Kitsilano (Vancouver) Coast Guard Station Closure by Harper

Below is a description of the English Bay oil spill and Environmental protest that culminated in the beating of the Harper effigy seen in the video in post #103.

Quote:

Growing Frustration Over Environmental Issues

VANCOUVER – ENVIRONMENT – On Saturday April 25th at 4 pm, hundreds of community members converged at English Bay to vent anger and frustration at the federal government’s unacceptable response to a fuel spill in the Burrard Inlet two weeks ago. Community members used noisemakers and beat pots and pans, demanding the government take responsibility for the spill that resulted in the closure of the Musqueam fisheries, as well as all recreational fishing from Lion’s Gate Bridge to the mouth of the Georgia Straight. The demonstration was organized by a group of community members and is not affiliated with any particular organization.

Oil Spill Protesters Send Political Message

Demonstrators also beat a papier mâché effigy of Stephen Harper riding an oil tanker. Chaya Go, Filipina disaster relief worker and the event MC, told the crowd that effigies are all too familiar in the streets of Manila, where protesters often parade larger-than-life size icons of oppressors. “Though huge in size, effigies are hollow and made of paper—a true representation of people power: how masses in solidarity can take down these large but otherwise empty bases of power.”

Go also made connections between tar sands expansion and climate change-related disasters such as super typhoon Haiyan that ravaged the Philippines in 2013. Community members expressed anger over the federal government’s push to increase projects such as Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, slated to run through Burnaby Mountain.

“If that project is completed, tanker traffic will increase from about 60 tankers a year to about 400 every year. If this government can’t handle a relatively small fuel spill, how will they handle what we know is an inevitable bitumen spill?” spokesperson Scott Knowles said.

Demonstrators blamed the Harper government for the broad cuts to coastal marine safety that led to the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, a unit that, according to retired coast guard commander Fred Moxie, could have responded to the spill in six minutes.

http://www.netnewsledger.com/2015/04/26/vancouver-residents-protest-slow...

ETA: North Vancouver mayor Richard Walton has joined Vancouver and Burnaby mayors Gregor Robertson and Derek Corrigan in criticizing the slow and inadequate response of the Coast Guard to the English Bay oil spill, as well as the inadequate resources, in part due to the closing of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station by the Cons, it now has because of Cons cuts to marine safety spending.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson said that there was an absolute lack of confidence in the National Energy Board's review of Kinder Morgan's application to triple oil pipeline shipments through the Vancouver harbour. 

Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan went even further, calling the entire process a sham. 

Quote:

The mayor of North Vancouver says a fuel spill on English Bay could have been worse and he’s concerned the pace of the response suggests the Canadian Coast Guard has a “significant lack of resources.” ...

Roger Girouard, assistant commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, appeared at a meeting of Metro Vancouver mayors on Friday. One of the discussion topics was pipeline safety and Mr. Girouard was joined by Peter Watson, chair of the National Energy Board. ...

[Walton] said he was concerned about the length of time it took to respond to the English Bay spill.

“The spread of the oil and the consequences could have been significantly more severe. … We don't think [spill response is] adequate right now, let alone increasing volumes and increasing tanker traffic ,” he said.

Mr. Walton said he recognizes the coast guard can’t respond to a call within minutes, like a fire hall.

“However, when you're looking at the inner harbour area I think there's an expectation that it wouldn't be unreasonable to know that there's people on call who are ready to literally jump in boats and get out there and get going. And it appears that right now the level of response time is far from perhaps what most of our residents, what most of our local governments, would anticipate,” he said.

The coast guard’s response has also been criticized by Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson and B.C. Premier Christy Clark, among others. The coast guard has said its response was exceptional and pointed to the fact 80 per cent of the fuel was recovered within 36 hours. Mr. Girouard has said he does not believe the coast guard has a lack of resources. ...

Mayor Robertson, who chaired the meeting, said the region’s tourism sector has done very well and a spill could put it in serious danger.

“That success is at risk with incidents like we've just seen on the water here. The images of Vancouver with an oil spill on the water went global,” he said.

Mayor Robertson also had harsh words for the NEB chair. He said the mayors have made it very clear the board’s process for the Kinder Morgan pipeline project is flawed, pointing to what he said was a lack of environmental consideration and public consultation.

“There is an absolute lack of confidence in the NEB process that’s taking place right now with respect to the Kinder Morgan proposal,” he said.

Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan said he believes the NEB process is “a sham.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/north-vancouver-may...

Our elites' addiction to fossil fuels not only contributes to global warming and catastrophic fossil fuel accidents such as BP's in the Gulf of Mexico (and quite possibly off the BC coast as tanker traffic grows exponentially due to additional pipelines), it risks leaving us behind as a fossil fuel dinosaur as renewable energy growth climbs exponentially.

Renewable energy investment already surpassed fossil fuel energy investment in 2011  in new power-plant investments for the first time (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-11-25/fossil-fuels-beaten-by...).

Meanwhile thanks to the Cons we remain fossil fuel dinosaurs, with all the risks that entails. 

The following article details renewable energy's remarkable growth and points in the direction Canada needs to shift if it is not to be left behind in the future. 

Quote:

Power generation from hydro, wind, solar and other renewable sources worldwide will exceed that from gas and be twice that from nuclear by 2016, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said today in its second annual Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report (MTRMR).    

According to MTRMR, despite a difficult economic context, renewable power is expected to increase by 40% in the next five years. Renewables are now the fastest-growing power generation sector and will make up almost a quarter of the global power mix by 2018, up from an estimated 20% in 2011. The share of non-hydro sources such as wind, solar, bioenergy and geothermal in total power generation will double, reaching 8% by 2018, up from 4% in 2011 and just 2% in 2006.

“As their costs continue to fall, renewable power sources are increasingly standing on their own merits versus new fossil-fuel generation,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven as she presented the report at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum in New York. “This is good news for a global energy system that needs to become cleaner and more diversified, but it should not be an excuse for government complacency, especially among OECD countries.” ...

The forecasts in the report build on the impressive growth registered in 2012, when global renewable generation rose by over 8% despite a challenging investment, policy and industry context in some areas. In absolute terms, global renewable generation in 2012 – at 4 860 TWh – exceeded the total estimated electricity consumption of China.

Two main factors are driving the positive outlook for renewable power generation. First, investment and deployment are accelerating in emerging markets, where renewables help to address fast-rising electricity demand, energy diversification needs and local pollution concerns while contributing to climate change mitigation. Led by China, non-OECD countries are expected to account for two-thirds of the global increase in renewable power generation between now and 2018. Such rapid deployment is expected to more than compensate for slower growth and smooth out volatility in other areas, notably Europe and the US.

Second, in addition to the well-established competitiveness of hydropower, geothermal and bioenergy, renewables are becoming cost-competitive in a wider set of circumstances. For example, wind competes well with new fossil-fuel power plants in several markets, including Brazil, Turkey and New Zealand. Solar is attractive in markets with high peak prices for electricity, for instance, those resulting from oil-fired generation. Decentralised solar photovoltaic generation costs can be lower than retail electricity prices in a number of countries.

https://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2013/june/renewables...

Through interviews and freedom-of-information requests, the Globe and Mail has learned that US officials have  been so deeply concerned about Canada's oil spill response capabilities, not only since the English Bay oil spill but for a number of years before this, that they have considered taking legal action against Canada and the National Energy Board (NEB) because of:

• the increased risk of oil spill from the tripling of oil shipments and increased tanker traffic that the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline would bring;
• the completely inadequate oil spill response measures in Vancouver and the Juan de Fuca Strait that BC shares with Washington state;
• the reduction in oil spill response capability represented by the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station;
• the potential reduction in air quality from pipeline expansion and spills to the trans-border air shed;
• the unfair advantage in terms of costs that the lack of oil spill responses gives Vancouver over Washington state ports with their much higher standards;
• the unwillingness of the NEB to allow the US to raise these issues at its meetings on the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and instead to allow their comments to be given by email only.

Quote:

Newly released U.S. documents show American authorities are nervously eyeing Canadian proposals to triple the number of oil tanker voyages through the shared waters off B.C.’s coast, saying among themselves that Canadian standards to clean up a major spill are decades behind those of the U.S. and leave states vulnerable to environmental damage and costs.

After the MV Marathassa spilled sticky, toxic bunker fuel into Vancouver’s harbour this month, Washington State officials noted in interviews with The Globe and Mail that the state’s oil-spill response regime was far advanced from Canada’s. One former maritime lawyer said if the U.S. Coast Guard ranked an eight or nine out of 10 worldwide, then Canada’s Coast Guard would rank a one or two.

But the records obtained by The Globe under U.S. access-to-information laws show that American officials have been worried about Canada’s oil-response capabilities for years, dating back to Canada’s National Energy Board hearings into the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and the proposed Kinder Morgan expansion project.

Some even urged the U.S. to sue the National Energy Board after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was initially barred from participating at the NEB hearings into Kinder Morgan on the grounds that it had missed the deadline to apply for commentator status.

“A catastrophic oil spill would set the Puget Sound cleanup effort back decades, and result in billions of dollars in harm to our economy and environment,” the state’s Ecology Department officials wrote to Washington Governor Jay Inslee in 2013.

“While other Pacific Rim trading partners benefit, our state will incur many of the risks. In the Salish Sea oil spill risks are being transferred by Canadian industry to Washington state, without sufficient controls.”

They also contrasted spill response systems: “B.C. lacks authority over marine waters, and their federal regime is probably a couple of decades behind the system currently in place in Washington State. … When it is spilled, we are concerned that dilbit oil may be considerably more toxic and damaging, and far more difficult to clean up, than conventional crude from Alaska.”

In a briefing to Mr. Inslee before a March, 2013, meeting with U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral Keith Taylor, commander of the Pacific Northwest District, officials in the Ecology Department added: “Our industry and port should not have to incur higher cost than their counterparts in Canada because of their weaker standards. We need to have a level playing field with the Port of Vancouver.”

The documents also show lawyers working for the Environmental Protection Agency were unhappy about being denied full participant status on the Trans Mountain pipeline hearings a year ago.

Although Trans Mountain would not cross the border, the Environmental Protection Agency predicted in a comment to the NEB last spring that, “nearly tripling the capacity of the current pipeline will have potential air quality impacts on the trans-boundary air shed, including the U.S. portion.”

In February, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency was initially denied a chance to make a submission on Trans Mountain because it missed the deadline to apply. But two months later, the NEB gave the agency a lower ranked “commenter” status. Unlike intervenor status, this allows the EPA to send in its views by letter to the NEB hearing, but does not allow the agency to provide sworn evidence and cross-examine other parties. Full-fledged intervenor status was granted to the Washington State Department of Ecology.

Officials with the Environmental Protection Agency said in e-mails that’s contrary to the NEB’s obligations under Canadian law.

Last Nov. 21, Courtney Weber of the agency’s Seattle office wrote to tell other agency lawyers that four Puget Sound native groups had asked the agency to file a motion forcing the NEB to suspend its Kinder Morgan assessment hearings until the board consulted with the agency.

Ms. Weber wrote that the groups were arguing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires the NEB to “consult and co-operate” with the EPA.

“I read through the [CEAA] and it appears to me that Earthjustice/Tribes have a good point,” Ms. Weber wrote.

“It does appear that NEB should have consulted with the U.S. (and, in turn, EPA and other such agencies) given the scope of the project which will increase tanker traffic in the [Puget] Sound. … NEB never actually sent out an offer to consult as contemplated by Section 18 of the CEAA.” ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/us-worried-about-ca...

Metro Vancouver radio station CKNW is reporting that Washington state officials are now openly expressing their deep concern over the expansion of the pipelines and tanker traffic in BC, as well as the inadequate oil spill response mechanisms on the BC side of the border. Furthermore, they note that under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty (the text of the document is found within the url below), each country has the responsibility to maintain the shipping and transportation rights of its neighbour and failure to do so can result in lawsuits for damages.

Quote:

Government officials in Washington State are keeping a close eye on plans to expand oil shipping in British Columbia, wanting to ensure enough protections are in place.

Speaking on the Simi Sara Show on CKNW, David Byers, who heads up oil spill response with the the Washington State Department of Ecology, says while they have a great relationship with authorities this side of the border, they also have concerns that spill response is not keeping up with expansion.

Washington state has stricter shipping rules than BC

He says in Washington, the ship responsible for a spill is legally responsible to notify authorities.

“And then when a spill happens, they are responsible for — in addition to making notification to government agencies — for implementing their response plan and it’s government’s role to make sure that is happening in a timely and effective manner.”

In the fuel spill this month in Vancouver’s English Bay, it was a boater who reported the spill to the Coast Guard, who called in a private company to clean it up and then alerted the city, albeit several hours later.

Byers says B.C. doesn’t need identical plans, but does need similar protections.

The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 is an agreement between the United States and Canada which deals with, among other things, shipping and transportation rights across boundaries.

Read the the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909

Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909

 

http://www.cknw.com/2015/04/29/74254/

Experts are warning that the relatively small English Bay oil spill is already having a major impact on herring-like fish, called surf smelt, that were once part of a large fishery and that the oil spill will impact Vancouver for years as oil suspended in the water column resurfaces due to wind or tidal action. Furthermore, while the Coast Guard might have cleaned up 80% of the visible oil spill, this is probably more like 15% of the actual spill because most of it is suspended below the surface or on the bottom and that over time this will reach the shoreline.

Now try to visualize what a tanker oil spill would do. 

Quote:

The spawning of surf smelt, a miracle of nature that largely unfolds unnoticed on Vancouver’s beaches, was under way when a freighter accidentally spilled 2,800 litres of bunker fuel in English Bay.

Now, three weeks later, the deadly impact of that oil on smelt embryos is slowly coming into focus under the microscope of Ramona de Graaf, a marine biologist who is a leading expert on the small herring-like fish that live and die on the city’s shoreline without most people knowing they exist. ...

“These embryos are one millimetre in size. They are very tiny. They are on the surface of the beach,” said Ms. de Graaf, who has been retained by the Canadian Coast Guard and the ship owner to assess the damage of the spill. “We’re talking micrograms of petroleum products per litre [of sea water] is all that’s needed to kill these embryos.”

She is in the early stages of collecting samples of sand and gravel from 10 spawning beaches around Vancouver, where millions of tiny eggs are laid by surf smelt each spring. Surf smelt, once so numerous they supported a commercial fishery that harvested hundreds of tonnes annually, have grown increasingly rare, but still play a vital role in the marine food web, providing forage for many species and still supporting small commercial and recreational catches. During spawning runs they tumble ashore on waves, laying eggs in seconds before vanishing again into deeper water. Females carry up to 30,000 eggs, which they deposit in repeated events. Beaches can contain up to 1,000 eggs per square metre of sand.

In an interview, Ms. de Graaf said the spill, which hit several beaches, may have killed some of the eggs. Embryos die naturally, so to determine what mortality might be due to the spill she is comparing samples from fouled beaches with beaches that weren’t contaminated.

“I’m still processing all the data. I’ve got all the samples but I have to take them tablespoon by tablespoon under a microscope and pluck out all the embryos,” said Ms. de Graaf. “I can tell you briefly that there’s a difference between beaches that were not affected by the oil and beaches that were affected by the oil as far as the survivability of the embryos.”

Ms. de Graaf said she can’t release any findings until her research is completed, but she sounded worried by what she’s seeing.

“I just can’t tell you,” she said when asked how many smelt embryos might have perished. “But I think you can hear it in my voice.”

She was critical of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for not closing a recreational smelt fishery, saying the fish should be protected until the impact is known.

“Taking out the reproductive adults right now when the embryos have probably failed because of the oil spill [isn’t cautious],” she said. ...

Several days after the spill, the Coast Guard reported that 80 per cent of the oil had been recovered. But Anita Burke, an oil-spill response expert who worked on the Exxon Valdez cleanup, said rarely is more than 15 per cent of any spill ever recaptured.

“My experience tells me … they captured 80 per cent of what they could see, but how much sank?” she said.

Ms. Burke, who is speaking Wednesday night on a Simon Fraser University panel at the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, said the impact of the Marathassa spill will be felt for years on Vancouver’s beaches because oil drifts suspended in the water column, or sinks to the bottom only to resurface because of wind or tidal action.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/smelt-embryo-deaths...

Anita Burke who worked for Shell on corporate responsibility and sustainable development (an oxymoron for fossil fuel firms) for 17 years, says that Western Canada Marine Response Corporation's (WCMRC) reponse to the English Bay oil is "embarrassing". WCMRC is a "completely funded by industry. Our shareholders are the 4 major oil companies (Imperial Oil, Shell Canada, Chevron and Suncor) and Trans Mountain pipelines".(http://www.straight.com/blogra/428816/kinder-morgan-owned-company-called...)

Furthermore, WCMRC is "legally required, by the Canada Shipping Act, to have the capacity to respond to a 10,000 tonne spill. It is currently capable of responding to a spill twice that size." (http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/622034/new-pipelines-could-shake-up-b...)

Harper's replacement of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station and other Coast Guard stations with the oil industry's own firm has been and will be a disaster for the province. But, heh, it gives Harper a chance to reward his friends in the oil industry, where he first worked, a chance to make millions on government contracts and lift them out of the deep poverty in which we the oil industry exists. We certainly couldn't expect Harper to hold them monetarily or criminally responsible for a 2,700 L spill response just because they are legally responsible for 10,000 tonne spill and have said they could deal with a spill of 20,000 tonnes. Besides the Coast Guard, who else loses in this deal?

Quote:

The response to the bunker fuel spill in Vancouver's English Bay was "very disappointing" says Anita Burke, an international expert in responding to and restoring ecosystems affected by industrial and natural disasters.

"We clearly have large gaps in our ability to respond and take care of our coast … it's embarrassing, frankly," said Burke, who worked with Shell and its subsidiaries on corporate responsibility and sustainable development for 17 years.

On April 8, an estimated 2,700 litres of oil leaked from the MV Marathassa into English Bay. The Coast Guard has been criticized for the time it took to respond to the spill. 

Western Canada Marine Response Corporation — the company tasked with cleanup arrived on site more than four hours after the Coast Guard had been notified, and booms weren't fully secured around the cargo ship until more than 12 hours after the call. ...

"The industrial standard — what we've been held to for many years — is anywhere from 15 minutes to half an hour," Burke told The Early Edition's Rick Cluff.

"The clear reporting channels were non-existent and it compromised the response. The emergency response by the vessel itself was non-existent."

The Canadian Coast Guard disputed Burke's claim. 

"Our partners responded within international standards. We sent vessels within 25 minutes to inspect the report, and skimmers were on the water within four hours to contain the substance," it said in an emailed statement.

By 5:53 a.m. the next morning, 1,100 metres of boom were securely placed around the hull, and 80 per cent of the pollution was contained and recovered."

'We haven't defined what cleanup is'

The federal government has said 80 per cent of the fuel spill was cleaned up and contained within 36 hours, but Burke would like to see the information behind those numbers.

"I've responded to some of the largest oil spills in the world and within industry we are real happy if we get anywhere from 15 to 20 per cent," said Burke.

"I don't even know that we have full cleanup. We haven't defined what cleanup is. We don't have the total volumes. There's still oil showing up on the beaches," she said.

Burke said officials need to bolster their ability to respond to spills before expanding tanker traffic through English Bay. She is also adding her voice to calls to re-open the Kitsilano Coast Guard station.

"While this spill is relatively small, no spill is not worth paying attention to. It's a good wake-up call."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-oil-spill-respo...

The economic, environmental, personal and social costs of a major oil spill are rarely discussed as clearly and in as much detail as below.

Quote:

The City of Vancouver passed a motion this month demanding that Kinder Morgan pipeline company carry full liability to cover the costs of an oil spill in our Vancouver Harbour. The request is just common sense but demonstrated very uncommon courage in the public political realm.

So, how much liability would Kinder Morgan – the now notorious ex-Enron billionaires from Texas, who bought BC Gas and flipped it for the pipelines – need to carry to indemnify our city from the ravages of an oil spill?

Well, for starters, some $40 billion, as I explain below. But let’s keep in mind: there is no such thing as “cleaning up” an oil spill. Most “clean ups” get about 10 percent of the oil spilled, like the way a 3-year-old “cleans up” milk spilled on the kitchen floor. ...

Economic costs of an oil spill

The Aframax tankers now using Vancouver Harbour carry up to 700,000 barrels of bitumen, the deadliest crude oil on Earth. To estimate the costs of responding to such a spill, one must examine comparable costs for similar accidents. One method uses the historic “costs/barrel” for responding to oil spills.

The Exxon Valdez spilled 270,000 barrels, about one-third of an Aframax tanker. The Alaska tourism industry lost 26,000 jobs and $2.4 billion immediately – and another $2.8 billion over the next decade. Total loss for tourism alone: $5.2 billion. ...

British Petroleum set aside $20 billion for clean up and compensation in the Gulf of Mexico, but Credit Suisse estimated total BP liabilities of $37 billion, just for cleanup and injury claims.

So, who pays this cost? Exxon has been in and out of court for 23 years over the Exxon Valdez spill, and still hasn’t paid its liability claims. BP is fighting injury claims, but in Vancouver Harbour there may be no such company that would even accept liability. The oil companies – Shell, Syncrude, Sinopec – and pipeline company Kinder Morgan have already indemnified themselves and would decline liability once the oil is on a ship. The ship owner has liability by Canadian marine law, but these days oil tankers are owned by obscure numbered companies with few assets, in slippery jurisdictions, where they can and literally do disappear overnight in the case of serious accidents.

The response costs would fall to Canadians – municipalities, the Province, the Federal government – that is, to the people. Imagine a $40 billion Canadian bill to mop up 10% of a marine and economic disaster, while our schools and social programs disintegrate.

Bitumen’s abrasive personality

Consider a 500,000-barrel bitumen oil spill in Burrard Inlet, 70% of an Aframax tanker. Globally, there has been an oil spill of this size about every 18 months worldwide for the last 40 years. ...

In July 2010, a 30-inch bitumen pipeline owned by Enbridge Energy – that other pipeline outfit angling for the BC coast – burst, spilling 20,000 barrels of tar sands bitumen into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. The challenges of dealing with the heavy, sinking bitumen shocked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which Mitchell Anderson wrote about in the Tyee.

Costs of even partial cleanup soared to more than ten times historic crude oil costs. “I don’t think anyone at the state level anticipated that,” said EPA Incident Commander, Ralph Dollhopf. “I don’t think anyone at the EPA anticipated that. I don’t think anyone in industry anticipated that.”

Bitumen, diluted with solvents such as condensate or naphtha, separates in the marine environment. Volatile gases – toluene and the carcinogenic benzene – rise into the air, causing headaches, nausea, dizziness, coughing, and fatigue among the local population. One may fairly assume all other animals that breathe air experience similar symptoms.

After the Kalamazoo River spill, the toxic fumes remained for weeks and could be smelled up to 50 kilometres away. A major Aframax spill in Burrard Inlet – 25-times larger than in Michigan – would likely require evacuations in the lower BC mainland and islands. Clean up crews would battle toxic fumes as they watched the bitumen sink below their skimmers.

Bitumen contains sulphur, paraffins, asphaltics, benzenes, and other toxic compounds. Animals and plants are suffocated and poisoned. The die-off starts at the foundation of the food chain, obliterating the vital mudflat biofilm – the bacteria, diatoms, and mucopolysaccharides that provide a high-energy food source for shorebirds in Burrard Inlet and Georgia Strait. As the bitumen moves with wind and tides, it kills all bottom life, mixes with the intertidal sediments, and kills shellfish, ocean plants, fin fish, and marine mammals.

On top of this, the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (“PAHs”) in bitumen, dissolve in the water. Two years after the Michigan spill, 30 miles of the Kalamazoo River remained closed to fishing, swimming, or even wading in the water.

After a bitumen spill in Burrard Inlet, the toxins would contaminate the entire marine ecosystem from Seattle to Campbell River, and beyond. Most of this damage could not be “cleaned up” at any price

Show me the money

Cleanup: According to the US EPA, historic U.S. crude oil cleanup costs have been about $80/gallon ($3,400 per barrel). The added problems with tar sands bitumen – toxic gas, sinking sludge, and soluble hydrocarbons – push costs up. The Kalamazoo River spill by Enbridge cost 10 times the traditional crude oil clean up costs – about $35,000 per barrel. Comparatively, the cleanup response to a 500,000-barrel bitumen spill in Burrard Inlet would be:  $ 17 billion

Tourism losses: “Tourism is dead,” said Charlotte Randolph, president of the Lafourche Parish in Louisiana, after the Gulf Oil spill. “We’re dying a slow death.” Oxford Economics estimated the Gulf region’s tourism industry would lose $7.6 to $22.7 billion over 3 years. Tourism dropped by 35 percent in some Gulf regions. ... BC brings in $14 billion annually in tourism, and we could lose half of this for 2-4 years, so added to the clean-up costs would be the tourism loss to BC over several years, on the order of: $ 20 billion

Fishing:  ... B.C. fisherman Ron Fowler, a Pacific Salmon Commissioner and Director of the Area-F Trollers Association. “If we get an oil spill anywhere in these waters, it would wipe out every fishery we have, shellfish, salmon, herring, and the plankton that they feed on. ...

The BC fishing industry wholesale value is about $1.2 billion per year. An oil spill on the coast could destroy a large portion of this for 3-4 years and some shoreline intertidal fisheries for a decade or more. ... The potential fisheries loss over several years is in the range of: $ 1 billion

Health costs: Some first responders in Alaska still suffer from the toxic intake. Bitumen is worse. In Michigan, the volatile benzene and toluene caused nausea, dizziness, headaches, coughing, and fatigue to some 60% of the local population for weeks after the spill. The health department encouraged an evacuation within a mile of the river. As with other oil spills, there will be a spike of cancer and other diseases. A 500,000-barrel bitumen spill in Burrard Inlet would likely cause a mass evacuation and severe health impact for over a million people. The costs could easily reach:$ 1 billion

Lost Time: The lost time for families, students, workers, business owners, and  others in the lower mainland and up to 50 kilometers way, likely farther up the Fraser River past Fort Langley, and south past Whiterock, would be massive. ... Cost: $ 1 billion

Port losses: An oil spill would disrupt Port of Vancouver shipping business. ... Cost: $ 1 billion

So there it is, in round figures: a $41 billion price tag for an oil spill, with no one to accept liability except a renegade shipping company in Somalia or the Cayman Islands.

Vancouver and BC brand value: The “Beautiful BC” and “greenest city” reputations would be lost. How much is that worth? Billions more. Stanley Park would be devastated. How do we put a price tag on that? The lost reputation and destroyed ecosystems – if we could even place a dollar-cost on these losses – would double the $40 billion direct costs to make the loss more like $80 billion.

This is the aggregate risk that the Vancouver region must accept if it wants to be the Tar Sands Oil Port in exchange for some tugboat jobs, port fees, consulting gigs, and payoffs.

Normal spillage

All oil ports have oil spills. Most oil spilled into the world’s bays, harbours, and marine environments is “normal spillage,” acknowledged by the industry as a routine “expense,” which they write off as a tax deduction.

Oil terminal workers have admitted that they spill oil virtually every time they load a tanker. Every time. ... Try going east of Second Narrows, near Kinder Morgan’s Westridge Terminal and find a healthy clam or crab.

This Inlet once fed the Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish, Musqueam, and Tsawwassen people, who retain rights to this unceded territory. ... That food resource is already virtually eradicated from the normal spillage from the oil refinery and terminal on Burrard Inlet. ...

What price would one place on this? What price for the obliterated natural livelihood of indigenous people, our regional heritage, our marine and intertidal ecosystems, our coastal economy, and our community identity and pride in the sea? ...

http://commonsensecanadian.ca/cost-of-oil-spill-burrard-inlet-40-billion...

ETA: There will be a rally to protest the closure of the Marine Communication and Traffic Services Centres today (May 6th) frin 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM at the foot of Whyte Avenue in Vancouver near the Jericho Sailing Centre.

Quote:

Join Unifor, PSAC, the BC Fed and affiliates to protest the closure of this vital facility. Tell Stephen Harper to invest in coast guard and protect our coasts!

http://psacbc.com/events/rally-protest-closure-marine-communication-traf...

For map of the location of the protest click on:

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Jericho+Sailing+Centre,+1300+Discovery+...@49.275101,-123.200451,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x548672f5d2d941a9:0x2c48f30dfa65e94c

When NDP MP Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby-Douglas) pointed out last year that Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline total volume of spills was greater than the disastrous Kalamazoo, Michigan, spill, Kinder Morgan's answer was that this was a ridiculous comparison. This is like saying it's okay to release more carbon dioxide into the environment than in one big release, if it's done in small amounts each time. This attitude, which parallels that of the Cons with regard to the English Bay spill, inspires such confidence in the fossil fuel industry and our provincial and federal governments.

Quote:

Ducks dying, a Kalamazoo River blackened with oil, and haz-mat workers vacuuming sticky sediments in the worst land pipeline spill in U.S. history -- not the visuals Kinder Morgan wants to be associated with, especially when it had nothing to do with the disaster.

"It's a stupid comparison," bristled Kinder Morgan vice president Hugh Harden from Calgary on Wednesday.

The oil executive in charge of Trans Mountain pipeline's operations was reacting to a new pipeline spill analysis from Burnaby Member of Parliament, Kennedy Stuart.  

The outspoken MP, well known for his opposition to Kinder Morgan’s $5-billion proposal to now expand the Edmonton-to-Burnaby pipeline, released new federal data on the existing pipeline's spills.  The NEB records date back more than half a century, and show the total volume released by Trans Mountain was 40,000 barrels.

The Kalamazoo disaster by Enbridge released 20,000 barrels.  

“Over the lifetime of this [Trans Mountain] pipeline, it’s leaked double the amount of the Kalamazoo spill,” said Stewart on Wednesday.
 “I think when you make that comparison, I think you start to say, ‘what a serious amount of oil and oil products this actually is.”
 Stuart's office also issued a map graphic showing Trans Mountain's top 10 spills, with the largest three near Edmonton in 1985, 1977 and 1966.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/kinder-morgans-historic-oil-spills...

The cities of Vancouver and Burnaby, as well as the Tsleil-Wauthth First Nation, have commissioned an modelling analysis of the effects of a major oil spill on the regions shoreline that concluded it would be severely coated in crude oil in just hours.

ETA: Unfortunately, despite the significant environmental damage caused by the English Bay oil spill of only 2700 litres in April, their plan to present it to the National Energy Board (NEB) will accomplish nothing as the Cons have rigged the NEB process to approve the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

Quote:

A proposed expansion of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain oil pipeline would triple output and is projected to increase tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet to 34 vessels each month, which the cities and First Nation claim heightens the risk of a spill.

The modelling by Genwest Systems Inc. includes animation scenarios showing that between 50 per cent and 90 per cent of the oil would reach shores — based on a spill of 20 per cent of an average tanker. ...

The analysis will be submitted to the National Energy Board during environmental review hearings for the Trans Mountain proposal later this month.

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/05/16/oil-spill-in-vancouver-would-spread-f...

ETA: It is ironic that the day before Christy Clark is to announce a memorandum of understanding with Petronas on a LNG pipeline and terminal near Prince Rupert, a major oil spill from a pipeline occurred off Santa Barbara, California, triggering memories of the third largest oil spill in history, which occurred off Santa Barbara in 1969. That spill led to California banning ocean oil drilling off its coast and the creation of Earth Day. A Petronas pipeline or tanker spill would make the English Bay oil spill look like the spill from a turned-over lawn mower.

Quote:

A broken onshore pipeline spewed oil down a storm drain and into the Pacific Ocean for several hours before it was shut off, creating a slick some 4 miles long across a scenic stretch of central California coastline, officials said.

Initial estimates put the spill at about 21,000 gallons Tuesday, but that figure would likely change after a Wednesday morning flyover gave a better sense of the spill's scope, U.S. Coast Guard spokeswoman Jennifer Williams said.

The spill was about 20 miles northwest of the pricey seaside real estate of Santa Barbara, and the Coast Guard said overnight winds were likely to push it 2 to 4 miles closer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/santa-barbara-oil-spill_n_73384...

Quote:

The Santa Barbara oil spill occurred in January and February 1969 in the Santa Barbara Channel, near the city of Santa Barbara in Southern California. It was the largest oil spill in United States waters at the time, and now ranks third after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon and 1989 Exxon Valdez spills. It remains the largest oil spill to have occurred in the waters off California.

The source of the spill was a blow-out on January 28, 1969, 6 miles (10 km) from the coast on Union Oil's Platform A in the Dos Cuadras Offshore Oil Field. Within a ten-day period, an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 barrels (13,000 to 16,000 m3)[1] of crude oil spilled into the Channel and onto the beaches of Santa Barbara County in Southern California, fouling the coastline from Goleta to Ventura as well as the northern shores of the four northern Channel Islands. The spill had a significant impact on marine life in the Channel, killing an estimated 3,500 sea birds,[2] as well as marine animals such as dolphins, elephant seals, and sea lions. The public outrage engendered by the spill, which received prominent media coverage in the United States, resulted in numerous pieces of environmental legislation within the next several years, legislation that forms the legal and regulatory framework for the modern environmental movement in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Santa_Barbara_oil_spill

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robetson is calling on people during the review of the English Bay oil spill to demand the restoration of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station and communication centres to help protect the marine environment. 

Quote:

After the Coast Guard promised to conduct a review of its actions during last month’s oil spill, Vancouver’s mayor says people living in the city also need to play a role in that review.

Mayor Gregor Robertson spoke to Shane Woodford on The Sean Leslie Show earlier today.

He called on politicians and key people living in the city to weigh in on cuts surrounding the Coast Guard.

“It’s really up to the rest of us. We need the funding restored to the Coast Guard, the Marine communication centre that was moved out of Vancouver and the oil spill response centre that was closed down here. These are closures and cuts that are totally unacceptable.”

“We lost the Kits Coast Guard Base, we’ve seen them have problems with the marine radio emergency network, those kind of failings are due to a lack of resources and support from the federal government.”

The Coast Guard promises the review will be completed by the end of July.

http://www.cknw.com/2015/05/23/vancouver-mayor-calls-on-citizens-to-cont...

The Tsleil-Waututh First Nation has released an environmental assessment report that shows how risky the proposed tripling of the Kinder Morgan pipeline is for themselves and other Vancouver area residents. Furthermore, the stidy shows that Kinder Morgan has significantly underestimated the risk of a spill that is much greater than the English Bay oil spill last month. The First Nation's reserve is located less than two kilometres across Burrard Inlet from Kinder Morgan Canada’s Westridge oil tanker terminal. It plans to use the sudy to take legal action to prevent the pipeline from being completed.

Quote:

Likelihood of an oil spill in Burrard Inlet over 50 years is 87 per cent, study claims ...

The 90-page assessment, released Tuesday by the 570-member Tsleil-Waututh First Nation of North Vancouver, includes scientific research that says Kinder Morgan has underestimated the environmental and public health risks of oil spills in Burrard Inlet.

“The assessment lays out the profound impacts of the project on Tsleil-Waututh title and rights, thus setting the stage for litigation that could delay or derail” the expansion, according to the analysis by six law professors, including the University of B.C.’s Gordon Christie. ...

Levelton Consultants of Richmond warned that more than one million residents around Burrard Inlet “are at risk of acute health effects from toxic air emissions from a worst-case oil spill.”

Grand Chief Philip Stewart said the study by the Tseil-Waututh backs up the risks and he is “absolutely confident” the pipeline expansion won’t go ahead. “Indigenous people have been saying no for a very long time. Now we have more legal tools to fight and oppose these.”

Scott Smith, a lawyer for the Tsleil-Waututh, said it will be difficult for Kinder Morgan to proceed without consent of the First Nation given the recent Supreme Court decision.

http://epaper.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

On June 13th, the day before the new Vancouver oil spill, the Come Toast the Coast protest was held at Jericho Beach in Vancouver to send a message to Harper that Vancouver beaches and its environment are for people not oil. The new oil spill (see previous post) simply reinforces the message of Come Toast the Coast.

The website below has a wide range of videos on the Come Toast the Coast protest. 

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=toast+the+coast&qpvt=Toast+the+Coast...

The BC provincial government has finally woken up to the risk of hazardous spills on the west coast. However, their solution does not involve limiting in any way the amount of hazardous material being transported. In fact, environment minister Mary Polak announced the government intends to create an industry-funded organization, similar to the West Coast Marine Response Organization, the fossil fuel funded and run company that did such a terrible job of cleaning up the English Bay and False Creek spills. It's good to know that the BC Liberals have such faith in free enterprise over such public servants as the Coast Guard.

Quote:

British Columbia is unprepared for a major land-based, hazardous-material spill because current rules and regulations are outdated — and that needs to change, says the province's environment minister. ...

The minister said the provincially certified, industry-funded organization will be able to start containing and co-ordinating cleanup of a spill quicker than current crews.

Polak compared the team to West Coast Marine Response Organization, an agency contracted by the federal government to contain and clean up marine spills.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06/15/new-rules-coming-for-comp_n_7589...

Unionist wrote:

And someone please remind me whether the other parties have made any commitments to save coast guard search and rescue and/or marine communications and traffic services stations?

 

ETA: Both the NDP and the Liberals have promised to reopen the Kitsilano Coast Guard Station. The NDP is also promising to reopen the closed Coast Guard communication centres in Ucluelet, Vancouver and Comox, which are vitally important to marine traffic, as well as human and environmental safety along the west coast

http://www.pressreader.com/canada/times-colonist/20150419/28164677867443...

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/04/kitsilano-coast-guard-base-justin-tru...