Im sharing my friend Irmgard Conleys response to the: Proposed Fossil Fuel Export Facilities on the Columbia! So many of us in the San Juan Archipelago have for decades sacrificed endless time and money, trying to give our Salmon and Orca whales a chance to recover, so it was a shocking blow to find out what could be in store for our vulnerable waters and islands. The Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW), also known as the Orca Whale, is San Juan County’s icon. Our tourism-driven economy is dependent on these charismatic marine mammals. The birth rates of the SRKWs are strongly correlated with the abundance of Chinook salmon. The new tracking information shows that abundant runs of Columbia and Snake River Chinook salmon are important to the long-term survival of the SRKW. nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/cb/ecosystem/marinemammal/satellite_tagging/blog.cfm Among many other dangers, even just one (perfectly predictable) major accident in these treacherous waters would totally wipe out our main economic engine: TOURISM, thus destroying multiples of the few permanent jobs which could possibly be created by these proposed coal facilities. They can not credibly be compared to those achievable in our growing green economy: jobs that can help us to at least slow the rapid rise in average temperatures, through providing increased energy efficiency by retro-fitting our existing homes, schools, businesses, and transportation, as well as many more jobs that expand solar and wind power generation. Yet our DC Politians see fit to bestow multiples of huge, ongoing subsidies on the Fossil Fuel Industry, thus making these destructive fuels seem “cheaper”, than those they barely (and unreliably) grant to Solar Energy and other forms of “Green” solutions, which we so desperately need in order to leave a somewhat livable world to our children. We are wisely using ever less coal in the United States, so various vested interests are trying to recapture market share for this tax-supported, deadly commodity, by planning to ship open coal trains across half the country and along our fragile coast, for export to Asia at sub-market rates. By now the destructive aspects of transporting and using this resource are very well known and widely documented, so we have no excuse to encourage other Nations to continue burning it. Not only will it come back to us on the winds, but it is unconscionable to knowingly contribute to ill health for other human beings. For the sake of the whole world China should be encouraged to use sustainable power sources instead of this dirty fuel, which needs to stay in the ground until some day in the future, when we might be able to honestly talk of Clean Coal - using that word now is a shameless euphemism. China is already choking on the kind of air pollution I experienced in the 1950s, while living in Los Angeles, or perhaps much worse. That the politicians in China are facing ever louder protests from their citizens about these intolerable conditions, will help to make these proposed facilities obsolete by the time they would be ready to ship their deadly cargo. Consider also that China has vast coal reserves as well, and that once their infrastructure is built out to allow them to be coal-independent, we will be stuck with the tremendous damages wreaked here in the meantime, and with useless facilities uglifying our coast. Even Goldman Sachs is not enthused about these investments. Why should we acquiesce to the destruction of our Native and other fisheries and that of our precious environment, to aid a few Captains of Industry in their feckless pursuits? The relentless pressure to export coal from the Pacific Northwest is clearly driven by the desire for corporate profits in the mining, rail, port, and shipping industries. That mining coal, and burning it, destroys land and water resources at the site and beyond, by releasing mercury and other toxic metals into our global atmosphere, thus making climate change and its consequent sea level rise, ocean acidification and ocean warming so much worse, is quite obviously of no concern to these special interests! We have just witnessed a storm of record-breaking intensity: the tragic Typhoon that swept across the Philippines on November 8, 2013, killing thousands, while making even more of that Nations citizens homeless and hopeless. Other low-laying Island Nations are already seeing their lands swallowed up by warming, and therefore expanding, seas. The comments below clearly describe the risks associated with the increased shipping traffic that would result from expansion of the export of coal and other fossil fuels from Columbia River Ports: The increased shipping traffic from the proposed Millennium Bulk Terminal and other proposed projects will increase the risk of shipping accidents and fuel spills along the Columbia River and during transits of the notorious Columbia river bar. Although the annual number of oil tanker spills fell about three-fold world-wide between 1992 and 2011, the number of fuel spills for allusions, collisions, and groundings of tankers and bulk cargo carriers in restricted and inland waters did not decrease during this period. These data indicate that improvements in the shipping industry and the efforts of the International Maritime Organization and national governments have not decreased the number of accidents in inland and restricted waters. Since the Columbia River is an inland waterway, the risk of a significant fuel spill here is at least three fold higher than the world-wide average. In contrast to the fall in tanker oil spills (likely due to requirements for double-hulls and other structural improvements in tanker design), world-wide bunker fuel spills did not decrease between 1992 and 2011. (See Figures 9 & 13 in: Trends in Oil Spills from Tankers and ITOPF Non-tanker Attended Incidents Susannah Musk -Technical Support Coordinator -International Tanker Owner Pollution Federation Ltd, ITOPF London, UK). Bunker fuel is the fuel used by ship engines. It is heavier and more polluting than other fuels. Tankers and bulk carrier ships routinely use bunker fuel oil because it is cheaper. A spill in San Francisco Bay of only around 53,000 gallons of bunker fuel oiled about 200 miles of coastline, shut down fisheries and closed beaches to recreation. The bulk carrier vessels that would ship coal from the proposed Millennium Bulk Terminal will carry hundreds of thousands of gallons of onboard fuel to power their engines. The increased bunker fuel demand would be met by refineries near Anacortes and north of Bellingham Bay. This would increase the tanker shipping transiting the restricted and hazardous waters of the San Juan Archipelago and the Salish Sea. Increased shipping traffic increases the risk of collision, allision, or grounding and increases the risk of environmentally destructive fuel spills in these ecologically rich marine waters. Evaluation of the risks of increased shipping traffic through the Columbia River bar, along the Columbia River, and through the Salish Sea associated with the development of all of the proposed port facilities should be part of the draft EIS for the proposed Millennium Bulk Terminal. The bunker fuel capacity of Very Large Bulk Carriers is 500,000 gallons or more (1). Most bulk carrier vessels are single hulled. Historically, their mechanical failure and accident rates are higher than other vessels. (2), (3). Because their vertical surfaces act like a sail these ships are subject to both wind and currents, making them difficult to maneuver at low speeds and out-of-control without power or tug assistance. (1) Encyclopedia of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fifth Volume, Marine Spillage – Sources and Hazards. (2) Wikipedia, Bulk Carriers. (3) Assessment of Oil Spill Risk to Potential Increased Vessel Traffic at Cherry Point, Technical Appendix, Washington University VTRA Study The proposed facilities that would greatly increase fossil fuel shipping traffic transiting the Columbia River bar and along the Columbia River include: Coal Export Facilities: Millennium Bulk Terminal -850 Panamax-class bulkers. Port Westward Coyote Island Terminal -156 Panamax-class bulkers. Ambre’s Pacific Transloading Barge Dock, Port Westward -624 coal barge tows (each with one tug and four lashed barges). Crude Oil Export Facilities: Vancouver Energy Distribution Terminal, Tesoro-Savage -386 tankers/1546 barges Global Partners (old Columbia Pacific bio-refinery), Clatskanie -31 tankers/123 barges Paramount Terminal, Portland -details unknown The estimates total 1423 additional bulkers and tankers, 624 coal barge tows (a tug with four lashed barges), and 1669 crude oil barge tows. These assumptions are based on using the largest bulker and tanker classes possible at maximum cargo efficiency. If smaller vessels are used, the number of vessels increases. Since the total commercial vessel calls at Columbia River Terminals in 2012 was 1340, the proposed cumulative increase in vessel traffic would almost quadruple the 2012 traffic. This does not include the proposed Paramount Terminal at Portland. The scope of the EIS for the proposed Millennium Bulk Terminal should include vessel traffic and risk analysis studies for the increased vessel traffic from all the proposed facilities. A vessel traffic risk assessment should consider not only the increased vessel numbers, but also that the additional vessels would require newly hired and newly trained pilots for navigation. The additional vessels would have largely foreign crews. As the world bulker fleet ages, mechanical and structural failures will result in an increased rate of collisions, allisions and groundings. See: shipwrecklog/log/ for up-to-date shipping accident reports. The additional bulkers and tankers would necessarily transit the Columbia River bar at the mouth of the Columbia River when arriving and when leaving the river. This treacherous passage is called “the Graveyard of the Pacific” because so many ships have foundered there. What is the risk of a significant fossil fuel spill if the number of ship transits across the treacherous Columbia River bar more than doubles? Bulk cargo vessels carry hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel just to power their engines. Oil tankers carry much, much more fossil fuel. The following is from “Running the Bar” in the February, 2009 Smithsonian Magazine: ‘Each of the 16 bar pilots has the authority to close the bar when conditions are too dangerous. Still, Jordan says, When we shut down the bar for two days, trains are backed up all the way into the Midwest. And just like a traffic jam on the freeway, once you clear the wreck, it takes a long time for it to smooth out again. Theres a lot of pressure on us to keep working all the time, says Gary Lewin, a bar pilot for 26 years.’ smithsonianmag/science-nature/Running-the-Bar.html The development of the proposed Millennium Bulk Terminal, Port Westward Coyote Island Terminal, and Ambre’s Pacific Transloading Barge Dock, Port Westward would add significantly more ship traffic crossing the Columbia River bar. The proposed Millennium Bulk Terminal project would add around 1700 Panamax size ships transits across the Columbia River bar. The proposed Port Westward Coyote Island Terminal would add around 312 Panamax size ships transits across the Columbia River bar. Will this intensity of shipping traffic be possible considering that just shutting down “the bar” for two days of bad weather in 2009 resulted in trains backed all the way into the Midwest? The pressure to transit the bar in bad weather will increase and the risk of accidents will increase if the Millennium Bulk Terminal project is permitted. During severe storms, bulk cargo ships and tankers will stack up in the dangerous waters off the Oregon Coast waiting for a weather window to open so that they can transit the Columbia River bar. What would be the consequences for the environment in the event of a major fuel or oil spill? What would be the consequences to Chinook salmon, especially if the migrating salmon smelts were caught in a fuel or oil spill? What would be the cumulative impacts to Chinook salmon from more frequent releases of smaller amounts of fuel from the increased shipping traffic? What would be the consequences to the federally listed Endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales if their winter food supply of Upper Columbia River and Snake River Chinook salmon significantly declines? Has anyone considered that we already have problems on our coast and in our inland seas from discharged water-ballast, carrying non-native creatures, which are ever more frequently wiping out our local species, and making other costly mischief? This problem would multiply with the planned increase in shipping traffic. All the tremendous impacts described above cannot be fully mitigated, so please consider the “no build option” for the proposed Millennium Bulk Terminal.
Posted on: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 06:58:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015