Misty MacDuffee and Chris Genovali, writing in the Toronto Star, shred Oliver and Harper's empty promises.
The reality is that human nature and physical nature are the forces that produce tragedies at sea. Unforeseen events that inevitably occur in narrow channels, high-traffic corridors and bad weather increase the risk of oil tanker accidents on B.C.’s coast. Major oil spills show that despite assurances of low risk and advanced technology, poor decisions still lead to major incidents.
Groundings, collisions, equipment failures and explosions are all cited as causes for accidents, but these are consequences, not causes. Root causes of incidents are more insidious, with human error, cost-cutting and miscommunication foremost among them.
Lost in all the
minister’s warm and fuzzy rhetoric about increased tanker inspections,
tanker safety panels and new navigational aids is the fact that human
failures account for up to 80 per cent of the world’s oil spills.
Underscoring the fact there is no accounting for human error, B.C.’s
largest oil spill response vessel ran aground en route to Oliver’s news
conference last month.
Oliver’s announcement is viewed by many as nothing more than empty pandering to the legitimate concerns of British Columbians as the phrase “world-class oil spill response and prevention” is a meaningless platitude. There is no such thing as world-class oil spill response and prevention. The existing yardstick is wholly inadequate as estimates of open-water recovery by mechanical equipment recover only 10 to 15 per cent of the oil from a marine spill at best.
As we have learned from previous spills, no response is possible in rough weather, high seas and dangerous conditions. Importantly, these conditions often precede, or follow, oil spills. Pumping and skimming recovery options are impossible in over one knot of tide or in waves over two to three metres. In rough conditions or offshore spills, response is limited to the use of dispersants, as containment is not an option. Dispersants have proven to be largely unsuccessful on water-in-oil emulsions and on oil that has weathered, and will not likely be successful on bitumen. Furthermore, reliable knowledge regarding the extent of dispersant toxicity is lacking.
The Canadian coast guard has also identified uncertainty around the effectiveness of spill recovery with the products that Enbridge plans to transport. In its submission to the joint review panel assessing Northern Gateway, the coast guard stated it was “not aware of a scientific consensus regarding how these products will behave once introduced into the marine environment or the effects over time of the products being in the water. The Canadian coast guard therefore is uncertain whether or not traditional oil spill recovery methods would be effective.”
The coast guard’s fear that bitumen could submerge or sink has recently been reinforced by top Canadian and U.S. chemical scientists. But this would not be the only impact of a diluted bitumen spill. If a slick hits the water, it would immediately release dangerous components that are acutely toxic to fish and animals. Currently, no technology can recover those volatile diluents. The bottom line on the B.C. coast, as has been shown elsewhere, is that having the ability to respond does not necessarily translate into effective cleanup of an oil spill.
What is especially telling is that Oliver's photo-op/press conference on Vancouver's waterfront should have been the perfect opportunity for him to address each of these concerns. They're not new and they go straight to the heart of the Harper/Enbridge/Redford initiative. Yet he ducked each and every one of them and instead prattled on with nonsense aimed to target drylanders to make them believe the government has the real concerns, the one he won't address, under control.
Oliver’s announcement is viewed by many as nothing more than empty pandering to the legitimate concerns of British Columbians as the phrase “world-class oil spill response and prevention” is a meaningless platitude. There is no such thing as world-class oil spill response and prevention. The existing yardstick is wholly inadequate as estimates of open-water recovery by mechanical equipment recover only 10 to 15 per cent of the oil from a marine spill at best.
As we have learned from previous spills, no response is possible in rough weather, high seas and dangerous conditions. Importantly, these conditions often precede, or follow, oil spills. Pumping and skimming recovery options are impossible in over one knot of tide or in waves over two to three metres. In rough conditions or offshore spills, response is limited to the use of dispersants, as containment is not an option. Dispersants have proven to be largely unsuccessful on water-in-oil emulsions and on oil that has weathered, and will not likely be successful on bitumen. Furthermore, reliable knowledge regarding the extent of dispersant toxicity is lacking.
The Canadian coast guard has also identified uncertainty around the effectiveness of spill recovery with the products that Enbridge plans to transport. In its submission to the joint review panel assessing Northern Gateway, the coast guard stated it was “not aware of a scientific consensus regarding how these products will behave once introduced into the marine environment or the effects over time of the products being in the water. The Canadian coast guard therefore is uncertain whether or not traditional oil spill recovery methods would be effective.”
The coast guard’s fear that bitumen could submerge or sink has recently been reinforced by top Canadian and U.S. chemical scientists. But this would not be the only impact of a diluted bitumen spill. If a slick hits the water, it would immediately release dangerous components that are acutely toxic to fish and animals. Currently, no technology can recover those volatile diluents. The bottom line on the B.C. coast, as has been shown elsewhere, is that having the ability to respond does not necessarily translate into effective cleanup of an oil spill.
What is especially telling is that Oliver's photo-op/press conference on Vancouver's waterfront should have been the perfect opportunity for him to address each of these concerns. They're not new and they go straight to the heart of the Harper/Enbridge/Redford initiative. Yet he ducked each and every one of them and instead prattled on with nonsense aimed to target drylanders to make them believe the government has the real concerns, the one he won't address, under control.
12 comments:
I know a thermal engineer who has devoted the last few years to Northern Gateway opposition. He has been to most of the JRP hearings and has given both personal and professional evidence. He told me that at a recent hearing date Enbridge tried to get a bunch of that propoganda Oliver is spouting into the record. It was disallowed so an Enbridge executive got up and read it so as to have it in the evidence. During some kind of examination, someone then asked the Enbridge executive if there was any legislation covering pipeline spill response or tanker spill response. The executive admitted there was not. Then he was asked whether there had been any budgetary provisions for such responses in the last 3 budgets. Again the answer was no. So now THAT evidence is part of the official record.
Sadly, Karen, you and I both know the JRP hearings are a sham intended to dupe the gullible over a decision that's already been taken by the PMO.
Getting the information on the record, though, could be helpful for subsequent court proceedings both in the context of judicial review and for the proceedings that will follow civil disobedience efforts to block the pipeline.
Oh, I know what the PMO thinks it is going to do. There are a lot of us to get through first though.
I do think the the benefit is having the information in the record for the court cases that will follow this circus.
I don't think I am alone in feeling like there is really nothing to lose in giving my all to stop this.
It will be pretty interesting to watch when Harper calls out the armed forces to guard the construction.
I wonder how he'll phrase their marching orders.
I wonder how members of the forces will react if told they have the go ahead to shoot fellow citizens.
Every other petro-state allows it, why not Canada?
I doubt Harper would go to that extreme Dana, but I understand your concern.
I asked Mound his opinion on Black's plan for a refinery in Kitimat a while back and took in his response, but I still have some questions to ask.
Say Black's refinery was built in Alberta, maybe a partnership with Suncor who just cancelled a similar project? Is there anywhere that you folks think would be a better place to build a pipeline through BC to ship tanker loads of refined product from?
Also, are you opposed to Kinder Morgan's plan to twin their pipeline and if so, why?
Anon, a better place to build a pipeline/supertanker terminal would be anyplace where government and industry could actually clean up a spill. Find that place, put your pipeline/terminal there.
For starters, that means not trying to run supertankers through fjords with treacherous winds, currents and tides. There are plenty of places just none on the B.C. coast.
Perhaps you've taken a B.C. ferry from Vancouver to Victoria. Most of those who tut-tut the safety hazards have about that much experience with our coast. Our coast, particularly in the north, is nothing like that. Up there the winds can actually part the seas and expose the sea bed. Waves have been recorded at 30 metres. Winds, well over 120 mph and coming from two directions simultaneously.
Only greed would so cloud a person's mind as to make them think that is suitable for supertanker traffic. Navy commanders who've sailed those treacherous waters in high-power, agile destroyers will tell you that. They have. The Canadian Coast Guard will tell you the same. They have.
80% of tanker accidents are human error and this is a region that is intolerant of any human error or mechanical failure.
Enbridge and the governments of Canada and Alberta are deliberately lying - spinning and deceiving and outright lying - and to those who realize it, what comes out of their mouths are fighting words.
Anon, there are plenty of lifelong, law-abiding greyhairs just like me for whom this is crossing a line in the sand.
And, if you think that the Harper Conservatives and the Redford Conservatives and Enbridge and the Politburo in Beijing are being honest and honourable, ask yourself why they have structured so many liability "cut outs" into this scheme?
Fortunately, you have a provincial election in BC soon. An amazing opportunity for common sense, good science, real people & exemplars to take over.
Unfortunately, in Canada federally, we have to wait till 2015 and cross our fingers that Harper's toxic government & party apparatus are blown out & away.
The stakes are so high monetarily, for energy players, commodities dealers, markets and captured politicians at all levels of government.
All of these groups are currently elevating and entrenching themselves as too big to jail. We also see in Canada that the politicians and apparatchiks are not only too big to jail, but can simply lie and obstruct with impunity. Hey, they can claim parliamentary immunity and take government 'in camera' for absolutely legal secrecy.
Not only can these politicians service lobbyists, factions, patrons, corporations, and foreign owners with new legislation, they can eliminate regulatory oversight. And they can now dabble and experiment with electoral grooming, dirty tricks, proroguing, media management, election manipulation, control and outright criminal fraud.
'If you build it, they will come' .. the dilbit and fractured gas and oil pipelines.
Yes, the Chinese dilbit tankers will come, and the liquefied gas tankers too, if we let them.. into Kitimaat.. and Prince Rupert. They are already coming to Vancouver for dilbit and for the coal, and the raw logs, the grains and the potash.
Kitimaat is the last redoubt.. If the pipelines reach there, the tankers will go there. Diluent coming in, dilbit and LNG going out and possibly more logs as well. A VLCC tanker highway to hell.
To help accomplish this nightmare, Stephen Harper has led a malicious, even desperate assault on the environment, related protective legislation, science, truth and Canadian values, vision and ethics.
If you expect him to stop.. you're mistaken
Forum Research (Federal - April 2, 2013 - +/- 3%)
Liberal Party: 33% (+3%) - 128 seats
Conservative: 29% (-2%) - 115 seats
New Democratic: 25% (-2%) - 76 seats
Bloc Québécois (QC) 21% (-1%) - 17 seats
Green Party: 6% (+1%) - 1 seat
Regionals are interesting, esp this one compared to the last election;
Atlantic Canada, 44% Libs, 32% NDP and 18% Conservative. East of Ontario, the Harper party is worse than dead in the water.
Trudeau as LPC Leader)
Liberal Party: 40% (+1%) - 161 seats
Conservative: 28% (-4%) - 105 seats
New Democratic: 21% (+1%) - 45 seats
Bloc Québécois (QC ): 24% (+4%) - 25 seats
Green Party: 4% (+1%) - 1 seat
===========
I took in your response once again, and that of Sal as well. Most of which I'm aware of, even the challenges of shipping from Kitimat as a result of reading your accounts and those of others, but that still doesn't really answer all my questions.
Should mention I'm familiar with Oil company practices and scurrilous behaviour, don't take anything Harper or his cronies say at face value, believe in sustainable development and I support a balanced economy.
Which brings me back to the issue of a suitable location along the BC coastline to ship refined fuels or syncrude. The issue of Kinder Morgan's expansion for example, is one that points to existing regular and long term shipments of crude, which lately has included dilbit, without a tanker incident. So to play devils advocate here, what do you see wrong with expanding that option? Also, is there no where else on the BC coast that could accommodate safe shipping?
I come from a coastal Province and lived there for most of my life so I understand how things can change from area to area, and sometimes only a few dozen kilometres can make a significant difference.
Of course there is a great deal to consider in this equation; from slight to extreme environmental risks, to upward pressure on our currency, to where to use this resource for maximum benefit for Canadians, and how much should be extracted per year?
In my view, these and other significant aspects of the overall issues are what need to be discussed with an open mind, and with as much pertinent information as possible.
Oops, sorry for the poll results at the top. I mistakenly grabbed that while doing a copy and paste.
It does however, add another dimension to the discussion as it appears to me that the Liberal Party under Trudeau would go ahead with bitumen extraction in a similar manner to the Harperites. Perhaps with greater emphasis on relevant environmental issues though.
Anon, there are coastal provinces and coastal provinces and the west is an entirely different creature than the east.
The earth's rotation creates a prevailing westerly wind. The east coast is in the leeward side of that prevailing wind, we're on the windward side.
That prevailing westerly wind doesn't sweep over a gentle, slowly rising coast. It runs smack into rather tall mountains at the water's edge. That creates havoc as mountainous islands, mountainous mainland, fjord features and such form massive, natural Venturi tubes that magnify wind forces and send those in some pretty curious directions. This plays an enormous role in why we get so little warning of these abrupt, mega-storms.
Did I mention mountains abutting the sea? Those mountains don't just stop at the sea. They plunge down to really neat depths and pop just as steeply back up in places (that's how we get these islands) and just above the surface in other places and just below the surface in others yet. This time you get an aquatic Venturi effect. That does a couple of things. It creates really nasty and variable currents, compounded by the strong tides. It also creates all manner of hazards to navigation to transform human error or mechanical malfunction into catastrophe.
Now I would suggest a rule of thumb - don't put a pipeline/tanker installation anywhere you have a rainforest. The mighty rainforest is nature's way of saying that shit does not belong here, this is a wild place that's really not suitable for safe navigation. Figure out what forces contributed to the creation of that rainforest and you'll understand.
As for Kinder Morgan, two words - Second Narrows. You can search that on this blog and find out all about those narrows and the threat that a tanker accident in the harbour poses to Vancouver, the North Shore muni's and the Lower Mainland.
Anon, you've asked whether there's a suitable location for this tanker port in B.C. Yet what I keep hearing is you asking what place is safest as in "least dangerous." The question that needs to be asked is what place is safe for supertanker traffic on the order proposed by the Kinder Morgan and Enbridge initiatives. The answer is there is no safe place on the B.C. coast. That's just not the way Mother Nature rolls.
Spectrum Environmental Services, Inc.
is a multifaceted family of companies offering environmental consulting,
industrial services and environmental products. With headquarters in Alabaster, Alabama, near Birmingham,
the Spectrum group of companies brings a high level of commitment toward quality
and professionalism to every aspect of your project. Hydroblasting services, vacuum truck services, industrial spill products,
and more - as the name “Spectrum” suggests, we offer a complete and comprehensive array of products and services including industrial, waste management, consulting, and remediation services. With Spectrum, your company can access one full-service, integrated source that is designed to help manage your company’s relationship with the environment.
Spill products
Spectrum Environmental Services, Inc. is a multifaceted family
of companies offering environmental consulting, industrial services and
environmental products. With headquarters in Alabaster, Alabama, near Birmingham, the Spectrum group of companies brings a high level of commitment toward quality and professionalism to every aspect of your project. Hydroblasting services, vacuum truck services, industrial spill products, and more - as the name “Spectrum” suggests, we offer a complete and comprehensive array of products and services including industrial, waste management, consulting, and remediation services. With Spectrum, your company can access one full-service, integrated source that is designed to help manage your company’s
relationship with the environment. Spill products
Post a Comment