[QUOTE=ombugge;191936]Looks like this grounding has started a discussion re: tanker safety and escort tugs in BC waters: https://www.workboat.com/blogs/maritime-matters/39943-2/
This fits in nicely with other threads were escort tugs are the subject of discussion right now.[/QUOTE]
That’s a good looking rendering there. Would be such a thrill to be met with a beauty like that as you approach the dramatic home coast. I hope they go with that paint scheme. Robert Allen is a local firm, several of our iconic local vessels have been theirs: the sea bus, the very fancy bunkering barge I visited last week, some yachts. Shame they don’t build them here, anymore.
[QUOTE=Emrobu;191939]That’s a good looking rendering there. Would be such a thrill to be met with a beauty like that as you approach the dramatic home coast. I hope they go with that paint scheme. Robert Allen is a local firm, several of our iconic local vessels have been theirs: the sea bus, the very fancy bunkering barge I visited last week, some yachts. Shame they don’t build them here, anymore.[/QUOTE]
They are “world leader” in tug design. Tugs to their design is built world wide. (Except Canada maybe?)
Of course the Heiltsuk Nation should have sovereinty over their waters. Their requests are completely reasonable, given their position. This from gCaptain’s front page:
During Sunday’s meeting, Heiltsuk leaders laid out a list of key priorities for the federal government to address, which included long-term monitoring and assessment of the area, more equipment and training for better oil spill preparedness, and an immediate tanker ban ensuring that all oil tankers carrying crude from the Alberta Tar sands are banned from Heiltsuk waters.
I have a couple of questions: all tankers, or just crude tankers who’s cargo originates in AB tar sands? Gas tankers, too? Given the uneducated hysteria that exists locally about the “dangers” of LNG tankers, I wouldn’t be surprised. There’s been a such giant hoopla for years around here about the possibility of LNG tankers in our waters that any excuse to ban them is going to be very popular.
And I have a couple of points: in today’s news we see that the PM wants to help the economy by pooring a lot of money into infrastructure projects. Hey, I know an infrastructure project that could use some funding: safety plans, navigational support, and environmental spill response on the inside passage and the NW passage. How 'bout it? If we claim these waters, we had better be able to be stewards of them (and while we’re at it: stewards of our own economy).
Also in today’s news: Canada’s economy starting to pick up because Fort Mac is coming back online after their terrible fire season. Fort Mac is a huge part of the national economy, and if we can’t export that tar sands oil, its going to take a metric-butt-tonne of infrastructure spending to make up for it. As Quebec will tell you, having an econmony based on goverment spending doesn’t work. Tanker traffic can be done safely.
Just as a follow-up here: BC’s tanker ban was a campaign promise that the PM made, It has got everything to do with the prposed kinder morgan pipeline, and not much to do with this sunken tug. The Heilsuk were just using their moment in the spotlight to remind Justin, I suppose.
[QUOTE=rshrew;192194]There has been a ton of money thrown into Kittamat for the LNG port is that still happening?[/QUOTE]
I don’t know.
And the crude pipeline might come to the Lower Mainland via the southern route. Its the main E-W artery, so its a much safer place to put a pipeline. If that happens they’re going to beef-up our local spill response abilities:
The proposed location for the Kinder Morgan Terminal is on the Burrard Inlet near the exsisting Chevron facility. They’re proposing a response base right near by at New Brighton Park: which is needed, I feel. But they’re only going to build the new bases if the pipeline is built.
On the one hand, we need the capability. On the other hand, I fear that emergency services for anything that isn’t the lower-mainland and and the southern part of the island will be forgotten about. Meaning this would have no impact at all on being able to respond to a situation like… oh lets just be imaginitive, say: a tug sinks and starts to leak fuel into someone’s food supply near Bella Bella.
First: The Extra-Terrestrial Federal Transport Minister (I mean that with respect: being an astronaut is a good thing) is in Bella Bella talking to people. Those folks invited the PM to Bella Bella to announce the tanker ban. They also want to ban tug & barge. Not clear if they only want to ban ATBs, or what exactly.
“We’re mariners. We’ve been here for thousands and thousands of years — this is our life,” Slett said.
Second, The PM is going to be in Vancouver tomorrow and he’s going to make an annoucment related to maritime safety. The provice apparently has made a list of 11 things that they would like.
A Coast Guard base in Prince Rupert
A monitoring system for marine traffic
A west coast marine training centre (and the name of my school was mentioned as a "centre for excellence in marine training)
3 new salvage vessels with the capibility to get to a site within 3 hours
Clarification about the upcoming tanker ban
A “world-leading” spill response regime
A new helibase and helicopter for the hospital in Prince Rupert
I don’t know what the other points are, but I feel like someone read my letter to Santa with these first 7 points. Merry Christmas, BC.
The article contains recordings of parts of the radio conversations between Nathan E. Stewart and the Coast Guard, but no insight into why they missed their turn.
Wonder how they did with their lift today. Anybody hear?
