Tug Aground-Sank Northern B.C.

We cruised these waters last summer. Shame



https://gcaptain.com/tug-leaking-fu...ed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Gcaptain+(gCaptain.com)

After reading the article, the tribe seems to want to use this to encourage a moratorium on tanker traffic... This had nothing to do with oil transportation it was a screw up by the tug crew. a few years ago a bc ferry sank close by Hartley Bay (same general area) same screw up by the crew but no outrage and wanting to ban ferry traffic....

Now let me say this is a pristine area, and and any kind of environmental damage is unconscionable... but special interest groups can't seem to let any crisis be wasted on promoting their views, relevant or not.

Ka Sea ta,
Crews of any kind of vessel "screw up" causing accidents. Huge variations of risk result from good oversight or lack of same.
IMO there should be much more oversight on vessels carrying large quanites of oil. The oil accidents just keep happening and for obvious reasons. It's only going to cost money to nearly fix the problem.

Don't make an international incident out of it as if a Canadian vessel spilled lots of oil in the San Juan Is it would be the same.

And there will soon be very little farm land in the Skagit area as a result of too many people but almost nothing is being done about it. I'm often with the special interest groups. Not usually though. But the steady increase in people and the economic and destructive machine they have will obviously consume the earth if things continue as they are. Or perhaps nature will consume humans before then but things will definitely get worse before they get better ..... IF EVER.

Nomad Willy said:

Ka Sea ta,
Crews of any kind of vessel "screw up" causing accidents. Huge variations of risk result from good oversight or lack of same.
IMO there should be much more oversight on vessels carrying large quanites of oil. The oil accidents just keep happening and for obvious reasons.
Don't make an international incident out of it as if a Canadian vessel spilled lots of oil in the San Juan Is it would be the same.

Click to expand...

The fuel barge was empty, the spill was from the tug. I can't disagree a fully loaded barge or tanker should have extra precautions available, which why a tug is stationed at Neah Bay just in case there is a problem with a petroleum carrying vessel in the straits... My issue is that special interest groups will use any crisis to try to advance their agenda whether or not the crisis has any relevancy... In this case the tug could just as easy had a barge of gravel, containers or flowers and the result would have been the same.

Ka_sea_ta said:

After reading the article, the tribe seems to want to use this to encourage a moratorium on tanker traffic... This had nothing to do with oil transportation it was a screw up by the tug crew. a few years ago a bc ferry sank close by Hartley Bay (same general area) same screw up by the crew but no outrage and wanting to ban ferry traffic....

Now let me say this is a pristine area, and and any kind of environmental damage is unconscionable... but special interest groups can't seem to let any crisis be wasted on promoting their views, relevant or not.

Click to expand...

Wow! Where to begin? First of all this occurred in Canada and as such it is a Canadian issue with Canadian sensitivities. Canadian "Tribes" are known as First Nations, and I'll bet that US Tribes would agree this is the Heiltsuk's privilege (for want of a better word) to express their concerns. These are their lands and waters and they are more than a special interest group! If this had occurred off Neal Bay, I wonder what the Makah Tribe would have said? Furthermore, most of the First Nations in these areas have expressed similar and united concerns on tanker traffic.

I've seen the Nathan E. Stewart in these areas and it was way, way off course. And if it had been way, way off course with a full barge it would have been much worse.

I have been thru that area many times myself on tugs going back and forth to AK, towing, not pushing barges, sometimes two. Its not a difficult area but like most of the Inside Passage it demands the navigators full attention. Somehow that didn't happen. Good that the barge was empty, and also good there was no loss of life which is more important than the rest of it.

JDCAVE said:

Wow! Where to begin? First of all this occurred in Canada and as such it is a Canadian issue with Canadian sensitivities. Canadian "Tribes" are known as First Nations, and I'll bet that US Tribes would agree this is the Heiltsuk's privilege (for want of a better word) to express their concerns. These are their lands and waters and they are more than a special interest group! If this had occurred off Neal Bay, I wonder what the Makah Tribe would have said? Furthermore, most of the First Nations in these areas have expressed similar and united concerns on tanker traffic.

I've seen the Nathan E. Stewart in these areas and it was way, way off course. And if it had been way, way off course with a full barge it would have been much worse.

Click to expand...

All too often the "first nations" seem to be really vocal about the impact on the environment. .... right up to the point they get royalties or compensation. One trip out to Neah bay and look at all the garbage strewn about kind of taints their argument.
Hollywood

Too many unknowns not discovered/disclosed yet.
Can't guess the reason. Well, sure. Could make a few assumptions but they would serve no purpose.

The ais track is non existent on marine traffic. Did anyone take a screenshot of the past track before it was timed out?

Nomad Willy said:

And there will soon be very little farm land in the Skagit area as a result of too many people but almost nothing is being done about it. I'm often with the special interest groups. Not usually though. But the steady increase in people and the economic and destructive machine they have will obviously consume the earth if things continue as they are. Or perhaps nature will consume humans before then but things will definitely get worse before they get better ..... IF EVER.

Click to expand...

Can't resist!! There is quite a bit of room in Thorne Bay, Ak. for new comers.

Al

JDCAVE said:

I've seen the Nathan E. Stewart in these areas and it was way, way off course. And if it had been way, way off course with a full barge it would have been much worse.

Click to expand...

Now on the surface, this is a damming statement. Any chance a bit of factual detail could be added to it?? Not in any way defending what is obviously an error in navigation, just curious if "Way,Way" can be defined a bit.

Al-Ketchikan 27' Marben Pocket Cruiser

Look at the AIS position on marine traffic.com
for through traffic he had no business down amongst those islands

Ted

Ted said:

Look at the AIS position on marine traffic.com
for through traffic he had no business down amongst those islands

Ted

Click to expand...

That only shows 'last position'. That has no track info. The track info only lasts for 12 or 24 hours then deletes. Unless you are a paid member. It would be illuminating to see where she was running immediately previous.

Thanks Ted, Cappy.

As I continually advise my wife,(Very gently) 'Assumptions often prove fatal and wrong'
I now suppose the wait for the official investigation and in the interm, enjoy wine and cheese on the aft deck.

Al

I was hoping this would just die a quiet death but now, as Jim said "where to begin?"

Let's start with a geography lesson;
Haida Gwaii and the Alaska Highway are in Northern BC.
Bella Bella and Edge Reef are on the BC Central Coast.

Al; the attached chart and satellite shot show the area which is about 1nm at its widest and yes the Nathan E. Stewart was way, way off course.

Ted; this is its regular route and as predicted, it was when, not if.
https://vimeo.com/127905057

The Yanks call it part of their highway and the RO RO Kennicott went through there while I was writing this.
http://alaskaferryvacations.com/Vessel_Kennicott.htm

cappy208; really nowhere else to be other than a very cautious and deliberate course.

0100, an hour before watch change, gee what could go wrong?

Special interest group?
What is that?
Is it sorta, kinda, like a quilting bee or cumquat tasters club? A de Fever Owners Group, maybe?

Anyway,word out of Nuxalk Nation is, every "tribe" from Wewaikai to Kitkala has stretched a doe skin over a hollow stump and is thumping out k'án tse t'áw. I guess you might call that a special interest.

Pray the raven brings clean fuel kemosabe.

Now…back to hibernation

JDCAVE said:

Wow! Where to begin? First of all this occurred in Canada and as such it is a Canadian issue with Canadian sensitivities. Canadian "Tribes" are known as First Nations, and I'll bet that US Tribes would agree this is the Heiltsuk's privilege (for want of a better word) to express their concerns. These are their lands and waters and they are more than a special interest group! If this had occurred off Neal Bay, I wonder what the Makah Tribe would have said? Furthermore, most of the First Nations in these areas have expressed similar and united concerns on tanker traffic.

I've seen the Nathan E. Stewart in these areas and it was way, way off course. And if it had been way, way off course with a full barge it would have been much worse.

Click to expand...

I think that I didn't explain myself very well, This is not meant to be any kind of besmirching statement about the first nations or the Canadians. Mine was a reaction to this statement in the article

"This is a stirring reminder that the north coast oil tanker moratorium cannot be legislated fast enough,” Heiltsuk Tribal Council Chief Councillor Marilyn Slett said in a statement. “We must take note, however, that tanker barges like this might not even be included in the ban. The band needs to be complete, and spill response must be improved.”

Specifically the ban on tanker traffic... This spill could have happened with any vessel and the barge didn't spill a drop... It was the diesel from the tug... I don't see a connection between the tug sinking and the ban on tanker traffic... It reminds of a statement I believe from Rob Emanuel "never let a crisis go to waste"

The special interest group statement was based on my observation of the groups that wanted to ban tanker traffic in the straits of Juan de Fuca...

Ka_sea_ta said:

Mine was a reaction to this statement in the article

"This is a stirring reminder that the north coast oil tanker moratorium cannot be legislated fast enough,” Heiltsuk Tribal Council Chief Councillor Marilyn Slett said in a statement. “We must take note, however, that tanker barges like this might not even be included in the ban. The band needs to be complete, and spill response must be improved.”

The special interest group statement was based on my observation of the groups that wanted to ban tanker traffic in the straits of Juan de Fuca...

Click to expand...

This is an issue of knee jerk reactions. In the US after a 2003 tug barge grounding / spill a special interest group in Buzzards Bay specifically singled out 'tug and barges' as being deficient and needing pilots and escort tugs. (Ala Neah Bay tug mentioned earlier). Strangely ships were left out. Unlike the west coast laws that specifically regulate ships and NOT tugs.

This occurred one hour after watch change. Seeing past track would illuminate when the error chain started. It's possible the tug was heading either in or out for a Crew change in the middle of a voyage. So many variables.

news

This will be of interest to some I think.

78puget-trawler said:

This will be of interest to some I think.

Click to expand...

Before I click on this link (for computer security reasons), I would like to have a better idea of what it contains.

The cleanup of this event is not proceeding well. The oil containment booms failed due to recent poor weather events. The booms have been redeployed but I wonder how successful these are in the heavy seas in the area. The tug remains on the reef and is being buffeted around in the heavy seas. Evidently the local resources in the area are not up to the job. This is a very sparsely populated area and the Canadian Coast Guard is insufficiently equipped to deal with this event.

Booms fixed after wind spreads diesel fuel from tug sunk near Bella Bella - British Columbia - CBC News

Owner of stricken tugboat apologizes for diesel spill - British Columbia - CBC News

Jim

Its a letter from the Pacific Pilotage Authority (BC) pertaining to changes being made for transiting BC waters.

78puget-trawler said:

Its a letter from the Pacific Pilotage Authority (BC) pertaining to changes being made for transiting BC waters.

Click to expand...

Thanks 78PT. An interesting read, to be sure! I note that there is a discrepancy concerning transit of Grenville channel on Page 1 (that the master must be on the bridge) and Page 2 where it notes that the northern Areas of the inside passage are restricted (including Grenville). Perhaps I am missing something.

I'm sure that PSNeeld will chastise me for jumping to conclusions, but I'll bet that someone was "asleep at the wheel" in this incident.

Jim

I think what some people here are failing to consider is that this was a US tug and barge transiting Canadian waters between Washington State and Alaska.

How would you feel if a Canadian train derailed somewhere in the US carrying toxic mine waste and hazardous chemicals from Canada enroute to Mexico?

This video about the Nathan E. Stewart/DBL 54 has been around for a while, seems relevant to link it here: https://vimeo.com/127905057

MurrayM said:

I think what some people here are failing to consider is that this was a US tug and barge transiting Canadian waters between Washington State and Alaska.

How would you feel if a Canadian train derailed somewhere in the US carrying toxic mine waste and hazardous chemicals from Canada enroute to Mexico?

Click to expand...

Has a Canadian tug never had any kind of spill in American waters? This was most likely a case of negligence in some form or other, but I don't see the need to make it about what country it happened in or who owned the boat. It will be dealt with by the concerned parties. Why make it a US vs CN issue?

78puget-trawler said:

Has a Canadian tug never had any kind of spill in American waters? This was most likely a case of negligence in some form or other, but I don't see the need to make it about what country it happened in or who owned the boat. It will be dealt with by the concerned parties. Why make it a US vs CN issue?

Click to expand...

Because it was transiting our waters (BC's Inside Passage) between US ports, and Canada shouldered the majority of the risk. If a Canadian tug went down in US waters, it would probably be going to a US port. That's the difference.

According to the video it fills up in Burnaby, so I guess the fault lies at the feet of whichever weasel politicians allowed the exemption for such a large volume of petroleum products from traveling offshore.

Murray

Taking a deep breath, I'm not sure anyone is disputing that a US owned vessel ran aground in Canadian waters. Many vessels have gone down in these wild West coast waters over the past century or two with resultant lives, fuel and cargo lost. It seems two issues are at play, one- what can be done and enforced to aid the transiting ships in better navigation. Two - what can be improved in the response activities of the relevant authorities.

Actually the US has had to deal with Canadian accepted and approved pollution issues, many times. Some still ongoing. Here are three.

The Sudbury nickel smelter which emitted thousands of tons of SO2 gas per day into the atmosphere. It took decades for US regulators to force Canada to enact clean air legislation in Canada such that INCO would install pollution abatement equipment.

The Trail zinc and lead smelter which for the better part of a century dumped smelter and acid plant wastes into a river flowing into Washington. Like the InCO case, US clean water laws were finally applied to Canadian legal discharges.

Third, the ongoing dumping of raw sewage into the Straits of Juan de Fuca. This case is ongoing, fueled by the objections of BC residents to have a tertiary sewage plant built on lower Vancouver Is.

The above cases do not mean that one country is uncaring and the other a zealot. As Forrest Gump said, $hit happens. In this tug case ever increasing intertwined world environmental mitigation is very much a cross border concern. So realistically, what steps can and should be taken to make WA, BC and AK water traffic better. Hopefully this case will provide some answers beyond the normal finger pointing.

MurrayM said:

I think what some people here are failing to consider is that this was a US tug and barge transiting Canadian waters between Washington State and Alaska.

How would you feel if a Canadian train derailed somewhere in the US carrying toxic mine waste and hazardous chemicals from Canada enroute to Mexico?

Click to expand...

Well I understand how you feel as I was involved in the Exxon spill clean up in PWS Alaska. Destroyed my fishing area and many of my friends lost their fishing boats after the spill.

But there have been Canadian rail cars derailed in the US..... A spill is never a good thing.

MurrayM said:

Because it was transiting our waters (BC's Inside Passage) between US ports, and Canada shouldered the majority of the risk. If a Canadian tug went down in US waters, it would probably be going to a US port. That's the difference.

Click to expand...

Point taken, but I don't think the destination is the issue here at all, I mean so what? Would it be better for the area of the spill if the tug was going to Prince Rupert?

MurrayM said:

According to the video it fills up in Burnaby

Click to expand...

There are two US companies operating articulated tug and barge, in both BC and US waters, up and down our coast;
Kirby Offshore (pic 1) and Olympic Tug and Barge (pic 2).

As Puget Trawler said it really doesn't matter to or from where and as Ted said earlier, this thing had no business being in those waters.

The Nathan E Stewart requires escort through Vancouver Harbour but can transit Seaforth Channel in a midnight blow on a waiver? Then the PPA closes the old barn door?

This here tribal, special interest, knee jerker don't like it.

Come on guys, why is this a US vs Canada thing? We are friends, right. An operator screwed up and has made a real mess. That's the problem. And why it's a "special interests issue" to object to an operator running aground and wrecking the area is simply beyond me. It's appalling no matter where it happens. If I were Canadian, I would be asking whether the exemptions that apparently have been granted do indeed make sense, or whether they should be reconsidered. If that's a special interest, knee jerk question, oh well, so be it.