Port of Vancouver Discussion

[madog222]

^

A decision on the Terminal 2 project, which has taken over a decade to reach federal cabinet consideration, is expected in the next few weeks

About damn time!

Edit: Hmm, an article actually quoting someone says next few months.

The federal government is expected to soon render a crucial decision on a proposed new container terminal at the Port of Vancouver.

Ottawa has told the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority it has all the information required to decide on the environmental permitting for the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2) project.

“We would hope to hear about that decision in the coming months,” said Katherine Bamford, director of customer engagement with the port.

...

https://biv.com/article/2023/02/feds-decision-proposed-2b-delta-terminal-expected-coming-months

[chowhou]

It also expressed concerns about Terminal 2’s automation and the subsequent job losses it would result in [...]

This is the only think the port union honestly cares about. Everything else is motivated reasoning.

Let's not repeat the issues of the US port system. Unions have been good for a lot of things, but blocking port automation has been a real bad thing.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

time to approve it, get it built, and expand the port. its crazy how long this has taken. very crazy.

no wonder investments in Canada have been decreasing over the years.

[Migrant_Coconut]

On one hand, there's the risk that destroying even more salmon habitat could screw things up for the fishing industry and drive the orcas out of the Salish Sea altogether. On the other, failure to act could be disastrous for the lentil farmers...

Half of Canada’s lentils, one-quarter of its peas and all its special crops move to overseas markets in containers, said Greg Northey, vice-president of corporate affairs with Pulse Canada.

“Whole businesses are built on being able to ship containers,” he said.

So, the possibility of adding a new terminal at the port is “extremely positive” for the pulse and special crops industry.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

On one hand, there's the risk that destroying even more salmon habitat could screw things up for the fishing industry and drive the orcas out of the Salish Sea altogether. On the other, failure to act could be disastrous for the lentil farmers...

sure maybe some orcas will be impacted in the Straight of Georgia, but thats a maybe. though ive never been, and never will be a tree hugging hippie so...

in the end, we need to decide whats more important. a few orcas or the people who rely on our crops to survive around the world?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

On one hand, there's the risk that destroying even more salmon habitat could screw things up for the fishing industry and drive the orcas out of the Salish Sea altogether. On the other, failure to act could be disastrous for the lentil farmers...

Absolutely serious here, what destroyed salmon habitat? My understanding was that wild pacific salmon aren't really suffering due to habitat loss, or even suffering at all. Yes, we should ensure development is sustainable for salmon stocks but I think it's a bit shallow focused to think that lentil exports are this unimportant laughable topic compared to the danger of salmon habitat destruction.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Who said anything about tree-hugging? If something helps BC's development for high gain and few drawbacks, go for it - this is not necessarily one of those things.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

... in the end, we need to decide whats more important. a few orcas or the people who rely on our crops to survive around the world?

I'd very much like to have solid numbers for how many people will die of a pulse shortage if we don't make Deltaport slightly bigger, otherwise that's just hyperbole and it's really all about money. Of the top five lentil-eating countries, four are either the wrong way around the oceans from Vancouver, or growing their own.

Meanwhile, if the whales disappear, a decent chunk of our tourism industry disappears with them. A salmon shortage hurts the fishing industry too (the Grand Banks collapse, for example). There's more to it than just "whales or people."

Originally Posted by chowhou

Absolutely serious here, what destroyed salmon habitat? My understanding was that wild pacific salmon aren't really suffering due to habitat loss, or even suffering at all. Yes, we should ensure development is sustainable for salmon stocks but I think it's a bit shallow focused to think that lentil exports are this unimportant laughable topic compared to the danger of salmon habitat destruction.

What I do know is that eelgrass removes CO2 30x faster than trees, and salmon fry like to hide in it before growing up and moving into the open ocean... and that the Roberts Bank expansion would tear up a lot of that eelgrass and not necessarily replace it. Salmon runs are shrinking, local orcas are already losing calves due to lack of fish supply, and the heat waves have made that worse.

The port's already at 150% after DP3, and there's possible solutions for even more capacity without a massive rebuild, so I hope the feds really think about this instead of rubber-stamping it like when they bought a pipeline just to get Albertan votes.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I hope the feds really think about this instead of rubber-stamping it like when they bought a pipeline just to get Albertan votes.

I think you should put your hope in something more reliable, like a rabbit's foot or fertility rites

I don't know who to believe, the Port (which certainly has an ulterior motive) that says it can mitigate environmental impacts or the environmentalists (who often seem more anti-development than pro-environment), but the ocean is a delicate ecosystem and removing an apex predator like the orca from it through increased ship traffic and the associated ocean noise could do untold damage to the entire system.

I also know salmon have been severally negatively impacted by economic development including the construction of dams, and I really don't want to see more habitat destroyed if other watersheds aren't restored in exchange.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'd very much like to have solid numbers for how many people will die of a pulse shortage if we don't make Deltaport slightly bigger, otherwise that's just hyperbole and it's really all about money. Of the top five lentil-eating countries, four are either the wrong way around the oceans from Vancouver, or growing their own.

That graph of per capita consumption is a poor metric for what we're talking about, what you should be measuring is the raw amount of pulses consumed which makes Port of Vancouver exports make a lot more sense.

What I do know is that eelgrass removes CO2 30x faster than trees, and salmon fry like to hide in it before growing up and moving into the open ocean... and that the Roberts Bank expansion would tear up a lot of that eelgrass and not necessarily replace it. Salmon runs are shrinking, local orcas are already losing calves due to lack of fish supply, and the heat waves have made that worse.

The port's already at 150% after DP3, and there's possible solutions for even more capacity without a massive rebuild, so I hope the feds really think about this instead of rubber-stamping it like when they bought a pipeline just to get Albertan votes.

My understanding is that smaller salmon runs in recent years have been blamed on many things; Ocean temperatures, spawning river temperatures, salmon farms, parasites, disease, overfishing, too many orcas (??); but I've never heard it blamed on habitat loss. Regardless, the RBT2 project has committed to 6 offset habitat creation projects for this project so I wouldn't be concerned about habitat loss whether you're a "tree hugging bleeding heart liberal" or not.

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I don't know who to believe, the Port (which certainly has an ulterior motive) that says it can mitigate environmental impacts or the environmentalists (who often seem more anti-development than pro-environment), but the ocean is a delicate ecosystem and removing an apex predator like the orca from it through increased ship traffic and the associated ocean noise could do untold damage to the entire system.

I also know salmon have been severally negatively impacted by economic development including the construction of dams, and I really don't want to see more habitat destroyed if other watersheds aren't restored in exchange.

The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is a federal agency with a commitment to the environment in its charter and it's definitely not pretending there aren't environmental effects, that's why it has so many environmental studies and commitments. I honestly haven't even heard of any environmentalists being against this project, it's really just GCT and the port union that don't want their preferred port develoment.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I honestly haven't even heard of any environmentalists being against this project, it's really just GCT and the port union that don't want their preferred port develoment.

Many environmental groups are opposed to the Roberts Bank expansion. Ecojustice has been representing them.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Many environmental groups are opposed to the Roberts Bank expansion. Ecojustice has been representing them.

First I've heard of this. Can't say there's been much publicity around any opposition.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

First I've heard of this. Can't say there's been much publicity around any opposition.

It's been covered by the press fairly consistently. CBC, for example, the National Post, Business in Vancouver has reported it several times over the past 3 years, the local Surrey / Delta press. It's been reported in Richmond that their council is opposed.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's been covered by the press fairly consistently. CBC, for example, the National Post, Business in Vancouver has reported it several times over the past 3 years, the local Surrey / Delta press. It's been reported in Richmond that their council is opposed.

Sorry if it wasn't clear, I meant opposition by environmental groups. Looks to me like environmentalist opposition peaked in 2019 and hasn't really had much recently. The BiV article seems to be about the GCT opposition which I mentioned earlier.

[officedweller]

Yeah, so much opposition that even the container terminal company, Global Container Terminals (GCT) has proposed an alternative -
its (note GCT's self-interest) Deltaport Fourth Berth Expansion (DP4).

https://biv.com/article/2020/09/time-unc...h-4-project-best-economy-and-environment

https://biv.com/article/2021/05/gct-port...erts-bank-expansion-costly-and-misguided


Existing Deltaport and Westshore Terminals:


https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/marine/2012/m12w0207/m12w0207.html?wbdisable=true

Here's GCT's proposed Deltaport Berth 4:


https://ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/p80054/130057E.pdf

Here's the Port's Terminal 2:


https://www.richmond-news.com/local-news...end-opposition-to-port-expansion-3127579


https://www.ship-technology.com/projects/roberts-bank-terminal-2-british-columbia/

and a hilarious mockup:


http://actionintime.ca/category/roberts-bank-terminal-2/

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Sorry if it wasn't clear, I meant opposition by environmental groups. Looks to me like environmentalist opposition peaked in 2019 and hasn't really had much recently. The BiV article seems to be about the GCT opposition which I mentioned earlier.

No, the BIV article also mentions the environmental objections (see below). Obviously they were more widely reported in 2019, because that was when they were submitted, but they haven't gone away, and there's significant opposition to the Port's claim that they can generate a satisfactory substitute for the wetland that would be lost.

"Roger Emsley, executive director of the Against Port Expansion Community Group, has been one of the most vocal Terminal 2 opponents, which also include the municipal governments of Richmond and Delta.

He noted that one of the key issues regarding Terminal 2’s environmental impact stems from the creation of a large landfill island that is estimated to affect 177 hectares of the Fraser River estuary – a key area for migrating birds and marine life and their survival.

In March 2021, the VFPA said it was developing a plan to replace the existing biofilm in the Fraser River estuary responsible for feeding and supporting migrating birds. In the updated “biofilm manual” plan, port authority officials said the VFPA is now committed to creating 86 hectares of habitat to replace affected areas – 22 hectares more than the habitat that would be lost.

Emsley, however, noted that scientists from within Environment and Climate Change Canada and the federal agency both filed documents with Ottawa stating that the biofilm cannot be adequately replaced through artificial means. Neither documents have been released by the federal government and were excluded from the findings of an Impact Assessment Agency of Canada panel review of the project in 2020.

Taking aim at the credibility of the VFPA’s scientific claims to biofilm creation, Emsley argued that “science, facts and evidence demonstrate it is not possible on the scale necessary to replace what will be lost.”

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

No, the BIV article also mentions the environmental objections (see below). Obviously they were more widely reported in 2019, because that was when they were submitted, but they haven't gone away, and there's significant opposition to the Port's claim that they can generate a satisfactory substitute for the wetland that would be lost.

I just disagree there. The article is fundamentally about the GCT - VFPA conflict, the environmental impact is just brought up as an extra point of contention. The article wasn't in response to any environmental court case or protest or letter to the editor, it was triggered by the supreme court making a ruling on a court case between GCT and the VFPA. There isn't even a comment from any ecojustice representative, just some low profile community group. If this is the most vocal environmental opponent then it seems to not have a very significant environmental opposition base in my humble opinion.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, so much opposition that even the container terminal company, Global Container Terminals (GCT) has proposed an alternative -
its (note GCT's self-interest) Deltaport Fourth Berth Expansion (DP4).

Disagree there too, GCT only cares because the VFPA wants to cut them out of the pie. It's not like the DP4 proposals wouldn't have any environmental impacts either.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I just disagree there. The article is fundamentally about the GCT - VFPA conflict, the environmental impact is just brought up as an extra point of contention. The article wasn't in response to any environmental court case or protest or letter to the editor, it was triggered by the supreme court making a ruling on a court case between GCT and the VFPA. There isn't even a comment from any ecojustice representative, just some low profile community group. If this is the most vocal environmental opponent then it seems to not have a very significant environmental opposition base in my humble opinion.

I would assume (having been a journalist) that he may have been the most immediately available to get a quote from to meet a deadline when writing the article. He's just one of the environmental objectors - you seem to be ignoring the opposition to the project from environmental groups like Fraser Voices, Raincoast Conservation and the Georgia Straight Alliance, and also municipal governments in Richmond and Delta. There are several more.

Here's one of many other BIV articles that looks at the wider issues facing the Fraser River Estuary - the expansion plans being just one of the,

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I would assume (having been a journalist) that he may have been the most immediately available to get a quote from to meet a deadline when writing the article. He's just one of the environmental objectors - you seem to be ignoring the opposition to the project from environmental groups like Fraser Voices, Raincoast Conservation and the Georgia Straight Alliance, and also municipal governments in Richmond and Delta. There are several more.

I guess I am, because none of these are on my radar for this project. Maybe I'm not in the right circles but for the past few years I feel like I've been inundated with advertising and articles about DP4 vs RBT2 - and environmental issues are certainly one of the big arguments GCT has been pushing - but I haven't really encountered that much opposition from what I'd consider legitimate environmentalist groups. The ecojustice group you mentioned seems legitimate to me, but in my opinion that "Against Port Expansion Community Group" comes off as another "Rail for the Valley" community rage group. I don't GCT honestly cares about the environment at all, they're more concerned with their cut of the pie. Environmentalists to them are just controlled opposition to get their way.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The Sierra Club in WA is against it too, for whatever that's worth.

At any rate, less than half the footprint for the same capacity and cheaper upfront cost (if true) does seem like a much better deal - India gets their dahl, the wildlife keep most of their habitat, everybody's happy.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The Sierra Club in WA is against it too, for whatever that's worth.

At any rate, less than half the footprint for the same capacity and cheaper upfront cost (if true) does seem like a much better deal - India gets their dahl, the wildlife keep most of their habitat, everybody's happy.

There was an independently commissioned report comparing DP4 with RBT2 commissioned by GCT at the request of the TFN and it found that if we care about eelgrass for salmon then DP4 actually has a higher footprint. Now for the TFN it seems like there were a lot more issues for RBT2 than for DP2 but eelgrass loss was not one of them. RBT2 is physically larger, but it's built further offshore so I guess past a certain depth you're not affecting eelgrass anymore.

Also I'm pretty sure everyone accepts that RBT2 as proposed is higher than DP4 as proposed; One of GCT's arguments is that RBT2 is too much capacity.

On the other hand, there's a world where both RBT2 and DP4 are approved.