Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 39 - Evidence - March 21, 2013
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 21, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8:10 a.m. to study the current state of the safety elements of the bulk transport of hydrocarbon products in Canada.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Richard Neufeld. I represent the province of British Columbia in the Senate and I am chair of the committee.
I would like to welcome all honourable senators, many members of the public with us in the room, and the viewers all across the country who are watching on television.
I will have the senators introduce themselves. I will start with my deputy chair, Senator Mitchell.
Senator Mitchell: Grant Mitchell from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Lang: Dan Lang, Yukon.
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte, Montreal.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace, New Brunswick.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
The Chair: I also introduce our clerk, Lynn Gordon, and the two Library of Parliament analysts, Marc LeBlanc and Sam Banks.
On November 28, 2012, our committee was authorized by the Senate to initiate a study on the safe transportation of hydrocarbons in Canada. The study will examine and compare domestic and international regulatory regimes, standards and best practices relating to the safe transport of hydrocarbons by transmission pipelines, marine tanker vessels and railcars. The committee has held eight meetings to date on this study.
We welcome by video conference from Vancouver, Captain Kevin Obermeyer, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Pacific Pilotage Authority Canada.
I live in British Columbia; we know it is relatively early in British Columbia, 6 a.m. We are happy that you could find time in your busy schedule to meet with us and we look forward to your presentation.
Captain Kevin Obermeyer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Pilotage Authority Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chair, and honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity. It is a little early, but nothing we cannot deal with.
I will begin the opening statement, and then obviously we will go into questions.
The Pacific Pilotage Authority is a federal Crown corporation operating pursuant to the Pilotage Act of 1972. Our mandate is to provide a safe and efficient marine pilotage service on the West Coast of Canada on the basis of financial self-sufficiency. We do this by working in partnership with the shipping industry we serve in order to protect and advance the interests of Canada.
I must emphasize that the word ``partnership'' is not used lightly on the West Coast. We do employ the full engagement strategy to ensure that the marine industry we serve, as well as the pilots and stakeholders, are kept fully apprised of all issues from proposed changes to improved safety, to changes to our tariff and collective agreements, and any other operational issue that might arise.
The government oversees the operation of the authority through the publication of the Corporate Plan and Annual Report, both of which are submitted annually. In addition, the Office of the Auditor General conducts annual financial audits as well as special audits every five to ten years where every facet of our operation is reviewed. The minister overseeing our portfolio is the Honourable Steven Fletcher, Minister of State for Transportation.
Transport Canada is a resource to our operations as well, and this includes providing assistance with the publication of our pilotage regulations and our tariff regulations, and in some instances operational issues.
On the public side, we have been engaged in community outreach programs for the last four years, speaking to municipalities and First Nations in our areas of operation, from the City Council of Stewart in the north to the Tsawwassen First Nation group in the south.
The marine pilots on the coast of B.C. are all masters in their own right, with many years of experience in the local waters. We provide marine pilots to all vessels over 350 gross tonnes, and that is about 50 metres long, 150 feet. Pilots are a resource to the master and the bridge team and provide them with expert local knowledge, and are responsible to the master for the safe navigation of the vessel while it is in compulsory Pacific Pilotage Authority waters.
There are exceptions to this, and they are the ferries and government vessels such as DND and the Coast Guard.
Pilotage is a country's insurance against a marine disaster. By placing a pilot on the vessel, you are ensuring that at least one member of the bridge team has an in-depth knowledge of the local dangers, is not fatigued, and is a knowledgeable resource in the event that something does occur.
Last, the pilot adds an additional level of safety on the vessel. The bridge crew is more wary as there is a stranger in their midst, and the pilot, not knowing the bridge team, is just as wary. This is a positive situation, as everyone is much more aware and tends to keep an eye on each other.
Our area of operation extends from the Washington State border in the south to the Alaskan border in the north. As a rule of thumb, if you extend each major point on our coast by two miles and join them together, you will have our area of our operation. I did attach Appendix 1 and I expect it is in the handouts, showing exactly what our area is. As I stated before, within this area all vessels over 350 gross tonnes will require a pilot and, furthermore, will have to consult with the authority and the pilots on all new projects and terminals in order to ensure navigational safety is not compromised.
We have developed guidelines and standards for many of the more difficult passages of the coast. When dealing specifically with tankers, there is always extensive consultation before any changes are made to an accepted practice. A recent example of this was the change from 12.5 metres draft, the underwater part of the vessel, for tankers in the Port Metro Vancouver, to 13.5, just a one-metre change. This one-metre change took five years of analysis and consultation with significant changes to procedures and practices in order to ensure that safety was not negatively impacted. Every new project or change undergoes significant scrutiny. No one wants an incident, and we are at pains to ensure that our present safety record is maintained.
I am very confident that the new procedures in place in Port Metro Vancouver enhance safety. To ensure the changes were not going to affect safety, we carried out fast-time simulations, full-mission bridge simulations, and then followed this up with live testing using tugs and a loaded tanker to validate the accuracy of the simulation data. As a result, we changed the way we were handling tankers with a different methodology for the use of tugs and brought in personal pilotage units.
All in all, I believe we have raised the level of safety for tankers in Vancouver significantly and see no reason why this same process to ensure safety cannot be reproduced for tanker proposals in the North or elsewhere.
We are extremely proud of our safety record and regularly exceed a 99.9 per cent success ratio. In 2012, we handled over 12,000 ships, had seven incidents, for a 99.96 per cent success ratio. In the 20 years that I have been involved in shipping on this coast, we have had only one oil pollution incident while a pilot was on board. This occurred when a freighter was pushed back alongside the dock during a squall and struck a piece of metal extending from the dock. If this had been a double-hulled tanker, there would not have been a spill.
Our level of success is not achieved by chance. The pilotage exam process on the West Coast is one of the most stringent a candidate will face, and an enormous amount of time and money is spent on training to maintain our safety levels. On average, we spend over $500,000 per annum, and in 2010, when we were engaged in amending the tanker requirements for Vancouver Harbour, we spent over $1.2 million in training.
In addition, all pilots, both senior and junior, have to attend a training establishment at least once every five years. This is, of course, over and above any training that is deemed necessary as a result of proposed changes or new projects.
While we are not directly involved in marine pollution response, we will act as a resource to the master in the event that a spill does occur. In addition, we participate in reviews and provide expert advice when analyses are undertaken.
In closing, the most common question I am asked is whether I feel it is safe to bring tankers into our waters. The short answer is yes, I do believe it is safe. Where tankers are concerned, there are actually four levels of safety.
The first level of safety is the vessel itself, including features such as the double hull and modern equipment, as well as international and local scrutiny.
The second level of safety is the crew of the vessel. Tankers and their crews have more to lose than most, and with the recent propensity to criminalize seafarers, there is a high degree of training on tankers.
The third level of safety is the pilot. In many cases there are two pilots for loaded tankers. For most vessels, this is where the level of safety ends.
However, when dealing with loaded tankers, especially in the narrow confines of our waters, there is a fourth level of safety, and that is in the form of a strict requirement for escort tugs, for example going through Vancouver Harbour, Second Narrows, and through Haro and Boundary Strait. I lose sleep over many things in my position, but not on whether a tanker can safely be handled on our coast.
The Chair: Thank you very much, captain, for those remarks. I will ask a couple of questions to start with.
Your record is great; I see the 99.96 per cent. It is remarkable. How would you compare that to a large port in the U.S. such as New York or Los Angeles? Do they keep the same kind of records as you do to demonstrate the safety of their ports?
Capt. Obermeyer: They do. Most of them are in the same realm as we are. The difference that we have, though, is that our pilots are licensed for the entire coast, which is quite unique in the world in that most other areas the pilots are licensed for a single port. We have this unique situation and the incredibly high safety record, which puts us at a different level from the other areas.
The Chair: You have a pilot on board anything over 350 tonnes, as long as it is within a certain distance from the whole coastline of British Columbia.
Capt. Obermeyer: That is correct, whereas elsewhere it is usually harbour pilots, and once it leaves the harbour the pilot gets off. On our coast, two miles off any of the points of major land, if you have Appendix 1 before you, you will see all of the red on the coastline indicating where we will require a pilot. It is not just port piloting; it is everywhere.
The Chair: I see that. That is very good.
What was the reasoning behind going another metre in draft in Port Metro Vancouver? What brought that on?
Capt. Obermeyer: The vessels we were handling are Aframax tankers. They can be loaded to 15 metres. The old rule specified 12.5. When that rule was put in place, I am not sure, and I am not sure if anyone else knows where the 12.5 metres came from. I am sure it was based on information at the time. However, going through Second Narrows, which is the narrowest part, there are over 12 metres underneath the keel, even when you are loaded to 13, so there is plenty of water.
The issue is with the narrowness of the channel, which is why we did so much work on it. One metre would mean that you could take about another 10,000 tonnes of cargo on board that vessel. There are two parts to that. If you have a certain amount of cargo going through the port and you can take more cargo on the individual ship, you will end up with fewer ships needing to transit Second Narrows.
The Chair: In relation to the Douglas Channel, I read in your report that your group is very involved with the pilotage, with how ports are set up and what can be loaded on the ships that come out of that channel. Do I understand that correctly?
Capt. Obermeyer: We are. The pilots have already done simulations with Enbridge. On two separate occasions they spent a week in Copenhagen doing full-mission bridge simulations in all weather conditions, and the vessel they were using was a VLCC. From our perspective, this testing has already been done.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you very much, Captain Obermeyer, this is very interesting.
I would like to refer to your Appendix 1, where we have the red. In the strait between Haida Gwaii and the mainland, the Hecate Strait, there is red bordering the island and mainland. However, there is quite an area of white in the middle where you would not require a pilot, although this is an area of concern for people. Would there be any advantage to having a pilot throughout that area, throughout that strait, no matter where it is, or would it be redundant and not necessary at all? Do you see what I am saying?
Capt. Obermeyer: Yes, absolutely. From our perspective, we do not believe that we will actually increase safety by placing a pilot on open-area water. The pilots are, by their very nature, local experts. They know where the rocks, the currents and counter-currents are, and they know the geography and the weather patterns. In an open-water area, the vessels that are coming and going have crews that are quite capable of navigating that stretch of water.
However, I have to say that where the energy ships are concerned, we are actually looking at putting pilots in that area, and we will be doing that by helicopter, for two reasons. The first is to ensure that the energy vessels do not come close to our shore before we have a pilot on board; and the second is that in the unlikely event of some issue we have someone on board with the expertise to handle it.
Senator Mitchell: That is very interesting information; you are essentially considering extending the area through that channel in which ships would have a pilot and you would actually use helicopters.
Capt. Obermeyer: Right. I will clarify that at the moment we are only looking at the energy ships.
A large, loaded VLCC coming right into our pilot's station in Triple Island would bring it into a more dangerous area. From our perspective, if we can use a helicopter, we can get out 10 miles, which would put you in the middle of that white area that you mentioned.
Senator Mitchell: That is very interesting.
You mentioned that the third pillar of safety is the quality of the crews. In fact you reiterated in your answer to my first question that crews are certainly able to manage ships in this kind of an area. How do we monitor and how can we be sure of the quality of that crew? Is it because our companies just pick top shipping lines? I think there is a sense that, out there on the open seas, who knows who is in those ships.
Capt. Obermeyer: That is a good question because one of the reasons we put pilots on board is to ensure that we have someone on board who knows. However, we do have port wardens from Transport Canada who will do investigations. Where energy ships are concerned, there is a vetting process to weed out those companies that are less than salubrious. The record of that ship — the incidents, the accidents, especially if caused by human error — will be listed in the history of that vessel and company.
As an example, the tankers coming into Kinder Morgan in Vancouver are all vetted long before they are hired as part of the charter process. Obviously this is not my area of expertise, but I do know that this occurs. From my experience, we have had troubles with some of the bulk carriers coming in with crews. However, as yet, I can safely say that we have not encountered any major language or training issues with the tankers that have come to our coast.
Senator Mitchell: Who vets those ships? Is it Kinder Morgan or is it the port wardens or the Transportation Safety Board when you say they are vetted?
Capt. Obermeyer: Kinder Morgan vets the ships before they are hired to pick up the product, and this is similar to other terminals around the world and around the country. They are pre-vetted by the terminal and the country.
Senator Mitchell: We are talking about 2 million-barrel ships versus 1-million-barrel ships versus 500,000-barrel ships, which is the max that can go into Vancouver right now. Can you give us a sense of the dynamics in managing ships from 500,000 barrels to 2 million barrels? Is a 2 million-barrel ship that much more difficult to manoeuvre than a 1-million or 500,000-barrel ship?
Capt. Obermeyer: Right up front, I am not a pilot. I am a ship's captain and have not sailed on a VLCC. I have sailed on large bulk carriers and, yes, from my perspective there is a difference in handling because of the momentum the ships can develop. They are much larger. They could be described by some as slugs to handle.
In the simulations that the pilots did in Copenhagen, they determined that the VLCC, the very large crude carriers, can be taken from deep sea to Kitimat safely without any tugs. It can be done. However, we all agree that those vessels will have escort tugs, either one or two, all the way from deep sea to Kitimat, just to add that extra level of safety.
Where Douglas Channel is concerned compared to what we are doing in Vancouver, the area that you are working in is not as narrow as people think. At its narrowest, it is 1,400 metres wide. The tankers are between 55 and 60 metres wide. In Vancouver, we handle 42-metre wide vessels in a 137-metre wide channel, and 136 at its narrowest. That is the comparison.
Senator Lang: I would like to ask a general question. Our area of review is the level of safety and how we can minimize risk. You have referred to Canadian pilots going to Copenhagen for training to have the necessary credentials for the Douglas Channel. How does the marine safety system in Canada that you have outlined compare internationally to other jurisdictions with respect to what we are asking, specifically on the West Coast versus other places in the world?
Capt. Obermeyer: I have done a comparison within Canada and we have done comparisons overseas with respect to training and also with respect to the type of equipment that the pilot brings on board with him. From what I can see, we are probably at the cutting edge of what is out there.
When I referred to the personal pilotage units in my opening statement, these are laptops with an electronic chart with the courses the pilot is going to be taking already in it. They also have a rate-of-turn generator separate from the ship's that is attached to it and their own GPS unit attached to it. They can run independently if they have to, so this is a whole other set of backup for the pilots out there.
With respect to training, I would say quite frankly that we probably spend more than most on training for the pilots, at $500,000 per year, and moving it up to over $1 million when it needs to. With respect to training and to abilities on this coast, I think we are as good as or better than most of the other areas in the world.
Senator Lang: I will go to another area, which is the question to how treacherous the waters are on the West Coast compared to other areas of the world, such as the Bay of Fundy and internationally. We know that weather conditions, water conditions and tide conditions differ in various parts of the world. What difficulties do we face on the West Coast and maybe more specifically in the Douglas Channel versus other parts of the world in respect to our ability to navigate those waters safely and minimize those risks compared to other areas of the world?
I ask this question because the argument seems to be isolated that this waterway is different, more treacherous, and subsequently must be viewed from a different perspective. I want to hear from you, looking internationally, whether it is Norway, the Bay of Fundy or other parts of the world, how this compares from a safety point of view.
Capt. Obermeyer: First, I will deal with the East Coast compared to the West Coast. You can go to the Environment Canada website and compare wind speeds, both maximum and sustained. If you compare the West Coast lighthouses with the East Coast lighthouses, there is very little to choose between them. I will say, however, that on the Environment Canada website you will see that the most severe winds are actually on the East Coast.
From that perspective, I really do not think we can say that our weather in this area is much worse than anywhere else. We have been bringing very large coal carriers —160,000 to 180,000 dead weight — into Prince Rupert. As everyone knows, Prince Rupert can have quite severe windstorms. Thus far, there have been very few delays due to wind conditions. If it is that bad, we always have the ability to delay a ship.
With the VLCCs, we have not gone into that amount of detail as to determine whether there should be weather restrictions on certain vessels. We have not got any on the large coal carriers, and there may well be no need for the VLCCs, but it is something that will probably be looked at before the first VLCC does arrive.
I cannot compare this to Norway because, quite frankly, I have not had the ability to do that amount of work in the area. I do understand, though, that all of these things will be done by the panel chaired by Captain Gordon Houston that was recently put in place by the government. I am pretty sure all of those answers will come from the panel, where they do a comparison across the world.
Senator Massicotte: I wish to pursue the same line of thought. We know you have approximately 11,000 trips per year on the West Coast. How many of those are Kitimat, how many are Prince Rupert, and how many are the Port of Vancouver? Do you have those approximate numbers?
Capt. Obermeyer: Approximately 65 per cent of those numbers are in the south — Vancouver, Nanaimo, Victoria. That is where the majority of the work takes place. Prince Rupert is slowly increasing, because three years ago those numbers were 75 per cent in the south. Right now, by far the majority is done in the southern part of the area.
Senator Massicotte: Therefore, are there approximately 7,000 trips per year in the Vancouver port? Is that a good number?
Capt. Obermeyer: That is a good number, yes.
Senator Massicotte: If the proposed new pipeline were put in place, that number would go up by how many trips per year?
Capt. Obermeyer: Are you talking about Kinder Morgan, senator?
Senator Massicotte: Yes.
Capt. Obermeyer: With Kinder Morgan, we will be moving from 5 a month to 25 a month. You are looking at quite an increase, but then I have to compare with where we were with our assignment numbers 10 years ago. We have had a steady decline in ships through the area both north and south due to vessel size increasing. We were up at 14,000 assignments 10 years ago, and we are now down to 12,000, so we do have quite a bit of capacity.
The number of pilots has not changed that dramatically. From our perspective, for the Kinder Morgan increase we are hopefully getting back to where we were.
Senator Massicotte: If I am correct, the increase would be approximately 240 per year if that pipeline were built. Is that accurate?
Capt. Obermeyer: That is what we understand, yes.
Senator Massicotte: From 7,000, it would go up to maybe 7,200. Meanwhile, it was as high as 9,000 not many years ago. Is that the accurate?
Capt. Obermeyer: That is accurate.
Senator Massicotte: Is it also accurate to say that in spite of that increased traffic, which is not insignificant, you do not see any increased risk to safety or security from that increase?
Capt. Obermeyer: That is accurate, largely due to the number of mitigations we have put in place following the five years of risk assessment, just to move it by the one metre.
Senator Massicotte: The St. Lawrence Seaway is a heavily populated area. Do you have any sense of what the volume is there?
Capt. Obermeyer: Unfortunately, I do not.
Senator Massicotte: Is it much greater than the 7,000 a year?
Capt. Obermeyer: My understanding, and I am sure I can check with my counterpart in the St. Lawrence, is that they do more assignments than we do. I believe they are up close to the 18,000 or 20,000 mark compared to us.
Senator Massicotte: Is their safety record largely comparable to yours?
Capt. Obermeyer: Yes.
Senator Massicotte: Despite the fact it is heavily populated and obviously has significant risk with nearly double the volume, same safety record, then volume is not an aspect in safety. It looks like we have the same norm. That seems to confirm that it seems to be very safe.
Capt. Obermeyer: That is correct. If you look back to our past history when we were doing 13,000 or 14,000, we were still in the area of 99.9 per cent.
Senator Massicotte: Despite the geography of Kitimat — what that territory looks like was described to us — and sensitive issues with regard to nature and the lifestyle of the Aboriginals, you are very comfortable, from what I heard in your testimony today, that the safety record can be maintained even for that area. Is my understanding correct?
Capt. Obermeyer: Yes, it can be.
Senator Wallace: As a practical matter, you are obviously very much convinced about the value of marine pilots and the safety elements they would bring to tanker transport on the West Coast. In terms of risks and incidents that could arise, you mentioned that records are kept of the performance of the vessels and all of that is screened before a vessel is able to enter a port.
However, the fact of the matter is that crews change on vessels, captains change on vessels and incidents can occur because of human error as opposed to some physical failing of a vessel. As I understand it, that is the real benefit that marine pilots bring to marine safety. You have marine pilots on board and, with their familiarity with the local conditions, they are able to provide assistance or perhaps direction to the captains and the crews.
As a practical matter, could you explain what happens if a tanker is approaching a port on the West Coast? How will the public be assured that, for example, a vessel will not enter the port without a marine pilot on board? How does that happen? Once a marine pilot is on board, how does he interact with the vessel? How does he convey the information about the local conditions to the captain so, as a practical matter, the ship is always in a safe condition? How does that work?
Capt. Obermeyer: That is a very good question, senator. I think a lot of people wonder how the whole process works.
When they are 96 hours out, the ship will have to make a report to vessel traffic services and fill in whether they have any deficiencies in equipment, et cetera. When they are 24 hours out, they will have to have had an order placed for a pilot through their local agent. That will be confirmed 12 hours out. Three hours out, we will contact them through our dispatch office directly on radio as it approaches the Victoria area for the pilot station. Half an hour before she arrives, our launch goes out. The pilot will be on board the launch.
The first thing the pilot does as he is going out is to look at the ship from a condition perspective. Does it look like it is well maintained? Is it rusted and weather beaten? They also check what the draft is as the vessel approaches the launch. He then climbs up the pilot ladder, and if the pilot ladder is not in very good condition, all of these are keys to the pilot to be aware that things may not be as good as he thinks they are.
He then gets to the bridge, introduces himself to the captain and does what we call a bridge resource management meeting. At that meeting, he will ask for confirmation that the equipment on the ship is working and in good order, that he can get emergency full astern when he needs it.
Once all of that has been agreed to and he explains what course they will take and the passage and the transit to the master, the vessel carries on toward Vancouver. The whole time that pilot is on board he is monitoring the bridge watch-keeping officers and the master.
The Pilotage Act states that the pilot has the responsibility for the safe navigation of their vessel. He is responsible to the master, and the master can only override him if he believes the pilot is placing that vessel in danger. Overall, the pilot has complete conduct of that ship. He is giving the helm orders and he indicates where that ship needs to go or not go.
He is also in contact through the passage with vessel traffic, giving updates of ETAs, et cetera. If he feels at any time that the master is not obeying his helm and engine orders, he will call vessel traffic and state, ``The master has taken conduct of the ship; I am no longer in charge and the vessel is going to anchor.'' We then step in and have a hearing. It is very rare that a master overrides or tries to interfere with the pilot's instructions.
From the time the vessel first appears on the horizon to the time the vessel is alongside, it is monitored in a number of ways. The first eyes out there are the pilot's.
We have had occasions where there have been issues and the pilot was unhappy and said, ``I am putting this vessel to anchor at Constance Bank off Victoria. We are not coming in, not until these things are rectified.''
We are not a police force, but we have a lot of authority when it comes to the safe movement of ships.
Senator Wallace: Thank you very much for that, captain. That was very helpful.
When we think of tanker movement on the West Coast, the Exxon Valdez is still on the minds of many. It was a very bad experience. You mentioned that double-hull tankers are the requirement today. How would you compare today's tanker requirements to those of the Exxon Valdez, as well as the role of pilots today versus what did or did not exist at the time of the Valdez?
Capt. Obermeyer: That is another good question and one I am asked a lot, because the Exxon Valdez is always held up as the disaster that it was.
Let us look at the Valdez. It was a single-hull tanker. It had no pilot on the bridge, no escort tugs and it had defective equipment on board. We know all of those things.
With respect to what we have now on our coast, we will not talk about Enbridge; we will talk about Kinder Morgan because we are living this and have been for 50 years down south. Right now we have well-equipped, double-hull tankers. We have pilots, and often two pilots, coming through Second Narrows in the port. On a loaded tanker you have two pilots. Going through Haro Strait and Boundary Pass, for the large crude carriers you have two pilots.
You also have escort tugs, both through the harbour and through Haro Strait and Boundary Pass. Add to that the pilot's personal unit, the laptop, with all his ancillary equipment, and you are not comparing apples to apples when you look at what the Exxon Valdez had and what we have now.
Senator Patterson: Your annual report notes way over 99 per cent of the assignments in the five-year period between 2007 and 2011 have been incident-free, with a total of 24 incidents reported during that time. There were a decreasing number of incidents as well generally in that time. I do not want to make too much of it, but I know there are classes of incidents and all of the incidents were in the third class, class C, with a lower risk to navigation. Could you describe the nature of those incidents generally?
Capt. Obermeyer: I am assuming you are looking at our last year's annual report. The majority of incidents that occur are class C. I do not believe we have had a class A on this coast since I have been in this position.
A class C incident is what we term a ``fender-bender,'' where you are coming alongside and at the last minute something does not go as planned. You have a heavier than normal landing and you either scrape some paint or you damage a fender.
Does that answer your question, senator?
Senator Patterson: Yes, thank you.
We are looking at the potential of increased marine traffic. Has your organization, the pilotage authority, made preparations to respond to this? Will you be able to respond to increased traffic with the necessary resources?
Capt. Obermeyer: This is where I lose the sleep. The problem that we have right now is that there are so many proposed projects on paper: eight LNGs, one crude oil in the north and the expansion of crude oil in the south. If everything happens, we actually need eight more pilots, and we need eight more senior pilots. We need a seven-year pilot to handle the VLCCs that we have, so we need to be hiring right now. The problem we have is that none of us knows whether one or any of the proposed projects are going to happen. That is what we are struggling with right now. Do we ramp up and then nothing happens, or do we wait and then try to ramp up?
The truth is that we do have enough slack that we can get by very easily if one or two of the projects started. With respect to the Kinder Morgan, which is the most likely to occur, we do not need to ramp up at all. It is only in the north where, if all of the LNG and all of the crude oil comes to fruition, we need eight more pilots. It is not a lot, but it needs seven years of training.
Senator Patterson: Can talk about the sources of revenue for your operations? Does part of your revenue come from the actual volume of traffic, or is your revenue derived independent of traffic and fees?
Capt. Obermeyer: Revenues are derived from a few areas. The first is for the pilot services that we provide. It is based on vessel size and the number of hours that the pilot spends on board the vessel. We also get paid for the use of our launchers in putting the pilots on the vessel or taking them off. We own all of the launchers and all of the crews are our employees. The pilots, on the other hand, are contract for the most part, and they derive their income from actual work. Obviously, if there are more jobs, they will have a bigger income. If there are fewer jobs, they get less income.
Senator Ringuette: I have two different lines of questioning. First, you describe in your statement that you do community outreach in speaking with municipalities and First Nations. Do you also meet with the provincial government and, if so, how often?
Capt. Obermeyer: We do not meet with the provincial government on a regular basis. We have had meetings with the transportation sector from time to time, but we are more focused on the federal jurisdiction portion of the coast, so our outreach is really to explain to people who we are and what we do, and, second, to find people to become pilots. It is always a two-fold community outreach.
Senator Ringuette: I can understand. I have a good long-time friend who used to be a pilot on the St. Lawrence Seaway, which brings me to my next question.
You have a national pilot association that we know used to be very active on Parliament Hill. You talked about training in Copenhagen and the very sophisticated equipment that you carry along with you to do your tasks. Are you aware whether all the other pilotage authorities have undergone the same kind of training you have? Has it become a national standard, or is it only your particular authority that has undertaken that training and the sophistication of equipment?
Capt. Obermeyer: That is a good question, senator. All of the authorities are engaged in training. Not all authorities use the PPUs because not all of the authorities have the same types of passages we do. The St. Lawrence pilots do have the PPUs and do similar training to us. The Great Lakes Pilotage Authority with the narrow areas for the locks also uses PPUs. The Atlantic pilotage is looking at it but has not gone that route yet. It is a much different area because they have port piloting compared to river piloting or coastal piloting like we do.
There are differences, but all of us are engaged in training and we are all compliant with IMO Resolution A.960, which indicates that at least once every five years you should be doing training with the pilots.
The Chair: I appreciate your testimony, captain. You said we have been moving crude oil out of the Port of Vancouver for 50 years. I am aware of that. Have there been any incidents?
Capt. Obermeyer: There have been none that I am aware of and absolutely none in the time that I have been on this coast, which is 21 years. I am told there have been none prior to that. I had a look through the archives and the records and could find no mention of an incident with an oil tanker. With my 21 years on this coast, I can categorically state that there has not been one.
The Chair: What is the busiest port in the world that would handle VLCCs? Is there a port you know of where we could perhaps talk to someone for testimony similar to yours?
Capt. Obermeyer: Quite a few ports come to mind. I am not sure if I am right, Mr. Chair, but I think Rotterdam would be one.
The Chair: Our staff could talk to you later on and maybe find that out. I think that would be important for us to look at.
I assume that tankers going from Valdez, Alaska, to Cherry Point on the lower part of Vancouver Island would be piloted by American pilots. Do you know how many tankers go through there on a regular basis and whether there been any incidents?
Capt. Obermeyer: I do not have the number, and I am not aware of any incidents occurring. I did ask the Puget Sound pilots recently to give me the number, but I have not heard as yet.
The Chair: Could we bother you for that information, please? I think that would help us a bit.
Is the Puget Sound similar in size to the Douglas Channel?
Capt. Obermeyer: In some areas it is but in some it is narrower. The narrowest point of the Douglas Channel is 1,400 metres, approximately, and I believe some of the areas that the Puget Sound pilot takes the tankers are less than that. I will get that information to your staff.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your testimony. The questions were very good and the answers were very good. I appreciate that you got up early this morning to help us out on what we think is a very important study, which we would like to get out by the end of June.
Thank you and have a good day.
Capt. Obermeyer: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators.
(The committee adjourned.)