Author Topic: The Wreck of BC  (Read 9923 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #75 on: March 10, 2018, 06:08:31 pm »
Normally people without claims do get a lower rate. Because they are less of a risk.

Comparing to incidents in other parts of the world is ingenuous. Things are as safe as the people, procedures and equipment being used. We have control over that.

Yes, I do get lower rates, but I want an extremely low rate because I have been driving close to 40 years without an accident. According to your logic, I should have multi-million dollar coverage for $1.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #76 on: March 10, 2018, 06:14:31 pm »
Yes, I do get lower rates, but I want an extremely low rate because I have been driving close to 40 years without an accident. According to your logic, I should have multi-million dollar coverage for $1.

Whatever. However do you get out of bed in the morning?
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #77 on: March 10, 2018, 06:29:48 pm »
Whatever. However do you get out of bed in the morning?

I just revert back to my teenage years, and sleep in till noon.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #78 on: March 10, 2018, 07:10:03 pm »
Yes, I do get lower rates, but I want an extremely low rate because I have been driving close to 40 years without an accident. According to your logic, I should have multi-million dollar coverage for $1.
A silly side argument. Your insurance rates don't depend on the number of auto accidents in China. They depend on the number of accidents in BC. Similarly, the statistics that matter are the number of accidents along the BC coast and those spills have come entirely from the NON-oil traffic which is set to double over the next 20 years (traffic which 7 times greater than the proposed oil tanker traffic). If you really cared about risks to the BC coast you would be trying to stop the Vancouver port about expanding. But you won't because this debate is not about logic or the environment. It is about adherence to the new green religion that has declared pipelines to be taboos.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #79 on: March 10, 2018, 07:21:15 pm »
Your insurance rates don't depend on the number of auto accidents in China. They depend on the number of accidents in BC. Similarly, the statistics that matter are the number of accidents along the BC coast and those spills have come entirely from the NON-oil traffic which is set to double over the next 20 years (traffic which 7 times greater than the proposed oil tanker traffic).

Oil transport is a global business. How many of those tankers will be Chinese owned, flagged, and crewed? Concerning other traffic increasing, that means there are that many more opportunities for collisions, or a tanker running aground trying to get around other traffic.

If you really cared about risks to the BC coast you would be trying to stop the Vancouver port about expanding. But you won't because this debate is not about logic or the environment. It is about adherence to the new green religion that has declared pipelines to be taboos.

yawn

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #80 on: March 10, 2018, 07:37:02 pm »
Oil transport is a global business. How many of those tankers will be Chinese owned, flagged, and crewed? Concerning other traffic increasing, that means there are that many more opportunities for collisions, or a tanker running aground trying to get around other traffic.
By logic we should ban all cars because "people might get killed". It is impossible to make anything zero risk which means accepting some risk is a necessary fact of life. That said, given the track record of shipping oil along the BC coast there is good reason to believe that proper regulation can manage this risk and ensure a spill does not occur.

The bottom line is: BC is part of confederation. BC has a moral and legal obligation to facilitate transport of goods from other provinces. Refusing to facilitate the transport of goods would set a precedent which would cause great harm the confederation and BC in the long run. If BC blocks the pipeline there will be a crisis in Canada as companies pull the investments from a country where governments are unwilling to enforce their regulatory decisions.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2018, 07:39:57 pm by TimG »

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #81 on: March 10, 2018, 07:38:49 pm »
Oil transport is a global business. How many of those tankers will be Chinese owned, flagged, and crewed? Concerning other traffic increasing, that means there are that many more opportunities for collisions, or a tanker running aground trying to get around other traffic.

yawn

We will set the regs as to what ships can come here, how they operate in our waters and provide the pilots.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #82 on: March 10, 2018, 07:54:25 pm »
By logic we should ban all cars because "people might get killed".

...or perhaps we should ban drunk drivers, or drivers with certain medical problems from driving or driving specific classes of vehicles (transport trucks, school bus, etc.). It is all about proper risk assessment, and Joe's sailboat is not the same as the half million ton supertanker.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #83 on: March 10, 2018, 08:13:38 pm »
...or perhaps we should ban drunk drivers, or drivers with certain medical problems from driving or driving specific classes of vehicles (transport trucks, school bus, etc.). It is all about proper risk assessment, and Joe's sailboat is not the same as the half million ton supertanker.

I guess we should restrict airliners to 100 seats then. If an A-380 ever goes down. Oh the horror.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #84 on: March 10, 2018, 08:18:18 pm »
Quote
Tanker statistics on the East Coast
The East Coast has about 4,000 inbound trips by tankers each year. Tankers account for about one fifth of the 20,000 inbound vessel trips on the East Coast.

Over 82 million tonnes of various petroleum and fuel products are moved in and out of 23 Atlantic Canada ports. Almost all the movement of crude oil and petroleum products in Atlantic Canada is through the following ports:

Come by Chance, Newfoundland and Labrador
Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia
Saint John, New Brunswick
In Quebec, 25 million tonnes of crude oil and various petroleum products are moved in and out of 39 ports where cargo is loaded or unloaded.

Eighty-nine per cent of the shipments of crude oil and various petroleum products are through Quebec City and Montreal.

In contrast, the west coast has less than 1500 tanker movements a year. 0.75% of vessel arrivals and departures.

Source: Transport Canada
« Last Edit: March 10, 2018, 08:22:17 pm by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2237
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #85 on: March 10, 2018, 08:35:19 pm »
Maybe not, but what does that matter? 


What does that matter?  You're the one who said empahtically:

Quote
There isn't a jurisdiction issue here: this is an issue of federal jurisdiction. 

I asked if the feds ruled in favour of BC, would you say equally emphatically that Alberta should just sit quietly and accept the decision.

You didn't answer.


Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2237
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #86 on: March 10, 2018, 08:43:48 pm »
7 times more likely than what? 7 times nothing is still nothing.

I think you are in denial as to how much it can hurt us. What do you think up to a 100% increase in the cost of fuel would do to cost of goods in BC and the province's ability to compete in general?

Ships can go to Seattle which is the Port of Vancouver's main competitor. If you have been paying attention for the past few decades, you will know that the Port of Vancouver is always concerned about their ability to compete with Seattle. Aircraft only have to fly another hour to bypass YVR and land at YYC or YEG. Airlines do analysis as to whether it is more economical to tanker fuel or buy it locally. When the price reaches a point it is more economical to tanker that buy locally, their aircraft will carry as much as they can into the expensive airport so they only have to buy the minimum necessary for their next flight. Of course it costs fuel to tanker the extra weight which is bad for the environment but in a highly competitive industry, little things count.

Do you think people would be bitching if there was a 7 fold increase in shipping of any other kind? Alaska crude has been shipping since the early seventies under more challenging conditions that shipping out of Vancouver. Other than the Exxon Valdes which changed everything about the way oil is shipped, there have been no major incidents. Not only that, many of those Alaskan ships transit the Straight of Juan de Fuca enroute to American refineries right across the border.

It's not 7 times zero.  Oil spills happen all the time and the independent studies say that an oil spill is 16% to 67% likely.  We're talking in Burnaby in a narrow strip of water where millions of metro Vancouver people live.

You honestly don't think our opinion matters in this when it's our waterway?

Ya, people from the BC lower mainland accusing others of being "bought by China". Funny.

Excuse me?  You think people in the lower mainland are enjoying what is happening with offshore buyers in this city?  It's a constant protest and 4 out of 5 people in the province support the taxes put in place by our premier to keep dissuade more ownership.

My wording may have been harsh but there is no denying JT is heavily influenced by China and going out of his way to do a lot of business with Chinese government.  One of our gripes in this city is how Quebec sells Canadian citizenship and JT tries to increase immigration and we're the ones out here getting priced out of our own city while Ottawa and Quebec see nothing but positive effects. 

Enough already with the housing, we don't need to risk our waters too for Chinese interests.


Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #87 on: March 10, 2018, 08:45:15 pm »
What does that matter?  You're the one who said empahtically:

I asked if the feds ruled in favour of BC, would you say equally emphatically that Alberta should just sit quietly and accept the decision.

You didn't answer.

I think the point is, Alberta isn't going to wait while BC pisses around trying to delay the process in the hope it will go away.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2237
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #88 on: March 10, 2018, 08:45:42 pm »
Maybe you should re-evaluate your interests and wishes.

No thank you.  I don't think wanting to keep our city oil-spill free needs re-evaluating.

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2237
Re: The Wreck of BC
« Reply #89 on: March 10, 2018, 08:48:03 pm »
While oil spills from shipping have decreased dramatically from the 70's, they are not nothing. Last year was about average for the past decade with 6 major spills (7 tons or more). The largest was in the Indian ocean with about 5000 tons of oil spilled, and the second was near Greece with about 700 tons spilled. There have been a number of spills much larger than the Exxon Valdez, the most recent being the Prestige in 2002.

Exactly.  Even the most pro-pipeline articles I've read acknowledge that oil spills happen, but the only argument they have is how much they've decreased since the 70's.

Rare is still not good enough in a city of millions.