LandKeepers News Archive
Pipeline Would Carry World’s Ugliest Oil: Reader
January 13 2010 | News Articles | Kitimat Northern Sentinel
Dear sir,
Re: Enbridge working hard on safety measures: Steve Greenaway (Dec. 9 Sentinel)
The Northern Gateways Pipelines would be a welcome addition to our local economy if it wasn’t for the fact that it is the ugliest oil in the world that will be coming through, and that it will cause vast disruptions to untouched wilderness in BC, and for the possibility of oil contamination in streams, rivers and the ocean, and more.
When it comes to the marine part of the project, Enbridge promises us that the transport of oil in very large crude tankers through our coastal waters is going to be safe because of the protective measures they will have in place. However, there will still be risks for accidents and spills. It just isn’t economically and technically feasible to completely eliminate all risks.
Mr. Greenaway, people don’t want even a remote chance for an oil spill here. Each loaded tanker is a liability. There are many things that can go wrong as one of these huge tankers makes its way to the open sea, and eventually something will. People who work on ships make mistakes, no one is infallible. Crew, maintenance people, builders, inspectors and contractors can all make mistakes. Errors, omissions and negligence in routine duties, operation, maintenance, repairs, inspections, etc. may not show up until much later and then bring about a failure on board that can lead to a disaster. Most recent BC Ferry incidents have been linked to human errors.
First response equipment will in all likelihood be ineffective to contain and recover the oil in the event of a big spill in bad sea conditions, and the oil will spread out of control over a large area, as it did in Prince William Sound.
Don’t think that it is just a matter of cleaning it all up afterwards. Crude oil on the shores is next to impossible to clean up. If the oil can’t be contained it will soon accumulate on beaches and rocks, in lagoons and estuaries, on grassy flats and on the bottom, and kill fish and wildlife, and cause lasting harm.
The structural reliability of chartered tankers is also a risk factor. Vetting is not fool proof. It’s is well documented that modern double hull tankers, such as those that will come here, corrode internally at very high rates and are very costly and demanding to keep in good condition. And there is a tendency by owners and operators not to show deficiencies and problems their ships may have since they are foremost in the business of making money, and are willing to take chances.
A very large crude carrier (VLCC) could arrive here after a period of sitting idle, for example, and be loaded. Then when it gets into large Hecate Strait swells on its way out, the hull will be subjected to immense forces as it heaves and twists in the sea. If the tanker has a structural weakness it could begin to break apart.
It is hypothetical, but insiders in the tankship business are warning that this type of incident is increasingly likely to happen as double hull tankers age. Are we going to be a proving ground for their claims?
I am also concerned that once the Northern Gateway Pipelines has been in operation for some time (if approved and built), the company could be looking at reducing and take away safety measures that were originally in the project’s terms and conditions to help prevent tanker incidents, in order to cut costs, particularly if there hasn’t been an incident up to then. Which company is not trying to cut costs?
Sincerely,
Per Norman
Kitimat, BC
This Entry is Not Tagged. Click here to Add Tags