B.C. Environment Minister George Heyman is developing an Intentions Paper without announcing the intentions ?. British Columbia has launched public consultations on how to defend its shores from oil spills.For those trying to grasp the magnitude of the issue of large tankers in our local south coast waters ,see link below:
This info was published in the Globe and Mail and was compiled with the effort of a group of volunteer (Concerned)Professional Engineers,CPE, and donations from other BC supporters.
“This is about anyone who transports oil through the province.” …. Yes, we must make our maximum effort to minimize the probability of a MAJOR tanker spill incident…
Is the BC objective to kill the Trans Mountain Expansion(TMX) pipeline export plan….
.or WILL/should BC consider a realistic opportunity to build a better diluted bitumen (dilbit) export plan for good of all Canadians ?
BC doesn’t need the TMX to create vessel spills…we get our share because most of our entire coastline communities are served vital goods typically by barge and tug arrangements. We have a long way to go to improve our handling of these typical (much smaller)spills. A recent tugboat fuel oil spill (Bella Bella) took too long to clean up. Some time ago there was a major mishap as BC passenger ferry was holed and sank near Gil Island. The ferry sits on the bottom still with its fuel still on board !! … BC and Canadian governments have done some planning to better handle existing,typical spills ,
So, what’s BC so worked up about ? When Trans Mountain first presented their dilbit export plan ,it required a 7-fold increase of multi thousand BARREL cargoes to travel out busy environmentally challenged waters. These waters and shores comprise many job intensive businesses, a major visitor industry in BC and does not need to sit and wait for that, inevitable ,mega thousand barrel big spill . We don’t see the need to continue to push for this unacceptabe TMX plan .
How unacceptable—we’ll see .
Sadly this kerfuffle could/should have been avoided if our Prime Minister had not been fixated on this goofy TMX plan. Scientists in Ottawa ,we hear ,now have more freedom to speak out ! Let our new Chief Science Officer show the way .
Yes the main concern is about inevitable dilbit spill on our beaches and into our marine ‘critter’ habitat !
We could /should be preparing a common sense export plan that gets Alberta bitumen to reach the waiting market…
The table is set to reach that goal…when the PM follows up with his offer to mediate this BC/Alberta export impasse.The new omnibus Bill C-69 allows for a more thorough assessment than did the NEB which recommended TMX to slip under the radar !
The table is set that shows how to build a less risky,more community permissible export plan given the new government assessment language in omnibus Bill C-69. Our PM and TMX can challenge the angry community and end up with NO PIPELINE or TANKERS…OR you can develop a more common sense ,less risky plan, a little later…if you create an export plan that directs tankers to sail from a port near Port Simpson which would be the terminus for a new pipeline from Alberta.
Our PM told us that only communities can give permission…we now know that no communities gave permission. Our science minister told that “we need to be basing our decisions ……on facts…..and …. SCIENCE “! Let our scientists show where the least risky routes are located…No independent expert science was offered to the NEB which allowed them to select tanker routes that were less risky than those ‘handy’ routes proposed by Trans Mountain .
The PM told us that the current assessment procedures were to be changed AND he told us that these new procedures would be utilized for the Trans Mountain Expansion(TMX)) pipeline ;they were not utilized !!Why not Mr. PM ?
Even our Senate, in their Pipeline Study, asked how to “…restore legitimacy to the pipeline approval process.” See http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/421/TRCM/Reports/FINALVERSION-PipelineStudy-2016-12-07_e.pdf ….. I’ve seen no response from our PM !
Thanks to Mike Priaro, P. Eng.,Calgary, we are shown an existing science based risk assessment of the BC and nearby coasts. .These reports (see links in the attached above) sat in government files since 1978…add the BC government traffic marine survey done in 2013 , https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/spills-and-environmental-emergencies/docs/westcoastspillresponse_vol2_vesseltrafficstudy_130722.pdf which could assist in determining the least risk terminal location..
Or see WEST COAST SPILL RESPONSE STUDY by NUKA Research.
Fortunately the Omnibus Bill C-69.which incorporates fixes for many of the issues of public concern not addressed in the NEB recommendation for approval…
Now, our government expects the potentially impacted communities to let he ill-conceived TMX proceed-to proceed without first fixing it –
We ask our Supreme Court to bring this national issue forward for resolution ,and prevent the TMX to proceed as proposed.