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

[agentaqua]

Owner of stricken tugboat apologizes for diesel spill
'We deeply regret this incident,' says tugboat owner
The Canadian Press Posted: Oct 21, 2016 3:33 PM PT
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bella-bella-tug-diesel-spill-1.3815909

 

[bigdogeh]

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.

as usual, after a catastrophic oil spill has occurred, then we'll look into what maybe we could have done better and make changes... maybe.
at minimum I would have thought mandatory pilotage of fuel barges of this size should have already been in place. instead we find a waiver granted to this company by the Pacific Pilotage Authority. just shows how the regulatory boards that should have been regulating these industries have been captured by industry once again. yes the points you make are valid but they should have already been in place and been enforced. I still believe a fuel barge or tanker containing petroleum products of this size has no place or right to be plying our inside waters. ships cross the ocean every day. it's no excuse imo that they can't go out 40 or more miles then up to Alaska or down from Alaska. You're not going to end up on the rocks 40 miles out. If their ships aren't designed for that use ships that are. If they're in our inside waters (which I don't think they should be) should they not also have tug escorts? what are they supposed to do if they have engine problems or lose power? depend on help from Prince Rupert? we see how well that works out. they were fortunate FN were there to help out.
a gentlemans agreement to stay out of our inside waters? what a joke.

 

[bigdogeh]

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.

this is a quote I read from an article but it explains the way I feel about your quote above.

http://www.livingoceans.org/media/r...nkers-do-not-ensure-protection-against-spills

"Despite improvements in oil tanker regulation and technology, and a general decline in oil spills in recent years, accidents continue to occur. They are an inevitable part of shipping. In 2010 alone there were two major spills from double-hulled tankers: the Eagle Otome, with a coast pilot onboard, at Port Arthur, Texas and the Bunga Kelana 3 in the Strait of Singapore. Combined, the two tankers spilled 4.6 million liters of oil into the ocean.

Double-hulled or not, accidents happen. It would only take one spill to disrupt coastal communities, cultures and the environment for generations to come."


"Oil spills have resulted from double-hull tanker accidents. Examples include:

• On May 25, 2010 the Malaysian-registered Bunga Kelana 3 collided with a bulk carrier in the Strait of Singapore. A ten meter gash was torn on the port (left) side of the ship, which then spilled an estimated 2,500 tonnes (2.9 million litres) of crude oil into the sea.

On January 23, 2010 the Eagle Otome, bound for Exxon Mobil Corporation’s refinery in Beaumont, Texas, collided with an outbound vessel towing two barges. The towing vessel tore open the side of the tanker, and an estimated 450,000 gallons (approximately 11,000 barrels or 1.7 million litres) of crude oil was spilled."


yes, if I had to choose between seeing a "crappy" barge go down in the strait with a couple fuel trucks strapped on it or see a double hulled fuel "barge" lose 275 fuel trucks worth of contents I'd choose the former. the chance of having the amount of smaller accidents before it would do the damage of just one major spill is nil. sorry, but that's just "common " sense. something the people making decisions at the top lately seem to lack.
I think AA put it quite eloguently.

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.

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...

 

[hambone]

A couple fuel trucks strapped to barges.... this is the solution to providing fuel to Vancouver Island, Haida Gwaii, and communities like Bella Bella, Hartley Bay, Klemtu etc?

Fuel trucks might be good for a couple logging camps but not much else. Gyppo tug and barge companies running around with fuel trucks is a step backwards.

 

[triplenickel]

as usual, after a catastrophic oil spill has occurred, then we'll look into what maybe we could have done better and make changes... maybe.
at minimum I would have thought mandatory pilotage of fuel barges of this size should have already been in place. instead we find a waiver granted to this company by the Pacific Pilotage Authority. just shows how the regulatory boards that should have been regulating these industries have been captured by industry once again. yes the points you make are valid but they should have already been in place and been enforced. I still believe a fuel barge or tanker containing petroleum products of this size has no place or right to be plying our inside waters. ships cross the ocean every day. it's no excuse imo that they can't go out 40 or more miles then up to Alaska or down from Alaska. You're not going to end up on the rocks 40 miles out. If their ships aren't designed for that use ships that are. If they're in our inside waters (which I don't think they should be) should they not also have tug escorts? what are they supposed to do if they have engine problems or lose power? depend on help from Prince Rupert? we see how well that works out. they were fortunate FN were there to help out.
a gentlemans agreement to stay out of our inside waters? what a joke.

So let's play the no tankers scenario on the inside a bit farther. How will the island get fuel?

 

[GLG]

So let's play the no tankers scenario on the inside a bit farther. How will the island get fuel?

Great question...,. why don't we change the energy that powers our transportation to several different types that are less harmful. We could even produce some of them right were we live.

 

[bigbruce]

Why is all the focus here on the barge? I thought it was the tug that ran aground and is leaking fuel. There are all kinds of ships plying the inside waters that could also run aground and leak fuel (Queen of the North??). Should we be banning those as well?

 

[Tugcapitan]

Big Bruce is quite right, it was the tug that was holed and leaked, but the focus is on the barge because of what could have been had it been loaded.

I don't agree with bigdogeh's commentary. The pilotage waiver for these guys was granted under the condition that their crew is very experienced in our local waters, and the same courtesy is extended to us Canadian boys plying their waters over and over again. It will be interesting to see if the waiver conditions were being met as the investigation unfolds.
I also disagree again with the fuel trucks chained down to small deck barges. The whole point of a double hulled barge is that if it is holed, the product tanks are hopefully not. Proper Fuel barges are also segregated into many holds so that even if one was breached, the whole cargo is not compromised.

Vancouver islands fuel is also delivered by tug and barge, every drop. I agree with GLG that alternative power would be great, but we are a long way off from that reality.

 

[triplenickel]

Great question...,. why don't we change the energy that powers our transportation to several different types that are less harmful. We could even produce some of them right were we live.

That's not an answer to the question, and we both know it's already being developed and implemented as fast as possible, practical, and economical. I'm talking about next week, next month. Any ideas?

 

[bigdogeh]

I understand Vancouver island fuel is delivered by tug and barge. can someone tell me how it is distributed up and down the coast of Vancouver island? does it come from Washington? or the terminal from Burrard street? where is it delivered to on Vancouver Island? where are the terminals where it is offloaded? Is it being barged up to say Port Hardy? I would hope that most large shipments would be by land once they reach the Island. that's how most fuel is shipped on the mainland. why would you barge fuel up to howe sound if you can ship it overland? I would hope that fuels or oil products in large quantities wouldn't be shipped unnecessarily by water when a route over land is possible.
have a look at these pictures and tell me that shipping oil products by water is relatively safe. their is risk even with double hulled tankers.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=doub...MKHd3dBAQQsAQILw#tbm=isch&q=tanker+oil+spills

we should be doing everything we can to mitigate the risks as much as possible and if that means hauling petroleum products overland if that corridor exists we should be using that option versus by water.
can you agree with that triplenickel? tugitcaptain? or is that to much to ask for also?

 

[GLG]

Hi 3x5 if you need some ideas for next week or next month then you may want to consider being as fuel efficient as you can. The fuel you don't burn is the fuel they don't have to barge to the island.
Here is a link on how to get 25% more efficient.
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/effi...trucks/fuel-efficient-driving-techniques/7507

 

[Sir Reel]

In this picture it looks like the booms are keeping the diesel fuel from contaminating the tug.

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-179012-3-.htm#179012

 

[Tugcapitan]

To answer your question bigfogeh, fuel for Vancouver island generally originates in Burnaby East of second narrows bridge at either Stanovan (Chevron), Suncor (petrocanada), or Shellburn (Shell). Every once in a while from Kindermorgan near first narrows bridge. It is offloaded in bulk in Esquimalt, Hatch Pt Saanich inlet, Bare Pt Chemainus, Nanaimo Departure bay and Newcastle channel, and in Port Hardy. There are smaller deliveries elsewhere but the major 4-10 million L ones are at those locations. Numerous barges a week to each location save esquimalt and port Hardy which are less frequent.
The smaller barges deliver 4 million L, which is about 130 30,000L fuel trucks, the larger barges over 10million liters about 34o trucks. Once the fuel is delivered, a non stop procession of fuel trucks deliver it all over the island. The island rips through it so fast that a one day weather delay by one barge can cause shortages at certain gas stations and marinas.

Now you tell me by looking at those numbers and how many spills we have here that our Canadian marine petroleum transportation system has been unsafe?! It has to get there somehow, and in my opinion they are doing a fantastic job with a pretty darn good track record.

I agree the fantastic pictures of foundering oil tankers you posted are terrible, but I feel like their relationship to this topic of tug and barge fuel deliveries on this coast is a stretch, and perhaps a bit sensational. The public has already expressed that there is very little appetite for moving tankers up the inside passage.

Don't get me wrong, this latest accident is a huge "wake-up call" (pun only sort of intended) to the entire industry. As good as we are at this there is room for improvement, and of course we are only human. But living the life styles we live here requires fuel. Even Ingmar Lee who made the prophetic video of the Nathan E Stewart was chasing it down in his boat. Where do you think he got his fuel from?

 

[bigdogeh]

In this picture it looks like the booms are keeping the diesel fuel from contaminating the tug.

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-179012-3-.htm#179012

lol,
does look that way, doesn't it...

are there dispersants that could be applied by air? you would think more could be done than just watch it drift down the coast. In the gulf spill dispersants were applied from airplanes and used alot. is it possible they could be used on a situation like this? is this our example of a world class oil spill response? sure glad this is a relatively small one. I hope it has been a wakeup call Tugitcaptain, and I hope we do see substantial actions taken so this doesn't happen again.
also, thxs for the info on how fuel is distributed to the island. not alot of info on that when trying to google it. you would think there would be some type of map image showing the routes and who ships what where. if there is I haven't been able to find it.

would it not be possible to have 1 or 2 main terminals and then pipe the product up and down the island and store the product in tank farms? would that not eliminate alot of tanker traffic in sensitive marine areas? is that being done or are there reasons it isn't being done? thxs for shedding some light on this subject.

it only takes one drop of oil to contaminate a million drops of water.
http://www.usedoilrecycling.com/resources/file/bcama_brochure_2010.pdf

 

[triplenickel]

I understand Vancouver island fuel is delivered by tug and barge. can someone tell me how it is distributed up and down the coast of Vancouver island? does it come from Washington? or the terminal from Burrard street? where is it delivered to on Vancouver Island? where are the terminals where it is offloaded? Is it being barged up to say Port Hardy? I would hope that most large shipments would be by land once they reach the Island. that's how most fuel is shipped on the mainland. why would you barge fuel up to howe sound if you can ship it overland? I would hope that fuels or oil products in large quantities wouldn't be shipped unnecessarily by water when a route over land is possible.
have a look at these pictures and tell me that shipping oil products by water is relatively safe. their is risk even with double hulled tankers.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=doub...MKHd3dBAQQsAQILw#tbm=isch&q=tanker+oil+spills

we should be doing everything we can to mitigate the risks as much as possible and if that means hauling petroleum products overland if that corridor exists we should be using that option versus by water.
can you agree with that triplenickel? tugitcaptain? or is that to much to ask for also?

Yes obviously, now what about my question you give a flat no to shipping what are our options? I don't know for sure where all of the terminals are but I know there's one near Mill Bay.

Hi 3x5 if you need some ideas for next week or next month then you may want to consider being as fuel efficient as you can. The fuel you don't burn is the fuel they don't have to barge to the island.
Here is a link on how to get 25% more efficient.
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/effi...trucks/fuel-efficient-driving-techniques/7507

Adorable link if a bit condescending, I already do everything there and as stated before do most of my errands on a vintage Honda 70. Doesn't get much more efficient than that. So what about the other 75%?

Just say it guys it won't hurt, "the people involved do the best they can and it's currently the only viable option and I'm happy I can get fuel anytime I want it." Unless of course someone wants to float the idea of a pipeline welcome to reality. Hopefully standards improve and accidents decrease, just like everything else in life. The CBC bit I heard on this spill said they go the call at 4:30 am and were on site by 11:00 am, not sure what will ever make everyone happy.

http://www.cowichanbayvillage.com/2013/06/23/the-vancouver-island-tanker-fleet/

 

[GLG]

Adorable link if a bit condescending, I already do everything there and as stated before do most of my errands on a vintage Honda 70. Doesn't get much more efficient than that. So what about the other 75%?

Well you could consider getting a more fuel efficient or electric car for the wife.... You may want to look at moving closer to work

 

[Tugcapitan]

lol,
does look that way, doesn't it...

are there dispersants that could be applied by air? you would think more could be done than just watch it drift down the coast. In the gulf spill dispersants were applied from airplanes and used alot. is it possible they could be used on a situation like this? is this our example of a world class oil spill response? sure glad this is a relatively small one.

would it not be possible to have 1 or 2 main terminals and then pipe the product up and down the island and store the product in tank farms? would that not eliminate alot of tanker traffic in sensitive marine areas? is that being done or are there reasons it isn't being done?

My understand of dispersants from our oil spill training is that with "light" oil like diesel, despite our best efforts, the biggest help in these situations is evaporation of the fuel itself. Dispersants can cling to fuel particles and make them sink, which means no chance for evaporation and a build up on the seafloor.

As for fuel delivery land based infrastructure, I have no clue as to what's best, but your theory sounds reasonable. Try convincing the oil companies to cooperate though
I can tell you there are considerable tank farms at all the locations I mentioned earlier.

 

[triplenickel]

Well you could consider getting a more fuel efficient or electric car for the wife.... You may want to look at moving closer to work

I meant the other 75% of the fuel islanders will need if we all followed the advice on that highly informative link. I suspect you knew that though, at least you're consistent.

 

[triplenickel]

My understand of dispersants from our oil spill training is that with "light" oil like diesel, despite our best efforts, the biggest help in these situations is evaporation of the fuel itself. Dispersants can cling to fuel particles and make them sink, which means no chance for evaporation and a build up on the seafloor.

As for fuel delivery land based infrastructure, I have no clue as to what's best, but your theory sounds reasonable. Try convincing the oil companies to cooperate though
I can tell you there are considerable tank farms at all the locations I mentioned earlier.

Pretty sure it wouldn't be the oil companies that needed convincing. Seems like they're all about the alternative to overland/overwater shipments. The public doesn't want the alternative which is a pipeline.

 

[triplenickel]

lol,
does look that way, doesn't it...

are there dispersants that could be applied by air? you would think more could be done than just watch it drift down the coast. In the gulf spill dispersants were applied from airplanes and used alot. is it possible they could be used on a situation like this? is this our example of a world class oil spill response? sure glad this is a relatively small one. I hope it has been a wakeup call Tugitcaptain, and I hope we do see substantial actions taken so this doesn't happen again.
also, thxs for the info on how fuel is distributed to the island. not alot of info on that when trying to google it. you would think there would be some type of map image showing the routes and who ships what where. if there is I haven't been able to find it.

would it not be possible to have 1 or 2 main terminals and then pipe the product up and down the island and store the product in tank farms? would that not eliminate alot of tanker traffic in sensitive marine areas? is that being done or are there reasons it isn't being done? thxs for shedding some light on this subject.

it only takes one drop of oil to contaminate a million drops of water.
http://www.usedoilrecycling.com/resources/file/bcama_brochure_2010.pdf

A pipeline up and down the island?! Good luck with that one, seriously.