Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
NEWS RELEASE · 22nd November 2012
Rob Fleming BC NDP
On Tuesday night, a fully loaded cargo ship accidentally ran aground six nautical miles from the Prince Rupert harbor.

The ship, piloted by a highly experienced local navigator, swerved to avoid a small fishing boat, hitting a sandbar.

Luckily, no one was hurt, and it appears that the damage is minimal. But imagine if other factors intervened, like inclement weather, poor visibility, or heavy marine traffic. Now imagine that, instead of a cargo vessel, the ship that ran aground was an oil supertanker carrying two million barrels of crude bitumen.

The Douglas Channel, where tankers carrying Enbridge bitumen would travel, is far more dangerous than Prince Rupert.

Tuesday’s accident reminds us just how easily we could be facing a major environmental catastrophe on BC’s pristine north coast if the Enbridge pipeline is built. A similar accident could devastate the local environment and economy for decades.

We simply can’t accept the risk that the Enbridge pipeline poses to BC’s north coast.

Adrian Dix and the BC NDP have been standing up for our environment by opposing the Enbridge pipeline. But we need your help to send our message to the BC Liberals.

If you haven’t already, please sign our letter opposing the Enbridge pipeline. Then send this email along to two friends and ask them to do the same.

Together, we can stop the Enbridge pipeline and protect our coast.
And for further information, there is an easy solution
Comment by Merv Ritchie on 24th November 2012
"The Problem and Solution for all Current Ocean Going Tankers" is the title of another composition (Written April 25, 2012). It addresses this subject and presents an alternative and a solution to all these hazards.

Find it by typing only two words in our search menu, "problem" and "solution" and then select the "advanced options" and select "all words" for the search,
guess where now!
Comment by Pat#1 on 24th November 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/23/support-builds-among-prem_n_2177124.html

If we stop enbridge here, I guess they will try to go there instead.

We must continue to embrace, educate, and enforce our rights to be heard.

No matter where they pipe this sticky black crap, we must save our environment and our country.

take a LOOK!
Comment by Pat#1 on 24th November 2012
http://www.shipwrecklog.com/log/page/3/

a site to keep handy when we cannot get the info we desire....
take a look at all of the wrecks....the pollution, the deaths, the untold misery.

I, for one, am truly pissed off.

Black Friday???
Sorry for the confusion
Comment by Merv Ritchie on 23rd November 2012
"What Defines an Oil Tanker - Are They Already Here?" is the title of an article/commentary we composed in September 2012.

If you type two words into our search engine "oil" and "Tanker" and select the all words feature from the advanced search menu, you will find this article as a top listing.

This details everything necessary to understand what defines an oil tanker. Small tankers, double hulled HandyMax style might have four holds each carrying 2500 tonnes. A Panamax Tanker also holds 2500 tonnes except it is allowed to sail into Rupert and Kitimat single hulled. This one that ran aground was just such a Vessel as was the Rena which broke up off the coast of New Zealand fouling their beaches.

We did not report this was a Crude oil tanker, I wrote that personally as a comment to an article the NDP wrote. We reported on the incident with clear factual details and in a further article wrote about what the Coast Guard stated and the Port Authority. That is reporting. The comment is just that, a comment.

And as far as I am concerned, like the politicians say, "You can put a Tux or (lipstick) on a pig, but it is still a pig." And in this case you can call it a freighter but it is still a crude oil carrier, 2500 tonnes, 1.5 million liters.

Get real, we are facing serious consequences here!

I hope this cleared up some confusion.
by definition
Comment by djb on 23rd November 2012
Please help with the definition of an "oil tanker". Is it dependent on how much fuel is carried? If so, a very large number of ships would be defined as such. If not, why use the term? it does seem a little inflammatory? especially in the context used here.
It was a bit puzzling.
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 23rd November 2012
The rules of of the sea clearly define when a vessel has the right of way. The size only matters if they collide. I've been on the Douglas Channel, which is a shipping lane, but have never known any smaller vessel captain who would stay a course with a freighter in site without thinking maybe the size does matter.

Therefore a freighter changing course for a fishing boat? Well it must have been a big fishing boat.

Welcome back Jim!
Please Explain
Comment by James Ippel on 23rd November 2012
Was this a Container Ship trying to avoid a fish boat, or, as Merv wrote, "actually an oil tanker."?
Are we again being subjected to poor reporting on the part of the media putting forth their own political agenda?

My question is what was a fishing boat doing in a shipping lane normally used by ocean going vessels, and why did the ocean going vessel swerve to avoid it? The simple solution would have been for the captain of the fishing boat get the hell out of the way (easier to maneuver) or take the consequences and get run over.

Come on, use some common sense.

Ed Note: We agree completely James. The poor reporting and the political agenda of Post Media, Global, Astral and even CBC, ignored the reality of what you so clearly point out. Merv did not state it was avoiding an oil tanker but rather suggested the Container Vessel had as much bunker crude on board as a small oil tanker. He simply questioned why the designations are so arbitrary when every vessel can create a disaster as long as these container vessels carry a million liters of crude only an inch or so of steel, exposed to the open ocean. The Container Vessel was doing 11 knots when it had a hard, tight right turn (a full 90 degrees) to navigate. It beached at ten knots without making a turn at all. Now these are details avoided by the mainstream to meet the political agendas of their funders.
One wonders if even the NDP possess logic
Comment by Merv Ritchie on 23rd November 2012
The ship, actually an oil tanker as it was likely carrying over a million liters of bunker C, was doing 11 knots when it was supposed to make a severe hard 90 degree left turn (north) to make its berth at Mayer terminals. It was doing over 20 knots only two kilometres earlier. The ship is 278 meters long, over a quarter of a kilometre long. It was able to slow nine knots in two kilometres, an amazing feat, but it was still ripping along, straight ahead, without any course deviation, at over 10 knots when it rode up on the sand bar.

Maybe he didn't want to hang left. Maybe there was a fishing vessel there, maybe he didn't look at his radar three miles back and consider the potential hazards (a fishing boat perhaps) but the ass was doing over 20 knots! A well experienced pilot on board? Maybe a spineless piece of crap pilot that didn't tell the master to slow the crap down, ‘ya friggin' jerk’.

No, the NDP are just like Harper really. Avoiding the hard truth, no one cares anymore. These vessels carry millions of litres of crude in single hulls. We either become responsible or we fail or children and theirs. To make any argument about what caused this incident avoids the reality. We must address the susceptibility of all freighters to create an environmental disaster.