Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: ThatDeafGuy on April 09, 2015, 09:03:56 AM
-
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/04/cargo-ship-spills-oil-vancouvers-english-bay-photos/
-
And the Feds say the response was "world class". Now imagine if it was Alberta's filth. Dil-bit sinks. There was some posters here that supported tankers filled with that crap plying the waters up north. Maybe they could tell us how "safe" it is.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120626/dilbit-primer-diluted-bitumen-conventional-oil-tar-sands-Alberta-Kalamazoo-Keystone-XL-Enbridge
-
Does the federal government think we're all idiots here on the West Coast ? "World class" response ? It took them 6 hours to get a boom around the tanker. Shudder to think what a less than a world class response will do to our environment.
-
Does the federal government think we're all idiots here on the West Coast ? "World class" response ? It took them 6 hours to get a boom around the tanker. Shudder to think what a less than a world class response will do to our environment.
And the Federal Governments response just outright is an insult to any intelligence - the political clap trap should be downright embarrassing, but the puppets can only do as they're told.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/james-moore-fires-back-at-political-jabs-over-vancouver-oil-spill-1.3028861
-
here's a more accurate picture on the whole thing. Ridiculous that Kinder Morgan owns the cleanup company.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2663595391/
-
here's a more accurate picture on the whole thing. Ridiculous that Kinder Morgan owns the cleanup company.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2663595391/
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/Willy1956/3ed029f_zps5gxkwjpx.jpg) (http://s158.photobucket.com/user/Willy1956/media/3ed029f_zps5gxkwjpx.jpg.html)
-
Elizabeth May said it like it is very well. Where are the other opposition leaders?
I just heard the regional head of the Coast Guard excuse the six hours it took to get the boom in place 'because it was dark and they couldn't determine exactly what they were dealing with'. Well golly, who ever would have thought oil spills could occur at night. Is there a possibility they also didn't think of hurricane force winds and rip tides pushing tankers onto the rocks while conceiving the capabilities for the 'world class spill response' ?
-
Elizabeth May said it like it is very well. Where are the other opposition leaders?
I just heard the regional head of the Coast Guard excuse the six hours it took to get the boom in place 'because it was dark and they couldn't determine exactly what they were dealing with'. Well golly, who ever would have thought oil spills could occur at night. Is there a possibility they also didn't think of hurricane force winds and rip tides pushing tankers onto the rocks while conceiving the capabilities for the 'world class spill response' ?
What experience do you have with responding to, organizing and implementing a plan to deal with these types of spills? It's a fair question to ask you given your criticism here. As for responding to hypothetical scenarios of oil spills during dangerous water conditions I guess one would have to weigh the risk of putting people in potentially life threatening situations to install a boom vs. the risk of having ship potentially being pushed up on rocks and leaking oil. If you were in charge of the health and safety of many CCG employees, what would be your call? What would be your justification for putting CCG individuals in harms way to install a boom that may or may not be successfully installed given the conditions you hypothetically suggest?
May said it very well? I completely disagree. May is yet another politician that is climbing on the bandwagon ready to bash the CCG yet she has no experience with what is going on. I don’t necessarily disagree with her comments about budget cuts, but she is speculating at best how these particular cuts impacted the response and cleanup of this spill. I would rather take the opinion of a member of the CCG than a politician. At the end of the day she is a politician like the rest of them in Ottawa (not a scientist, not a biologist, not a member of the CCG) that is at opposite ends of Harper and wants to show it, so I take her opinions on the response and cleanup of this spill with a grain of salt.
Where are the other opposition leaders? Perhaps they aren’t as ignorant as May to jump to conclusions before knowing all the facts. That’s a good thing thank God. I have more respect for a political leader (that is saying a lot) that isn’t so quick to react and act so sympathetic to the public concerns without taking the time to take in all the information first. It is not a coincidence that Clark and Robertson have toned down their rhetoric now since their initial news conferences condemning the CCG response. I believe those that were finger pointing have some fingers pointing back at them. They were too quick to jump at initial reports in the media frenzy and rushed to judgement without hearing what the CCG had to say. At the end of the day, these provincial and civic politicians are not really taking shots at Harper (who doesn’t give a crap about what people in BC say about him now because is too busy solidifying his party’s support in Ontario and Quebec), but at the men and women of the CCG who are doing their best.
Considering that most of the oil on the surface has already been contained I do not see where the massive condemnation is coming from. If most of the oil still remained then I can see some of the criticism. I believe some folks have such a hate for Kinder Morgan that they are so willing to lose objectivity and throw the CCG under the bus so readily. Remember, these are the same people that go and risk their own lives to rescue boaters in distress. They are not just some puppets, but folks that take pride in their jobs. I am glad their leadership is standing up for them in the media – it’s about time. These CCG employees likely didn’t care much for repeated budget cuts from their king back east, but it still does not diminish their dedication to their jobs or specifically their concern about this oil spill.
The province and the feds work on multi-jurisdictional matters so it is not in any government’s interests to create a bunch of animosity. The focus should be working together to get this cleaned up – not premature comments 48 hours after the spill saying that an agency should be relieved of its duties based on initial media reports. Clark should have just stayed at home that day and thought about how her ministries are doing as they scramble for every last cent. I found it hilarious when she was acting like some saviour that was going to swoop in, relieve the CCG and save the day. In my opinion, CCG Assistant Commissioner Roger Girouard knows that the communication breakdown was not limited to the CCG alone, but has decided to not rock the boat with other governments, stop the finger pointing and look at the bigger picture. It was a wise move on his part because if both levels of government (including the municipalities) can’t work together than that is bad news for everyone ultimately.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-oil-spill-coast-guard-defends-cleanup-response-time-1.3029785
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-oil-spill-coast-guard-fires-back-at-criticism-of-response-1.3030722
-
What experience do you have with responding to, organizing and implementing a plan to deal with these types of spills? It's a fair question to ask you given your criticism here. As for responding to hypothetical scenarios of oil spills during dangerous water conditions I guess one would have to weigh the risk of putting people in potentially life threatening situations to install a boom vs. the risk of having ship potentially being pushed up on rocks and leaking oil. If you were in charge of the health and safety of many CCG employees, what would be your call? What would be your justification for putting CCG individuals in harms way to install a boom that may or may not be successfully installed given the conditions you hypothetically suggest?
May said it very well? I completely disagree. May is yet another politician that is climbing on the bandwagon ready to bash the CCG yet she has no experience with what is going on. I don’t necessarily disagree with her comments about budget cuts, but she is speculating at best how these particular cuts impacted the response and cleanup of this spill. I would rather take the opinion of a member of the CCG than a politician. At the end of the day she is a politician like the rest of them in Ottawa (not a scientist, not a biologist, not a member of the CCG) that is at opposite ends of Harper and wants to show it, so I take her opinions on the response and cleanup of this spill with a grain of salt.
Where are the other opposition leaders? Perhaps they aren’t as ignorant as May to jump to conclusions before knowing all the facts. That’s a good thing thank God. I have more respect for a political leader (that is saying a lot) that isn’t so quick to react and act so sympathetic to the public concerns without taking the time to take in all the information first. It is not a coincidence that Clark and Robertson have toned down their rhetoric now since their initial news conferences condemning the CCG response. I believe those that were finger pointing have some fingers pointing back at them. They were too quick to jump at initial reports in the media frenzy and rushed to judgement without hearing what the CCG had to say. At the end of the day, these provincial and civic politicians are not really taking shots at Harper (who doesn’t give a crap about what people in BC say about him now because is too busy solidifying his party’s support in Ontario and Quebec), but at the men and women of the CCG who are doing their best.
Considering that most of the oil on the surface has already been contained I do not see where the massive condemnation is coming from. If most of the oil still remained then I can see some of the criticism. I believe some folks have such a hate for Kinder Morgan that they are so willing to lose objectivity and throw the CCG under the bus so readily. Remember, these are the same people that go and risk their own lives to rescue boaters in distress. They are not just some puppets, but folks that take pride in their jobs. I am glad their leadership is standing up for them in the media – it’s about time. These CCG employees likely didn’t care much for repeated budget cuts from their king back east, but it still does not diminish their dedication to their jobs or specifically their concern about this oil spill.
The province and the feds work on multi-jurisdictional matters so it is not in any government’s interests to create a bunch of animosity. The focus should be working together to get this cleaned up – not premature comments 48 hours after the spill saying that an agency should be relieved of its duties based on initial media reports. Clark should have just stayed at home that day and thought about how her ministries are doing as they scramble for every last cent. I found it hilarious when she was acting like some saviour that was going to swoop in, relieve the CCG and save the day. In my opinion, CCG Assistant Commissioner Roger Girouard knows that the communication breakdown was not limited to the CCG alone, but has decided to not rock the boat with other governments, stop the finger pointing and look at the bigger picture. It was a wise move on his part because if both levels of government (including the municipalities) can’t work together than that is bad news for everyone ultimately.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-oil-spill-coast-guard-defends-cleanup-response-time-1.3029785
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-oil-spill-coast-guard-fires-back-at-criticism-of-response-1.3030722
This was an optimal conditions scenario and the response was as pathetic as the excuses and trash trotted out for the "world class" response. Read the part in this piece about the oil boom at the Kits station- now no longer within arm's reach for the busy harbour. Short sighted politically motivated bean counters vs. common sense. Now replace the bunker with dil bit. I bear no animosity towards the Coast Guard, but I do take offense to being fed bull$hi&.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Estimate%20bunker%20fuel%20spilled%20English%20conservative%20officials/10968296/story.html
-
This was an optimal conditions scenario and the response was as pathetic as the excuses and trash trotted out for the "world class" response. Read the part in this piece about the oil boom at the Kits station- now no longer within arm's reach for the busy harbour. Short sighted politically motivated bean counters vs. common sense. Now replace the bunker with dil bit. I bear no animosity towards the Coast Guard, but I do take offense to being fed bull$hi&.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Estimate%20bunker%20fuel%20spilled%20English%20conservative%20officials/10968296/story.html
And http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/spill+response+English+falls+short+world+class/10963080/story.html
-
The response was probably as good as can be expected and as the cleanup contractor says 'textbook' perfect. That is the problem, in bad conditions with a big spill, a textbook perfect response will not be anywhere good enough.
-
The response was probably as good as can be expected and as the cleanup contractor says 'textbook' perfect. That is the problem, in bad conditions with a big spill, a textbook perfect response will not be anywhere good enough.
SS will like this one as he loves to defend the government on most issues. ;D ;D
http://www.theprogress.com/news/299397591.html
-
Yet the claim is 80% recovered- that leaves how much left? And apparently the Coast Guard is now claiming it "might" be more, but they won't know for a couple of weeks yet.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-oil-spill-was-small-but-nasty-and-spread-quickly-1.3032385
-
More here!
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/estimate-of-fuel-spilled-in-vancouver-s-english-bay-was-conservative-officials-1.2324990
-
This was an optimal conditions scenario and the response was as pathetic as the excuses and trash trotted out for the "world class" response. Read the part in this piece about the oil boom at the Kits station- now no longer within arm's reach for the busy harbour. Short sighted politically motivated bean counters vs. common sense. Now replace the bunker with dil bit. I bear no animosity towards the Coast Guard, but I do take offense to being fed bull$hi&.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Estimate%20bunker%20fuel%20spilled%20English%20conservative%20officials/10968296/story.html
You are only looking at one side of the story - ignoring the timeline of events and not considering what crews were doing on the water. After the CCG was first notified it was 4 minutes later they had notified their emergency management partners. Half hour later, a vessel from Port Metro Vancouver investigated and determined the spill as minor, but it was the CCG’s assessment an hour later that decided to reject that preliminary analysis from the Port and consider the spill more serious. The Western Canada Marine Response Corporation was arrived on scene at 9:25pm PT that Wednesday. The CCG worked throughout the night skimming the water surface at night to collect oil. That’s right…they worked all night, but it was never mentioned by Christy Clark, Gregor Robertson or Elizabeth May during their condemnation of the CCG response. Instead, the lynch mob was out in full force and happily gobbled up initial media reports and took them as gosphel. A boom was secured the next morning around the ship by 5:53am PT. To date, the CCG reports that most of the surface oil has been recovered.
On the local news tonight, Environment Canada staff explained the process of surveying the spill and the progress so far. In addition, it is not just an overnight task to determine how much oil was on the ship as Environment Canada staff have to determine how much fuel the ship was packing when if left port originally, how much it used and estimate how much was left in it while it was in English Bay. In the meantime, they investigated and determined the cause of the leak in the ship, but for critics that are used to watching CSI on TV this should only take an hour because that's how long the TV program is. Divers from Environment Canada are going to be looking under the ship to see if oil has sunk to the bottom but that is not a certainty as it is initially presumed that bunker oil will float on the surface; nevertheless, they are going to check it out. If critics disagree then let’s see their methods and come up with a better way to determine how much oil is left.
The important thing being missed by critics is that the CCG was not initially certain where the oil was coming from, so the response would have been dependent on that. Kind of an important thing to know I would think. How were the CCG supposed to secure a boom early on (i.e. a few minutes or an hour after the initial call) if they were not certain where the oil was coming from? It is easy for critics to now say, “yeah, put a boom there” because they know by looking at the TV which ship was spilling the oil, but at the time it likely wasn’t very obvious where the oil was coming from. I think some folks should shadow these CCG employees on the water sometime and see what challenges they face before saying they are being fed bull$hi&. In addition, the crew of Marathassa initially denied their ship was the source of the oil spilled so considering the timeline and the time of day the CCG was out in the water (which included finding the source of the oil) I think they did a good job. Was it perfect? No it wasn’t and the CCG openly admits that communications could have been better between them and the City of Vancouver; however, as I eluded to before, communication issues are likely not limited to the CCG on this issue.
-
And http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/spill+response+English+falls+short+world+class/10963080/story.html
Dr. Sumailia is likely very good at what he does; however, what experience does he have with what is going on is what you should ask before accepting his opinions so readily.
http://www.fisheries.ubc.ca/faculty-staff/rashid-sumaila
-
SS will like this one as he loves to defend the government on most issues. ;D ;D
http://www.theprogress.com/news/299397591.html
No, I like to defend the government employees on the water working under these conditions as some of us have a good idea what actual fieldwork is like even though the tasks are different.
-
Yet the claim is 80% recovered- that leaves how much left? And apparently the Coast Guard is now claiming it "might" be more, but they won't know for a couple of weeks yet.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-oil-spill-was-small-but-nasty-and-spread-quickly-1.3032385
As I was saying in a previous post, officials don't know how much fuel was originally on board the ship. From my understanding they only know what is on the surface of the water and that has washed up on beaches. What they are working with now is an estimate. Environment Canada is currently investigating not only the specific cause of the leak, but how much fuel was on board the ship and if there is any fuel that sunk underneath the ship. The City of Vancouver manager is not saying anything new that the CCG hasn't said already.
-
In the event of an oil spill, the harbourmaster at the Port of Bellingham said he would immediately attempt to seal the leak on the vessel, call in response agencies and have a boom in place within the hour.
Harbourmaster Kyle Randolph said Monday that while he did not know the details of the English Bay spill, he was surprised it had taken officials up here so long to contain it.
“If it’s continuing to pump right in front of me, my first obligation is to stop that,” he said. “The response is absolutely key.”
Ok I can agree that is important, but what if he was not sure which vessel to fix in a bay with other vessels in the same area and there are diminishing light conditions? If he notices an oil spill, does he automatically know where the oil is coming from? How does he know what ship to fix? What steps does he takes to find the source? The story is missing some information here.
“If it is continuing to pump right in front of him” then I understand Mr. Randolph’s view, but that can only be done once he knows where the leak is coming from. What if there are many ships in the area? Is it always the case that you find the source and install a boom or fix the leak within minutes or an hour? What if the leak is not from a ship?
During these events it is disheartening that the media is so reliant on "expert opinions" from individuals which have no knowledge of details of the incident, but are quite willing to criticise the efforts on the water.
http://www.vancouversun.com/Bellingham+harbourmaster+surprised+slow+spill+response+time/10968296/story.html#ixzz3XLpLYIHF
-
Harbourmaster Kyle Randolph said Monday that while he did not know the details of the English Bay spill, he was surprised it had taken officials up here so long to contain it.
--IE as an expert he was surprised that we think that the response was world class.
--Also seem to have left out the rest of the article that seems relevant as it is a comment from the previous command.
-Meanwhile, retired Coast Guard Capt. Tony Toxopeus maintains the English Bay spill could have been contained within half an hour if the Kitsilano base was still operating.
The Coast Guard insists the station was only a rescue boat station, but Toxopeus, a coxswain who worked out of Kitsilano, said the base was equipped with a purpose-built oil pollution response vessel, 300 metres of self-inflating boom and other equipment. Crews were trained regularly to deal with oil spill response.
“As soon as we saw there was bunker (oil) we would have hit the alarm button and got moving,” Toxopeus said. “We could have backed the boat in, towed the boom there and be alongside the boat in 30 minutes.”
Toxopeus maintains the small base had been involved in “countless small spills in Vancouver’s waters over the years” and was also the main point of contact for local boaters. “This is what’s so important,” Toxopeus said. “Now that little base is gone, the boaters don’t know who to call.”
--I do not see where anyone is blaiming the current Coast Guard which reacted to the best of their ability given their current situiation and protocal.
--The response is the new normal on our coast... get used to it.
-
Harbourmaster Kyle Randolph said Monday that while he did not know the details of the English Bay spill, he was surprised it had taken officials up here so long to contain it.
--IE as an expert he was surprised that we think that the response was world class.
My point was his knowledge of the details of the spill in English Bay, not so much that he was an expert. If one is not involved with the actual response or investigation then don't you think they might be missing something?
--Also seem to have left out the rest of the article that seems relevant as it is a comment from the previous command.
-Meanwhile, retired Coast Guard Capt. Tony Toxopeus maintains the English Bay spill could have been contained within half an hour if the Kitsilano base was still operating.
The Coast Guard insists the station was only a rescue boat station, but Toxopeus, a coxswain who worked out of Kitsilano, said the base was equipped with a purpose-built oil pollution response vessel, 300 metres of self-inflating boom and other equipment. Crews were trained regularly to deal with oil spill response.
“As soon as we saw there was bunker (oil) we would have hit the alarm button and got moving,” Toxopeus said. “We could have backed the boat in, towed the boom there and be alongside the boat in 30 minutes.”
Toxopeus maintains the small base had been involved in “countless small spills in Vancouver’s waters over the years” and was also the main point of contact for local boaters. “This is what’s so important,” Toxopeus said. “Now that little base is gone, the boaters don’t know who to call.”
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?
--I do not see where anyone is blaiming the current Coast Guard which reacted to the best of their ability given their current situiation and protocal.
Really?? The media is full of criticism of the current CCG. Look at what has been posted so far. Not sure what you are getting at.
--The response is the new normal on our coast... get used to it.
Again, look at the timeline of events, what activities were being conducted during the night, the fact that the source needed to be found, and that most of the surface oil so far has been contained. If the CCG didn't start investigating until the next morning, sat on the shore all night and playing cards, or if a large amount of surface oil remained then I could start seeing some of the criticism.
-
No where am I critical of the people that did the clean ups, but the talking heads, political hacks, and stuffed shirts that trot out the utter BS, like "world class response" that bend, obfuscate and gloss over, while busily dislocating shoulders patting themselves on the back. It's not the rank and file, but the overlords and political hacks that refuse to admit they blew it.
-
And if you can't figure out the source......you're willfully blind or just plain stupid.
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/Willy1956/TSCA20Aerial20Shot20in20Vancouver20Harbour20Photo20Chad20Day20New20113020April202015_zpsuammjisk.jpg) (http://s158.photobucket.com/user/Willy1956/media/TSCA20Aerial20Shot20in20Vancouver20Harbour20Photo20Chad20Day20New20113020April202015_zpsuammjisk.jpg.html)
-
No where am I critical of the people that did the clean ups, but the talking heads, political hacks, and stuffed shirts that trot out the utter BS, like "world class response" that bend, obfuscate and gloss over, while busily dislocating shoulders patting themselves on the back. It's not the rank and file, but the overlords and political hacks that refuse to admit they blew it.
So true, SS seems to missed the point that these people are controlled in what they say by the people above them, the gag law is in effect here, in many people's mind.
-
Further to my above post, this is an old news item but it shows how the current government works.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/tories-blasted-for-handbook-on-paralyzing-parliament-1.241797
-
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/04/14/if-pipelines-are-dead-harper-helped-kill-them/
-
https://www.change.org/p/re-open-kitsilano-coast-guard-base?recruiter=54952474&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=des-md-action_alert-reason_msg&fb_ref=Default
-
And if you can't figure out the source......you're willfully blind or just plain stupid.
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/Willy1956/TSCA20Aerial20Shot20in20Vancouver20Harbour20Photo20Chad20Day20New20113020April202015_zpsuammjisk.jpg) (http://s158.photobucket.com/user/Willy1956/media/TSCA20Aerial20Shot20in20Vancouver20Harbour20Photo20Chad20Day20New20113020April202015_zpsuammjisk.jpg.html)
And in the big picture of the bay how many boats are there in the spill itself?
Its great to criticize based on a photo. Its even better toblook at the big picture. Yes there are clues in the slick, but depending on how the currents are running that day and the tide the slick will move in different ways. You have to be sure when you make a call about the source of a slick. If you are wrong, it will take longer to reorganize resources and you lost time you could have otherwise spent cleaning up due to a false diagnosis.
-
And if you can't figure out the source......you're willfully blind or just plain stupid.
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/Willy1956/TSCA20Aerial20Shot20in20Vancouver20Harbour20Photo20Chad20Day20New20113020April202015_zpsuammjisk.jpg) (http://s158.photobucket.com/user/Willy1956/media/TSCA20Aerial20Shot20in20Vancouver20Harbour20Photo20Chad20Day20New20113020April202015_zpsuammjisk.jpg.html)
Ahhh...I was waiting for you to start throwing out the insults. What took you so long? Is this an example of your improved attitude on this board that you were eluding to before? And you whine about being attacked? Another gem to save when you start complaining about how others treat you here (the little violin is on standby).
Clarkii basically said what I wanted to. So, I guess you would have had it all figured out in a matter of minutes after the initial call? You would have had the aerial photo in hand and rushed right to the boat that had the leak and deployed the boom. I guess those CCG employees are either willfully blind or just plain stupid that day. They just didn't care much that night to do much of anything - right? They took their sweet time coming from Richmond. They just sat in their boats, cracked open some wobbly pops and just let it all unfold in front of them - right?
Yep, the CCG response was just so terrible....
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/10-vessels-in-vancouver-island-fleet-could-tackle-oil-spill-1.1824127
I thought you said you were not critical of the CCG employees. Seems like you (and Chris) are conflicted. You want to bash them, but you don't want to sound like a heartless SOB. The CCG employees on the ground were the ones that responded that day - not politicians in Ottawa like you and Chris seem to think.
Of course, there is no way that this leak had been going on long before the initial call to the CCG. I guess the CCG are guilty of not having the crystal ball either and not anticipating this initial call sooner. When was this photo taken and by who?
-
So true, SS seems to missed the point that these people are controlled in what they say by the people above them, the gag law is in effect here, in many people's mind.
You seem to miss the obvious which is that it was the CCG employees that responded that day. Moore, Harper or the CCG commissioner were not there that day. They didn't call Harper in Ottawa at 9:00pm ET and ask for his advice on what to do or say.
As for controlling what people say there seem to be some of that going on in the Chilliwack area these days where it is fashionable to oppose a hazardous waste recycling facility to save wild salmon but stick it to wild salmon and sturgeon in the Heart of the Fraser River. Seems like someone has you under some control because you don't want to talk much about it.
-
see below
-
Ahhh...I was waiting for you to start throwing out the insults. What took you so long? Is this an example of your improved attitude on this board that you were eluding to before? And you whine about being attacked? Another gem to save when you start complaining about how others treat you here (the little violin is on standby).
Um, unlike this post, I simply pointed out the source was obvious and "attacked" no one. Twist it any way you like, all I was stating is that the source was patently obvious.
Clarkii basically said what I wanted to. So, I guess you would have had it all figured out in a matter of minutes after the initial call?
No, but if I was in charge, crews would have been deployed directly after the call.Do they not have chopper to access for this type of incident for observation from the air?
You would have had the aerial photo in hand and rushed right to the boat that had the leak and deployed the boom. I guess those CCG employees are either willfully blind or just plain stupid that day.
I'm pretty well sure that deployment was not in the hands of the boots to the ground crews, but left to someone who missed the mark by a wide margin.
They just didn't care much that night to do much of anything - right? They took their sweet time coming from Richmond. They just sat in their boats, cracked open some wobbly pops and just let it all unfold in front of them - right?
That's not what I said or inferred. Those are your words, not mine. You can take ownership of that statement.
Yep, the CCG response was just so terrible....
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/10-vessels-in-vancouver-island-fleet-could-tackle-oil-spill-1.1824127
Spin and deflection (in my opinion)
I thought you said you were not critical of the CCG employees.
Where do you see me being critical of the employees? They can only do what the chain of command says and they deserve criticism.
Seems like you (and Chris) are conflicted. You want to bash them, but you don't want to sound like a heartless SOB.
Show me where I've stated that.
The CCG employees on the ground were the ones that responded that day - not politicians in Ottawa like you and Chris seem to think.
Who made the cuts that led to this in the first place? There used to be a boom and equipment at the shuttered Kits base, but the bean counters decided that you can respond just as quickly from Richmond. Geographically impossible
Of course, there is no way that this leak had been going on long before the initial call to the CCG. I guess the CCG are guilty of not having the crystal ball either and not anticipating this initial call sooner. When was this photo taken and by who?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/coast-guard-budget-cuts-roil-the-water-in-bc-oil-spill-controversy/article23893361/ has some.
Why the personal attack Steve? I simply have a different opinion than yours and in no way, other than to post my views, did I attack you or insult you, but you choose to come out swinging.Why?
-
I can see SSteve's point. Fish farm, oil spill all good for the economy. Just others may not agree with that point if there not handled well.
-
Um, unlike this post, I simply pointed out the source was obvious and "attacked" no one. Twist it any way you like, all I was stating is that the source was patently obvious.
Obvious – no. Personal - yes. If you care to look at the photo again there are several boats in the picture and as Clarkii explained already the currents and tides could influence how the slick moved. I am not sure if those CCG employees (not politicians) on the ground at the time were looking at photos like the one you posted. What we do know is that from their point of view it was not obvious at the time – no spin, it’s the truth. Do you really think if they knew where the source was that early they wouldn’t do everything possible to contain quickly? As for your statement, “And if you can't figure out the source......you're willfully blind or just plain stupid”, if you can’t figure out how inflammatory that is when you could have approached it much differently and still made your point then you have much larger issues. I will leave it at that.
No, but if I was in charge, crews would have been deployed directly after the call.Do they not have chopper to access for this type of incident for observation from the air?
Again, read the timeline of events:
http://beaconenergynews.ca/markham/dear-gregor-robertson-so-what-does-a-world-class-oil-spill-response-look-like/
As the author states, the CCG was diligent enough (those employees on the water, not the politicians) to take the report as real. However, I don’t see any of you critics giving any credit there because it could have been a much worse situation. The source of the spill needed to be found first. What are you going to put booms around if you are not sure where the oil is coming from? Personally, I feel like those employees of the CCG that day have been raked over the coals very unfairly by the public. I am not sure if they use helicopters at that point or not because it is not my area of expertise. I trust that those CCG employees know how to do their jobs and understand what protocols they need to follow. Take the hint please.
I'm pretty well sure that deployment was not in the hands of the boots to the ground crews, but left to someone who missed the mark by a wide margin.
If you feel like it was not in the hands of the boots on the ground, then who? The CCG can get many calls from the public daily about pollution, boating, etc. 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? With this particular incident, do you think that the “boots on the ground” phoned some senior bureaucrat or politician back east at night (9:00pm ET) for direction on deployment? Those CCG employees have a hard enough time trying to communicate and get responses with officials back east regarding daily administration issues. You seem pretty sure and of course that is your opinion, but you have no facts of this phantom person pulling the puppet strings that day from unknown location.
You think those CCG employees on the ground had time to get direction from this mystery person considering the timeline? You don’t believe they have supervisors on the ground that are qualified enough and trusted enough to respond to these incidents? Think about what you are trying to sell me. And you talk about not wanting to be fed bull#$%t. As for someone missing the mark by a wide margin that is not supported by the facts so far as most of the surface oil has been contained nor does it show any appreciation for the fact that the decision by the CCG to disagree with the Port’s initial assessment was the right call.
That's not what I said or inferred. Those are your words, not mine. You can take ownership of that statement.
That’s right – those are my words. In my opinion, when you refer to the response as “pathetic” that is definitely an insult to those crews on the ground. Again, it’s the employees on the ground carrying out the work. Can only do what the chain of command says? Well, I imagine there has to be some command structure in place, but who is this “talking head”, “political hack” or “stuffed shirt” that directed the response that day, did such a horrible job and refused to admit they blew it? Those words in quotes are yours, NB.
What is “pathetic” is when armchair critics become experts in oil spill management overnight while disrespecting those on the ground with the actual experience. Some critics should put the boots on sometime and shadow some of these employees and see what they do before judging their performance as “pathetic”.
Who made the cuts that led to this in the first place? There used to be a boom and equipment at the shuttered Kits base, but the bean counters decided that you can respond just as quickly from Richmond. Geographically impossible
Apparently not impossible in this case considering the timeline and the success so far by the crews involved. Not saying that the Kits base closure was great but one should be fair and objective about if this closure impacted the response. If the base was still open would that really have made the response that much better? Keep in mind that the observation would still have to be confirmed and the source still needed to be found. In addition, the leak could have been going on many hours before the initial call came in. It was not as if the ship clearly ran aground on the rocks in English Bay and it was obviously leaking bunker fuel. Hindsight is great.
Why the personal attack Steve? I simply have a different opinion than yours and in no way, other than to post my views, did I attack you or insult you, but you choose to come out swinging.Why?
Personal attack from me…lol? Yeah, right. Nice try. I have no problems with other opinions, but there was no need to insinuate that I was being wilfully blind or just plain stupid.
-
Wow
Obvious – no. Personal - yes. The attack -right? ;) If you care to look at the photo again there are several boats in the picture and as Clarkii explained already the currents and tides could influence how the slick moved. I am not sure if those CCG employees (not politicians) on the ground at the time were looking at photos like the one you posted.If they had done a fly over after the initial reports, that would have been a pretty obvious clue. What we do know is that from their point of view it was not obvious at the time – no spin, it’s the truth. Do you really think if they knew where the source was that early they wouldn’t do everything possible to contain quickly? As for your statement, “And if you can't figure out the source......you're willfully blind or just plain stupid”, if you can’t figure out how inflammatory that is when you could have approached it much differently and still made your point then you have much larger issues. I will leave it at that.Yeah - I'm going to take psychological advice from you. ::)
And if you looked at the picture, one ship has more oil around it than all the others- that would be the first clue and likely a good starting point
Again, read the timeline of events:
http://beaconenergynews.ca/markham/dear-gregor-robertson-so-what-does-a-world-class-oil-spill-response-look-like/
As the author states, the CCG was diligent enough (those employees on the water, not the politicians) to take the report as real. However, I don’t see any of you critics giving any credit there because it could have been a much worse situation. The source of the spill needed to be found first. What are you going to put booms around if you are not sure where the oil is coming from? Personally, I feel like those employees of the CCG that day have been raked over the coals very unfairly by the public. I am not sure if they use helicopters at that point or not because it is not my area of expertise. I trust that those CCG employees know how to do their jobs and understand what protocols they need to follow. Take the hint please.
If you feel like it was not in the hands of the boots on the ground, then who? The CCG can get many calls from the public daily about pollution, boating, etc. 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? With this particular incident, do you think that the “boots on the ground” phoned some senior bureaucrat or politician back east at night (9:00pm ET) for direction on deployment? Those CCG employees have a hard enough time trying to communicate and get responses with officials back east regarding daily administration issues. You seem pretty sure and of course that is your opinion, but you have no facts of this phantom person pulling the puppet strings that day from unknown location.
So there's no chain of command and no responsibility?
You think those CCG employees on the ground had time to get direction from this mystery person considering the timeline? You don’t believe they have supervisors on the ground that are qualified enough and trusted enough to respond to these incidents? The answer to that is a resounding NOThink about what you are trying to sell me. and what you're trying to sell me And you talk about not wanting to be fed bull#$%t. As for someone missing the mark by a wide margin that is not supported by the facts so far as most of the surface oil has been contained nor does it show any appreciation for the fact that the decision by the CCG to disagree with the Port’s initial assessment was the right call.
That’s right – those are my words. In my opinion, when you refer to the response as “pathetic” that is definitely an insult to those crews on the ground.In your opinion,but not mine. Opinions are like certain body parts- they all stink. Again, it’s the employees on the ground carrying out the work. Can only do what the chain of command says? Well, I imagine there has to be some command structure in place, but who is this “talking head”, “political hack” or “stuffed shirt” that directed the response that day, did such a horrible job and refused to admit they blew it? Those words in quotes are yours, NB.
What is “pathetic” is when armchair critics become experts in oil spill management overnight while disrespecting those on the ground with the actual experience. Some critics should put the boots on sometime and shadow some of these employees and see what they do before judging their performance as “pathetic”.
I pay lots of taxes and have every right to be critical.You don't like it - tough. I also have a lot of respect for the boots to the ground crews, while the upper ranks, well, not so much.Even the coast guard admitted it was messed up.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/cleanup-efforts-continue-sunday-on-vancouver-oil-spill/article23890434/
Apparently not impossible in this case considering the timeline and the success so far by the crews involved. Not saying that the Kits base closure was great but one should be fair and objective about if this closure impacted the response. If the base was still open would that really have made the response that much better? Keep in mind that the observation would still have to be confirmed and the source still needed to be found. In addition, the leak could have been going on many hours before the initial call came in. It was not as if the ship clearly ran aground on the rocks in English Bay and it was obviously leaking bunker fuel. Hindsight is great.
Preparation and action is the key to success - again, the CG has air transportation to use as a tool for investigation.
Personal attack from me…lol? Yeah, right. Nice try. I have no problems with other opinions, but there was no need to insinuate that I was being wilfully blind or just plain stupid.
And where did I say Steve, Brian or anything that might have been pointed a finger to you other than in a rather vivid imagination?
Carry on Steve. I think I'll just ignore you.
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/Willy1956/Reasonable_Cat-336x283_zpsd92a362e.jpg) (http://s158.photobucket.com/user/Willy1956/media/Reasonable_Cat-336x283_zpsd92a362e.jpg.html)
-
What?! You are finally going to ignore me? Sounds good to me. If you can’t discuss things without being rude then maybe that is a good plan.
So there's no chain of command and no responsibility?
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.
So, it is a resounding NO, but you say you have a lot of respect for the ground crews. Don't fall off the fence. Sure doesn't sound like it especially when you refer to their response as "pathetic". So, CCG supervisors on the ground are "political hacks"? Yeah, if I was one of those CCG employees that day I would feel really happy if someone called my efforts "pathetic" especially if I was out there all night while you were in your cozy bed after punching madly on the computer saying how bad a job I did. Because I am sure that even those are working in a place like the CCG that suffered budget cuts still take pride in their job and don't think of their efforts as "pathetic".
I pay lots of taxes and have every right to be critical
Never said you couldn't be critical. Not sure what paying taxes have to do with this. Another red herring from you.
Even the coast guard admitted it was messed up.
(sigh) As usual you didn't read the whole article or even the one I posted before about the communication issues. There will be a debrief by all parties regarding how things went and how things could be improved. This usually happens after any accident like aircraft crash, train derailment, or boating accident. Did they have aerial surveillance, if not, why? You keep referring to the photo, but do we know when it was taken and by whom? I am sure they have helicopters and planes, but at this point I doubt the media is going to provide details from all sides accurately until there is a debrief. Did the initial calls from the public provide any insight that could have been used to pinpoint the source or was it conflicting at the time (as various calls must have came in that day from the public)? When did the leak start? I doubt it just happened before the first call to the CCG. What was the ship's crew initial response? How much fuel did the ship have left when it was in English Bay? Why did the Port's initial survey differ so much from the CCG's assessment? Why did it take so long for the Mayor of Vancouver to be notified? According to the CCG they followed protocol by informing BC Emergency Management. Was there a breakdown in communication within the provincial and civic realms? Was the message misinterpreted at the time and that was the reason things didn’t get pass along appropriately? I have no doubt there will be things that CCG will want to do better because nothing is done perfectly, but in my opinion, those men and women deserve our respect (the "boots" responded - not politicians). All that came out from critics after the first day was condemnation of the CCG, but no recognition for the job they were doing.
-
What?! You are finally going to ignore me? Sounds good to me. If you can’t discuss things without being rude than maybe that is a good plan.
Now that;s a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Thank you for that lesson Miss Manners. Can I get you another cup of hypocrisy? I see you've drank that gallon already
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.
Rephrase that to upper management doing damage control through talking head spokespersons
So, it is a resounding NO, but you say you have a lot of respect for the ground crews. Don't fall off the fence. Sure doesn't sound like it especially when you refer to their response as "pathetic". So, CCG supervisors on the ground are "political hacks"? Yeah, if I was one of those CCG employees that day I would feel really happy if someone called my efforts "pathetic" especially if I was out there all night while you were in your cozy bed after punching madly on the computer saying how bad a job I did. Because I am sure that even those are working in a place like the CCG that suffered budget cuts still take pride in their job and don't think of their efforts as "pathetic".
Never said you couldn't be critical. Not sure what paying taxes have to do with this. Another red herring from you.Then the snarky replies to my opinions is just some sand in your speedo's?
(sigh) As usual you didn't read the whole article or even the one I posted before about the communication issues. There will be a debrief by all parties regarding how things went and how things could be improved. This usually happens after any accident like aircraft crash, train derailment, or boating accident. Did they have aerial surveillance, if not, why? You keep referring to the photo, but do we know when it was taken and by whom?Since you purport to being such an astute detective - dig it up yourself I am sure they have helicopters and planes, but at this point I doubt the media is going to provide details from all sides accurately until there is a debrief. Yeah, by the time the stuffed shirts get their story concocted. Did the initial calls from the public provide any insight that could have been used to pinpoint the source or was it conflicting at the time (as various calls must have came in that day from the public)? When did the leak start? I doubt it just happened before the first call to the CCG. What was the ship's crew initial response? How much fuel did the ship have left when it was in English Bay? Why did the Port's initial survey differ so much from the CCG's assessment? Why did it take so long for the Mayor of Vancouver to be notified? According to the CCG they followed protocol by informing BC Emergency Management. Was there a breakdown in communication within the provincial and civic realms? Was the message misinterpreted at the time and that was the reason things didn’t get pass along appropriately? I have no doubt there will be things that CCG will want to do better because nothing is done perfectly, but in my opinion, those men and women deserve our respect (the "boots" responded - not politicians). All that came out from critics after the first day was condemnation of the CCG, but no recognition for the job they were doing. How many months does that take? That should be answered within a short time span, eh?
There you go again with the assumption that I have a bone to pick with the people that took part in the clean up. I don't support our troops going into the middle east or the Ukraine, but I respect the bravery of the troops. The politicians that sent them there? Not unless they go there too.
Maybe I will stay for a while longer. It's good for your fingers to type furiously. So - ya wanna buy my boat?
-
https://twitter.com/StepanVdovine/status/586267100605521921/photo/1
-
https://twitter.com/hashtag/VanFuelSpill?src=hash
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/the-duffy-trial-1.3026536/greg-rickford-defends-federal-response-to-english-bay-spill-1.3029082
http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/dramatic-photos-of-vancouver-oil-spill-spark-pipeline-outrage-on-social-media-1.3026816
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-5-years-later-1.3037641
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/Willy1956/DSC_0011_3_zpsyzd01hrr.jpg) (http://s158.photobucket.com/user/Willy1956/media/DSC_0011_3_zpsyzd01hrr.jpg.html)
-
My assumption is the crew members on the ship must of known of the problem right away so why did they not sound the alarm & radio the powers that be?
What is this a hide & seek game when it comes to spills.
If the crew knew of the problem the responsibility is to own up to the problem & so the response teams can get in place.
If they knew the spill was happening & did nothing than this crew is the #1 problem.
( but did this crew know right away it was their ship? )
Thankfully it was not a full oil tanker that let out a major spill.
It would basically be the end to our beaches,& safe eating of local marine life.
-
https://twitter.com/StepanVdovine/status/586267100605521921/photo/1
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. However, seems like someone is giving some credit to the effort, but they must be paid hacks also:
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Ducks+released+from+rehab+after+English+spill/10985420/story.html
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-5-years-later-1.3037641
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/Willy1956/DSC_0011_3_zpsyzd01hrr.jpg) (http://s158.photobucket.com/user/Willy1956/media/DSC_0011_3_zpsyzd01hrr.jpg.html)
Another red herring. One was a grain ship that spilled an estimated 2,700 litres of Bunker C fuel that was mostly contained within 48 hours and the other is an explosion on a deep sea oil rig, which killed 11 workers and spilled an estimated 650 million litres - capped 87 days later. Doesn't take away from the fact that no spill is good (even those from recreational boats at marinas that get swept under the rug), but one event is so extreme and the events that led to it are not even comparable.
-
My assumption is the crew members on the ship must of known of the problem right away so why did they not sound the alarm & radio the powers that be?
What is this a hide & seek game when it comes to spills.
If the crew knew of the problem the responsibility is to own up to the problem & so the response teams can get in place.
If they knew the spill was happening & did nothing than this crew is the #1 problem.
( but did this crew know right away it was their ship? ).
Good question. Not sure what the crew was doing at the time. We can speculate for now, but I imagine an Environment Canada investigation will have more information about the crew's initial response.
-
Another red herring. One was a grain ship that spilled an estimated 2,700 litres of Bunker C fuel that was mostly contained within 48 hours and the other is an explosion on a deep sea oil rig, which killed 11 workers and spilled an estimated 650 million litres - capped 87 days later. Doesn't take away from the fact that no spill is good (even those from recreational boats at marinas that get swept under the rug), but one event is so extreme and the events that led to it are not even comparable.
I agree that there is a difference - BUT it certainly underscores the bravo sierra trotted out by hacks like Saxton in the picture. It's not a red herring, but it does magnify that the west coast is in no way equipped to handle any form of petroleum spill.
-
Some thing for SS to digest. https://youtu.be/52fC0XFPP9E
-
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??
-
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?
-
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)
(http://static.trunity.net/files/113701_113800/113736/Deepwater_horizon_platform_sinking.jpg)
(http://www.tribunetalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Deepwater-Horizon-Oil-Spill.jpg)
English Bay (Vancouver, BC)
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/Willy1956/TSCA20Aerial20Shot20in20Vancouver20Harbour20Photo20Chad20Day20New20113020April202015_zpsuammjisk.jpg) (http://s158.photobucket.com/user/Willy1956/media/TSCA20Aerial20Shot20in20Vancouver20Harbour20Photo20Chad20Day20New20113020April202015_zpsuammjisk.jpg.html)
(http://d2ciprw05cjhos.cloudfront.net/files/v3/styles/gs_standard/public/images/15/04/oil_distribution.png?itok=KXfcjl44)
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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?
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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/
-
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.
-
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
-
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).
-
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
You've read too much into the term hack - Do you think the sputum (and related ,um, untruths) released to joe 6 pack weren't controlled by somebody from Ottawa trying to make the cons look good?
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.
So Mr. Dey and the media had the smarts to do a fly over, but CG didn't?
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.
And how much more do we know now and how much has been released or is this a matter of grave national security?
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).
And Girouard or his masters have done NOTHING to dispel any of this until they get slapped in the face with the facts from former employees and the sailing club next door, neither of which have anything to gain by sowing misdirection and tall tales.Call me cynical, but....
2 points we agree on- the feds shouldn't have closed the Kits base and the boat's owners have to pay for the clean-up.Other than that, this whole thing and subsequent news releases from the CG smell like rotten red herrings.
-
You've read too much into the term hack - Do you think the sputum (and related ,um, untruths) released to joe 6 pack weren't controlled by somebody from Ottawa trying to make the cons look good?
I think I have read too much of you ducking and weaving with this one. However, I have my answer now. Thanks.
So Mr. Dey and the media had the smarts to do a fly over, but CG didn't?
Did you note the date of the photo?
And how much more do we know now and how much has been released or is this a matter of grave national security?
Well…if wish to believe that the media gets everything right and nothing is left out or misinterpreted then by all means gobble all this up. I believe there are better venues to express concerns, provide constructive feedback and make recommendations than battling it out in the newspapers and on Twitter.
And Girouard or his masters have done NOTHING to dispel any of this until they get slapped in the face with the facts from former employees and the sailing club next door, neither of which have anything to gain by sowing misdirection and tall tales.Call me cynical, but....
I will refer once again to what I have repeatedly said already: If oil had already been leaking for sometime before the first calls came in 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. The first boater estimated that the slick was already half a kilometre in length. That was an estimate from the water’s surface (not the air) – it could have been smaller, but it could have been much larger. The source of the oil also needed to be confirmed. I am sure if the CCG staff on the ground knew the source they would have installed a boom as they were there all night, but for some reason (likely to be part of a review) the source was not so obvious at the time. I doubt the CCG and WCMRC staff were just cruising casually around English Bay that night. For all we know (which hasn’t been reported in the media) there could have been conflicting information at the time. In addition, the ship’s crew originally denied the source was coming from them. What role did that play in the overall response?
So, are we to believe that a crew from Kits would have been out there in less than 10 minutes, confirmed the story and the source in a matter of minutes, installed the boom, and skimmed the water all in time to prevent no oil from coming to the beaches? C’mon…who is Cotter really trying to kid? Oil was already in the water. Personally, I am not convinced that quicker response would have made a significant difference unless there was still obvious visible oil in English Bay and beaches were still closed. The shellfish closure is precautionary which is not unusual in these circumstances. Communications could have been better, but I feel that this issue is not limited to the CCG. I think other agencies and jurisdictions contributed in some part. Like I said before, I don’t think this response and clean-up went without a hitch, but I don’t think it deserved the massive condemnation either.
I am done now.