Full Tanker in Active Pass

Lol been going on for 50 plus years. First time an East Coast retiree wanna be influencer sees one it makes the “news”
A lot of bad practices have been going on for 50+ years. Bad past practices have changed for the better in many cases, sadly only after a bad incident in too many cases. Active pass is not a good idea for a loaded tanker of any kind, especially when there's an alternative route so close by.
 
A lot of bad practices have been going on for 50+ years. Bad past practices have changed for the better in many cases, sadly only after a bad incident in too many cases. Active pass is not a good idea for a loaded tanker of any kind, especially when there's an alternative route so close by.
Yeah, no risk at East point in Boundary Pass on a building flood tide, looks much safer on a paper. Active Pass nearer slack with an underpowered small ship couldn’t be easier to navigate, should probably cancel it... Do your good work millennials, carry on.
(yes I know I’m a sarcastic jerk. Can’t help it sometimes when experts aren’t experts anymore and all of a sudden the armchair “experts” with no experience write articles for the Tyee that contain absolute bull crap with a side of errors and conjecture and get away with it. That’s one problem with internet reporting, there’s no appetite or obligation to fact check. Write whatever you want and pat yourself on the back. Way of the world now I guess)
 
Exxon Oil Spill 30 years ago is still poisoning wildlife "....cleanups are measure in decades" Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, Alaska
And elsewhere. Probably not a jerk ....sarcastic is just spice. Intel is just being reported not opinionated.
Just a small sampling (list too large to reproduce here) to 2016 of Oil spills as reported in countries with a free press. Estimate from China, Russia, Saudi, Venezuela etc etc ... easily triple it.
1620757630161.png
 
OK I'll bite. What in this Tyee article is not correctly stated?
Well, for starters - the Title.: "We’re Not Going to See Tankers in Active Pass Ever Again". There is a temporary interim requirement set by the PACIFIC PILOTAGE AUTHORITY that states that piloted vessels will avoid transiting Active Pass and Porlier Pass until a risk assessment is completed - NOT that "We’re Not Going to See Tankers in Active Pass Ever Again"...
 
Well, for starters - the Title.: "We’re Not Going to See Tankers in Active Pass Ever Again". There is a temporary interim requirement set by the PACIFIC PILOTAGE AUTHORITY that states that piloted vessels will avoid transiting Active Pass and Porlier Pass until a risk assessment is completed - NOT that "We’re Not Going to See Tankers in Active Pass Ever Again"...
So at this point until the assessment is completed we don't yet know wether the title is correct or not, correct?
 
Well, I am really unsure why they felt they needed to exaggerate and sensationalize the issue as a tag line and misrepresent the issue. A more honest approach would have been to state that the pilotage authority was doing a risk assessment which is likely a good thing, IMHO. Let the experts review the risk, and see what they say.
 
Back
Top