Tanker adrift off BC north coast

[flamingfingers]

goatboy wrote:

Are you also as indignant about the possibility of it happening off the coast of Saudi Arabia,

Saudi Arabia has 2,640 kilometers of coastline—nearly 1,800 kilometers along the Gulf of Aqaba and the Red Sea and the remainder along the Persian Gulf.

It is also heavily populated and all shoreline is easily accessible by emergency vehicles.

the total length of the British Columbia Coast is over 25,725 kilometres (15,985 mi),

Much of it rugged with little access by ship, boat or road. There is quite a difference, you know.

[my5cents]

Apparently as of about an hour ago the tug Barbara Foss is on scene.

For anyone who say "it all worked out, nothing happened". This rescue took about 20 hours for the tug to arrive. The tug that rescued or is in the process of same, just happened to be in the area, if you can call 20 hours away as "in the area".

So let's say the Barbara Foss wasn't in Prince Rupert at the time. Where was the next closest tug that could have done the job ?

If this wasn't a small container ship and was a large tanker, how much towing could the Coast Guard ship do while waiting for the Barbara Foss ?

Want to bet this story goes away ?

[twobits]

This whole thread is alarmist. If Endbridge et al were not the media favourite right now this would be a non event. Ships lose power all the time around the globe. Cruise ship just did as well as a Canadian naval vessel. This is much ado about nothing and for those of you trying to portray this as a wake up call......I seriously have to question your deductive reasoning cuz your motive and agenda is very transparent.
There are literally thousands of ships that ply the waters of the coast of our province carrying the same or more bunker C and diesel for propulsion. They are carrying our wheat, coal, lumber, and manufactured goods we export around the world. Would you alarmists suggest we stop shipping anything in a ship that used bunker C and diesel fuel to get our goods to global markets?

This is nothing but a play on odds of a "super tanker" running aground, which is 1000 to 1 if not more in coastal ship traffic, and trying to extrapolate imminent disaster..... weak at it's best. And for those of you that insist on that position, you best be riding a bicycle and wear cotton or hemp clothing cuz crude oil moves all over the globe and to say your risk is greater than any other countries coastline is rather sanctimonious. BC coastline is unique? How bout Alaska, North Sea, Norway? How bout hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico?
Think we are so special and unique globally? You need to lose the nimby and get out more often.

Or we could just continue to fill the coffers of countries with oil resources that promote jihadism rather than using our own free world resources. You pick what the better choice might be?

[bob vernon]

1000 to one. That's comforting. At 3 tankers a day leaving Kitimat, that would mean about one per year would go onto the rocks. I guess we're good to go.

[simnut]

I just did some research into vessel movements off the west coast of BC. There are , on average per year, a total of 410,000 vessel movements , from passenger to chemical, cargo, tugs, fishing tankers etc. Did you know that there are 230,000 ferry and cruise ship movements in average, per year since 1996 - 2004? That is 56% of the vessel movements off our coast. Do you know how much fuel a cruise ship carries? The larger ones carry over 4000 tonnes, ten times as much as this particular ship on this thread. The Spirit class ferries carry over 250,000 liters of fuel when full, PLUS all the contaminants of vehicles being carried on a crossing.

Between 1999 and 2009, there were over 1200 reported marine vessel incidents along the BC Coast. That is an average of 120 a year and 2.9% occurrence, on average. Now, many of these are just that, incidents....where no pollution or fuel spill, or damage to environment happened. Things like what is happening now, where the ship is disabled but brought under control.

THAT is , in my opinion, the way we need to look at this. It's like looking at flying....when a 777 goes down, it is HUGE news....but the odds of a 777 going down is at a number that thousands get aboard one everyday. We need to be ready to deal with a disable ship, and this case was a good slap on the face. But, when those operating procedures are in place, let commerce and shipping do it's thing. We ALL need what they are delivering......ALL of us.

[Glacier]

The media and the environmentalist left were so quick to make a political statement over Northern Gateway they never bothered to check the facts. All the knew is that they wanted a potential oil tanker spill so bad they could taste it.

[Jx3]

The media and the environmentalist left were so quick to make a political statement over Northern Gateway they never bothered to check the facts. All the knew is that they wanted a potential oil tanker spill so bad they could taste it.

Ding ding ding.... We have a winner!! You hit the nail right on the head Glacier!

You can almost feel the bitter disappointment in FF's and her ilk's posts that this ship didn't end up smashed against the rocks.

After listening to all the alarmist, over the top, sensationalist, media frenzy about this non-event one has to wonder what those feigning outrage are actually advocating. A ban on all marine traffic in BC waters?

The reality is that it seems that absolutely EVERYTHING these days has to be a political issue.

[goatboy]

*removed*

[hobbyguy]

While this incident may be hyped in numerous ways, it certainly points out the inadequacy of Canadian resources to respond to such incidents.

The Queen of the North incident is still going on. That's what? 8 years later and we still haven't dealt with the fuel that's slowly seeping out. Only very recently did we deal with a WW2 shipwreck that was leaking oil in the same area.

There were NO resources on Haida Gwaii to deal with this incident. The resources in Prince Rupert were inadequate.

The outcome of this incident could have been much different if it had not been for a fortunate shift in the winds. Fair enough, this one turned out OK, but partly because there happened to be an American tug available. In other words, we got lucky. Doesn't always work out that way.

The Simushir has a dead weight of 9405 tons. The VLCCs that Enbridge proposes to load with dilbit are roughly 300,000 dead weight tons. So roughly 30 times more challenging. The Amoco Cadiz was 235,000 dead weight tons, and a world class tug was unable to tow it.

It's a complicated subject. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4783&page=121

"While one might prefer to think that any size vessel could be towed in any weather with a large enough tug, this is simply not the case. The limiting factor is a function of the relative motions between the two vessels and the ability of the towline and towing winch to allow for that relative motion without breaking, while still providing sufficient towing force to keep the vessel moving or at least to maintain its position. It was demonstrated—most dramatically in the case of the Amoco Cadiz—that even a world-class tug cannot tow a vessel under some conditions. The relative motions between the two vessels simply becomes too great for the towline's ability to stretch. Attaching a towline is a difficult and dangerous operation in storm conditions and may not be possible, again, due to relative motion between the vessels."

The Barbara Foss, the American tug that is currently towing the Simushir, is 198 tons gross. Certainly a good size tug. However, the serious tugs that can possibly handle a 300,000 tdw VLCC are like the Oceanic, which is 2,294 gross tons. http://www.tugboats.de/oceanic_e.html, and even with a tug like that, they couldn't save the Atlantik Empress, which was towed out to sea with four tugs.

Canada's most powerful tug? I think it is this one: http://www.ral.ca/news/2014/2014-01-10.html the Ocean Tundra, which has 4,475 hp total engine power. The Oceanic that can possibly tow a VLCC? 13,200 total hp. (And the Ocean Tundra Canada's best - is destined for service in the Gulf of St. Lawrence - which does us absolutely no good on the west coast.)

IF we want a reasonable response capability to VLCC navigation safety, I would guess that we would have to have at least 5 tugs of the Oceanic caliber on the west coast - and stationed on standby.

Just points out that Christy Clark was correct when she stated that our capabilities to deal tanker incidents/accidents are woefully inadequate.

Meanwhile, our PM from the flatlands is busy slashing the heck out of our already inadequate Coast Guard. I wonder if he even has his boating card?

[simnut]

1000 to one. That's comforting. At 3 tankers a day leaving Kitimat, that would mean about one per year would go onto the rocks. I guess we're good to go.

Those odds are incorrect, and the odds will get less and less as more procedures are put into place.

[hobbyguy]

Actually simnut, and I don't know the exact odds, Bob might not be far off.

The reason for that is that vessels of the VLCC are much, much larger than the typical traffic. Just look at the difference in size versus the Simushir, at 9,405 tons, and a typical VLC of 300,000 tons. I can turn my pick up truck around in a cul-de-sac, try that with a Greyhound bus. That's the sort of differentials. So when there's trouble, a VLCC just doesn't have the leeway to get out of it.

You can not eliminate human error. And you can not eliminate the sorts of thing that caused the Amoco Cadiz disaster.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Amoco_Cadiz_oil_spill?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com

"At around 09:45, a heavy wave hit the ship's rudder and it was found that she was no longer responding to the helm. This was due to the shearing of Whitworth thread studs in the Hastie four ram steering gear, built under licence in Spain, causing a loss of hydraulic fluid. Attempts to repair the damage were made but proved unsuccessful"

I bold the section "built under license is Spain". Ever notice how much stuff now says "assembled in the US using foreign components" or a brand name like Bosch and when you open the box it says "made in China" etc. My experience is that stuff just doesn't last.

The force 10 winds and rough that the Amoco Cadiz encountered, rendering it untowable, are quite common off Haida Gwaii. I personally spent two Summer days hiding a sailboat behind a small island off the west coast of Graham Island because of such a storm. A few miles away from that spot sits the rusting hulk of a freighter that wrecked there. Fall, winter, and spring - those storms are quite common. Force 10 winds by the way are 89-102 km/h. The highest recorded winds off Haida Gwaii? I believe about 190 km/h - which would give you something much worse than this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beaufort_scale_12.jpg

So Bob's calculation may be closer to the truth than we would like to think. But even if it is off by a factor of 10, that would mean one tanker hitting the rocks every 10 years. A tanker hitting the rocks off the west coast of Haida Gwaii would be an ecological atomic bomb. Tens of thousands of folks would lose their livelihoods - and for decades, and the wild salmon and other wildlife wouldn't even begin to recover in our lifetimes.

It is disingenuous to downplay the risk of such an occurrence, and even more disingenuous to downplay the potential impacts.

And as we saw with the Amoco Cadiz, even "world class" equipment can't fight mother nature.

And if you check it out, we don't actually clean up oil spills, we disperse them with toxic chemicals. And nobody knows what a major dilbit spill will do in the ocean.

I for one don't care to find out.

[LoneWolf_53]

^^ Do you care enough to cease using petroleum products?

If not you're just blowing smoke without conviction.

[LoneWolf_53]

There were NO resources on Haida Gwaii to deal with this incident. The resources in Prince Rupert were inadequate.

The outcome of this incident could have been much different if it had not been for a fortunate shift in the winds. Fair enough, this one turned out OK, but partly because there happened to be an American tug available. In other words, we got lucky. Doesn't always work out that way.

Just points out that Christy Clark was correct when she stated that our capabilities to deal tanker incidents/accidents are woefully inadequate.

Meanwhile, our PM from the flatlands is busy slashing the heck out of our already inadequate Coast Guard. I wonder if he even has his boating card?

So basically Clark is looking after our best interests in setting out the criteria necessary to gain BC's approval for increased tanker traffic.

For certain the resources to deal with supertankers in distress should be at the top of the list.

I doubt there's many that would dispute that.

[dogspoiler]

^^ Do you care enough to cease using petroleum products?

If not you're just blowing smoke without conviction.

A rather pointless statement since those tankers will be hauling oil away, not to us.

[dogspoiler]

So basically Clark is looking after our best interests in setting out the criteria necessary to gain BC's approval for increased tanker traffic.

For certain the resources to deal with supertankers in distress should be at the top of the list.

I doubt there's many that would dispute that.

I would suggest a minimum of two large ocean going tugs to be in the area and ready to respond when needed.