CONTRIBUTION · 7th June 2010
The project proponents and some local politicians have been quoted numerous times in the media how over the years several thousand ships including approximately 1500 tankers have gone in and out of Kitimat without incident.
This is not entirely true, and certainly not the whole story. Last summer the Petersfield completely lost steerage and struck the shore of Douglas Channel. Two years ago the B.C. Ferry ‘Queen Of The North” struck Gil Island, which lies on either of the tanker routes, and sank in 1200 feet of water. It is still leaking oil; fortunately not crude oil.
A few years before a freighter ran aground at the end of the channel near Kitimat. Luckily, it did not happen at high tide. As the tide rose it was freed with the help of a couple of tugs.
Around 1980 one of Alcan’s alumina carriers struck what was at the time called an uncharted reef and suffered a 12 ft gash near the starboard bow. I have seen that myself. There was apparently more to the story, but that was never reported.
The tankers: Those presently coming to Kitimat are of moderate size. From what I have seen they are not more than 350 ft. long. The crude oil tankers proposed for Kitimat are VLCC; Very Large Crude Carriers. They are 1000 ft. long, and sit 70 ft. in the water when loaded.
Remember it is not only the length that increases, their mass increases exponentially, as does the difficulty in maneuverability.
The cargos: For one thing they are relatively small due to the size of the tankers they are presently shipped in. They are not benign products; particularly “Sweet Condensate” a solvent for the tar sands crude is highly carcinogenic and flammable. But all of these cargos evaporate relative easily and pose no long-lasting threat to the marine environment.
Crude oil is a different story. I think the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico drives the point home to some degree. A release of tar sands crude in these cold waters would be worse.
In the event of a spill, some oil will float on top and plus minus 10% might be collected under calm conditions which rarely exist in our waters. A large portion is said to be buoyancy neutral and can float submerged at any depth and some of it will sink to the bottom.
Wherever it is, it will kill marine life and not allow it to reestablish for many decades to come.. Even then it has been shown that there will be genetic damage to the new life.
The tanker routes: There is a northern route and a southern route. They both start for outbound traffic at Kitimat down Douglas Channel. No big problem unless you lose steering like the Petersfield. The problems start at Wright Sound where the ferry sank.
Leaving Douglas Channel , there is a 90 degree right hand turn north, and after a run of approximately 2 NM (nautical miles) another 110 degree left hand turn into Lewis Passage, slowly to starboard (right), a constricted passage through Otter Channel (strong tidal currents), then a 90 degree right hand turn into Principe Channel.
No problem in there. Difficulty begins at the northern end. You have to consult detailed marine charts to see that there is only a very narrow channel deep enough and close to Porcher Island past Stephens Island before you reach open ocean. The trip to ‘open’ ocean takes you approximately 240 km from Kitimat. In comparison to other world oil ports, this is a very long and challenging journey.
Two alternatives haven been proposed; either way takes you around Gil Island with two considerably restricted turns into Campania Sound and from there to the Caamano Sound. A normal map will show you wide open ocean, but a detailed marine chart based on British Admiral Charts and said to be the best in the world will show rocks and reefs with very narrow passages and strong tidal currents. This is where the Alcan Ore Carrier hit the “uncharted rock”. In the summer time the area is often shrouded in dense fog in the mornings. It is 175 km from Kitimat.
Now to Enbridge:
They make incredible promises:
1. In the event of an oil spill oil booms and collection equipment will be all ready!
How will you get it the required 175 km and 240 km distances in time to be effective? Where will the necessary volunteers and contractors come from to do the cleanup? In a recent tanker spill in Korea they had up to 50,000 people a day – for a total of one million man-days – to clean up the beaches of just 10% of the amount spilled by the Exxon Valdez.
Kitimat is down to less than 8000 residents. How will you get the people there, house them, feed them, etc. There are not even beaches along the way. How will you deal with the weather? Accidents mostly happen in adverse conditions. I have sailed the waters for 35 years, been in a storm in Hecate Strait with wind gusts of over 60 knots, thought a couple of times my sailing vessel would roll right over.
2. Escort tugs.
Promises of tugs fluctuated from 3 to 1 and back to 2 per tanker.
I have a friend who was in the business for many years. He said that five tugs would be needed to handle the possible contingencies. So I put a cost estimate together; being conservative: capital cost for tugs, moorage, warehousing, written off over 10 years. Ongoing cost for wages, fuel, insurances, a moderate profit, etc. To make a long story short. By my estimate, the cost for escort for one tanker, one direction would be $200,000.
Then there are of course the fees for the two pilots promised.
Now think of the shorter routes for Prince William Sound, San Francisco, Puget Sound, L.A. etc.
Even with these shorter routes, there is a push to pare down the coverage of escort tugs because they are viewed as too expensive. If experience is any guide, the same is guaranteed to happen here.
3. Promise of the best ships, with all kinds of certifications, double hulls, etc. We all know how you can buy any certificate you need or want.
I have a Rolex watch with “Made in Switzerland” stamped all over it. It was a gift given to me as a joke; it loses 4 minutes a day and needs to be wound every day. So much for patents and certifications.
As to double hulls. The jury is still out on that. There are thinner plates used because of the structural strength of double hulls, but the biggest problems are high corrosion and extremely difficult and dangerous inspection between hulls, painting, etc.
In most cases you can not really find out in the end who owns the ship. Registered in a place like Liberia, Panama, etc. Owned by a holding company, which is owned by someone else. The trail gets lost and in the end the taxpayer of some country ultimately foots the bill for oil spill cleanups.
The Exxon Valdez situation was different. It was clearly known who owned the Ship. Because of the Jones Act, created to protect Seattle merchants during the Alaska/Yukon gold rush, only American built and crewed ships can operate Between American ports. And yet after 20 years the battle rages on in the courts.
For anyone who does not know yet, Enbridge’s responsibily ends at the proposed tank farm in Kitimat. Once the oil is on a VLCC Enbridge has no involvement at all, not with piloting, tanker escorts, spills and clean up, chartering and certifying of tankers.
Finally, I have not addressed the human error side of the story or the economic consequences of a distaster. With an estimated 250 tankers per year, it’s not “if a distaster will happen but “when”. Even the president of Enbridge has stated that nobody can guaranty that an accident will not happen.
Comment by R1chard Jenn1ss on 16th June 2010
James, out of curiosity:
How many pilots are drunk?
Is the aviation industry more strict with pilots as the tanker industry is with captains?
Does being drunk excuse the spill?
Why don't we refine the oil here?
James your comments fall under the definition of being a troll or trolling.
You have nothing to add so you attack the credibility or simply try to create an argument.
Well said Mr Wagner, well said!
Comment by Dean Weitman on 16th June 2010
This article is, by far, the best I have read regarding Enbridge's proposed pipeline & tanker traffic. Well said Mr Wagner; well said..
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 12th June 2010
I think it is my turn to suggest a less bile in the tone of your responses. Comments like "his tunnel vision" or "it is HIS way, or the HIGHWAY" don't address the issue. I also don't think that the comment "you probably fit into the category of the uniformed and unlearned as well" is necessary. I mean really James, what do you know about the mindset of an individual who posts an opinion here.
Finally, the fact that a skipper was drunk does not alter the effect of the disaster. We might all remember Murphy's Law: If something can go wrong, it will.
As for me, and I have said this before, for us to export our nonrenewable oil hen gas is $1.09 at the pump is insanity. To risk the environment in the moving of it from Alberta through our coast line to other countries makes no sense. Hey but what do I know, I'm just a stickler for common sense.
Comment by James Ippel on 10th June 2010
I have read the comments posted by Al Lehmann and Richard Jenniss and, quite frankly am disapointed in their comments
Mr. Lehmann, being a teacher, should be well aware of the advances in technoloy in the transport industry over the last few decades. Unfortunately his tunnel vision refuses to accept any advancement that he personnally does not agree with. This is made abundantly clear in any article he writes for the Terrace Standard. It is HIS way, or the HIGHWAY.
As for Mr Jenniss, Exon Valdez was a long time ago, with a DRUNK skipper at the helm. You probably fit into the category of the uniformed and unlearned as well. You have tunnel vision when it comes to the environment, and refuse to accept advances in technology because they do not fit into your mindset.
Comment by R1chard Jenn1ss on 8th June 2010
This article is awesome.
Dear enbridge, please eat the food from the Prince of William sound.
Dear government, please observe the effects from eating said food.
Comment by Al Lehmann on 7th June 2010
This fine expose demonstrates a great deal of the foolhardiness of this proposed venture. Well done.
Comment by James Ippel on 7th June 2010
Iabsolutely like the comments you have made in your article. Unfortunately, you appear to have no faith in modern technology. This is not meant as an insult, merely an observation.
I on the other hand believe that we can safely move tanker traffic in an out of Kitimat, utilizing ocean going Tugs, and double hulled tankers.
I think it grossly unfair that you should link the sinking of the Queen of Prince Rupert to tanker traffic in Doulgas Channel. It is a pretty much accepted fact that the people on the Bridge were not only UNQUALIFIED for the job, had been in an intimate relationship, and were in all probablility not paying total attention to their job.
As for the grounding of the Petersfield, it did not have the attendance of ocean going Tugs attached to it.
As an aside, these Tugs are HUGE. Any ship that takes on 200,000 litres of fuel to fill their tanks, carries a lot of weight. If we have one on each end of a tanker plying Doulgas Channel, I believe that we have an enormous safety factor here. I am not sure, but do these Tankers also have Side Thrusters to assist in their movement up and down the Channel??
There comes a point in time when we have to trust modern technology.
If you need a triple bypass, are you going to question the ability of the surgeon, or have faith in his abiltiy, and that of his team, to do the job?
Have a little faith.
Comment by Walter Fricke on 7th June 2010
I keep hearing and reading reports and assumptions by the Enbridge spokespersons, and beliefs by some local folks that technology will be used to minimize the risk of a pipeline failure, or a massive VLCC grounding and/or breaking up.
This all sounds good on paper, but all it takes is that one time in a million to destroy the coast, the wildlife that relies on the coastal waters, the livelihood of the people that make a living because of the waters along our coast. Imagine never seeing Killer Whales, porpoises, sea lions, the list goes on and on, where they once thrived. Can you picture yourself saying to your Grand-kids, "See this river, there actually used to be awesome fishing here"
As surely as tomorrow comes, there will be a leak, or many leaks in the pipeline, there will be spills along our coast, big and small. After all, if Man made it, it will ultimately fail.