods is fundamental to our economy. We can't avoid it. And all we can do is regulate to minimize the risks. Saying we should simply choose to not transport goods and start cutting social services because our economy can no longer generate enough excess wealth because of a hypothetical conflict with whales is extremely naive. The only reason you want to apply these standards to "oil tankers" is because you have convinced yourself that oil trade does not benefit you personally so you are happy to screw over other people to satisfy your objections. For some reason, I doubt you would be so quick to prioritize whales if someone used the exact same logic to call for the closing of the port of Vancouver. Edited April 17, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

To those who think an 'oil' spill is no big deal, 'just clean it up and move on' ... TimG!

http://www.businessinsider.com/warning-to-gulf-cleanup-workers-almost-every-crew-member-from-the-1989-exxon-valdez-disaster-is-now-dead-2010-6

In a previous article we documented a number of the health dangers from this oil spill that many scientists are warning us of, and now it has been reported on CNN that the vast majority of those who worked to clean up the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska are now dead. Yes, you read that correctly. Almost all of them are dead.

In fact, the expert that CNN had on said that the life expectancy for those who worked to clean up the Exxon Valdez oil spill is only about 51 years.

.

And while they may have ...moved on after the Exxon Valdez, they are still finding oil on the beaches and in various shell fish ad in the water column. And that is on fairly weathered beaches. Imagine the long term from the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/exxon-valdez-oil-is-still-polluting-the-prince-william-sound-25-years-later

[Rue]

Tim G the special risk category I use comes from Lloyds of London which dictates the risk of carrying oil is a higher risk category because if it does leak its catastrophic to the environment. The item transported does define the risk of transporting it. That's a basic actuarial principal.

As for the spill in Vancouver yes and imagine that. This was not even an oil carrier and look what damage it caused with its own bunker fuel. That is my point. It doesn't take much oil to cause serious harm.

Now I totally agree no one will ban oil transport ships. It won't happen for economic reasons yes. However let me make clear, I am not against ship traffic or use of ships.

I do think as does Lloyd's of London and most insurers, that experience of merchant marine accidents clearly shows the two highest risk at seas are oil carrying ships and ships with nuclear reactors. It is fact and yes I think BC citizens have the right to be concerned that increased oil cargo traffic increases the risk of oil spills. Its basic risk probability.

That said, I believe whales will become extinct because I don't think anyone gives a damn about them.

There are ways to make ships compatible with whales, but its not going to happen. Humans are too short sighted to want to do that and as long as their are flags of convenience, we will have unsafe ships at sea.

[TimG]

Tim G the special risk category I use comes from Lloyds of London which dictates the risk of carrying oil is a higher risk category because if it does leak its catastrophic to the environment. The item transported does define the risk of transporting it. That's a basic actuarial principal.

A risk that is mitigated by tighter regulations for oil tankers. Major oil spills from tankers are extremely rare events as a result. There has not been one oil tanker spill of the scale of Exxon Valdez since 1989. Meanwhile thousands of whales are killed by cruise ships and cargo ships. You are picking on oil shipping for self serving reasons: you think it does not hurt you so you figure it can be blocked while you are happy to let other types of shipping continue despite the fact that they are a much greater risk to whales because of the larger volume.

Insurance companies are about managing risks. If a risk cannot be managed they don't insure it. The fact that insurance companies still insure oil tankers is evidence of how effective the risk management procedures are.

Edited April 17, 2015 by TimG

[guyser]

Insurance companies are about managing risks.

No they arent.

They are about making money. They manage risks to make more money.

If a risk cannot be managed they don't insure it. The fact that insurance companies still insure oil tankers is evidence of how effective the risk management procedures are.

They can manage any risk, they buy second tier insurance , engage in treaties with other carriers to offload the risk.....all in the name of money.

Insurance companies get off risk when they have been in them too long. They know they made thier money so they get out and find another market to make it in.