Tug-and-barge fuel shipments through B.C.'s Inside Passage 'a disaster waiting to hap

Agreed, And once they face reality of no fuel deliveries up the coast they'll come back to the real world.
most communities on the coast can be driven into. the ones that can't be driven into more than likely don't use in a year a fraction of what that one "fuel barge" (in reality small tanker) was delivering through our sensitive inside waters up to alaska. as far as I'm concerned that fuel barge should go around 40 miles or more offshore on the outside. or better yet haul the fuel up by land to the US. last I remember there's a road that goes into Alaska.
We were lucky this time that the fuel barge was MT. next time we probably won't be... If we continue to allow this it's just a matter of when the next spill will happen, not if...
 
Many communities on the coast - you can't drive to. But Bigdogeh is right - they don't use that monster barge. That's an Alaskan barge. Other coastal communities most often use a barge that has fuel trucks on it - to refuel.
Canadian tugs with fuel barges also frequent Sensitive waters (are there any other kind?) ...Sending everyone into the open Pacific Northwest is not the answer.
Bigdogeh, Trophywife and others are also correct - they could have gone offshore way farther (away from the rocks and the clam beds). This was a large tug and a large barge. That so-called "gentleman's agreement" wrt the so-called tanker moratorium should have applied here.
 
Last edited:
The average fuel truck caries 20 to 40 thousand litres FYI and are delivered by companies held to a different standard that that of this incident I suspect.
 
it will always be about financial compensation... once enough monies are paid to the bands,, its on.

no amount of money will replace the damage that an oil spill can do. do you think the first nations and fishermen were happy with any compensation they may have received with the damage the exxon valdez produced? Do you have any idea of the stresses involved when people had their lively-hoods taken away from them? it took more than 20 years for most that had claims to be compensated. and many still haven't been or have died in the meantime.

https://thinkprogress.org/the-exxon...e-full-amount-awarded-2bdb3d0a3ced#.un9rjq9uk
 
The double bottoms in the large tug contained about 226,875 litres of diesel fuel alone - 10 fuel trucks or so - whereas the barge is capable of carrying at least 5.5 million litres of fuel - another 275 fuel trucks or so worth. I'll go with the 1-2 fuel trucks on a smaller barge for the inside passage, thanks.
 
What do we do about supplying the island in this new plan? All of our fuel comes via boat. What about that other fleet that runs around our inside waters day after day carrying over 20,000,000 litres per year? How about all the cruise ships and other industrial traffic like grain ships leaving Rupert that carry hundreds of tons of bunker oil? It's not uncommon for them to burn over 5 tons an hour, the volumes they carry dwarf this.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a bad year for Bella Bella. If I remember correctly two vessels sank at the dock resulting in a fuel spill, then a fuel tanker truck drove off a barge and now this.

Fact is though, the so called marine highway has a pretty steady flow of fuel and equipment barges, commercial and recreational vessels, many of which could carry as much or more fuel in their tanks,as this tug did.

Coastal communities, many of which have no road access need fuel either barged in or hauled by coastal tanker ( including Bella Bella) for their boats and generators. They need supplies shipped in for their residents and fuel for their fishing vessels.

While it's easy to try and spin this into a tanker debate, this wasn't a fuel tanker or even a fuel barge spill just a tug and it could have just as easily been hauling equipment or any other non petro cargo.
 
It should be about risk management - the larger volumes = increased risk (consequence). More risk should equal more checks and balances - like pilots, where this barge was exempt - or go offshore...
 
no amount of money will replace the damage that an oil spill can do. do you think the first nations and fishermen were happy with any compensation they may have received with the damage the exxon valdez produced? Do you have any idea of the stresses involved when people had their lively-hoods taken away from them? it took more than 20 years for most that had claims to be compensated. and many still haven't been or have died in the meantime.

https://thinkprogress.org/the-exxon...e-full-amount-awarded-2bdb3d0a3ced#.un9rjq9uk


you are exactly correct, maybe i should have added," once compensated it opens a flood gate of prepaying for spills that will happen. Bands and members will get ALOT of compensation.. so if they cant sustain a livelihood where they live , them or the next generation move away"

pipe lines will be built. the "keepers of the land" will be rich.


hopefully i am wrong.
 
Good points AA, however going offshore might expose them to greater risk due to weather conditions and potentially just bring a higher risk scenario to the west coast as opposed to the east coast of the island.

I think currently all large tankers travel the outside of the island , at least,until they enter Juan de Fuca ( no one seems too concerned ??)

As for risk factor, I suspect that the gypo logging companies equipment barges and many of the sketchy, poorly maintained, commercial,ex commercial and larger recreational vessels are more of a risk to have an accident. Their impact may be smaller, outside the immediate area ( which is ok if that area doesn't hold your food source), but I suspect they spill more often than we are aware of.

Not excusing anyone.
 
you are exactly correct, maybe i should have added," once compensated it opens a flood gate of prepaying for spills that will happen. Bands and members will get ALOT of compensation.. so if they cant sustain a livelihood where they live , them or the next generation move away"...pipe lines will be built. the "keepers of the land" will be rich... hopefully i am wrong.
You are wrong Trophy. the Lax Kw'alaams Band turned down $1.2B - they aren't moving any wheres neither.
 
Well I doubt if the Lax Kw'alaams members have any control over what the Petronas bunch does, neither TW - as far as trying again...
 
Pretty sure we covered this a couple weeks ago and the latest info showed their support. Standing by for the part where people pick and choose which government supplied info they want to believe.
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure we covered this a couple weeks ago and the latest info showed their support. Standing by for the part where people pick and choose which government supplied info they want to believe.
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...skeena-river-estuary.60243/page-4#post-806542
Ya - those provincial scriptwriters - paid through your and my taxes - had to scrape to selectively say something supportive, too. If on one of the 1st votes - only 532 out of a 3219 membership (2009 stats) voted to continue discussions (and only provided the environment is protected) - then 83.5% thought further discussions were pointless - even after a $1.15B bribe. Lindsey didn't provide that stat in their news release.

http://laxkwalaams.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/lax-web-content-salmon-report-final-nov2-1.pdf
http://laxkwalaams.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/11-2015-Dec-17-LK-Salmon-Science-Report-11.pdf

 
Many communities on the coast - you can't drive to. But Bigdogeh is right - they don't use that monster barge. That's an Alaskan barge. Other coastal communities most often use a barge that has fuel trucks on it - to refuel. Bigdogeh, Trophywife and others are also correct - they could have gone offshore way farther (away from the rocks and the clam beds). This was a large tug and a large barge. That so-called "gentleman's agreement" wrt the so-called tanker moratorium should have applied here.
So just to be clear, because Bella Bella only needs a relatively small amount of fuel, you are suggesting that fuel trucks chained down onto the decks of barely regulated vessels is preferable to monitored double hulled fuel barges?! So where do you draw the line? Deliveries of 60000L are ok by trucks on barges but over that is for double hulled fuel barges?How long did the fuel truck that went down on a crappy barge in Johnstone strait leak fuel? I believe it was over a year, although in this particular instance it was indeed a lesser amount of fuel than the Nathan has puked out.
The grounding of this tug is unfortunate in so many ways, including the location. Seaforth channel is considered inside passage, although at it's entrance Milbanke Sound is exposed to "outside" weather conditions from certain directions, which I believe is hampering clean-up and containment efforts. However ineffective one argues the spill response to be, by pushing all fuel barges and their tugs outside, one would be guaranteeing a zero "effective" response, zero containment, and more widespread contamination possibilities.
I believe this latest accident will shake up certain parts of the industry, and that we will learn much from the investigation, and hopefully make corrective actions. A mandatory minimum 2 man wheelhouse, officer and lookout instead of mate up top and deckhand below doing chores as is common now and perhaps mandatory pilotage for sensitive cargos are possible actions I've heard many mariners discussing.
Regardless, the whole thing gives me nightmares, but people need fuel and I don't believe everything going outside to be the answer. Perhaps in this instance, Alaska to Washington, it might have been best, but fuel moves all over this coast too and the corrective actions need to take all deliveries into account, not just the Alaska to Washington route.
 
Back
Top