John Hunter: Trans Mountain pipeline alarmism based on misinformation

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Claims by anti-Trans Mountain pipeline expansion groups regarding tanker safety usually cry doom and gloom and lack information for the reader to even begin to form a judgement, in my opinion. Here are some facts.

      There has never been a reported oil tanker spill (except canola oil) in B.C. waters in our 100-years-plus of B.C. oil tanker operations (60 years plus at Trans Mountain’s Burnaby terminal). Much or most of this period was before double hulls, modern radar, tethered tugs, coastal pilots, and other improvements in safety. On our Atlantic coast, with far more tankers than the B.C. coast, there were two fair size (about 10,000 tonnes) spills in the 1970s, but no such large oil tanker spills in Canadian waters since. (A “tonne” is about 7.35 barrels of oil or 257 imperial gallons.)

      Oil tankers ply the Great Lakes, the source of drinking water for many U.S. states and several Canadian provinces. Tankers carried crude oil from the Bent Horn oil field in the Canadian Arctic for a decade through ice choked waters, without incident. Tankers ply the pristine St. Lawrence River, the eastern seaboard, and Newfoundland waters.

      Contrary to frequent false claims, “supertankers” are not proposed for the Trans Mountain project; it is the much smaller Aframax ships, already used here for years. Claims of high currents under the Second Narrows Bridge are true but alarmist and irrelevant since loaded tankers go through at slack water (minimal current) and even then are tethered with tugs.

      Others raise the specter of Exxon Valdez and demand that no tankers be allowed in B.C. Think of the Titanic, the repeated crashes of the first jet passenger aircraft (Comets), the space shuttle Challenger, the Queen of the North ferry, and so on. Fortunately, the world rejected this “never try it again” approach, and instead tightened regulations, designs, and practices, rather than throwing technological progress under the bus after these disasters.

      The idea that tankers will trash Vancouver’s tourism reputation is questionable. Vancouver, like most large U.S. coastal cities, is a port—people know that. Ninety-plus percent of Vancouverites, let alone tourists, can’t tell a tanker from a freighter. What blights our tourist reputation is rain, horrendous traffic, expensive parking, overpriced hotels, the Downtown Eastside right by the cruise ship terminals, and beggars on the streets. Has Exxon Valdez killed tourism to Alaska?

      Looking worldwide, since 1970, tanker traffic (billion ton-miles) has increased about 60 percent; yet, “large” spills (over 700 tonnes) have decreased from their mid-1970s' peaks by about 95 percent. There was only one such spill across the world in 2014 (source: ITOPF).

      This B.C./Canadian history and world progress do not guarantee there will never be a spill in B.C., but does perhaps suggest that it is not quite time to light our hair on fire and claim disastrous spills in B.C. are “inevitable”.

      John Hunter, P. Eng., is president and CEO of J. Hunter & Associates Ltd. He is a semi-retired chemical engineer who does part-time consulting work for various energy companies, including Trans Mountain Pipeline.

      Comments

      14 Comments

      The Real MD

      Mar 10, 2015 at 12:16pm

      John Hunter
      "There has never been a reported oil tanker spill (except canola oil) in B.C. waters in our 100-years-plus of B.C. oil tanker operations (60 years plus at Trans Mountain’s Burnaby terminal)."

      Completely irrelevant. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Red herring 101.

      "Others raise the specter of Exxon Valdez and demand that no tankers be allowed in B.C. Think of the Titanic, the repeated crashes of the first jet passenger aircraft (Comets), the space shuttle Challenger, the Queen of the North ferry, and so on. Fortunately, the world rejected this “never try it again” approach, and instead tightened regulations, designs, and practices, rather than throwing technological progress under the bus after these disasters."

      To begin with, you start by trying to show that past performance guarantees future results, but when faced with examples of disasters, your argument changes tack and past performance is now not all that relevant. Which is it?

      Why did past performance of the instances you list, prior to a spill, not result in the same future performance?

      If the past performance of the instances you list prior to a spill which then did occur, which did not guarantee future performance, what makes the past performance of Vancouver a better indicator of future performance?

      If Vancouver's past performance is to be taken as an indicator of future performance, then either those other places were deficient in some manner compared to Vancouver, or Vancouver has special characteristics compared to those instances which make past performance a better indicator of future performance, or your argument is inconsistent. Which is it?

      The best gem has to be your claim of "tightening regulations"; that is demonstrably not happening in Canada, and if you can't bother to use Google to read Hansard and any of the half dozen pieces of federal legislation "loosening" regulations, others can, and your claim is frankly embarrassing.

      How does removing watersheds from federal oversight "tighten regulations"?

      "Has Exxon Valdez killed tourism to Alaska?"

      Yes, in Prince William Sound, it more or less has. Demonstrable and easily verifiable.

      AK is a big place, much like BC, so a tanker breaking open near Prince Rupert would probably do nothing to tourism in Vancouver, but the issue at hand is a tanker breaking up in or near the Port of Vancouver

      Earl Richards

      Mar 10, 2015 at 3:28pm

      With over 400 tankers transiting the Haro Strait and the Boundary Pass, it is a disaster waiting to happen. On 21 MAR 2011, while flying over the Gulf Islands, I looked-out the window and saw below a 350 foot bulk carrier with a white hull, with its bow up on an island. What happened? This ship could have very easily been a tar sands tanker. The tanker corporation does not have any equipment to clean-up a toxic, tar sands spill.

      Ryanonthecoast

      Mar 12, 2015 at 12:21pm

      I see 3 fully expected comments from the blinders -on crowd that reads this rag.

      Trevor Marr

      Mar 12, 2015 at 1:28pm

      In 2015 responsible, regulated, ethical, capable Canada, I see the foreign funded anti Canadian oi sands agenda as the biggest threat to our success as a Country. I see these misguided eco hypocrites as causing more spills, leaks and environmental damage as industry is forced to rely too long on old pipelines, all from their anti pipeline protests against NEW, engineered, regulated, specified, inspected, corrosion resistant, known design life pipelines! I see these misguided eco hypocrites as causing more DEATHS as industry is forced to rely on rail that is less safe! Work together, we are a smart people with a great opportunity. Complainers are not welcome! We need people to work together to make the most success, not be the cause of missed opportunity! Other Nations do this without incident! I support Canada to set the stage for success!

      john Colin Hunter

      Mar 12, 2015 at 2:09pm

      Earl How strange. TSB Marine Investigation reports http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/marine/ have no record of your claimed grounding, nor does the Chamber of Shipping of BC (I asked today). Please provide some evidence of your claim. Nobody took a photo. I find zip in the newspapers.

      But it is apples and oranges with tankers - a tanker in Vancouver Harbour or in Haro Strait/Boundary Pass would be escorted by tugs, two tethered at Second Narrows, one tethered in the southern passes - a bulk carrier would normally not be. Tanker is double hulled; bulk carrier is not. Requirements for tugs will almost certainly be more rigid with the KMC expansion. So it could not have "easily been a tar sands tanker”.

      Earl, for the third time, of course tankers do not carry a much spill equipment. Most of that is at WCMRC on land. WCMRC has the equipment and expertise which is why all tankers here have to hire WCMRC ahead of time to act if something goes wrong.

      Stephen look at the re-creation of the Houston Ship Channel incident on that site - a loaded tanker and a large bulk carrier passing in a narrow channel. Under Port Metro Vancouver rules, the loaded tanker has priority and in our harbour the carrier would not be allowed to be underway nor in the narrow channels (under the bridges). Secondly, the tanker would have 3 escort tugs, two tethered under Second Narrows. So that accident could not happen here, in my view. But thanks for the feedback.

      john Colin Hunter

      Mar 12, 2015 at 3:10pm

      Reply to the Real MD: sorry missed your comments.

      “Completely irrelevant”. Gimme a break. So if we had had 300 spills over that century, and many large ones, and I said completely irrelevant in support of tankers, you would accept that? Right!

      I did NOT say past performance guarantees future results; in fact, my last paragraph says the opposite. Please do not put false words in my mouth.

      The past performance in the disaster cases I quote did not continue forever because of improvements in many things, as I stated. Here in BC we have had no tanker disasters but tanker technology etc. have still improved.

      You keep putting words and conclusions in my mouth that I did not draw. I simply related facts (that you do not dispute) and concluded it probably is not time to set our hair on fire yet.

      My comment about “tightened regulations” referred to tankers, steamships like Titanic, 1950s jet aircraft, and such, not other things.

      Enough. No sale.

      Earl Richards

      Mar 12, 2015 at 3:13pm

      The grounding may have been on the American side.

      Trevor Marr

      Mar 12, 2015 at 6:56pm

      Yes, the ExxonValdez could not happen in Canada due to lessons learned, risk mitigations, Hazard Reviews, all resulting in responsible industry and Government regulations such as Dual Captains, double hulls, tug boat guidance, sonar, GPS, radio contact, hazard markers, route selections, shipping protocols, established spill protection, etc. Mitigations are put in place to minimize both the risk and the impact.

      If you have a valid concern and your research does not show you it has been addressed, you are always welcome to be a part of the success and make constructive suggestions. Who knows, if it is a good one, maybe someone will name a Tanker after you? Be part of the success, not the cause of failure!

      john Colin Hunter

      Mar 12, 2015 at 7:44pm

      OK Earl I now accept the Gulf Islands (that is what you said) are on the American side. So do some research and show evidence of your story, or stick to the facts!