Corporate technical officer(CTO)-what's that

Imagine an P.Eng. in the Board room(unless in disguise) advising Directors about operational matters!Banks require accountants in their backrooms for sure—but complex technical operations seem also to be ‘run’ buy accountants and maybe lawyers—all good folks I know---but where are the technical officers?(Why not a Corporate Technical Officer?)—likely out ‘cleaning up the mess’!

Engineers are not sufficiently apparent in the ‘scheme of things’.What/how can we enlighten the world and improve things?Do we all ‘need, to add MBA to our CVs---My whining won’t solve the problem but the world needs to include more technical advisors in their (corporate and legislative) governance? My only remaining option is to yap at anyone that might listen—not much time left(1957 engineering grad) –though late in my mission, I try—With that in mind I do offer the occasional letter to various media and politicians,etc.—mostly in vain ,but surprisingly with the occasional personal response—So I forward this and hope that somehow we can come out of the wilderness and begin to show the world what they’re missing.Engineers, alone, won’t save the world but we do make it a better place,in my opinion!

“The Enbridge Nightmare(see recently released NTSB/Enbridge reports) is a making of their own---a lack of commitment to operational training by management and OF management can lead to Nightmares.Management often will fall back onto the old ‘dodge’ such as “we followed all the regulations,standards of the day”—give me a break—systems start to become obsolete after day 2 of startup—Besides ‘leader’s don’t follow standards,they set the standard! A cruel thing to say but life is cruel and managements’ obligations are demanding and ceaseless .So,what to do—Listening to your own people(is anyone listening?) is often the best place to start and they will tell you where to find the ‘areas of concern’ and then do something about it(but be sure have an open door policy with meaning)---Accountants have their role but complex physical systems need ongoing scrutiny—operations and engineering folks should be at the fore---so where’s the Financial Officer in this picture---probably in the Board room advising about ways to increase share value,OK. Now tell me where the Corporate Technical Officer is---well firstly ,‘We don’t have such a beast’—they(engineers,operations people) always want to spend money –and that’s not our business,etc. Result –often one big screw up—or maybe 2! Think of Kalamazoo oil spill, Ocean Ranger oil platform loss,Space ship Challenger disaster,Walkerton E-Coli fiasco,Ford Pinto scenario,etc.,etc., Hindsight engineering is not easy---but foresight engineering is one hell of a lot more difficult-right?—We may have to devote a lot of resources to this sometimes trial and error engineering—a costly exercise for sure---like insurance. But if, as a Director, I’m not held accountable and I can deflect the CONSEQUENCES to someone else—to hell with worrying about CONSEQUENCES! Eventually , a Board’s delaying of action can be the most costly ‘action’—will Enbridge survive this fiasco—they probably will survive---I’m hoping to see an epiphany by the Enbridge Board—maybe not as significant as Lyndon B. Johnson where he made the impossible ,possible by uttering 3 words “we shall overcome”—see http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/johnson.htm But we can only hope that we can overcome and get on with the job! “

 

 

The missing link?

This is about the 1973 freighters collision near Point Atkinson and the resultant fuel oil spill clean up activities at Ambleside Beach. See Hansard link for details. We’re told that “A slick extends from Fisherman's Cove to Ambleside, from 5- to 30-ft. wide, and has hit the rocky beach at Dunderave and Ambleside” –a relatively minor leak?..The collision occurred on a clear night and calm seas we’re told.

--from Hansard http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/30th3rd/30p_03s_730925p.htm see pages 207,208

---Ambleside photo http://www.johndenniston.ca/blogwp4/?p=456

---Twicsy--more Ambleside photo http://twicsy.com/i/Q9wwZb#A3TbQ11UBM7jZe4A.03

Here’s an interesting observation(I think)--Not too long ago I was able to find the Vancouver Sun oil spill (high quality) pictures and report online ,with this link below--

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/history+September+1973/7294276/story.html

--but now the Vancouver Sun ‘page cannot be found’ I’m told??? Did the Sun PULL that photo,why?---The ‘twicsy’ link above shows the cleanup effort of some young volunteers—a picture I’d guess Kinder Morgan would rather be told that it... “cannot be found”

I wonder how long before ‘someone’ decides that ‘HANSARD cannot be found’??

Get on with it ,already!

Subject: Get on with it,already!

Barbara Yaffe’s recent column

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Alberta+must+respect+pipeline+concerns/7918801/story.html

prompted me to offer this comment ;

1. the oil pipeline and shipping proposals (by Enbridge and Kinder Morgan) are necessary and require some ‘adjustments’; thus far, bullying is not working!

2. oil pipe lines and oil tankers are here to stay

3. all governments (local,Provincial and Federal) want/need the the revenue

4.the outstanding/controversial issues remaining can be dealt with

5.BC public are not a “bunch of earth mothers and fathers and eco freaks” as my recent Wild Rose Land Émigré friend suggested to me —he went on to suggest that without Alberta oil we need to “figure out how to power cars and trucks and aircraft with chicken feathers from Chilliwack! Quite funny —but I suggest , likely the prevailing feeling of many Albertans.

6.BC is not trying to pull off a PQ-NL power swindle deal—(yes,a Canadian solution should be our goal)

7.our leaders (Christy,Alison and Stephen?) need to sit down and hammer out a common sense deal(I suggest Kelowna as an Alberta friendly location)

8.the idealists will always be ‘around’ but ultimately the ‘common sense’ public will decide ; a few key concerns are—Burrard Inlet location,Douglas Channel location; and based on ‘online review’ the lack of Corporate operations SAFETY CULTURE in the proponent corporations. Finally ,who pays for the inevitable oil spill—be in a Kalamazoo like swamp,near a river or major spawning area,in a harbour or on our ocean shores(insurance is offered but we want to see the details and how will these SPILL DISASTER FUNDS be created and managed)?

The public and the project proponents want to ‘get on’ with these, obviously, necessary projects. So, to our leaders ,put away your ‘blinders’—and LEAD!

Surely the public(voters) don’t NEED to wait until the next election?

--or DO WE ?

The Elephant in the room-still there!

In Prince Rupert,

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/government+questions+Northern+Gateway+experts+spill+plan/7921013/story.html ,

Terry Lake (BC Environment Minister) agreed that “this is not just about Gateway(Enbridge Pipeline)...then he (Lake)goes on to say ‘we want a regulated,legislated system...to MINIMIZE THE RISK .. and to respond to ANY incidents...and we’ve been urging the federal government to develop (coastline?) regulations,etc.—(the coastline is under federal jurisdiction).

In Ottawa,

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ottawa+spill+plan+cope+with+coming+supertankers/7920670/story.html

Scott Vaughn,Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development states that ”the Harper government’s disaster planning has not kept pace with proposals to greatly expand oilsand exports from B.C” . In 2010 there were 600 tankers on our coast; soon to be 2400 tankers(many with increased capacity).

What to do...?

1. Terry Lake’ suggestion; ‘minimize the risk’—you know, like get out of Douglas channel and Burrard inlet,etc..

2.Create a JOINT ‘project proponents and government’ oil spill OPERATIONS PLAN and financial spill DISASTER FUND –all the those benefitting to provide funding (including oil producers,shippers,pipeliners and each benefitting government) based on their share of the ‘PROFITS’ from the project.

3.Call on the world’s insurance houses and to assist in development of a ‘B.C.’ ocean Disaster Cost Recovery Fund.

4.Oil spill OPERATIONS PLAN (acquire materiel,build facilities and train staff) and develop joint plans with other jurisdictions.

Other ‘transport industries’ have similar problems—for instance,the airline industry has evolved greatly,’safety wise’—But there’s still the chance that a 747 may ‘land’ at Georgia and Granville or your bedroom—there are no guarantees—but we can always do better...if we try!

...OR someone come up with a better workable plan..please.

Seems strange that, after these everlasting NEB goings-on, a key issue (ocean oil spills) has been essentially ignored—

Yes, the problem is not within NEB terms of reference—but THE PROBLEM IS REAL and requires action—POLITICAL action,NOW!

Come on leaders—LEAD

shipping dilemma

Subject: Time for Common Sense

We must REDUCE THE PROBABILITY and minimize consequences of an ‘incident’. HOW?

1.TRAIN:— The Board of Directors must SHOW that training was DEVELOPED and DELIVERED in line with international technical and operating knowledge. Example—the Enbridge Kalamazoo pipe line failure —Were known pipe line system deficiencies addressed adequately and was maintenance and operating field personnel and control room staff training ‘up to snuff’??

The Enbridge Inc. Board of Directors is responsible for the overall STEWARDSHIP;say Enbridge;which means planning and management of ALL resources? Kinder Morgan ,likewise I’d guess.

2.Use COMMON SENSE —see PLANS A and B.

KINDER MORGAN : Proposed scary PLAN A:—Burrard inlet location:
It’s a “Tight squeeze through Second Narrows—”says “North Vancouver oceanographer Peter Baker points out that Port Metro has changed its rules to allow larger tankers, carrying 700,000 barrels of oil, to travel through Second Narrows...see link http://www.georgiastrait.org/files/share/kerSafetyExpertPanel-PB-0v1-61-5July2010-rdx.pdf read this and decide what should be done—lots of room for debate I assume—but the tankers get wider and the Narrows remain narrow.
KINDER MORGAN : PLAN B —Relocate all Kinder Morgan facilities and shipping and to ROBERTS BANK—that’s why Roberts Bank was built—yes we know that a conveyor system could be damaged as happened recently at Westshore terminals—but what about a Burrard Inlet CNR rail bridge damage ‘incident’ and SPILL at Second Narrows??...OR WORSE ?
ENBRIDGE: Proposed scary PLAN A ; Douglas Channel transit .
ENBRIDGE:PLAN B—move OUT of Douglas Channel.
BC citizens should not be asked to bear all the risks without comprehensive disaster insurance scheme in place—!
The BC public needs to see a willingness by the pipe liners to listen and respond—OR
maybe we’re left with the option of leaving the oil in the ground !! Until???
Carl Shalansky,P. Eng.(retired)
3359 Redfern Place,
North Vancouver,B.C. V7N 3W2
6049864657

Enbridge P O P lacks FIZZ

The Hearings are looking into a lot of stuff—BUT the big elephant in the room as I see it is Enbridge’s lack of corporate (by the Board of Directors) commitment to the public about to doing a better job of OPERATING their systems..their proven lack of concern about operational safety (see NTSB Kalamazoo reports,etc.) lingers in our minds—anyone can BUILD a good pipeline (although Enbridge needed to ad significantly –(half billion dollars worth!) –to boost the safety components in the 11th hour -in response to public concerns generated by the Kalamazoo NTSB report)—

the PIPE part of a pipeline is the easy part to sell—it’s the POP part that concerns many –

’P’—the party ;

‘O’-- OPERATING the

‘P’ Pipeline!

Enbridge said, here and there, that they’ve learned from the Kalamazoo and they’ve made some progress in their training and organization to do a better job. —BUT pipelines don’t improve with age the last time I checked –only a continual, due diligent, approach to ongoing system operations safety can begin to result in a safe system—the Kalamazoo line was 40 or 50 years ‘old’—as I read the NTSB report ,they were NOT impressed with Enbridge’ management of this aging system—We don’ want to see a repeat of this style of management on OUR aging Northern Gateway Pipeline..

Enbridge have not been able to convince the public that they’ll behave differently –what to me looks like unwillingness to ‘fess up’ to past screw ups—and to state categorically that they now have changed their ways.
What the public needs to see IN WRITING and at public gatherings is the NEW ENBRIDGE MANDATE about their full Board commitment to how they’ll change –show the NEW organization and spell out the details of this new approach—

The public ‘read’ Enbridge with suspicion as they BULLY THEIR WAY thru this hearing process---

My ideas about an ‘Epiphany’ may be laughable to the Enbridge folks—BUT what they’re doing to date is not convincing us that they’ll change – their pretty picture ,fluffy ads are annoying and likely counter productive..I

I stand by my lecture(Trust Enbridge?) to Enbridge—I offered this as a constructive formula of ‘repentance’ and suggestion for meaningful and progressive way to get the public and political arenas accepting the NEW ENBRIDGE—do they have the cojones –I remain doubtful---

Result;another un-built pipeline –maybe we’ll eventually see a different proponent with better savvy about ‘we peasants’ in BC--

And, I’ve not received any response from Enbridge,yet—maybe a canned response will arrive one day—as has happened occasionally in the past..