Shell at T-5 updates: Canoe procession/rally Sunday; ‘T-5 Intervenors’ seek to join city permit fight; more

Newest developments in the ongoing Shell presence at Terminal 5 and challenges to it:

WHAT’S UP AT THE DOCK: The latest vessel in the Shell fleet to come dock by the Polar Pioneer is the supply ship Harvey Explorer:

Lynn Hall shared the photo, noticing its arrival in Elliott Bay around 2 pm Friday; it’s one of the vessels specifically called out in the U.S. Coast Guard rule for “safety zones (and) restricted navigation area” related to the Shell Arctic-drilling fleet. We’re also seeing, frequently checking MarineTraffic.com, what appears to be a more constant presence of police/security/port tender boats near T-5. The “Shell No” coalition says it’s watching for signs of potential departure any day now; members expect to deploy a “rapid response” flotilla once they get those signs. It’s based at Don Armeni Boat Ramp:

We photographed the flotilla HQ last night, while musicians performed on the protest barge offshore.

The next major event announced at the barge is tomorrow:

CANOE PROCESSION/RALLY TOMORROW: The Native advocacy movement Idle No More is organizing a canoe procession and rally tomorrow, starting with departure from Don Armeni 10-11 am tomorrow, followed by a rally on the platform, and concluding with a blessing ceremony in late afternoon. The latest information is being posted via this Facebook event page.

MARITIME ‘INTERVENORS’ ASK TO JOIN APPEAL OF CITY ACTION: As first reported here last month, it’ll be late July before the city Hearing Examiner hears the Foss/Port/Shell appeal of the city’s “interpretation” saying the fleet shouldn’t be here. The newest document filed in the case is in support of Foss/Port/Shell, from maritime interests calling themselves the “T-5 intervenors.”

The “T-5 intervenors” are listed as: Alaska Marine Lines, American Seafoods Company, American Waterway Operators, Arctic Fjord, Inc., Arctic Storm, Inc., Ballard Oil Company, Crowley Maritime Corporation, Glacier Fish Company, Premier Pacific Seafoods, Sailors’ Union Of The Pacific, SSA Terminals, LLC, Transportation Institute, and Vigor Industrial LLC. They are asking for permission to “intervene” and show support for the appellants in this case. Their document, embedded above, says they believe that if the interpretation is upheld, it will adversely affect their interests, which, they say, are not exactly the same as Foss, Shell, and the Port:

DPD’s attempt to reinterpret an issued permit after-the-fact has serious far reaching implications on the viability and reliability of the myriad and numerous permits granted to and relied upon by the T-5 Intervenors. For example, any one of the T-5 Intervenors could potentially receive a Notice of Violation at a moment’s notice upon DPD’s reinterpretation of their permits in response to intense political pressure. Or fishing vessels or freight barges could be barred from calling into and docking or mooring for off-season storage and maintenance at Port facilities because DPD changed its mind regarding those operations for similar perceived political reasons at issue in the Appeal. Such a reinterpretation that effectively ejects vessels from their regular operation will undoubtedly and indirectly affect Vigor’s, SSA Terminals, LLC’s and Ballard Oil’s ability to service the array of shipbuilding, repairing, fueling and loading needs of such vessels and operators throughout the region. Neither T-5 Intervenors— nor anyone doing business in Seattle for that matter— can afford to have the terms of their permits and entitlements redefined after issuance. While the Appellants are focused on the Permit and Interpretation at issue in this Appeal, the T-5 Intervenors are focused on the sanctity and security of the permits and entitlements that are part of the bedrock of the maritime industrial community in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest.

The Hearing Examiner now will decide whether to allow this group to intervene. Its filing came days after a decision granting environmental groups’ motion to intervene on the city’s side.

Yardvark June 13, 2015 (6:58 pm)

Huge thanks to all those who continue to take a stand against Shell’s illegal occupation of our ports.

redblack June 13, 2015 (7:04 pm)

For example, any one of the T-5 Intervenors could potentially receive a Notice of Violation at a moment’s notice upon DPD’s reinterpretation of their permits in response to intense political pressure.
.
yep. and your point is?
.
it’s simple. the T-5 intervenors are obviously decent players in our local port economies. if they play by the rules – arbitrary or not – and do right by our communities, “intense political pressure” won’t be applied in their direction.
.
but comparing the T-5 intervenors’ business practices to shell’s is absurd. for example, if vigor had an environmental disaster in the duwamish waterway, the port, city, county, and state would collude to shut them down and penalize them forthwith.
.
does anyone really believe there’s a government big enough to stop shell from dropping anchor anywhere they damn well please and doing what they damn well please?
.
by the way, what new jobs is shell creating here? anyone see any “now hiring” signs hanging from that monstrosity? betcha dollars to doughnuts that shell has teams of highly trained folks that follow those rigs around.
.
nah. they just need a port that doesn’t cost them too much and will accept their wastewater without a fuss.

ChefJoe June 13, 2015 (7:28 pm)

Really redblack, you think if the city decided to re-interpret permits selectively that’s not a knife hanging over their heads ?
.
What’s to prevent some pressure from saying any fish offloaded at a dock must be from sustainable catches, or maybe “no nuclear powered vessels at our port” blocking seafair visits ?
.
I’m glad the other port operators are filing to be “intervenors” which is one process to basically preserve their right to appeal in whatever the outcome is.

Ben June 13, 2015 (8:03 pm)

Looks like fun! I’ll bring the beer and smokes.

ChefJoe June 13, 2015 (8:23 pm)

Shouldn’t this “Their document, embedded above, says they believe that if the appeal is upheld, it will adversely affect their interests, which, they say, are not exactly the same as Foss, Shell, and the Port:” actually say “Their document, embedded above, says they believe that if the city’s interpretation is upheld, it will adversely affect their interests, which, they say, are not exactly the same as Foss, Shell, and the Port:” or “appeal is rejected” ?

WSB June 13, 2015 (8:28 pm)

Thanks, CopyEditorJoe, will check on that and fix if I mangled it. (edit) Not mangled but interpretation indeed needed to replace “appeal”; fixed. Also had a bad line break in the list of “T5 Intervenors.” – TR

KT June 13, 2015 (9:58 pm)

Isn’t that tent and aren’t those trucks parked in the area that SPD is supposedly cracking down on?

JayDee June 13, 2015 (10:03 pm)

This whole thing is absurd–Both DNR and DPD are bowing to political pressure. The rig is not different from a cargo ship when docked, and in fact may provide more temporary habitat for juvenile salmon due to shading and a more complex substructure. Plus the Matson ship the Lurline has been sitting in the east Waterway since at least May 2009. Docking a drill rig and servicing it is no different in substance than mooring a cargo ship. This is a port city people, and we need to keep it one. Go to SF if you want a rich people’s Disneyland.
–
Foss Maritime is paying like $300K rent a month. We should be happy they are. Reducing demand for drugs (oil) is more effective at keeping Shell from exploring in the Arctic because that is expensive oil, especially in development. When my roof is replaced, I am seriously considering solar panels because it seems to be scaring the monopoly utilities to death. That should lower the price of natural gas and oil.

Mike June 13, 2015 (10:27 pm)

Who do I file a complaint to at the city level regarding the illegal encampment in the parking lot? That’s not a car, that’s also not a boat trailer parked with it’s back end in first.
.
So, who is it we contact? They’ve been camped there for a while now.

Smitty June 14, 2015 (7:06 am)

Mike has a good question.

WSB you guys are usually “johnny on the spot” with inquiries like Mikes.

Please post a link. Edward R Murrow would approve of your actions.

Thanks

WSB June 14, 2015 (7:44 am)

It’s a city park. They might have a permit for all I know. Or not. If you think they’re illegally parked, you can call SPD – that’s how parking enforcement is dispatched. Otherwise, call Parks – I don’t have a specific link or number – sometimes all I do is google to answer a question, and anybody can do that. – TR
- WSB June 14, 2015 (10:48 am)
  
  UPDATE: Talking about this with co-publisher Patrick Sand as we arrived at Don Armeni a few minutes ago to check on today’s rally, he told me that the police who were here Friday night said the group DOES have a permit for the space they are using. I didn’t realize this because he went over to talk to the officers and to photograph two men who were sitting closer to Harbor Island with a protest sign facing toward the street, while I walked in the other direction to sit down and publish something to our site. – TR

ChefJoe June 14, 2015 (7:57 am)

Mike, when you’re not sure who to contact, you can let the city figure it all out.

http://www.seattle.gov/customerservice/request.htm

redblack June 14, 2015 (9:57 am)

no sensible person is decrying our port industry. like i’ve said, we have good players – and a few bad ones – here that employ a lot of blue collar folks.
.
the issue at hand is that the port looked the other way when foss leased T-5 to shell, then announced it to the public. when the city asked for a permit review, shell’s response was “go ahead and squeal, but we’re doing this anyway.” the permit reviews, fines, appeals, and hand-wringing will go on for years in the courts, and shell will blithely sail the rig off to the arctic with impunity, and won’t spend a dime (outside of the lease) for the bother. the cost of doing business, right?
.
just saying that no one likes a bully, except for those who aspire to being bullies themselves. again, none of the port’s other lease holders can get away with what royal dutch shell does.
.
this ain’t about oil for me. that’s a completely different argument. it’s about corporate hegemony and governance of public resources. the port of seattle is shell’s hand puppet at this point.

ChefJoe June 14, 2015 (11:08 am)

They’re required to keep a copy of the permit at the site at all times (and also to have $1M in insurance for the event). The cost for Seacrest and the boat ramp area is $25/hr. There’s also a contact person for permits, Kyle Griggs.

http://www.seattle.gov/parks/reservations/permits.htm

Ray June 14, 2015 (11:51 am)

WSB,

Thanks for the update regarding the permit. If you get a chance and find out where we can renew either this permit or the park reservation calendar, the information would be appreciated. I am looking into it as well and will forward any information I find.

WSB June 14, 2015 (1:16 pm)

I’m guessing you mean review – Honestly, just go up and ask at the tent. We’ve long since left Don Armeni and I don’t expect to go back today. Don’t know if there is an online calendar but searching will bring it up if it is. The city has layers of “special events” and other types of permitting in its My Neighborhood map but I find it almost impossible to slog through and sometimes way too general (at least in terms of the kind of things we’re usually researching, road work etc.) – TR

coffee June 14, 2015 (1:20 pm)

Looks like a lot of petroleum based products those protesters are using…..
And furthermore, I wish the protesters would dip into their personal accounts and compensate the small business owners who are taking hits because they block traffic and shut down operations. In my option I can’t support their actions.

G June 14, 2015 (1:47 pm)

Redblack,

There are a lot of forms of hegemony, and they aren’t all corporate. It’s all bullying, whether it comes with corporate pinstripes or under the environmental banner. One uses the weight of the corporate resources, the other get it’s legitimacy by pretending to speak for the people. As the song goes, everyone want to rule the world, or be controlled by someone.

redblack June 14, 2015 (7:05 pm)

G – salient points.
.
but in my opinion, we, the people, should be able to regulate any and every entity that does business in our community.
.
having said that, when was the last time you voted in royal dutch shell’s board of directors’ meeting? or maybe you have some sway over foss maritime’s business decisions…

redblack June 14, 2015 (7:16 pm)

chef joe – is foss also required to post copies of shell’s permits at the duwamish west waterway?
.

ChefJoe June 14, 2015 (8:53 pm)

I’m not sure redblack. I just saw the blurb about requiring a copy of the permit be on site at the park permet request form. I’m sure you can request a copy of the T5 permits through public records requests to find out more details.

http://www.seattle.gov/parks/reservations/Docs/park_use_application.pdf
“Retain Permit: The user must retain a copy of their permit on the premises throughout the scheduled event.”

There’s also a blurb about contacting the fire marshal for permits if you’re going to cook/warm with propane or other open flames, so there’s potentially additional permits required for using the park on an ongoing homecamp basis.

redblack June 15, 2015 (5:01 pm)

i hope the staff on the polar explorer – and future shell tenants, because there will be more – have all of their permits for safely cooking and serving food in public waterways, too. i’m sure those are also a matter of public record, and easily viewable. you know, without a FOIA request.

Sorry, comment time is over.