Tanker adrift off BC north coast

[my5cents]

It is intellectually dishonest. But it does not matter as those that wish for these events will eat it up anyway.

I don't know about "wish(ing) for these events", but I know personally this incident got me thinking.

Nobody wants a super tanker to spill oil on any beach/shoreline and if we start shipping oil, in great quantities there is a great risk of something happening. It also points out how much risk we are already at, with the tanker ships leaving Vancouver already.

A ship leaving Burnaby can be carrying around 526,000 barrels of oil, that's cargo, plus it's fuel.

The 400 tonnes of bunker fuel !!!!!!! that grabbed so many headlings ?? There are 8.9 barrels of oil to a tonne, so, the Simushir was carrying 3560 barrels of oil. So the ships leaving Burnaby are carrying 59,000 tonnes of oil cargo, plus, perhaps a 1,000 tonnes of bunker fuel, 534,000 barrels of oil.

I really hadn't read into the safety features the oil companies and the government were proposing. In the back of my mind, my BS detector was beeping even without checking the details.

After this incident I did read some of the government "information" (insert propaganda) and noted that almost all their efforts were directed at cleanup after a spill, not prevention. I see now that it has been suggested that each super tanker be escorted by two super tugs.

Ironically we need equipment to prevent grounding for all types of ships passing by our coast, as it turns out even ships that haven't stopped or are not stopping at a Canadian port of call. The Simushir was travelling from the USA to Russian, nothing to do with Canada.

[hobbyguy]

As I posted earlier, Canada has precisely zero tugs capable of dealing with large ships in trouble in bad weather.

The federal government seems to assume that the private sector will look after this need.

But they won't. Individual ships are generally (almost always) registered in places like Liberia so that the owners can duck out of any liability. They carry very little insurance, so a premium increase if there is trouble is not a big liability for them. There is also some "pool" insurance on top of that, but that is only about 1/10 of the clean up cost estimate for a large tanker disaster. So not much prospect for a significant cost liability for them either.

"Open Registers or Flags of Convenience (FOCs)

The use of flags of convenience and the establishment of new registers by States with no pre-existing maritime
infrastructure is growing. To shipping and fishing interests, the economic attraction of registering a vessel under a flag with
lower costs, more relaxed crewing requirements and less vigorous regulation is undeniable. Moreover there can be a
competitive disadvantage in registering with more reputable flags. However, the wider consequences should not be
underestimated. Without transparency of ownership, without the connection between the beneficial owners of a vessel and
the flag State responsible for jurisdiction on board it is not possible to ensure the highest standards in maritime security and
safety. For these reasons it is vital for States to address, at the appropriate level and without delay, these important issues of
international governance.

Security, Safety and Environmental issues

FOC-vessels dominate lists focusing on sub-standard shipping, poor performance on safety, maltreatment of crew, pollution
of the marine environment and illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing on the high seas.
Due to the availability of lax registration procedures and poor controls, a number of States and international organizations
have raised concerns over the potential use of vessels in criminal and terrorist acts. It is very easy and entirely legal to
conceal the identities of vessel owners. Some flag States even use the promise of anonymity as an attraction when
advertising their services for vessel registration. This report cites examples of the involvement of ships in terrorist and
criminal activities, including arms smuggling and people trafficking, and notes that illegal activities are often intertwined with
those that are legitimate. The multi-layered nature of the industry, the difficulties linked to flag State jurisdiction combined
with a tradition of secrecy can make it impossible to trace ownership and to enforce compliance with international law."

The above quote is from a joint report by the WWF and the ITF (International Transport Workers Federation). (my bold)

So it is cheaper for the ship owners to do nothing, as through flags of convenience they are protected from liability, completely anonymous (I believe that in Liberia it is a major crime if you disclose the actual name of the shipowner), and subject only to extremely lax insurance requirements that our federal government hasn't updated for years and years. Canada couldn't even fine them, let alone sue them, because you can't determine who to fine.

We then are totally on the hook for the costs and consequences of any significant marine disasters that occur. Privatized profits, socialized costs and liabilities.

I can not for the life of me understand why a so called conservative government continues to ignore this situation. It makes absolutely no sense from the philosophical sentiment expressed of personal responsibility. It makes absolutely no sense from the perspective of government fiscal responsibility.

Unfortunately, this is not an issue that many Canadian voters are aware of. So our politicians ignore it.