Attention Mike Hurley; Mayor Elect Burnaby
Following may be of interest…I’m a long-time opponent of the shaky pipeline offerings we’ve seen from our governments…my blog shows some of the history…
Mike Hurley. I sent an email to Stewart Kennedy before noticing that you intend to continue working, in the Burnaby public interest, to dislodge the ill-conceived Trans Mountain Expansion(TMX) pipeline, as proposed .Welcome to the pack !
Included is some background on how/why we are in this pipeline/tanker pickle. The mention of South China Seas tanker sinking should note that the tanker was double hulled…that’s great but all tankers can/will fail if we route them through unnecessarily risky routes …it’s just a matter of time and luck ?
Many hope that you will continue the Vancouver Mayor’s fight to ‘fix’ the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) mess…Following are some notes that may be helpful ..
Humans seek to make life’s chores easier ! Some achievements ;
3.the flying machine
developments in modern medicine
7.discovery and utilization of fossil fuels
8.concepts under study, still to be fully developed..
9.and the yet to be discovered.
We continually create major projects ,typically after expert science-based risk assessments to protect the interests of the public and investors ! Our Trans Mountain Expansion TMX pipeline proposal was approved by government without any independent risk assessment.
Thank goodness for the more publically concerned Appeals Court …that ordered a new more rigorous assessment !
There is a 1978 Federal Government study ( POTENTIAL PACIFIC COAST OIL PORTS —A COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ANALYSIS, by Fisheries and Environment Canada, Vancouver, which evaluated 27 west coast ports and available shipping routes …. the Vancouver Harbour was not mentioned !
Related risk studies for our shared southern waters have been carried out by Washington State with U.S. EPA funding.
https://www.seas.gwu.edu/~dorpjr/VTRA/PSP/FINAL%20REPORT/PSP%20FINAL%20REPORT%20-%20DRAFT%20012214%20-%20HQ.pdf We’ve seen no similar BC or Canada studies ??
OK ,more shipping traffic is inevitable and necessary…Our challenge is to minimize the probability of a tanker spill !. Relatively ‘minor’ spills have not been handled satisfactorily .Ask the folks in Bella Bella !! Will more government spill cleanup equipment help if/when a major spill episode happens ,such as recent South China Seas tanker sinking ? see link below…
The best solution is to minimize that probability…that’s what airport location experts do to ensure that a Boeing 747 will never land in your bedroom. We know that this goal will NEVER be met…The only achievable goal is work towards minimizing probability of such an event !!
The TMX assessment is an example of ‘how not to’ decide about increasing increase traffic volumes !As it turned out the Prime Minister’s flawed/inadequately studied TMX plan turned out to be the basis for our Appeals Court deciding the TMX, as proposed, is not acceptable.
Our challenge is to locate the least risky tanker routes on the Pacific Coast .
Further ,when announcing the Government decision to appoint a Chief Science Advisor, the Science Minister offered that science will be considered before deciding…We saw no such endeavor !
The appointed Chief Science Advisor should have been consulted !. Another ‘botch up’ here was the apparent lack of consultation with the Government stable of Professional Engineers and/or scientists
Having sensed the public concern about the increased tanker traffic PM Harper ordered a shipping study of BC Coast, by Clear Seas. Did the Liberals kill or just ignore that PM ordered Clear Seas study ??
Why produce risk studies…? Fortunately, Boeing 747s rarely land in our bedrooms …Risk studies help to minimize such risks…but we can’t say that the 747 bedroom landing will never happen ! ’Never’, never happens !.…The goal then is ‘to minimize’ damage(consequences)..
Minimizing damage to wild life and marine areas is a reasonable goal. That’s what BC seeks .An expert independent risk assessment is required to indicate the probability of a dilbit tanker spill if the 7 fold increase in tanker traffic is permitted .Surely ,Port of Vancouver officials would want to see such an independent risk assessment. Right ?
Our Appeals court also has instructed that the potential impact of the greater tanker traffic be determined and dealt with.
The simple analogy for me is to do the risk analysis of the 7 fold increase in the Salish Sea and compare to the suggested Port Simpson or other more suitable pipeline terminal location. Then decide !
FYI ,the Hong Kong airport was replaced with a multi- billion dollar airport, built on a man-made island…. before that 747 Boeing landed in a downtown Kowloon bedroom… great, gutsy planning by Hong Kong .
Double hulled vessels is said to make the TMX less risky…https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/16/east-china-sea-oil-tanker-disaster-what-it-means-for-the-environment
The South China Seas ship was carrying …. about 1 million barrels…. that now threatens to pollute some of China’s most important fishing waters.
We must make our maximum effort to ensure we have only minimum probability of a ‘China Seas incident’ near our shores. We’ve yet to see the independent, expert risk assessment