eneral Mayor Council G FILE t# {913Cf)g)y t::IdL From: James Ronback [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 20122:11 PM To: Mayor & Council Cc: Betty Swedberg; Carol Day; Barbara Huisman; Olga T; Judy Williams; Otto Langer; Jl 8.01 Williams; James Ronback; Bill Pekonen; Scott Carswell; Don Pitcairn; Mike Brotherst! George Harvie Subject: VAPOR Delegation to Council in September TYPE: IK.ft.CS ,tv 6, ~ ( To Mayor and Council July 24th, 20 1 ~ EPT: C ltvks . cArLr Corporation of Delta, BC - -- , A. T. #: \\3 10 35 comments:' tJv ';t~/ >h 'L We are writing to request that our society, VAPOR, be added to the agenda ofthe City Council p:iliil~~~y~ J meeting in September. We need approximately 6 to 8 minutes to bring you up to date since our last delegation to Council one year ago. We will brief you on the results of our meeting with Port Metro Vancouver, our critiques of the Tanker Traffic Study and the V AFFC business case, and explain the need to pick an option that minimizes the worst case regrets in providing toxic and flammable jet fuel to YVR. VAPOR is a grass roots society that is working to stop the proposed the 80 million liter .ret fuel taDk farm and marine facility on the south arm of the Fraser River directly across from the Deas Island Park. Our directors includes a marine biologist, a safety expert and many others that can answer your questions and provide essential information on the V AFFC proposal and the OTHER options. VAPOR supports the two attached options from the V AFFC proposal: # 3 upgrade of the existing Kinder Morgan jet fuel pipeline from the Chevron Burnaby refinery to YVR. # 8 a new pipeline to the Cherry Point refinery in Washington State. Both of these options avoid the need for huge jet fuel Panamax tankers to travel on the Fraser River estuary and the unload onto a 80,000.000 liter jet fuel storage facility on the waters edge. Be aware that the combined stored energy in the tank farm and a Panamax tanker unloading flammable and toxic jet fuel at the marine terminal is more than the energy stored in 1,000,000 tons of TNT. In the event of a catastrophic incident such as an explosion, fire and jet fuel spill at the marine terminal and tank farm, these alternate pipeline-only options will provide much more protection for the environment of the Fraser River estuary and the fishing industry and the safety of the residents and workers on both sides of the Fraser River, Delta and Richmond, as well as the patrons and workers of the Entertainment and Sports complex nearby, A safer and more reliable pipeline-only solution will also reduce hazardous tanker traffic in the Salish Sea, Fraser River estuary and Burrard Inlet as well eliminate jet fuel tank truck traffic on the highway. Vicki Huntington MLA and Kerry-Lynn Findlay MP have come out against the VAFFC Jet fuel proposal along with Richmond City council, Linda Reid MLA and others . We can provide council with a brief for easy reference and we will make a short presentation. Thank you very much, 1 Jim Ronback, P. Eng. (Retired) Director of VAPOR 1530 Kirkwood Road Delta, Be V4L 101 604948 1589 www.vaporbc.com 604.240.1986 604.271.5535 OPTION # 3 Pipeline to Burnaby 2 UPGRADE OR REPLACE THE EXISTING PIPELINE DELIVERY SYSTEM The existing 40-kilometre pipeline system was built in the late 1960s, when four refineries were operating in the area. Only the Chevron Refinery remains and it provides only 40% of current fuel required at YVR. Another 40% arrives by tanker or barge at the Westridge Marine Terminal on Burrard Inlet. These two sources still do not meet YVR's needs, and have to be augmented by daily tanker truck deliveries from Washington State [remaining 20%). Option 3 contemplated an upgrade to the existing pipeline or a complete replacement to accommodate current and future fuel demand. PROS CONS • Partially existing footprint Ii Kinder Morgan Canada owns the pipeline and rjght~ .. Meets peak & long~term demand of-way, so an upgrade or replacement IS not within $ Reduced reliance on road tanker trucks YAFFC's control G Uses existing Marine Terminal facilities .. An upgraded or replaced pipeUne would require additional facilities at Westridge Marine Terminal @ Modernizes the pipeline system for receiving marine shipments and storing fuel, e Potentially more socially acceptable and these facilities are not part of the pipeline system and are owned by a third party • The option of upgr~ding the existing pipeline with the addition of pumping stations would only provide a short~term soLution, and not meet the Long~term needs of YVR $ Replacement of or twinning the 40~kilometre pipeline would be very difficult and expensive due to ongoing operations and the compLex route through Burnaby and Richmond '&I Option does not provide increased access to offshore sources and therefore achieves a low evaluation score for security and flexibility of suppLy genda . ~hj" Mayor Council A FILE # 13l/b t) -&0- t,~ II/"\...- U'l ~ From: Carol Day [[email protected] N Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 20128:12 AM C1"I To: Linda Reid ; Rob Howard; John Yap; Vicki Huntington MLA; Fin Donnelly; Mayor & Councilt;: Richmond - MayorandCounciliors; Alice Wong MP ; "The Honourable Kerry-Lynne Findlayil!ilp (Delta - Richmond East)"; MP Prime Minister2; Premier Clark; [email protected]; Peter Ke~ Cc: Barbara Huisman; Betty Swedberg; carol DAY; Jim Ronback; Judy Wiliams; Judy William ~ Otto Langer; Scott Carswell Subject: VAPOR letter to airlines Attachments: VAPOR Letter to Airlines Sept 20, 2012 FINALjrA1 .doc This is a copy of our letter to the Airlines in the V AFFC asking them to look at better options for JET FUEL delivery to the Vancouver International Airport Please see the attached letter Thanks very much. Carol Day CHAIR VAPOR on behalf of the board of directors 604.240.1986 -YPE _ ~'S -to ~ . \ F 604.271.5535 DEPT C A -\ G.- [email protected] www.catsigns.ca ~ . T # \4V~le ·omments: \ ,i) c/e~ (W/I l.\ ( ' . rJovU'f\ be,. S( ( l..- Iz <2 j v, Ia, ('{j cef;" :J 1 V.A.P.O.R An Open Letter to Air Canada and WestJet and the other airlines that own the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (V AFFC). September 20, 2012 Dear Airline Presidents: Why are some Pipelines Acceptable and Why Others Must be Rejected: (Why some pipelines eliminate tanker traffic and other pipelines increase tanker traffic.) In our discussions with many people and reading Vancouver area newspapers it is ohvious that the public is confused by the VAFFC (for servicing Vancouver International Airport - YVR) jet fuel and other crude oil pipeline proposals. Many Vancouver area environmentalists and common sense people are supporting a pipeline only optiori to transport jet fuel to YVR. Whereas, in Northern BC similar environmentally " concerned citizens are opposing a dual pipeline to ship Alherta diluted tar sands oil (bitumen) from Fort McMurray to Kitimat. Why is there this difference in the positions taken by like minded people on very similar issues? Are not all pipelines similar? In 1989 the federal government rejected a proposal by the VAFFC (owned by Air Canada, WestJet and about 24 other airlines) to ship toxic and flammable jet fuel into the Fraser River by barges. Despite that, in 2010 VAFFC came back with a proposal to ship jet fuel into the Fraser River by means of very large Panamax tankers. In this latest proposal the risk to fish, wildlife, property, human safety and recreation is much greater. It is urged that the airlines get their heads together and uphold their stated environmental policies and he proactive and precautionary in their thinking so we would not have this major conflict. It is obvious to anyone that the Fraser River and its estuary and fish and wildlife resources are of great value and human and property safety is essential to the public interest. Therefore your airlines must buy into the concept of protecting the estuary and its inhabitants and not locate a hazardous jet fuel transportation and storage facility in the middle of this world class estuary. You should maintain your existing jet fuel supply from Burnaby (the pipeline from the Chevron Refinery has been in place and used for over 40 years with no spills) and in addition you must pursue the option to build a pipeline to the BP (ARCO) refinery at Cherry Point to supplement and ensure your long term stable and safe jet fuel supply. This would get your hazardous jet fuel tank trucks off our roads, bridges and jet fuel tankers off the Salish Sea, out of Burrard Inlet and keep them out of the fragile Fraser River Estuary. The BP refinery at Ferndale now supplies 60 percent ofYVR fuel but by environmentally unfriendly methods, i.e., barges and fuel trucks. This same BP refinery incidentally supplies jet fuel by pipeline to the more distant Seattle and Portland airports­ distances that are at least 3 and 7 times further away than YVR from that refinery. V AFFC argues that YVR must have access to cheaper offshore jet fuel, e.g., SE Asia. If the airlines insist on the need for cheaper offshore jet fuel, they could deliver it into the Cherry Point terminal which is especially designed deep water tanker facility that has been receiving Alaska crude oil for over 40 years. Also the BP refinery and the Chevron Burnaby refineries are both hooked up to a crude oil pipeline from Alberta to assure domestic supply of oil and that is not susceptible to the transportation risks of ocean storms and potential international conflicts in Asia or the Middle East.