Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: This Sounds Smart And Safe! (NOT)  (Read 4319 times)

Novabonker

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1447
This Sounds Smart And Safe! (NOT)
« on: May 19, 2015, 06:16:06 AM »

Stupid is as stupid does........


http://www.theprovince.com/news/rules+allow+largest+ships+refuel+English+researcher+says/11063775/story.html

With a recent oil spill fresh on peoples’ minds, there is another reason to be worried about English Bay, says a Vancouver researcher.

Eoin Finn, who calculates risk assessments for a living, told The Province that a larger spill is “certain” to happen on the bay.

Finn has discovered new rules that permit the world’s biggest ships, the Cape class, to refuel just two kilometres off Point Grey Road near the University of B.C.

In the past, Vancouver Harbour has always sufficed for refuelling; ships are mostly tied up at dockside, not bouncing around in the open water with a refuelling tanker.

“A spill is dead certain to happen. History proves it,” said Finn, a former partner at KPMG. “This is not like a spill in Vancouver Harbour. The region’s most popular beaches are on English Bay.”

Ships greater than 275 metres in length have been entitled to refuel at sea since January 2013, but that hasn’t been widely known.

The operation is ship-to-ship. The fuel comes on a barge, which is equipped with a fuel tank, hose and pump, and everything is towed to the scene by a tug.

A high-pressure line is pitched six-metres high to a fuel spout and the transfer of bunker oil begins.

It’s the same heavy fuel that washed ashore April 8 after the MV Marathassa leaked 2,700 litres into the bay. At that time, officials were criticized for a slow response that allowed globules of oil to foul beaches and birds.

Finn said barges carry up to 3,500 tonnes of fuel, which is 1,400 times as much oil as the Marathassa spilled.

“Bunker oil is nasty,” he said. “About 90 per cent ends up in clumps, which get stickier as they weather.”

Tony Toxopeus, a retired Canadian Coast Guard captain, said service operations at sea are harder to pull off than those on shore.

“It’s obvious there’s going to be a higher risk of a spill,” he said. “All it takes is a broken hose or a bad coupling. If a pressurized line bursts, a spill will happen really quickly.”

Port Metro Vancouver, a federal body controlled by the government in Ottawa, was given three days to provide information about its new regulations.

The questions concerned the public process; whether a risk assessment was done and what it said; and why the changes were made.

The port didn’t provide a traditional interview with a person. In a lengthy, emailed response from its spokesman, the port said new anchorages were needed “to allow for better management of vessel traffic in the inner harbour, where anchorages for larger vessels are limited to two.”

It said the four anchorages off Point Grey Road were also needed for ships using Roberts Bank, where refuelling isn’t allowed.

The port said a risk analysis was conducted, but it wouldn’t provide the results.

It said a notice was posted on its website before approving the regulations and the public was given a 30-day comment period. Since the regulations came into effect, one ship has been refuelled on the bay.

Finn believes most people weren’t aware the changes were in the works. He said there would have been objections if the notification had been widely published, which is mandated for municipal public hearings by law.

“It’s despicable. This is not responsible behaviour,” he said. “This won’t be overturned unless the federal government changes it ... A multibillion-dollar tourism industry is being put at risk — and for what?”

A presentation and discussion will take place today, 7 to 9 p.m., at the Jericho Sailing Centre, 1300 Discovery St. in Vancouver.

The port’s operations manual can be viewed here.

kspencer@theprovince.com

twitter.com/@kentspencer2

Refuelling of ships has been changed to accommodate LNG tankers: Researcher

Question: Why are very large ships suddenly permitted to refuel on English Bay, when Vancouver Harbour has sufficed for decades?

Eoin Finn thinks he knows the answer. The Vancouver researcher believes the rules have been changed to accommodate liquefied natural-gas tankers, as well as those vessels unable to find spaces in Vancouver Harbour.

The tankers would come from a proposed LNG plant at Woodfibre, an industrial site on Howe Sound across from Squamish.

The budding Woodfibre operation, which is undergoing regulatory approval, is among those that Premier Christy Clark says will deliver billions of dollars to B.C. by 2020.

Finn said LNG ships wouldn’t be allowed in Vancouver Harbour, because they carry 60,000 tones of natural gas.

He said it’s cooled to minus-140 C and a U.S. study shows it would freeze everything to within 500 metres if it got loose. In America, the tankers are barred from coming near populated areas.

He said Woodfibre has no plans to oil the ships on-site, so he reasons that an alternative is needed on English Bay.

“Canadian governments are making it as easy as possible for them to begin operations,” he said.

Port Metro Vancouver, meanwhile, flatly refuted the theory. It said the new rules have nothing to do with anticipated LNG traffic.

“At the present time, there are no LNG tankers that call upon Port Metro Vancouver. That was not a consideration,” it said.
Logged
http://

shuswapsteve

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 894
Re: This Sounds Smart And Safe! (NOT)
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2015, 11:35:37 PM »

The news article is so one-sided which could be a combination of a over zealous reporter which keys on the comments of certain individuals and an Port Authority which is bad at public relations.  For someone that is supposedly experienced at "risk assessments", Eoin Finn provides rather limited knowledge of what is actually done in refuelling of ships as well as the protocols and procedures that are used to refuel safely.  The article provides the link to the Port's operations manual (specifically pages 39 to 43), but doesn't even take the time to bring them up in the article; instead basically defaulting to whatever Mr. Finn or Mr. Toxopeus says.

“A spill is dead certain to happen. History proves it,” said Finn, a former partner at KPMG. “This is not like a spill in Vancouver Harbour. The region’s most popular beaches are on English Bay.”

Ships greater than 275 metres in length have been entitled to refuel at sea since January 2013, but that hasn’t been widely known.

The operation is ship-to-ship. The fuel comes on a barge, which is equipped with a fuel tank, hose and pump, and everything is towed to the scene by a tug.

A high-pressure line is pitched six-metres high to a fuel spout and the transfer of bunker oil begins.


Ok, this could very well be true, but there seems to be some missing information here.  The story makes it seem like people are just irresponsibly pumping fuel which I highly doubt even if people like Mr. Finn doesn't agree with it.  That's not really fair reporting.  If Mr. Finn is experienced in risk assessments then show me more than "he thinks he knows the answer" (i.e. speculation) or "a spill is dead certain to happen". History proves it?  Well, that isn't exactly a profound statement. What would have been meaningful is if he would have brought up some actual case history which supports his opinion about this refuelling offshore being risky.  Tidal action would spread a future oil spill to surrounding shores?  Yet another statement which is not very profound.  Tidal action in the marine environment - who would have ever thought of that...lol?  I need a quote from Mr. Finn to tell me that.  On the other hand, the Port Authority by taking the route of providing less information basically reinforces peoples' suspicions and provides fuel (pardon the pun) to those like Mr. Finn. More often than not, Joe Public will rarely take the time to look through a multiple page manual. It would have been better to have someone actually respond.

When I Google Mr. Finn's name it states that he has Ph.D in Physical Chemistry and a MBA in International Business and contributes articles to the Vancouver Observer (which is notoriously anti-industry to begin with).  He is definitely entitled to his opinion, but when I read the article and then compare it to his actual qualification (which doesn't seem to include anything close to shipping, oil spill management or the transportation of dangerous goods) I take it with a grain of salt until they show some actual reasoning as to why current practices are so risky.
Logged

StillAqua

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: This Sounds Smart And Safe! (NOT)
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2015, 08:19:11 PM »

These risk assessments aren't rocket science and, as Finn said, use the history of spills in International and Canadian waters to estimate probabilities; the ones for crude, refined and fuel oil spill assessments in coastal Canadian waters are readily available and fairly easy to follow : http://files.wspdigital.com/risk/oil/english/131-17593-00_ERA_Oil-Spill-South_150116.pdf.
Readily available except, apparently, for the one done by Port Metro Vancouver for the additional ship to ship spill risks. Finn and the reporter are correct to query why they aren't publically available. It raises significant doubts about what the Port is withholding. I don't think the Canadian coastal water risk assessment referenced above included data on offshore ship to ship spill frequencies....if not, the Port has added an additional risk to the already high risk assessments in the report. Inquiring minds want to know..... :-\
Logged

shuswapsteve

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 894
Re: This Sounds Smart And Safe! (NOT)
« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2015, 11:55:25 PM »

Finn is neither a marine expert nor a refuelling expert yet the public is supposed to believe his assessment of risk (which is apparently pretty straightforward for basically anyone with access to the internet) based on speculation. The biggest criticism I have is that he provides absolutely zero knowledge of current procedures and practices. How can one take a position like he does without explaining what the current practices and procedures are and what exactly is substandard in the first place and come off as a credible expert?  His cursory description of what takes place is hardly an shining example of proper risk assessment.

In the article he provides no relevant case history to draw upon to suggest that current procedures and practices (which he doesn't elaborate on) are unsafe. In addition, his opinion about LNG ships needing to refuel in English Bay is just speculation which is based on LNG ships not being allowed in Vancouver Harbour because an incident could potentially freeze everything to within 500 metres. This refueling in English Bay was refuted by the Port and Woodfibre. Finn "thinks he knows the answer".  Well, "thinking" and actually "knowing" are two separate things.  Now, Finn could be right, but he provides no facts other than what the incident could potentially create.

Now this doesn't leave the Port off the hook as a little more transparency from them would be good, but if people like Finn want people like me to buy into what they are saying then show me more than just probabilities and speculation.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2015, 11:57:54 PM by shuswapsteve »
Logged

StillAqua

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: This Sounds Smart And Safe! (NOT)
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2015, 06:01:16 AM »

I agree Finn is no expert on the oil handling procedures and he is likely just assuming that when you add additional complications to a procedure, you naturally increase the opportunity for human error and mechanical failure and therefore the probability of a failure. I assume that's why the reporter talked to a retired CCG Captain and asked for the Port's risk assessment to see what the additional risks are. The Port's report should have all that info in it but the Port is accountable to the Fed Minister of Transport so they likely need approval from the Harper gov't to release it..... :-X
Logged