Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chris gadsden]

Some thing for SS to digest. https://youtu.be/52fC0XFPP9E

[shuswapsteve]

So...a disaster that had:
- an oil rig explode
- kill 11 oil rig workers
- spilled 650 million litres of oil
- capped 87 days (5,000 ft below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico; a major engineering feat in challenging conditions not comparable to just installing a boom or operating a skimmer in English Bay)
- closing of beaches in Louisiana for months
- a clean-up effort that doesn't even come close to what happened at English Bay...

...magnifies that the west coast here in BC is in no way equipped to handle any form of petroleum spill.......given the fact that the spill from this grain ship here was mostly contained after 48 hours, crews worked all night skimming oil (successfully), most of the major beaches have reopened, impacted wildlife that were captured are being reintroduced already and an investigation is ongoing by Environment Canada and Transport Canada on the cause as well as monitoring of potential impacts?? 

[Novabonker]

Some thing for SS to digest. https://youtu.be/52fC0XFPP9E

I notice he skipped that part.

So...a disaster that had:
- an oil rig explode
- kill 11 oil rig workers
- spilled 650 million litres of oil
- capped 87 days (5,000 ft below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico; a major engineering feat in challenging conditions not comparable to just installing a boom or operating a skimmer in English Bay)
- closing of beaches in Louisiana for months
- a clean-up effort that doesn't even come close to what happened at English Bay...

...magnifies that the west coast here in BC is in no way equipped to handle any form of petroleum spill.......given the fact that the spill from this grain ship here was mostly contained after 48 hours, crews worked all night skimming oil (successfully), most of the major beaches have reopened, impacted wildlife that were captured are being reintroduced already and an investigation is ongoing by Environment Canada and Transport Canada on the cause as well as monitoring of potential impacts?? 

Yeah, it was small spill. Now imagine a tanker filled with Mordor's, um Alberta's non floating filthy dil bit. Get the picture?

[shuswapsteve]

I notice he skipped that part.

Moxey has made similar comment in the media already.  They are nothing new.  Sorry I didn’t reply to it, but while we are talking about “skipping” I was thinking the same thing in another one of Chris’s latest posts.   Moxey is entitled to his opinion like anyone else because he likely pays a lot of taxes also like you do (just finished mine so I am also entitled to opinions).  One thing being “skipped” by you is that this could have been going for some time before the initial calls came in around 5pm that day.  An argument could be made whether a much quicker response as stated by Moxey would have made that much more of difference given the fact that the source still needed to be found.  Also, most of the surface oil was contained within 48 hours.

In my opinion, I think it was forgone conclusion that bunker fuel was going to show up on beaches whether the boom was installed sooner or not.  I doubt it had just started shortly before 5pm.  Some initial reports I was reading stated that the oil slick was already half a km wide before the calls when in….and that is what could be seen at the time.  When I look at the twitter messages from Chad O’Dey who looks like he could have been in a helicopter at the time I wonder if he was in communication with the CCG at the time.  I am really interested to know what the crew of the ship was doing at the time because I wonder if they could have done more at the time.  Not sure.  Again, all under investigation and a clearer picture will eventually unfold when all sides are heard.

Deepwater Horizon (Gulf of Mexico)



English Bay (Vancouver, BC)


Yeah, I get the “picture”, but do you?  You seemed to skip the obvious differences between both events. If you want to compare with dilbit then using those examples would make more sense than choosing the worst marine oil spill in US history.

[chris gadsden]

The general manager of the Jericho Sailing Centre is accusing Coast Guard brass of straight-out lying to the public. Here's Mike Cotter's open letter to minister James Moore ...
 
Dear Mr. Moore:
 
Since the April 8 bunker C fuel spill in English Bay, 3km directly north of the Jericho Sailing Centre, I have heard various reports from Canadian Coast Guard officials stating that the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station was not equipped with pollution response equipment. I know this not to be true, having been familiarized with the Station, and having witnessed their environmental response to several incidents over the 25 years I managed the Jericho Sailing Centre while the Kits Station was open(1988-2013).
 
I enclose 2 photos of the PRV (Pollution Response Vessel CGE-735) taken in May, 2012 at the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station when I had the opportunity to go on board. This vessel, which has been on station at the source ship in English Bay since April 11, (3 days after the spill) is equipped with 2 skimmers, dual pollution containment tanks and 300m of floating containment boom. Further to this, the Station’s all-weather cutter Osprey was equipped with a skimmer, spill boom and a containment tank.
 
Had the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station remained open, the Osprey could have been on scene within 10 minutes in direct contact with the boater who originally reported the spill just after 5 pm on April 8. Her crew would’ve assessed the scene (the boater says he could tell the fuel was coming from the aft section of the source ship) and activated the PRV crew who would’ve been on scene and commenced spill containment within an hour of the report. The Osprey and her crew, adept at containing smaller spills, could have commenced clean-up operations immediately. The suggestion by Canadian Coast Guard management that the response of the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station would not have made a difference from the containment 12 hours later, after 2 tidal flow changes, is beyond believable and simply not credible.
 
An examination of Kitsilano Coast Guard Station and ship logs will clearly reveal that the station responded to many spills over the years, as former Commander Fred Moxey has stated; and that, indeed, the CGE-735 Pollution Response Vessel, seen in these photos, was based at the station.
 
On behalf of Vancouver’s ocean community I would like to join others in respectfully asking the Canadian government to re-open the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station immediately.
 
Fair winds,
 Mike Cotter, General Manager
 Jericho Sailing Centre Association
 
READ MORE: http://www.cknw.com/2015/04/20/coast-guard-brass-not-being-honest-about-kits-base/?sc_ref=facebook

[shuswapsteve]

The assumption is being made that if Kits base was open then crews would have been there on scene in 10 minutes shortly after the call around 5pm and "the spill would have been a different story".  Mr. Cotter goes to state that, "There is no reason this spill should have ever touched our shoreline".

In my opinion, this assumption is really only valid if the leak had just started around the time of the first call at 5pm; however, as I said before I doubt it just started then. It could have been going on for few hours before the first calls came in.  Good thing there were observant boaters on the water that day.  There were already reports at that time of the first calls that the oil was clearly in the water and the slick was half a km in width. If oil was already in the water then there is no reason why it could not have touched the shoreline, so Mr. Cotter's assertion that it wouldn't have touch the shoreline had the Kits base been opened (providing a faster response according to him) is debatable.

Not saying that the closing of the Kits base was a good move, but I think some have rushed to judgement too quickly without considering when oil actually began entering English Bay. Kits base could have been open, had the fastest boats and all the equipment necessary, but if oil had been leaking already for an unknown amount of time already it is bound to end up on the shoreline. Not sure how Mr. Cotter can definitely say otherwise.  In my opinion, Mr. Cotter's best chance at a quicker response that day lied with the grain ship's crew that day if they had known what was going on (all under investigation however).  Lastly, Mr. Cotter doesn't mention the fact that most of the surface oil was contained within 48 hours.

[skaha]

"Of course there is a chain of command and responsibility, but you believe that it is some "political hack" giving orders and responding to calls from afar in the late hours of the night and I would like to know who it is.....seeing as though you are so convinced that this individual exists."

--I am sure that the individuals in command have been given orders on what they may or may not say. And that there is a political hack or hack's that have the responsibility to control responses to the media.
--Responding to the media without authorization can be career ending... ask any whistle blower or even some well meaning crew person giving an honest answer (opinion) to a direct question.
--It is in fact damaging for an individual to state that they have been told not to respond to questions.

--When, as a government official you are pre-instructed not to talk to the media... and you do...the charge is insubordination.
   

[Novabonker]

You're OK with CG brass spreading manure about the recovery equipment? Government toadies lying their face off? Front liners being "sworn to silence" for fear of losing their jobs?

[shuswapsteve]

"Of course there is a chain of command and responsibility, but you believe that it is some "political hack" giving orders and responding to calls from afar in the late hours of the night and I would like to know who it is.....seeing as though you are so convinced that this individual exists."

--I am sure that the individuals in command have been given orders on what they may or may not say. And that there is a political hack or hack's that have the responsibility to control responses to the media.
--Responding to the media without authorization can be career ending... ask any whistle blower or even some well meaning crew person giving an honest answer (opinion) to a direct question.
--It is in fact damaging for an individual to state that they have been told not to respond to questions.

--When, as a government official you are pre-instructed not to talk to the media... and you do...the charge is insubordination.
 

Now you are speculating that crews have something to say that is critical of what happened that day which they very well might, but for now it's just that - speculation. As I said before, these incidences usually have some sort of debrief where they will likely discuss what went right and what could use improvement.

As for not being able to speak to the media directly about this you are correct.  Orders?  Well, those "orders" are already outline in the Value and Ethics Code from the Treasury Board, so it is not something new that those employees don't already know about.  Federal or even provincial employees can't just can start speaking to the media or an MP/MLA about this sort of stuff without authorization. Typically these media requests are centrally dealt with by communications personnel who could find staff in the area that can provide a response to a question.  Is this is not to say that communication staff are infallible in their tasks.  However, remember that the media in their reporting are not infallible either.  It is not uncommon to have the story printed incorrectly.  Meaning even "honest answers" are not reported correctly.  Those on the ground are then unfairly blamed by the public, but really the blame generally rests with those who relay that information.  They all have their jobs to do to get the message out I guess.

[shuswapsteve]

You're OK with CG brass spreading manure about the recovery equipment? Government toadies lying their face off? Front liners being "sworn to silence" for fear of losing their jobs?

I am not OK with CCG staff being judged in the media and social media (i.e. Twitter and Facebook) about their response considering we don't really know when oil started leaking into the bay and that most of the surface oil was recovered within 48 hours.

[Novabonker]

I am not OK with CCG staff being judged in the media and social media (i.e. Twitter and Facebook) about their response considering we don't really know when oil started leaking into the bay and that most of the surface oil was recovered within 48 hours.

That's not what I asked. My question was are you OK with what appears to be bald faced lies being told to the public by the CG brass?

[Novabonker]

The bs keeps piling up deep and smelly. You may want read the truth bending. I found it on cknw' website.

I don't like being lied to deliberately.

http://www.cknw.com/2015/04/22/73387/

[shuswapsteve]

The bs keeps piling up deep and smelly. You may want read the truth bending. I found it on cknw' website.

I don't like being lied to deliberately.

http://www.cknw.com/2015/04/22/73387/

Do we know when Bunker C started leaking from the ship?  Do we assume that it had just started leaking shortly before 5pm that day?  Even if Toxopeus is correct about what Kits had and Girouard is a lying bastard, if Bunker C had been leaking for an hour or more before the first calls came in it could be debatable whether an even quicker response would have made that much of a significant difference to the containment and clean-up considering that most surface oil was contained within 48 hours according to Environment Canada.

In addition, Vancouver Coastal Health and the City of Vancouver reopened most beaches by April 18th - 10 days after the spill.  Would a quicker response resulted in beaches being reopened that much sooner and had less impacted wildlife?  Maybe or maybe not....Maybe we will never really know.  Just like we will never really know whether ecosystem in the bay is back to where it was before the spill because there is a lack of good baseline information on the ecosystem in the bay to begin with.  The fact is that an oil slick (estimated half a km wide from one observer) was already observed in the water when the first calls were made to the CCG, so it was a forgone conclusion (IMO) that oil was coming ashore.

This is not to say that the closure of Kits base was a good decision and that it would never make a difference with oil spills; however, when I look at this particular incident and ponder when oil (from an estimated 2,700 litres) actually started leaking from the ship I wonder if shaving a hour or two or even three from the initial response would have made things that much different. I also wonder what the ship's crew was doing at the time and why they originally denied that the oil was coming from their ship. I am curious how much of that contributed to the initial response time.

[Novabonker]

That's not what I asked. My question was are you OK with what appears to be bald faced lies being told to the public by the CG brass?

Still no direct answer Steve, not that I expected one.

https://www.change.org/p/re-open-kitsilano-coast-guard-base

[shuswapsteve]

Me: Of course there is a chain of command and responsibility, but you believe that it is some "political hack" giving orders and responding to calls from afar in the late hours of the night and I would like to know who it is.....seeing as though you are so convinced that this individual exists.

NB: Rephrase that to upper management doing damage control through talking head spokespersons

Conclusion: No direct answer there

Me: Do you think that every call or most of them are directed to some “political hack” in Ottawa(?) who has to time to review, investigate and direct (or micro-manage) employees across the county what to do?

NB: (Silence).  Conclusion is obvious.

Me: You keep referring to the photo, but do we know when it was taken and by whom?

NB:Since you purport to being such an astute detective - dig it up yourself

Conclusion: Hmmm…no direct answer there either.  More like deflection.  I actually asked you twice.  It appears as though it was taken by a Vancouver radio reporter, Chad Dey.  He posted it on Twitter on April 9th – one day after the incident.  I guess I should have just looked it up myself.

Perhaps before you start accusing others of not answering questions you might want to do a better job yourself.  Why should I feel obligated to respond if you can’t do a better job?

As for your question, well we have already been discussing this.  It’s back on the 3rd page of this thread.  The only difference was that it was Moxey and not Toxopeus, but they both had the same opinion about what was at Kits.  Here was my response:

There are going to be opinions back and forth from current and past CCG.  Still doesn't take away from the fact that the source still needed to be found and most of the surface oil has been recovered.  If it wasn't for the CCG overturning the Port's assessment this could have been worse.  A debrief of all information is what is needed, not a trial by twitter.

On page 2 of this thread in my reply to skaha:

Not really surprised that current and past CCG could have different opinions especially with the former Kitsilano base. However, in my non-expert opinion, you can have the all this equipment at your fingertips, but the fact still remains that one still has to find the source before you can start installing booms.  How can you be beside the boat that is causing the problem so fast if you are not sure which boat has the leak....or if it is in fact from a boat?

Perhaps Girouard was merely misinformed what was at Kits.  It’s not unusual for senior management to not know what each facility has.  However, in my opinion, the outcome of the response was kind of dependent on when the Bunker C started leaking from the ship which could have been long before the initial calls.  If that was the case, then what does it really matter if one guy was right and the other was wrong because there was already quite a bit of oil in the water (see Reply #57 on Page 4), so do we really know if a quicker response would have had a significant impact on the outcome.  In addition to that the source still needed to be confirmed.  It’s not right to hold a trial in the media because a debrief of the incident with all parties is the best place to critique what could have been done better.  The media doesn’t always report both sides fairly and when you look at the first reports that came out on this they were not entirely accurate (i.e. the notification of the City of Vancouver and the time it took).