[Gunnair]

Xort Xort:

If the shipping is the worry, how many problems have the ore ships going into Kitimat's smelter had?

Kitimat is currently rated for 320,000 dwt.

$1:

The largest ship ever built was an oil tanker; the Knock Nevis built in 1979 (christened as the Seawise Giant) with 565,000 of dwt, a length 458 meters, a beam of 69 meters and a draught of 25 meters. The ship was so large that no port could accommodate it fully laden, so it was loaded and unloaded while anchored offshore. In 2004 the Knock Nevis was converted to a floating storage and mooring unit of the coast of Qatar until 2009 when it was scrapped. As of 2010, only 12 tankers above 320,000 dwt remain. Of this, only two "true" ULCC of around 430,000 dwt are left in operation, the TI Europe and the TI Oceana, which were part of a group of four ships constructed between 2002 and 2003. The other two ships, TI Africa and TI Asia were converted into floating storage and mooring units in 2010. Oil tankers have a commercial life expectancy of about 30 years.

Because of their huge mass, tankers have a large inertia, making them very difficult to steer. A loaded supertanker could take as much as 4 to 8 kilometers and 15 minutes to come to a full stop and has a turning diameter of about 2 kilometers.

DOUGLAS CHANNEL: 90nm Inland Passage 1.5-3nm in width

1.5 - 3nm: fully loaded supertanker stops in 2.15 - 4.3 nm. Not much wiggle room.

However, one can try an emergency anchorage with the 250m of cable they carry.

CHANNEL DEPTH: 100-300 Fathoms (190-570 m or 600-1800 ft) 1 fathom = 6 feet

Oops, not really enough to stop, let along hold depending on the depth.

So, yes it's possible those bulk frieghters con pile onto Coste Rocks and make a mess - that would be a disaster. A supertanker, however,

yeah, disaster don't cover it.

[Gunnair]

peck420 peck420:

Now, call this what it is, a shameless money grab...a shameless money grab that should be directed to Enbridge, not Alberta.

Had you settled on this instead of your other crap, you'd likely not raised the hackles like the rest of your petulant post did.

This is of course a shameless money grab that I highly doubt would be supported by anyone opposed to tanker traffic. I would think any smart fella would see that this is the desperate act of a premier on her last legs trying to find something she can connect with re the voters. She's has shit the bed since moment one on this and many issues, and watching her deal with Redford is like listening to a boxer trying to play the piano in his gloves.

So have your tantrum, but direct it where it should be directed - at the politicians trying to wring you for cash, not the populace that is saying no thanks to your pipeline and cash. That's our right, and if you as Albertan don't like it, too bad.

[Xort]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Xort Xort:

If the shipping is the worry, how many problems have the ore ships going into Kitimat's smelter had?

Kitimat is currently rated for 320,000 dwt.

That isn't an answer to my question.
How many problems have ore ships had over the years? ANY? I would think people objecting to the pipeline would be all over the ore ships records to prove how unsafe the approach would be. Unless the ore ships had a very good safety record. In which case they would use unrelated figures, and broad generalizations that sound realy bad...

$1:

As of 2010, only 12 tankers above 320,000 dwt remain.

Are all 12 of those tankers going to be picking up oil out of Kitimat? If not then by any reasonable messure the ships are going to be less.

$1:

Because of their huge mass, tankers have a large inertia, making them very difficult to steer. A loaded supertanker could take as much as 4 to 8 kilometers and 15 minutes to come to a full stop and has a turning diameter of about 2 kilometers.

As you just said only 12 ships larger than the rating Kitimat has are around, so the ore ships if they are pushing against the max harbor limit should have similar handeling characteristics, which leads back to my unanswered question; How many problems have the ore ships had?

$1:

So, yes it's possible those bulk frieghters con pile onto Coste Rocks and make a mess - that would be a disaster. A supertanker, however, yeah, disaster don't cover it.

From what you told me it's less likely. So I asked how many problems have they had? We can take this data and use it as a baseline we can start to make make an informed jugement on the risk oil tankers would present.

~

In the history of the Knock Nevis you left out how it was sunk by an anti shipping missile fired at it by an Iraqi jet. It had some oil in it at the time as it was onfire, but I can't find it's cargo status at the time it was sunk. I guess it must have been empty because we still have sea life on the planet.

~

It also seems that plans have been made to expand Kitimat into a container hub, and they already are an methanol import terminal. So it seems that the risks of the channel are low enough that shipping thinks it's safe to route larger amounts of traffic.

Which makes me question if using numbers like a radius of a turn, or the total stopping distance are the correct data to evaluate the risk? Wouldn't stuff like wind and current be much more important to a risk assessment? Sure it might be hard to come to a stop, but it's not like you are going to make a turn and run out of water.

[BeaverFever]

The risk and damage of an oil soill is greater than that of ore or other cargo. Oil is liquid and can pour out of a small hole. Oil spreads in water and coats the entire surface. It kills marine life and contaminates water. It is flammable. It remains suspended in water and also settles into the mud at the bottom over time, washing up for decades later. No other cargo causes that kind of damage

[Xort]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The risk and damage of an oil soill is greater than that of ore or other cargo.

The risk is the same unless you are suggesting the cargo has an impact on the movements of the ship.

The potential for damage could be higher if the ore was less toxic or harmful than the oil. Although again oil can float and be skimmed while an ore product is likely to sink, so is having the ore at the bottom more or less dangerous? Likely depends on the ore. Oil being more or less dangerous, or more or less likely to cause damage if it gets out isn't as important as how much danger a ship would be in creating a situation when it can get out.

$1:

Oil is liquid and can pour out of a small hole. Oil spreads in water and coats the entire surface. It kills marine life and contaminates water. It is flammable. It remains suspended in water and also settles into the mud at the bottom over time, washing up for decades later. No other cargo causes that kind of damage

Well I'm sure lot of different cargo has different charactistics. If a coal ship was ripped open and dumped it cargo, then sunk I'm sure that could cause a reasonable amount of damage too.

The question is, how risky is the passage? I would figure that if the ships going in and out now had a bad record, indicating a risky area, that people against the pipeline would be screaming about it. But they are not throwing the safety record at us. So I think it is reasonable to say it doesn't have a bad record, which would be evidence for not being a super dangerous shipping lane. After all their are plans to expand the port to have more traffic, above and beyond the tanker traffic.

So maybe we need more data than how wide the channel is, and some vague undefined 'super tanker' stopping distance. Maybe experts on shipping might have something to say about the channel?

[Gunnair]

Xort Xort:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The risk and damage of an oil soill is greater than that of ore or other cargo.

The risk is the same unless you are suggesting the cargo has an impact on the movements of the ship.

The potential for damage could be higher if the ore was less toxic or harmful than the oil. Although again oil can float and be skimmed while an ore product is likely to sink, so is having the ore at the bottom more or less dangerous? Likely depends on the ore. Oil being more or less dangerous, or more or less likely to cause damage if it gets out isn't as important as how much danger a ship would be in creating a situation when it can get out.

$1:

Oil is liquid and can pour out of a small hole. Oil spreads in water and coats the entire surface. It kills marine life and contaminates water. It is flammable. It remains suspended in water and also settles into the mud at the bottom over time, washing up for decades later. No other cargo causes that kind of damage

Well I'm sure lot of different cargo has different charactistics. If a coal ship was ripped open and dumped it cargo, then sunk I'm sure that could cause a reasonable amount of damage too.

The question is, how risky is the passage? I would figure that if the ships going in and out now had a bad record, indicating a risky area, that people against the pipeline would be screaming about it. But they are not throwing the safety record at us. So I think it is reasonable to say it doesn't have a bad record, which would be evidence for not being a super dangerous shipping lane. After all their are plans to expand the port to have more traffic, above and beyond the tanker traffic.

So maybe we need more data than how wide the channel is, and some vague undefined 'super tanker' stopping distance. Maybe experts on shipping might have something to say about the channel?

If you are actually comparing a coal spill to an oil spill then I think you are either being deliberately obtuse or accidentally retarded.

So if you are serious about comparing ecolological damage, take that coal freighter and compare its fuel capacity to the fuel capacity of a supertanker with its cargo if bitumen.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Just a little FYI there - Enbridge doesn't own the tanker, just the pipeline. A spill from that line would be paid for by Enbridge, not the government of BC. I've never discounted that a tanker spill would be catastrophic. But the possibility could be mitigated by requiring that any tanker in that straight be double hulled. Unlike the Exxon Valdez.

I know many BCers don't like the idea of a pipeline, but the oil will flow. And they will blame Albertans, as if we have any say in it. If the pipeline isn't approved, business will find another way. Rail isn't as safe, but long trains full of oil can fill that void if need be and don't require approval. What we need to do is grab them by the balls and squeeze a little bit, to ensure they take the same veiw of the environment that we do.

If I blame Alberta for anything it's for becoming the new Toronto, that's all ("Look at us, aren't we the shit!") (present company excepted). I don't blame them for trying to find a market for their product.


From the point of view of the environment, it doesn't really care that the pipeline is owneed by Enbridge and the tanker is owned by someone else.

I imagine the tankers will be double-hulled. Hopefully compartmented too, which is probably more effective. The physics of a double-hull is actually pretty depressing when you look at it. When you look at teh momentums involved and the strength and properties of the steel, a double-hulled tanker is like a double-skinned water balloon hitting a ball of nails. Compartmentalization at least limits the spill to the volume of the breached compartment. Not sure where the industry is with that right now. Regardless, a safer route that didn't involve getting through the Kitimat Arm would seem advisable. Rupert for example.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

That isn't an answer to my question.
How many problems have ore ships had over the years? ANY? [/quote]

Lots. Ore sinks to the bottom. Environmental damage is very limited.

Oil tankers have an excellent safety record. But we're dealing with a low-risk, high-consequence event (like nuclear reactors, e.g.) which are very difficult technically and from a public policy persepctive.

[Xort]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Lots.

When was the last time a ship going to Kitimat lost a messureable amount of it's ore cargo, or a methanol leak was reported?

[martin14]

peck420 peck420:

Oil leaked: 22,998 Barrels...give or take.

Per year.

This does not include commercial vehicles, pleasure vehicles (quads, snowmobiles), or water craft.

Hey, you forgot Harley Davidsons





Have a walk through any toll booth and you will see what he means.

[martin14]

Gunnair Gunnair:

peck420 peck420:

Now, call this what it is, a shameless money grab...a shameless money grab that should be directed to Enbridge, not Alberta.

Had you settled on this instead of your other crap, you'd likely not raised the hackles like the rest of your petulant post did.

This is of course a shameless money grab that I highly doubt would be supported by anyone opposed to tanker traffic. I would think any smart fella would see that this is the desperate act of a premier on her last legs trying to find something she can connect with re the voters. She's has shit the bed since moment one on this and many issues, and watching her deal with Redford is like listening to a boxer trying to play the piano in his gloves.

So have your tantrum, but direct it where it should be directed - at the politicians trying to wring you for cash, not the populace that is saying no thanks to your pipeline and cash. That's our right, and if you as Albertan don't like it, too bad.

Good to see the old Gunny coming back. :

[Alta_redneck]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The risk and damage of an oil soill is greater than that of ore or other cargo. Oil is liquid and can pour out of a small hole. Oil spreads in water and coats the entire surface. It kills marine life and contaminates water. It is flammable. It remains suspended in water and also settles into the mud at the bottom over time, washing up for decades later. No other cargo causes that kind of damage

You could be describing the sewage Victoria pumps into the ocean everyday,

I'm just not sure if that shit is flammable tho.

[Gunnair]

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The risk and damage of an oil soill is greater than that of ore or other cargo. Oil is liquid and can pour out of a small hole. Oil spreads in water and coats the entire surface. It kills marine life and contaminates water. It is flammable. It remains suspended in water and also settles into the mud at the bottom over time, washing up for decades later. No other cargo causes that kind of damage

You could be describing the sewage Victoria pumps into the ocean everyday,

I'm just not sure if that shit is flammable tho.

Yeah, read up a little on the science behind that. Or don't.

The science supports not putting in secondary sewage treatment because it'll do more harm than good.



But please, don't let actual scientific research blind you as you try to hamfistedly score some point here.

[Gunnair]

martin14 martin14:

Gunnair Gunnair:

peck420 peck420:

Now, call this what it is, a shameless money grab...a shameless money grab that should be directed to Enbridge, not Alberta.

Had you settled on this instead of your other crap, you'd likely not raised the hackles like the rest of your petulant post did.

This is of course a shameless money grab that I highly doubt would be supported by anyone opposed to tanker traffic. I would think any smart fella would see that this is the desperate act of a premier on her last legs trying to find something she can connect with re the voters. She's has shit the bed since moment one on this and many issues, and watching her deal with Redford is like listening to a boxer trying to play the piano in his gloves.

So have your tantrum, but direct it where it should be directed - at the politicians trying to wring you for cash, not the populace that is saying no thanks to your pipeline and cash. That's our right, and if you as Albertan don't like it, too bad.

Good to see the old Gunny coming back. :

I never left. I just have to control myself better lest I have to make another contrite my bad post.

[Gunnair]

Xort Xort:

So maybe we need more data than how wide the channel is, and some vague undefined 'super tanker' stopping distance. Maybe experts on shipping might have something to say about the channel?

Oops. That was supplied along with the not so vague supertanker stopping distance.

While you wait for the experts to show up in the thread you could try:

G...O...O...G...L...E...

It's no mystery what the width of Douglas Channel is nor the average stopping distance of a supertanker.