Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
COMMENTARY · 12th June 2014
Ian Kimm
13 June 2014

Attention: Letters to the editor.

Re: - Oil pipelines etc.

Dear Editor,

Why do environmentalists’ only start their ‘A disaster is inevitable" when the words, oil, tanker and pipeline are used in the same sentence? They are strangely mute when it comes to other methods of transporting oil/fossil fuels and other potential shipping accidents.

We have had three major incidents involving cruise ships. Yet the five hundred plus cruise ship arrivals, into the ports of Vancouver and Victoria harbour remain unquestioned. These vessels ply the inside passage and could block any inlet of our coast for months. Doing more environmental damage than a tanker mishap

They are mute when it comes to single hulled container ships in the waters of B.C. A fuel tank of such a vessel, holds, in general, far more fuel oil than does a baffled tanks found on an oil transporter. Therefore an accident involving a container vessel could cause far more environmental damage to the coast line than an oil carrier spillage would.

Oil tankers operate under very stringent safety rules and are attended by professional pilots and tug boats during their passage. These vessels operate and comply with the standards laid down by Transport Canada. Such regulation requires that these vessels be double hulled with 2 meters, nearly 6 feet of separation between the hulls. i.e.

8.1 The entire cargo tank length shall be protected by ballast tanks or spaces other than cargo and oil fuel tanks as follows:

This space separation plus the slow exit speed of oil tankers from the terminal should negate any chance of a major spill from an oil carrier. The velocity of a collision that would puncture this type of vessel is well in excess of 5 knots and is therefore so remote that it can be discounted completely. No professional seafarer would manoeuvre a vessel in such a reckless manner, at speed, in a confined waterway.

Comment by kitimat first on 15th June 2014
can you explain what you mean by "should negate any chance of a major spill from an oil carrier" ?
and secondly what do you mean by "no professional seafarer would manoeuver a vessel in such a reckless manner, at speed, in a confined waterway" ?
the word "should" does nothing to negate my thoughts on a spill
and secondly you should have a chat with the captain of the "Queen of the North" about reckless manoeuvering in tight confined waterways get his thoughts on it

Ian Kimm, you are either a hipocrate or live so far away from the northwest to appreciate the area that your opinions are worthless and foolish !