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

care to explain your comment further? is it because there isn't the population base? Is it geography? we have pipelines all up and down the province do we not? what makes the island any different? I would think it's the pipeline industry wants to deliver crude to large tankers to ship overseas (china) that the public is against most, is it not? you seem to know alot about the petroleum industry.. why don't you explain why it hasn't been done or wouldn't work? too many hippies on the island?
 
Social license, assign it to whichever group(s) you like. I don't think the opposition to pipelines has anything to do with the destination being China. It has to do with a risky product going through environmentally sensitive areas. It would get no more support if the product were bound for the EU, or Australia. Plus since there's not any energy produced on the island and no refining what would we do build a pipeline from mill bay to every gas station?

Ever asked yourself why we aren't protesting cruise ships? Zero necessity to their existence, zero economic benefits to the island and most of the province, massive amounts of bunker fuel plying the inside passage, owned by foreign national companies. Sounds like everything we don't want. Is it because the lights look so cool coming up the coast?

So are you saying you want a pipeline from the mainland here to the island to get away from barge and tanker shipments? That is what the thread is about after all. I'm not sure since you have 't addressed my repeated question and went on to building pipelines on the island instead. Product would still need to get to the island somehow.
 
Last edited:
Weather has been awful for the clean up crews and right now there's a forecasted Southeast 40-50kt wind. Having hid from weather several times in that area, I can tell you first hand that it's hell on earth in Milbanke under these conditions. It's not even fun being tied up in a place like Shearwater let alone being exposed right out near the open ocean Milbanke.

If there's one positive from this incident it will reveal and confirm the MAJOR weaknesses in this coasts oil spill response.

The weather will decide when the tug can be lifted. I'm pretty sure the heavy lift crane barge is up there waiting for a chance to get the Nathan E Stewart off the bottom.
 
Last edited:
Social license, assign it to whichever group(s) you like. I don't think the opposition to pipelines has anything to do with the destination being China. It has to do with a risky product going through environmentally sensitive areas. It would get no more support if the product were bound for the EU, or Australia. Plus since there's not any energy produced on the island and no refining what would we do build a pipeline from mill bay to every gas station?

Ever asked yourself why we aren't protesting cruise ships? Zero necessity to their existence, zero economic benefits to the island and most of the province, massive amounts of bunker fuel plying the inside passage, owned by foreign national companies. Sounds like everything we don't want. Is it because the lights look so cool coming up the coast?

So are you saying you want a pipeline from the mainland here to the island to get away from barge and tanker shipments? That is what the thread is about after all. I'm not sure since you have 't addressed my repeated question and went on to building pipelines on the island instead. Product would still need to get to the island somehow.

yes, I understand product needs to get there. what I was getting at is would it not make more sense to have the product get from washington to victoria or burnaby to nanaimo, which would be more or less a fairly direct route, then once on the island use a pipeline to get the product to the various tank farms that are in the more populated areas on the coast... rather than ship all up and down the coast. and I do agree that 99.9% of the time these guys delivering product do a great job. it's the .01% that falls asleep at the wheel (anyways kinda looking that way) that give the industry a bad name. and there's always going to be that .01% no matter what safeguards are put in place. should we not be striving for the least amount of petroleum transport across the waters if other ways are available? here's another question. do we use large fuel barges to get bulk fuel product into Bella Coola? I've seen fuel trucks heading into the town. just curious. we seem to do just fine moving product on the mainland from terminals that are hundreds of miles apart using trucks and pipelines.
thxs for elaborating on your message 555.
no, I don't think a pipeline carrying petroleum products from the mainland to the island would be a good idea. In my mind I would think having a spill from a pipeline on land might have a better chance of recovery of product and better chance of environmental reclamation than a spill in the ocean in sensitive areas. not sure if that would always be the case though... I think overall the people and companies delivering the product are doing a pretty good job but it's obvious that improvements can be made and should be made when given what has happened in good weather again here in Bella Bella.
 
Last edited:
yes, I understand product needs to get there. what I was getting at is would it not make more sense to have the product get from washington to victoria or burnaby to nanaimo, which would be more or less a fairly direct route, then once on the island use a pipeline to get the product to the various tank farms that are in the more populated areas on the coast... rather than ship all up and down the coast. and I do agree that 99.9% of the time these guys delivering product do a great job. it's the .01% that falls asleep at the wheel (anyways kinda looking that way) that give the industry a bad name. and there's always going to be that .01% no matter what safeguards are put in place. should we not be striving for the least amount of petroleum transport across the waters if other ways are available? here's another question. do we use large fuel barges to get bulk fuel product into Bella Coola? I've seen fuel trucks heading into the town. just curious. we seem to do just fine moving product on the mainland from terminals that are hundreds of miles apart using trucks and pipelines.
thxs for elaborating on your message 555.
no, I don't think a pipeline carrying petroleum products from the mainland to the island would be a good idea. In my mind I would think having a spill from a pipeline on land might have a better chance of recovery of product and better chance of environmental reclamation than a spill in the ocean in sensitive areas. not sure if that would always be the case though... I think overall the people and companies delivering the product are doing a pretty good job but it's obvious that improvements can be made and should be made when given what has happened in good weather again here in Bella Bella.


Totally agreed. I don't know about Bella coola for sure but I suspect it's overland as there's many stations enroute and it would make logistical sense to hit several on the way.
 
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.
At least you are consistent that any solution that is offered needs to be 100% or else it's not good enough for thought...... I can't give you a short term solution to 100% but maybe we should be looking at solutions that take us to 25% then 50% then 75% and lastly 100%. We have to start some where don't you agree? Here is some tech that looks good and could easily knock off 25% here on the island and that would have a direct effect on how much fuel get's barged over.
 
Judging by the signatories, it won't only create more jobs, but more profits for them. Some environmental industries have learned a lot from big oil, you can't believe everything they tell you! Anyway drifting off topic.
 
At least you are consistent that any solution that is offered needs to be 100% or else it's not good enough for thought...... I can't give you a short term solution to 100% but maybe we should be looking at solutions that take us to 25% then 50% then 75% and lastly 100%. We have to start some where don't you agree? Here is some tech that looks good and could easily knock off 25% here on the island and that would have a direct effect on how much fuel get's barged over.


I never said that anywhere in here, you're twisting it to create a narrative that lets you get away with not having to acknowledge reality by jumping around to alternatives that may make a difference 10-20 years down the road. I'm talking to the absolutists about today, you're avoiding it and grinding an axe instead. What's lost in all of the bickering is as mentioned before it's not the barge that's the problem, it's the tug. Lets ban them, no more tugs on the coast. Why is no one saying that? Because it's utterly ridiculous like all the other absolutist statements generally related to the resource sector, that's why.

As we've discussed on here numerous times yes I agree we have to start somewhere, it's obvious who could disagree? I have no issue with that, you and I have talked about it more than once! I'm very interested to see the day when there's viable alternatives. What I challenged in this thread was the absolutists who's answer is just no.

As for the video interesting for sure. The first thing that popped into my head was their claim of 5.5% increase from aerodynamics. OEM's spend millions on aerodynamics in this trucking game where pennies count. I find the 5.5% claim dubious, then they say installed in an hour? Hard to take the rest seriously after that. I also suspect if they could deliver 31% overall there would be a line of OEM's knocking down their doors and we'd already be seeing them everyday, that's a huge savings.
 
Last edited:
As far as the suggestion about having a pilot - and go offshore - looks like that is the Pilotage Authority is now making mandatory:


not sure why but getting this error when posting on any of the links.

SportFishing BC - Error
You do not have permission to view media within this album.

also it's 10:06 here and your links show about half an hr ahead of the actual time. not sure why that is also or if it has anything to do with the error.
 
not sure why but getting this error when posting on any of the links.
SportFishing BC - Error
You do not have permission to view media within this album.
also it's 10:06 here and your links show about half an hr ahead of the actual time. not sure why that is also or if it has anything to do with the error.
Not sure what I am doing wrong - tried to attach 3 pics...
 
Pacific Pilotage Authority (PPA) Waiver System, New and Interim Measures
http://www.newswire.ca/news-release...ystem-new-and-interim-measures-598198441.html

Currently, ships over 350 gross tons but under 10,000 gross tons (mostly tugs and barges) are granted waivers if the operator meets certain conditions. Effective immediately, the following additional conditions will be implemented for these vessels:
  • Every ship holding a waiver entering a compulsory pilotage area must notify the PPA and provide a list of the waiver holders' names;
  • Every ship must have two people on the bridge at all times, one of whom must be the waiver holder;
  • Every ship may be subject to random checks by the PPA;
  • Every ship may be asked to supply the PPA with log extracts to indicate who was on the bridge at a specific time;
  • The Master is to be on the bridge during the following transits:
a. First Narrows (Vancouver Harbour)

b. Second Narrows (Vancouver Harbour)

c. Fraser River transit

d. Seymour Narrows

e. Race and Current passage

f. Blackney Pass, Weynton Pass and Broughton Pass

g. Bella Bella

h. Boat Bluff

i. Grenville Channel from Lowe Inlet to Morning Reef

Additional route restrictions (subject to consultations with affected industry stakeholders) will also be put in place for all vessels transporting petroleum products through the compulsory pilotage areas. These restrictions will not apply to vessels delivering fuel to remote locations and communities on the BC Coast.
  • The northern section of the inside passage is off limits (Grenville Channel, Princess Royal Channel, Finlayson Channel, Seaforth Channel, Lama Pass and Fitzhugh Channel).
  • Vessels are to follow a route between the Mainland and Haida Gwaii after leaving Gordon Channel at the north east corner of Vancouver Island.
  • In adverse weather conditions and after clearance with vessel traffic, the vessel can proceed through Laredo and Principe by entering via Laredo Sound or Browning Entrance.
A five day implementation period will apply to vessels carrying petroleum who are subject to these additional route restrictions and are already in, or in transit to, these areas.
 
Pretty curious to see agent aqua's post about PPA's response measures but can't open them.
It was basically the same as the news release from the PPA - just photo's of the letter that the news release was based on. Not sure what I am doing wrong wrt posting pics....
 
Back
Top