Update: The substance spilled in Burrard Inlet is bunker fuel. Boater & watercraft alert: fuel is toxic, do not touch.
Cool and to think we got covered in that stuff numerous times when fueling back in the late 60's and early 70's but, back then it was the heavy C type that looked like molasses and had to be heated before using unlike todays light crude which is for some reason erroneously still called bunker fuel.
One time the only way they could get the stuff off us was to wash us in varsol. To bad hindsight is 20/20 because what we did and used back then would never be allowed today.
But, I guess this will be used as another excuse not to allow the twining of the Kinder Morgan pipeline despite the fact that it has nothing to do with that and the accidental discharge of oil and other deleterious substances from ships has been going on since the first guy took a crap over the stern of his log.
What it does show is the poor response to the spill. Because the Kits Coast Guard base was closed, the response came from the Richmond hovercraft base. Except they can't use the hovercraft, because it would blow the oil all over the place and damage the hovercraft's skirts. So they had to use the "rubber boat". The Kits station would have been there in minutes from the spill being reported at 5 pm, but it took the Richmond "rubber boat" until 11 pm to arrive. Not sure if this boat carries booms and absorbent pads, as the Kits base would have had on hand.
Meanwhile, the oil response team has been moved to Montreal. (wtf).
Only 15% of a spill can be cleaned up, under ideal circumstances. Alaska is still dealing with the Valdez spill decades later.
This is what happens when a govt cuts taxes and tries to balance the budget - something has to give.
While this was a minor spill, it shows how poorly prepared we are do deal with them. I'm all for pipelines (preferably the projects that would refine the dilbit in Canada), but only if there really is a "world class response capability", as Crispie Clark claimed - I think she may have been fibbing a bit.
"Freakinoldguy" said [ Cool and to think we got covered in that stuff numerous times when fueling back in the late 60's and early 70's but, back then it was the heavy C type that looked like molasses and had to be heated before using unlike todays light crude which is for some reason erroneously still called bunker fuel.
It's still bunker C. It's mixed with diesel and general refered to as marine fuel or heavy fuel oil.
"andyt" said What it does show is the poor response to the spill. Because the Kits Coast Guard base was closed, the response came from the Richmond hovercraft base. Except they can't use the hovercraft, because it would blow the oil all over the place and damage the hovercraft's skirts. So they had to use the "rubber boat". The Kits station would have been there in minutes from the spill being reported at 5 pm, but it took the Richmond "rubber boat" until 11 pm to arrive. Not sure if this boat carries booms and absorbent pads, as the Kits base would have had on hand.
Meanwhile, the oil response team has been moved to Montreal. (wtf).
Only 15% of a spill can be cleaned up, under ideal circumstances. Alaska is still dealing with the Valdez spill decades later.
This is what happens when a govt cuts taxes and tries to balance the budget - something has to give.
While this was a minor spill, it shows how poorly prepared we are do deal with them. I'm all for pipelines (preferably the projects that would refine the dilbit in Canada), but only if there really is a "world class response capability", as Crispie Clark claimed - I think she may have been fibbing a bit.
Strangely enough I agree with you. The Coast Guard issue notwithstanding it's the Fed's responsibility to ensure there's a proper response to spills in every Canadian harbour and not just the ones with the Navy as residents.
If this response takes the shape of a resident contractor so be it and cost shouldn't be an issue but, you'd think that the Gov't would wake up to the fact that things like this give more ammunition to the people opposed to the use and benefits of fossil fuels and take the initiative to defuse situations like this before they happen.
Just be thankful it wasn't bunker C because that crap is just one step above bitumen and would have been even more difficult to clean up. Also it'll be interesting to see if the Fed's go after the "Cyprus" registered Marathassa and it's owners for the cost of clean up and fines for polluting.
"andyt" said Meanwhile, the oil response team has been moved to Montreal. (wtf).
I used to be a part of that team. Tough day at work. I was like a cat at the window when a bird is in the yard, staring out the window at the oil spill. Job's fucking mindless now. All day in front of a computer. I'm depressed.
"Zipperfish" said [ Cool and to think we got covered in that stuff numerous times when fueling back in the late 60's and early 70's but, back then it was the heavy C type that looked like molasses and had to be heated before using unlike todays light crude which is for some reason erroneously still called bunker fuel.
It's still bunker C. It's mixed with diesel and general refered to as marine fuel or heavy fuel oil.
Your right but the fact remains that every ship I've been on since the early 70's calls the fuel they use Distillate which makes things even more confusing.
The fuel you're talking about is flammable at a much lower ignition point, has a much higher viscosity and doesn't have to be heated prior to use. So while the term Bunker Fuel is still used by "experts" to cover every type of fuel used on ships the sailors stopped calling it that back when they got rid of the preheaters.
"andyt" said So are these engines modified to use this fuel instead of diesel? Do they drive the prop or generate electricity like on a train?
They use marine diesel (bunker C mixed with diesel) because it's cheap. Way cheaper than diesel. A lot of ports--I think Vancouver is one of them--require the ship to switch toi diesel as they pull within a certain distance of the port (marine traffic is a significant contributor to air pollution in Metro Vancouver). They fought that tooth adn nail, because that did require some engine modifications. the diesel drives the props
A few ports (I think Vancouver _might_ be one, though, like I said, I'm out of that now) require hook-up to shore power (electricity).
Tonight's news has more on the story. First off they don't know if the oil is coming from the Marathassa or another vessel. The response team was in the water alot sooner than thought because they're a contracted company so the moving of the spill team to Montreal doesn't mean no proper equipment or response.
The Coast Guard knew about this spill last evening at 1700 but failed to inform the city of Vancouver for over 13 hours which is probably the biggest disconnect and finally they don't know if the fuel is Bunker Fuel or crude oil.
So, if the last point is indeed fact I seriously doubt that a newish grain carrier would be using fuel that required preheaters or storing crude which means this crap might have come from a completely different vessel and they'll never figure out which one it was leaving Canadian Taxpayers for the cleanup costs.
Given the lack of identification of the fuel type and the large globs of crude like substances on the beaches I wonder if any of these experts has thought about a sunken vessel from decades ago being the source? It wouldn't surprise me if the Marathassa was anchored near some sunken flotsam or jetsam that contained crude and the first reaction was to go after them for the spill.
"Zipperfish" said So are these engines modified to use this fuel instead of diesel? Do they drive the prop or generate electricity like on a train?
They use marine diesel (bunker C mixed with diesel) because it's cheap. Way cheaper than diesel. A lot of ports--I think Vancouver is one of them--require the ship to switch toi diesel as they pull within a certain distance of the port (marine traffic is a significant contributor to air pollution in Metro Vancouver). They fought that tooth adn nail, because that did require some engine modifications. the diesel drives the props
A few ports (I think Vancouver _might_ be one, though, like I said, I'm out of that now) require hook-up to shore power (electricity). Yep, Bunker C is still prohibited for use on land and many ports are requiring ships to switch to diesel as they approach. It's been estimated that as many as 2 million deaths each year can be attributed to ship "exhaust". About 100,000 of those deaths occur in Britain. But the simple fact is, many ships are still running the classic bunker fuel and when you consider that your average super tanker gets about 30m to the bbl, well that's a LOT of shit going into the air during a trans-oceanic voyage.
Fortunately, several shipping companies have been doing what they can to improve mileage as well as decrease stack pollution, but when you're literally paying pennies on the bbl for bunker fuel, those improvements come very slowly.
Toxic fuel spill in English Bay is wake-up call for port, says marine expert
Joe Spears calls it a wake-up call.
An international shipping expert, Spears says Canada is supposed to be a world leader at dealing with maritime emergencies.
But he says the response to an oil spill into Vancouver's English Bay on Thursday was anything but world class.
"We've got to do better," he said.
"We're Canada's largest port. We've lost our way."
Expansion fears
Spears joined a chorus of critics who said the spill reinforces fears about proposed pipeline expansion, which could bring increased oil tanker traffic into the B.C.'s coastal waters.
The City of Vancouver has repeatedly questioned the potential impact of a proposal by Kinder Morgan to twin the TransMountain pipeline that carries oil to Burrard Inlet.
And the province has set a "world-leading marine oil spill response" as one of five requirements for the approval of any heavy pipeline proposal.
But even as critics pointed to perceived problems, Coast guard assistant commissioner Roger Girouard claimed the response was textbook.
Opponents of the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion fear the plan will increase the chance of oil spills in Burrard Inlet. (Greg Rasmussen/CBC)
"From where I sit, from an operational perspective, this has gone in accordance with the doctrine," Girouard said.
"Port Metro is the largest port in Canada. They have a very solid team. They saw a problem, they called in the partners and we've put together a unified command centre to be able to take a look at this and do it the right way."
'More than words'
But Spears says responders should have tracked the movement of the spill with buoys and drones within minutes of becoming aware of oil on the water.
He also questions a perceived lack of communications that saw City of Vancouver officials alerted to the spill 13 hours after Port Metro Vancouver first learned about it at 5 p.m. PT Wednesday.
"To make a world-class response means more than words," said Spears.
"We've got to bring all the players together. This is a glimpse of the future. If we can't handle a small bunkering spill, how are we going to deal with a major tanker?"
Vancouver City Coun. Geoff Meggs raised similar concerns about the failure to notify the city immediately.
B.C. NDP MLA Spencer Chandra Herbert, Official Opposition environment critic, says citizens were unaware of the dangers posed by the oil spill in English Bay. (CBC)
"What may seem like a small spill to an offshore mariner is very, very significant to the people of Vancouver. These are some of our most precious public assets," he said.
"So it's in that context that we probably need to have a further conversation, so that they understand what's important to us."
'It could have been better'
The NDP's Spencer Chandra Herbert, the Official Opposition's environment critic, said citizens should be part of that discussion.
The MLA for the Vancouver-West End/Coal Harbour represents a riding that sits directly in the path of the spill.
"People were out there last night, playing with their dogs, having fun in the water. Meanwhile, we were having bunker fuel oil � they still can't tell us what it is � in our water, potentially causing harm," he said.
"I think it's a huge wake-up call."
Girouard acknowledged the public's concerns.
"In an absolute sense, it could have been better," he said.
"One of the challenges with this many jurisdictions and partners is, 'Who's got what piece?', and it took us a little while to get through that."
"One of the challenges with this many jurisdictions and partners is, 'Who's got what piece?', and it took us a little while to get through that."
Wow, they couldn't have figured that out beforehand?
It took them 6 hours to respond to the spill, and than in a "rubber boat' because the response boat that the Kits coast guard station would have used is sitting idle in Richmond, with the crew relocated to Prince Rupert. The former superintendent of the Kits station said his people could have been at the scene in minutes following the report, and had tracking buoys, containment booms and absorbent pads with them, as well as being able to take samples for analysis. This was at 5pm, when it was still daylight out, much easier to operate.
This is a pr disaster for the Kinder Morgan twinning. I was for it, because I believed the govt that there would be high level spill prevention and containment procedures in place. The sort of bullshit we saw here can easily drive me to the other side. Who's going to trust a government that keeps cutting taxes and still wants to balance the budget. This sort of nonsense is what happens. I hope this is a wake up call.
Wow, they couldn't have figured that out beforehand?
Well, you can cut emergency preparedness and response and nobody cares. Until there's an emergency.
This is a pr disaster for the Kinder Morgan twinning. I was for it, because I believed the govt that there would be high level spill prevention and containment procedures in place. The sort of bullshit we saw here can easily drive me to the other side. Who's going to trust a government that keeps cutting taxes and still wants to balance the budget. This sort of nonsense is what happens. I hope this is a wake up call.
yeah Kinder Morgan's case was a tough sell already. This won't make it any easier. Oiled birds will start turning up pretty soon. They usually start to come in a couple of days after. Hopefully not many--not sure of the bird population in the harbour right now.
Canadian Coast Guard officials said Thursday the estimated size of an oil spill in English Bay had nearly doubled from 1,400 litres to 2,700 litres, or more than two metric tonnes.
Assistant Commissioner Roger Girouard also revealed at a news conference Thursday night that a sizeable slick 15 to 20 centimetres deep and covering about 80 metres had reached the North Shore.
Girourad. said that despite the size of the unexpected slick off West Vancouver's Sandy Cove and the larger-than-estimated size of the spill, officials still believe it is about 80 per cent contained.
Despite claiming the spill was under control, Girouard admitted the fact the slick has reached West Vancouver took them by surprise.
He said it's still not clear whether the bulk carrier, the Marathassa, which is currently encased in booms, is the actual source of the spill.
"There was an indication late this afternoon that more fresh oily material had shown up inside the boom and so we have a slight disconnect between what appears to be the fitness of the hull and this new material," he said.
Cool and to think we got covered in that stuff numerous times when fueling back in the late 60's and early 70's but, back then it was the heavy C type that looked like molasses and had to be heated before using unlike todays light crude which is for some reason erroneously still called bunker fuel.
One time the only way they could get the stuff off us was to wash us in varsol. To bad hindsight is 20/20 because what we did and used back then would never be allowed today.
But, I guess this will be used as another excuse not to allow the twining of the Kinder Morgan pipeline despite the fact that it has nothing to do with that and the accidental discharge of oil and other deleterious substances from ships has been going on since the first guy took a crap over the stern of his log.
Meanwhile, the oil response team has been moved to Montreal. (wtf).
Only 15% of a spill can be cleaned up, under ideal circumstances. Alaska is still dealing with the Valdez spill decades later.
This is what happens when a govt cuts taxes and tries to balance the budget - something has to give.
While this was a minor spill, it shows how poorly prepared we are do deal with them. I'm all for pipelines (preferably the projects that would refine the dilbit in Canada), but only if there really is a "world class response capability", as Crispie Clark claimed - I think she may have been fibbing a bit.
[
Cool and to think we got covered in that stuff numerous times when fueling back in the late 60's and early 70's but, back then it was the heavy C type that looked like molasses and had to be heated before using unlike todays light crude which is for some reason erroneously still called bunker fuel.
It's still bunker C. It's mixed with diesel and general refered to as marine fuel or heavy fuel oil.
What it does show is the poor response to the spill. Because the Kits Coast Guard base was closed, the response came from the Richmond hovercraft base. Except they can't use the hovercraft, because it would blow the oil all over the place and damage the hovercraft's skirts. So they had to use the "rubber boat". The Kits station would have been there in minutes from the spill being reported at 5 pm, but it took the Richmond "rubber boat" until 11 pm to arrive. Not sure if this boat carries booms and absorbent pads, as the Kits base would have had on hand.
Meanwhile, the oil response team has been moved to Montreal. (wtf).
Only 15% of a spill can be cleaned up, under ideal circumstances. Alaska is still dealing with the Valdez spill decades later.
This is what happens when a govt cuts taxes and tries to balance the budget - something has to give.
While this was a minor spill, it shows how poorly prepared we are do deal with them. I'm all for pipelines (preferably the projects that would refine the dilbit in Canada), but only if there really is a "world class response capability", as Crispie Clark claimed - I think she may have been fibbing a bit.
Strangely enough I agree with you. The Coast Guard issue notwithstanding it's the Fed's responsibility to ensure there's a proper response to spills in every Canadian harbour and not just the ones with the Navy as residents.
If this response takes the shape of a resident contractor so be it and cost shouldn't be an issue but, you'd think that the Gov't would wake up to the fact that things like this give more ammunition to the people opposed to the use and benefits of fossil fuels and take the initiative to defuse situations like this before they happen.
Just be thankful it wasn't bunker C because that crap is just one step above bitumen and would have been even more difficult to clean up. Also it'll be interesting to see if the Fed's go after the "Cyprus" registered Marathassa and it's owners for the cost of clean up and fines for polluting.
Meanwhile, the oil response team has been moved to Montreal. (wtf).
I used to be a part of that team. Tough day at work. I was like a cat at the window when a bird is in the yard, staring out the window at the oil spill. Job's fucking mindless now. All day in front of a computer. I'm depressed.
[
Cool and to think we got covered in that stuff numerous times when fueling back in the late 60's and early 70's but, back then it was the heavy C type that looked like molasses and had to be heated before using unlike todays light crude which is for some reason erroneously still called bunker fuel.
It's still bunker C. It's mixed with diesel and general refered to as marine fuel or heavy fuel oil.
Your right but the fact remains that every ship I've been on since the early 70's calls the fuel they use Distillate which makes things even more confusing.
The fuel you're talking about is flammable at a much lower ignition point, has a much higher viscosity and doesn't have to be heated prior to use. So while the term Bunker Fuel is still used by "experts" to cover every type of fuel used on ships the sailors stopped calling it that back when they got rid of the preheaters.
So are these engines modified to use this fuel instead of diesel? Do they drive the prop or generate electricity like on a train?
They use marine diesel (bunker C mixed with diesel) because it's cheap. Way cheaper than diesel. A lot of ports--I think Vancouver is one of them--require the ship to switch toi diesel as they pull within a certain distance of the port (marine traffic is a significant contributor to air pollution in Metro Vancouver). They fought that tooth adn nail, because that did require some engine modifications. the diesel drives the props
A few ports (I think Vancouver _might_ be one, though, like I said, I'm out of that now) require hook-up to shore power (electricity).
The Coast Guard knew about this spill last evening at 1700 but failed to inform the city of Vancouver for over 13 hours which is probably the biggest disconnect and finally they don't know if the fuel is Bunker Fuel or crude oil.
So, if the last point is indeed fact I seriously doubt that a newish grain carrier would be using fuel that required preheaters or storing crude which means this crap might have come from a completely different vessel and they'll never figure out which one it was leaving Canadian Taxpayers for the cleanup costs.
Given the lack of identification of the fuel type and the large globs of crude like substances on the beaches I wonder if any of these experts has thought about a sunken vessel from decades ago being the source? It wouldn't surprise me if the Marathassa was anchored near some sunken flotsam or jetsam that contained crude and the first reaction was to go after them for the spill.
So are these engines modified to use this fuel instead of diesel? Do they drive the prop or generate electricity like on a train?
They use marine diesel (bunker C mixed with diesel) because it's cheap. Way cheaper than diesel. A lot of ports--I think Vancouver is one of them--require the ship to switch toi diesel as they pull within a certain distance of the port (marine traffic is a significant contributor to air pollution in Metro Vancouver). They fought that tooth adn nail, because that did require some engine modifications. the diesel drives the props
A few ports (I think Vancouver _might_ be one, though, like I said, I'm out of that now) require hook-up to shore power (electricity).
Yep, Bunker C is still prohibited for use on land and many ports are requiring ships to switch to diesel as they approach. It's been estimated that as many as 2 million deaths each year can be attributed to ship "exhaust". About 100,000 of those deaths occur in Britain.
But the simple fact is, many ships are still running the classic bunker fuel and when you consider that your average super tanker gets about 30m to the bbl, well that's a LOT of shit going into the air during a trans-oceanic voyage.
Fortunately, several shipping companies have been doing what they can to improve mileage as well as decrease stack pollution, but when you're literally paying pennies on the bbl for bunker fuel, those improvements come very slowly.
An international shipping expert, Spears says Canada is supposed to be a world leader at dealing with maritime emergencies.
But he says the response to an oil spill into Vancouver's English Bay on Thursday was anything but world class.
"We've got to do better," he said.
"We're Canada's largest port. We've lost our way."
Expansion fears
Spears joined a chorus of critics who said the spill reinforces fears about proposed pipeline expansion, which could bring increased oil tanker traffic into the B.C.'s coastal waters.
The City of Vancouver has repeatedly questioned the potential impact of a proposal by Kinder Morgan to twin the TransMountain pipeline that carries oil to Burrard Inlet.
And the province has set a "world-leading marine oil spill response" as one of five requirements for the approval of any heavy pipeline proposal.
But even as critics pointed to perceived problems, Coast guard assistant commissioner Roger Girouard claimed the response was textbook.
Opponents of the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion fear the plan will increase the chance of oil spills in Burrard Inlet. (Greg Rasmussen/CBC)
"From where I sit, from an operational perspective, this has gone in accordance with the doctrine," Girouard said.
"Port Metro is the largest port in Canada. They have a very solid team. They saw a problem, they called in the partners and we've put together a unified command centre to be able to take a look at this and do it the right way."
'More than words'
But Spears says responders should have tracked the movement of the spill with buoys and drones within minutes of becoming aware of oil on the water.
He also questions a perceived lack of communications that saw City of Vancouver officials alerted to the spill 13 hours after Port Metro Vancouver first learned about it at 5 p.m. PT Wednesday.
"To make a world-class response means more than words," said Spears.
"We've got to bring all the players together. This is a glimpse of the future. If we can't handle a small bunkering spill, how are we going to deal with a major tanker?"
Vancouver City Coun. Geoff Meggs raised similar concerns about the failure to notify the city immediately.
B.C. NDP MLA Spencer Chandra Herbert, Official Opposition environment critic, says citizens were unaware of the dangers posed by the oil spill in English Bay. (CBC)
"What may seem like a small spill to an offshore mariner is very, very significant to the people of Vancouver. These are some of our most precious public assets," he said.
"So it's in that context that we probably need to have a further conversation, so that they understand what's important to us."
'It could have been better'
The NDP's Spencer Chandra Herbert, the Official Opposition's environment critic, said citizens should be part of that discussion.
The MLA for the Vancouver-West End/Coal Harbour represents a riding that sits directly in the path of the spill.
"People were out there last night, playing with their dogs, having fun in the water. Meanwhile, we were having bunker fuel oil � they still can't tell us what it is � in our water, potentially causing harm," he said.
"I think it's a huge wake-up call."
Girouard acknowledged the public's concerns.
"In an absolute sense, it could have been better," he said.
"One of the challenges with this many jurisdictions and partners is, 'Who's got what piece?', and it took us a little while to get through that."
"One of the challenges with this many jurisdictions and partners is, 'Who's got what piece?', and it took us a little while to get through that."
Wow, they couldn't have figured that out beforehand?
It took them 6 hours to respond to the spill, and than in a "rubber boat' because the response boat that the Kits coast guard station would have used is sitting idle in Richmond, with the crew relocated to Prince Rupert. The former superintendent of the Kits station said his people could have been at the scene in minutes following the report, and had tracking buoys, containment booms and absorbent pads with them, as well as being able to take samples for analysis. This was at 5pm, when it was still daylight out, much easier to operate.
This is a pr disaster for the Kinder Morgan twinning. I was for it, because I believed the govt that there would be high level spill prevention and containment procedures in place. The sort of bullshit we saw here can easily drive me to the other side. Who's going to trust a government that keeps cutting taxes and still wants to balance the budget. This sort of nonsense is what happens. I hope this is a wake up call.
Wow, they couldn't have figured that out beforehand?
Well, you can cut emergency preparedness and response and nobody cares. Until there's an emergency.
yeah Kinder Morgan's case was a tough sell already. This won't make it any easier. Oiled birds will start turning up pretty soon. They usually start to come in a couple of days after. Hopefully not many--not sure of the bird population in the harbour right now.
Assistant Commissioner Roger Girouard also revealed at a news conference Thursday night that a sizeable slick 15 to 20 centimetres deep and covering about 80 metres had reached the North Shore.
Girourad. said that despite the size of the unexpected slick off West Vancouver's Sandy Cove and the larger-than-estimated size of the spill, officials still believe it is about 80 per cent contained.
Despite claiming the spill was under control, Girouard admitted the fact the slick has reached West Vancouver took them by surprise.
He said it's still not clear whether the bulk carrier, the Marathassa, which is currently encased in booms, is the actual source of the spill.
"There was an indication late this afternoon that more fresh oily material had shown up inside the boom and so we have a slight disconnect between what appears to be the fitness of the hull and this new material," he said.