[Zipperfish]

Bodah Bodah:

And what are the main facts again ? The straight is dangerous , because from what I can tell that's all you've been barking about. Tankers are going to crash is all I've been getting for you on this topic. Maybe leave it up to the proffesionals, and the government experts because your certainly not one.

Well, as a former government expert on this exact topic, I can tell you that they are laying off their government experts, especially the scientists.

So...so much for that idea then.

[Gunnair]

Xort Xort:

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.

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

[Zipperfish]

Xort 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?

How should I know? I'm not going to do your homework for you. Ore spills aren't news. Oil spills are. If the reason why this is the case isn't clear to you, then you've got some self-edumacating to do.

[Xort]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

How should I know? I'm not going to do your homework for you. Ore spills aren't news. Oil spills are. If the reason why this is the case isn't clear to you, then you've got some self-edumacating to do.

I asked how many of the ore ships going into Kitimat had problems you said lots.
Are you now saying that you have no idea and were just making shit up?

If you don't know something please don't make a statement of fact. It is misleading, and dishonest.

Gunnair Gunnair:

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

Google doesn't have an answer, and the enviromentalists are not waving around numbers, so I'm going to make a logical assuption that any numbers for shipping accidents going to Kitimat are not very bad. Otherwise we would have been told about them, in depth, over and over.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I have a personal contact I could ask, a long time worker at the Kitimat smelter, I'm sure something like a ship crashing would have been a memorable event.

Not a great source, but better than nothing and totaly unsupported speculation.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

I asked how many of the ore ships going into Kitimat had problems you said lots.
Are you now saying that you have no idea and were just making shit up?

If you don't know something please don't make a statement of fact. It is misleading, and dishonest. {/quote]

No, you asked "How many problems have ore ships had over the years? ANY?" My response was lots. If you want to know when the last time an ore ship going to Kitimat had problems,, then get off your lazy ass and look it up.

Apart from the fact that oil and ore are both three-letter words that start with "o" there's not much in common as to their environmental fate and effects in the event of large release. Your insistence that the risk is the same just indicates your general ignorance on the subject.

[Gunnair]

Xort Xort:

Gunnair Gunnair:

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

Google doesn't have an answer, and the enviromentalists are not waving around numbers, so I'm going to make a logical assuption that any numbers for shipping accidents going to Kitimat are not very bad. Otherwise we would have been told about them, in depth, over and over.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I have a personal contact I could ask, a long time worker at the Kitimat smelter, I'm sure something like a ship crashing would have been a memorable event.

Not a great source, but better than nothing and totaly unsupported speculation.

That's cute yet disingenuous of you. My response to you was to address the silly question you had regarding channel width and what you claimed were vague stopping distances of supertankers - info supplied in one of my posts yet either ignored or missed by you.

You can of course try to change the goal posts but it confirms that given the info you have no rebuttal.

Fair enough.

[Gunnair]

Xort 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?

http://www.terracedaily.ca/go4813a/PETERSFIELD_BREAKS_NOSE_LEAVING_KITIMAT

So, no ore lost, but it demonstrates the dangers of operating large ships in a narrow channel.

[raydan]

None of you experts want to comment my suggestion from a few pages ago about "offshore loading systems"? Could it be implemented in that area to make it a bit safer, taking the loading away from the danger zones? And yes, I know it can't be 100% safe.

Here's a good book to help you do the research.

http://www.witherbyseamanship.com/offsh ... zones.html

[Alta_redneck]

Gunnair 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.

So no Brown Trout are released back into the ocean ? Yeah right, until there's a problem anyways.

If you got this great system in place already, then I don't see a need for the City to be spending nearly $800M on a waste water plant.

Oh and when Victoria city council are ready to break ground give Alison a call, she'll cut the cheque for the Fed's $250M share of the project.

[BeaverFever]

Google is your friend:

$1:

First Nations, politicians and Enbridge respond to accident in Douglas Channel
News Articles | Shaun Thomas | The Northern View | October 01, 2009

The Bahama-registered Petersfield suffered a steering mishap while running at full manoeuvring speed just south of Grant Point, approximately two hours south of Kitimat, resulting in severe damage to the front of the vessel.

“What we know from the Canadian Transportation Safety Board is that the 40,000-ton (dead weight) vessel veered sharply starboard and hit the beach at a depth of 400 metres early Saturday,” said Cullen.

“If that freighter had grounded itself in shallow water, the results could have been far more serious…Had this been an oil tanker with a full payload, it could have been catastrophic,” Cullen said, pointing out ships of the disabled vessel’s tonnage carry tens of thousands of barrels of oil or diesel for propulsion alone.

And North Coast MLA Gary Coons echoed those sentiments.

“It’s a sure wake up call to those who insist that oil tankers are safe on our coast. If we allow supertankers…It’s not a question of if it will happen, it’s a question of when it will happen!”

The incident has also caused concern amongst members of the Village of Hartley Bay, who experienced firsthand what can happen when a large ship sinks in their territory with the sinking of the Queen of the North.

“The Gitga’at are of the sea and we have always known that oil and gas tankers in these waters were a horrible and frightening idea. Hopefully the Petersfield incident will help Canada and the world understand that too,” said spokesperson Cameron Hill.

“This ship was likely being guided by Pacific pilots who are the best navigators and seafarers in the entire world. But even with them onboard and other sophisticated safety precautions, these shipping accidents still occur. Mechanical failure or human error, the outcomes are the same for our culture and our territory. The oil spills over

our Elders, our children, our Spirit bears and killer whales,” added Hereditary chief Ernie Hill.

Cullen noted that the incident took place on the proposed route of tankers that would use the Enbridge Gateway pipeline, which would transport 700,000 barrels of oil and condensate between Alberta and Kitimat requiring about 225 ships yearly, and the Gitga’at of Hartley Bay note that those ships would actually be larger than the infamous Exxon Valdez.
...

And see below (Added emphasis mine:)

$1:

Perils threatening the Northern Gateway pipeline
NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE

The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Feb. 28 2012, 8:02 PM EST
Last updated Wednesday, Jul. 11 2012, 5:16 PM EDT

...
The problems with Kitimat
Gale-force winds. Thick fog. Crushing snow. Landslides. Waves the height of office buildings. The northern coast of British Columbia is a nexus of nasty elements that descend upon a place abundant in marine life - humpbacks, orcas, a buffet of shellfish - and coastal creatures, including the much-celebrated white Kermode bear, or spirit bear.

...

Accidents
Between 1999 and 2008, the routes Enbridge intends to use for Gateway tanker traffic experienced five major accidents in large vessels. Those include two "striking" accidents (where a ship contacts another object, like the shore or a dock), one instance of heavy weather damage, a grounding, and a grounding and a sinking. The latter is well-known: The Queen of the North lies buried deep in waters that supertankers would transit. It sank after hitting Gil Island in 2006. Two bodies were never found.

In 2009, the Petersfield, a bulk carrier sailing through Douglas Channel, also hit land after a failure in its navigation equipment. According to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, "the vessel sustained extensive damage."

Landslides

Northwestern British Columbia is home to a seismically unstable landscape assaulted by incredible amounts of rain and snow - Kitimat, for example, averages 2,387 millimetres of precipitation a year. That often creates problems. A 2005 study found 38 "large, catastrophic landslides" in northern B.C. in three decades, and noted that "the frequency of large landslides in northern British Columbia appears to be increasing, suggesting a link to climate change." The study specifically names pipelines as a type of infrastructure "at risk from these large landslides."

Underwater earthquakes are another hazard, causing localized tsunamis that have been recorded along the B.C. coast. One in Kitimat Inlet, in April, 1975, produced an 8.2-metre-high wave.

Navigation
A recent Transport Canada study concluded the water is deep enough and the passages are wide enough. But residents are concerned about the margin for error. In four places, the route goes through channels less than two kilometres wide. At a minimum, supertankers need nearly half a kilometre in width for safe travel. They need 33 metres in depth; in one area, the route passes over a spot 35 metres deep.

There is only one place in the entire series of coastal marine routes that can adequately accommodate proposed 320,000-deadweight-tonne supertankers. Kitimat Harbour does not meet minimum anchorage requirements, and would require tug support for supertankers. Another, called the Coghlan Anchorage, is "not suitable to anchor vessels of the design vessels size, on a single anchor," according to Enbridge documents.

Weather

Environment Canada, in its Marine Weather Hazards Manual, notes that "Hecate Strait is the fourth most dangerous body of water in the world." Wind gusts can reach 185 km/h - that's Category 3-hurricane strength, like Hurricane Ivan. Several times a winter, storm-force winds generate waves six to eight metres high - but waves can, on very rare occasions, reach a staggering 26 metres in Hecate Strait.

While conditions are substantially more moderate in narrower channels, the on-shore terrain the pipeline must cross is also vulnerable to extraordinary weather. In October, Caamano Sound is drenched in fog 20 per cent of the time. In winter, significant waves 3 1/2 metres high and greater occur 20 to 30 per cent of the time offshore, and 10 per cent along the coast.

...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/perils-threatening-the-northern-gateway-pipeline/article549938/

[ShepherdsDog]

a 3 and 1/2 metre sea means less than SFA to those super tankers when they are fully loaded. Even if they are doubled, the worst that they'll do is make someone with a sensitive stomach skip dessert.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Xort Xort:

How many problems have ore ships had over the years? ANY?

SS Henry Steinbrenner
SS Carl D. Bradley
SS Cedarville
SS Daniel J. Morrow
SS Edmund Fitzgerald
Prinz Willem V
Monrovia
Nordmeer
Morrell
Rak
Huong Dien 09

I could go on but unless yer a complete idiot, you get the idea.

[Gunnair]

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

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.

So no Brown Trout are released back into the ocean ? Yeah right, until there's a problem anyways.

If you got this great system in place already, then I don't see a need for the City to be spending nearly $800M on a waste water plant.

Oh and when Victoria city council are ready to break ground give Alison a call, she'll cut the cheque for the Fed's $250M share of the project.

I just can't compensate for your laziness here. The facts are well laid out in scientific papers but if you wish to ignore that and join the same crowd that uses 'tar sands', 'dirty oil' and 'unethical oil' out a laziness or contempt, then I can't stop the train wreck you wish to emulate.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish 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.

I do agree. Kitimat doesn't seem like the best port. If BCers aren't comfortable with one more pipeline to compliment the many they already have, there are other routes to the Asian market that don't go through BC. Enbridge can plan to use one of those.

But I disagree with you about Alberta being the new Toronto. We are the shit. But Toronto thinks they are the shit for their own good, but Alberta is the shit for Canada's good.

[DrCaleb]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Xort Xort:

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.

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

Do you have a link?