[quote=“MiG”]So just so we’re clear here, Crazytrain, you believe it’s safer for tankers to use the inside passage than adhere to the voluntary exclusion? And to think otherwise is cynical?
To recap: this tug was involved in an incident where it had to be rescued before (because of mechanical failure). The only thing that saved it was that it was in open waters. Our coast guard couldn’t respond adequately to an incident very close to Vancouver.
When both Canadian and American Coast Guard, and even the oil and shipping industries themselves think it’s best to stay in open water for safety, you think it’s cynical? You think Enbridge is being cynical when even they said they wouldn’t send tankers down the Inside Passage, as it wasn’t safe?
I’d like to know if you really do think like this, or do you just take the contrary opinion and stick to it? I’m trying to figure out what kind of logical steps you take to arrive at that conclusion. I’m serious.
You left out the next few words … "More than 300 tankers transit annually along the B.C. coast while respecting the Tanker Exclusion Zone "
Why would you leave that out?
[quote]
The reference provided was based on a 30 year old agreement and we have roughly 300 per year traveling by. Why then the focus on this one?[/quote]
Do you not understand that those 300 per year respect the exclusion zone? Are you consciously ignoring a fact that contradicts your position and trying to make it a fact that supports your position?
As recent incidents have shown, the response time hasn’t gotten better – it’s gotten worse.[/quote]
Whoa! Settle down. I’m not professing to be an expert. There is a lot of information out there and I’m learning on the fly. I may have mis-read the specifics of the exclusion zone and I’m not sure that I fully understand it even now. My point in referencing the 300 tankers per year is that with all of the fear out there that we haven’t had a serious event in years. Tankers seem to be a fairly safe method of transporting oil, although they do come with more of an environmental risk than other vessel traffic. We still hear about the Exxon Valdez as a case in point even though that was over a quarter century ago with 300 tankers a year going by annually, or almost 8000 since 1989. That’s our example for not having tanker traffic. Yet, air travel in the past two years has claimed hundreds of lives in multiple crashes and we carry on like they never happened. We’ll use fear to justify things when it serves our interests. When it doesn’t we turn a blind eye and carry on. I suppose at this point I would ask whether or not a barge and tug is considered a tanker and whether it applies to the exclusion or not. Fair question I believe. If you know the answer or can point us in the direction where it can be found, thanks. I appreciate the discussion.