LandKeepers News Archive
Pipeline, Tankers a Bad Idea
December 30 2009 | Media Releases | Terrace Standard
Dear Sir,
Have you seen the TV documentary on the effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill? Twenty years after the event, with entrained oil still affecting the waters, the fishing industry in Prince William Sound is still struggling to recover. The salmon are just beginning to come back. Should Enbridge Northern Gateway gain approval for a proposed twinned pipeline from the Alberta tar sands to Kitimat, an irreplaceable fisheries industry worth $110 million a year could be destroyed by our own inevitable marine mishap.
Completion of the pipelines would thrust an average 220 tankers per year into the environmentally sensitive waters of British Columbia’s north coast. Outbound super-tankers (some with a deck area approaching 5 acres) would be loaded with a toxic cocktail of bitumen and condensate destined for refineries in Asia and the United States. Inbound tankers would carry highly volatile distillates to be piped from Kitimat to Fort MacMurray to be mixed with bitumen for the return trip.
There are many reasons why this gamble with the economies of the B.C. coast is a very bad idea. Two undeniable problems that continue to plague ships at sea are system breakdowns and human error.
System Breakdowns:
In his excellent book “Tankship Tromedy”, available on the internet, Jack Devanney estimated that of the 3600 large tonnage tankers afloat today, there are 10 minor losses of power every day. Major power losses, lasting a day or more, occur once a day.
Using those figures applied to the 30 hour round-trip from the open sea to Kitimat and the projected tanker traffic, we can expect a minor loss of power every 16 months. A major power failure can be expected every 13 years. These estimates seem reasonable in light of the steering failure of the bulk carrier “Petersfield” in the Douglas Channel earlier this year. While its bulbous hull was crushed, the damage was slight, and no oil was released. However, the incident illustrates the potential for far more serious casualties, given the projected volume of oil tanker traffic.
You don’t have to look far afield to find potentially far more serious outcomes. While carrying crude oil from Valdez Alaska, the state-of-the-art double hull “Polar Endeavour” briefly lost both engines in a wildlife area near Anacortes in 2002. Later, in 2004 its steering system suddenly lurched 15 degrees in Prince William Sound. Once again, in 2004 in thick fog it collided with another ship in the South China Sea. Following an investigation of the collision, its high-tech variable speed propeller was found to be stuck in the full-ahead condition. This ultra-modern double hulled tanker was the pride of the ConocoPhilips fleet and at only 8 years old has already had four reported significant system breakdowns.
In a 2007 presentation to a shipbuilder’s forum on structural defects in double hull tankers, a survey of tankers up to 25 years old highlighted that a significant number of fracture defects occurred in double hull tankers less than ten years old. The challenge of building a high quality double hull VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) super tanker under today’s market conditions is staggering! Potential buyers of next generation super tankers are justifiably nervous with visions of future massive liability claims.
Human Error:
In November 2007, the container ship “Cosco Busan” sideswiped the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge spilling 1200 barrels of heavy bunker fuel into the Bay.
Investigation into the collision uncovered a list of causes based on human error. It was found that the pilot’s performance was compromised by medications which impaired his judgement. In addition, effective master/pilot communications were hampered by considerable differences in culture and language. When the master could have stepped in to challenge the ship’s course under the pilot’s guidance of the vessel, he remained silent. Also brought into question was whether the pilot’s physician showed questionable medical oversight by finding the pilot fit for duty despite a combination of medical conditions affecting his job performance. Finally, the English only safety management system manual provided for the ship’s crew was not translated into their working language.
The pilot, a 27 year veteran, was sentenced to 10 months in prison, and the management firm in charge of the “Cosco Busan” was fined a $10 million criminal penalty for obstruction by falsifying documents related to the collision.
In a related incident, when the (already cited) bulk carrier “Petersfield” was one year old in 1986, it was involved in a mishap on the Mississippi River when it collided with eight tank barges carrying liquid asphalt. One of the barges sank. Several others were either heavily damaged or capsized. The “Petersfield” was punctured above the waterline. At the time the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found fault with the Louisiana pilot oversight system for failing to remove the pilot who lacked the diligence to pilot ships on the Mississippi and had been in five other accidents causing $20 million in property damage.
Closer to home in 2008, the B.C. Ferry “Northern Adventure” – the replacement for the ill-fated “Queen of the North” – halted service at Bella Bella when it was discovered that due to an “honest mistake”, waste oil containing water was used to top-up the lube oil at some point earlier in the voyage. Honest mistakes can sink ships.
Enbridge would have us believe that because tankers serving the Douglas Channel will have tug boat escorts, a significant accident can’t happen here. In March 2007, the tug boat “Sea Voyager” ran aground just meters from an illuminated navigation marker near Bella Bella. Some years earlier, while the “Sea Voyager” was tethered to the back of the crude oil tanker “Arco Spirit” in Prince William Sound, she was hit from behind by the escort vessel “Freedom Service”. It is both arrogant and naive to suggest that tugs and escorts are sufficient safeguards to eliminate incidents with tankers in our area.
Enbridge claims that only newer (less than five year old) double hull tankers will visit the Douglas Channel. We are urged not to “rush to judgement” and that the likelihood of oil spills is “nil”. The holes in these patronizing assurances are large enough to sail a tanker through.
All it would take is an intersection of a crude oil tanker and one or more of these factors with, say, the weather, to generate the “Perfect Storm” that would be impossible to contain. We stand to lose the north coast for decades.
Say “NO” to Enbridge Northern Gateway!
Dave Shannon,
Terrace, B.C.
Copyright Black Press. All rights reserved.
This Entry is Not Tagged. Click here to Add Tags