Check out the tanker accidents for yourself

Dbl. hulled accidents resulting in significant spillage:

Shinouss
Sea Spririt
Al Garrabo
Posavina
Rangrid
Genmare Hector
Baltic Carrier
New Amity
St. Helen
Morning Express
Good Hope
Front Vanguard
Petrovskat 1
....

http://www.c4tx.org/ctx/job/cdb/do_flex.html

I was in Rotterdam in 1980

I was in Rotterdam in 1980 when they had to move a VLCC that had 'broken it's back' in Euro-port while discharging. It was a wonder that there was no fire and the spilled oil was contained. The reason for the "accident"? The ships officers didn't know how to operate the the loading/discharging computer.

totally safe?

The trouble with this kind of analysis is, it's pointless. There's no such thing as "totally safe," whether you're shipping oil in tankers or getting out of bed in the morning. If you follow this argument to its logical conclusion, you'd never ship or pipe a barrel of oil anywhere -- and you'd never get out of bed in the morning.

I always laugh when so much is made (think big black P.1 headline) of an oilman's admission that he can't guarantee there won't be a tanker spill, pipeline breach, bad earthquake, monsoon -- whatever. The travesty would be if the jerk said he could guarantee it -- THAT should generate a headline.

This stuff is all statistical -- a benefit-risk calculation. To environmentalists, there is no benefit, and any risk is unacceptable. To the guy who stands to make a buck, it's the opposite. The truth lies in the middle somewhere.

I worked with the shipping industry...

I was working with the shippng industry at the time the rules were implemented for the double hulls. There have been all kinds of studies that the double hull is safer but not the safest. Comparmentalized hulls were considered safer and was deemed to provide more prevention to oil spills then double hulls. Double hulls only prevent leakage due to certain types of punctures.

Don't know why a meeting in July is now reported as news. Also the important part of the meeting isn't mentioned, the fact that the meeting was just a show. 99.9% of the issues have nothing to do with the city of Vancouver as the waters are a federal issue and the city can't do anything if they even wanted to.

The three escort tugs

in the lead photo say it all. Nothing is %100 safe. If everybody does their job and all equipment is maintained then there is no reason to believe that these vessels can't continue to move in and out of the port without incident as they have done in the past.

That does not mean that procedures can't be beefed up and also that age restrictions can't be placed on the vessels but the chance is quite small of a major oil spill and the chance of no major accidents at all is very great.

Its a sure thing

What are the odds as government and industry tries to convenience residents its a sure thing? While most of us are certain it is an accident waiting to happen and there is no going back as the blackened waters become a watery grave for its inhabitants who don't stand a chance.

No reason to get out of bed

You do not have to indanger you waters and your way of life so big oil companies can ship their oil to market to make a big buck. Despite critics saying its life, no its death lets get it straight and very dangerous and not worth the risk as whats in it for you, but a toxic drink.

A certain element of Risk!

I think the interesting thing about this whole subject is; it's been going on for a very long time, and only now is the media and public showing an interest. Of course incidents like the Deepwater Horizon will peak the interest and spurn concerns in most people's minds.

In regard the July City council meeting, it was interesting, but the questions in the minds of those in attendance were never adequately addressed.

Nothing which requires transportation of goods can be guaranteed as being 100% safe. But safeguards and fail-safe sytems can be adopted or built in to minimize risk. Perhaps assist tugs need to be beefed up, perhaps manning on such assist tugs needs to be increased, etc etc. There exist solutions, but no one can provide guarantees.

Australian oil spill - hilarious

Australian Senator discusses supertanker and 20,000 tons of crude oil on fire...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-QNAwUdHUQ

Up and "atom"

That's an oldie, but a goody. Clearly this skit from Australia was performed to illustrate and highlights the total lack of regard for public transparency from the shipping industry.

Nonsense

Mitch Anderson worries too much!

Other than a few fishing and small private vessels, and of course the ill fated BC Ferries sinking (as a result of total Bridge incompetence), when waa the last time a sea going cargo vessel had a major problem? Maritime traffic control services on both the Canadian East and West Coasts is pretty competent. Our Pilot system is effective. Our Tug system is excellent.

Given the way Anderson engorges himself in ill bagat words, it is clear that humans should just sit on a hill and vegetate. That will not happen. The good news is that any worry about scraping bottom will be nullified by the rising seas caused by global warming.

This is NOT an issue.

Yet more poor journalism

You mean it took you that long to get around to writing and researching this feature? The only real danger to tankers in our harbour are enviro terrorists who race their zodiacs in front of them.

But seriously, there is nothing new in this article and all of those maintenance concerns are being addressed by the tanker operators. Moreover, dangerous chemicals have been shipped through Vancouver's harbour for many years without any major problems.

Mayor Robertson demonstrates his ability to wade into the intellectual shallows again by sticking his nose into an issue that is out of his domain. But, then this clown has always been about symbolism not substance.

I know many of Vancouver's so called progressives would love to stop any activity that resembles politically incorrect pollution. But the fact is that nothing is 100% safe. That is an unreasonable standard given that Vancouver can't opt out from being part of the world economy. If the enviro nuts in Vancouver had their way all of us would be staring at trees and watching birds crap on rocks while doing nothing that pollutes. That would leave us with no jobs and fun.

B.C.Coast tanker safety.

50+ years ago I had some watch-keeping experience on foreign-going tankers and B.C.Coast passenger vessels and freighters. It is from the advantage of that experience that I state categorically that a major oil-shipping accident is inevitable inside Vancouver harbour; and equally inevitable in Douglas Channel on the North Coast. I regret...no, I am ashamed...that so few knowledgeable seamen, men with lifetimes of their own experience on the Coast, have opposed the Douglas Channel proposal, and that almost none have ventured any expression of concern about tanker traffic inside the harbour.

@Bobby Peru

Please, some clarity.

What exactly is 'politically incorrect pollution'?

BTW, seems to me we've sold most of the jobs down the river already - what are you doing for fun anyway?

@athel1

The sad thing is that most of the people making these decisions know more about their own back yard than they do about either the harbour or the Inside Passage. They know the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

I would rather run a boat

Down the "Inside passage" than pull out of Second narrows. I would NOT want to be freighting pollutants of any kind on either of these passages.
The company that gets in trouble seems to lay blame on the master of the ship when things go wrong or in inside waters the pilot.
Or anyone - who cares?
The folks who bought "sea view" in Vancouver will care in the event.
The rest of us will be slopping around picking up oil sludge