To begin with, I want to explain why exactly I chose this topic for my dissertation. Right from the start, I was sure that I would write it in English, but I could not make my mind up about the subject.
Then, on February 15 of last year, we got the terrible news about a tanker having run aground on the west coast of Wales and losing a lot of oil. This was bad enough, but what was even more shocking for me was that this oil spill had occurred exactly in the vicinity of Milford Haven, the place where my mother grew up and where a lot of my relatives live. I thought of the wonderful holidays I had spent there every year and about how beautiful this whole area is. It was terrible having to fear that the environment that was so dear to me would be destroyed. The next few days, my family and I were very anxious and followed all the latest news with great concern, as it became more and more evident that the accident had turned out to be a real disaster.
As sad as it may sound, this whole incident gave me the motivation to write my dissertation on this subject, as it was something I was deeply interested in. I decided to visit my relatives in Milford Haven during the summer holidays, so I could get a clear impression about the consequences of this catastrophe. I also wanted to talk to the people living there and therefore directly affected by the disaster, as it had happened right on their doorstep. So for me, writing the dissertation was really very interesting, even enjoyable to some extent.
Nevertheless the task was not always very easy. The incident had only happened recently and so my knowledge about it was mostly dependent on newspaper articles of which I did not even always know the date and the exact edition, as my relatives in Wales had collected them for me without paying attention to these details. But visiting the area, talking to the local population and carrying out some interviews was of great help as well.
To make clear the tragedy of such a huge oil spill taking place in such an environment, I shall begin by giving a short description of the area itself.
Contents
Preface
1. The importance of Pembrokeshire
2. The accident
3. The immediate consequences
3.1 The contributing factors
3.2 The extent of the pollution
3.2 The effects on the wildlife
3.4 The fishing ban
4. The reactions of the population
5. The clean-up operations
5.1 The clean-up operations on land and at sea
5.2 Help for the wildlife
6. Causes of and responsibility for the accident and criticism of the salvage and cleanup operations
7. The long-term consequences
7.1 The consequences for the wildlife
7.2 The consequences for the fishing industry
7.3 The consequences for the agricultural industry
7.4 The consequences for the tourist industry
7.5 The consequences for the local population Orimulsion Final Comment
Photos
List of sources
Annotations
Preface
To begin with, I want to explain why exactly I chose this topic for my dissertation. Right from the start, I was sure that I would write it in English, but I could not make my mind up about the subject.
Then, on February 15 of last year, we got the terrible news about a tanker having run aground on the west coast of Wales and losing a lot of oil. This was bad enough, but what was even more shocking for me was that this oil spill had occurred exactly in the vicinity of Milford Haven, the place where my mother grew up and where a lot of my relatives live. I thought of the wonderful holidays I had spent there every year and about how beautiful this whole area is. It was terrible having to fear that the environment that was so dear to me would be destroyed. The next few days, my family and I were very anxious and followed all the latest news with great concern, as it became more and more evident that the accident had turned out to be a real disaster.
As sad as it may sound, this whole incident gave me the motivation to write my dissertation on this subject, as it was something I was deeply interested in. I decided to visit my relatives in Milford Haven during the summer holidays, so I could get a clear impression about the consequences of this catastrophe. I also wanted to talk to the people living there and therefore directly affected by the disaster, as it had happened right on their doorstep. So for me, writing the dissertation was really very interesting, even enjoyable to some extent.
Nevertheless the task was not always very easy. The incident had only happened recently and so my knowledge about it was mostly dependent on newspaper articles of which I did not even always know the date and the exact edition, as my relatives in Wales had collected them for me without paying attention to these details. But visiting the area, talking to the local population and carrying out some interviews was of great help as well.
To make clear the tragedy of such a huge oil spill taking place in such an environment, I shall begin by giving a short description of the area itself.
1. The Importance of Pembrokeshire
It' s hard to describe the beauty of the wonderful region of Pembrokeshire in South Wales if you have not seen it yourself. It is characterised by its outstanding coastline, which is probably one of the most beautiful and interesting of all in my opinion.
Most holiday makers who visit Pembrokeshire go there because of the magnificent coastal scenery, the coast paths with their spectacular views, which are ideal for walkers, and of course because of the safe sandy beaches for family bathing and enjoyment.
Photo: St Govan's or Marloes
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
But the coastline is also of great scientific interest.1 It is an open coast that provides, with its rocky shores, sandy bays, pebbled beaches, coves, great mud flats and also rugged offshore islands, ideal living conditions for various kinds of wildlife.
There are thousands of different species that can be found in all the varied coastal ecosystems and many of them are rare and exceptional, such as certain kinds of corals, jewel anemones, sea fans, etc.2 Mammals, such as seals and dolphins, all kinds of birds and fish can also be found here. The fishing industry profits from this as the fishermen exploit fish and shellfish in very high numbers. This is of great importance to Pembrokeshire.
But it is also here that thousands of birds have their breeding places. Apart from the various kinds of gulls, many other species are to be found: guillemots, Manx shearwaters, cormorants, scoters and many more. The heather and gorse covered islands of Skomer, Skokholm, Ramsey and Grassholm are the home of many very rare kinds of birds such as the famous puffins and gannets. This has led to the protection of certain parts of Pembrokeshire as Special Protection Areas under the European Birds Directive.3
This area is also where Britain' s only coastal national park is situated. The Pembrokeshire Coast National Park consists mainly of a narrow coastal strip from the Carmarthen border of Amroth in the south to Poppit Sands in the north. Urbanised seashore areas of the Milford Haven Waterway and Fishguard are outside it. The Milford Haven waterway, where the accident occurred, is a sheltered natural harbour (i.e. the natural conditions are such that it forms a safe 17 mile long stretch of water for ships to anchor for loading or unloading or to take shelter from storms). The Haven is surrounded by the oil refineries Texaco, Elf and Gulf and the BP oil depot. The oil industry, therefore, is obviously one of the most significant industries in this area.
2. The Accident
Mr Paul Loveluck, the chief executive of the Countryside Commission of Wales once said: "If you were looking for a place not to spill oil, this would be it. The Pembrokeshire coastline is one of the most important European marine areas, if not in the world. This was a disaster waiting to happen."4 It was exactly here, that on Thursday, February 15, 1996, the tanker catastrophe began.
The Sea Empress was on its way to Milford Haven' s Texaco refinery to deliver its cargo of about 140,000 tonnes of crude oil. At about 8 p.m., the tanker struck the mid-channel rocks and several starboard and centre tanks got holed.6
This led to an initial oil spill of more than 1,000 tons. The Sea Empress began to slow down and steerage problems occurred. She headed off-course across the "deep pool", which is encircled by rocks, then drifted towards St. Anne's Head and finally ran aground in Mill Bay. Harbour tugs managed to refloat the tanker and it was then held in position in the "pool" just south of Blockhouse Point. At this time the ship was leaning at an angle of 18 degrees to the right side.
On Friday, the 16h of February, they prepared to transfer the fuel to the Star Bergen tanker. The salvage team arrived in the afternoon and later two more powerful tugs from Liverpool. They managed to reduce the angle at which the ship was leaning and the ship was kept in position for the rest of Friday.
The next day, storm winds were forecast, holding up the salvage operation. The vessel was turned to face the wind and the pilot requested permission to take it out to sea. Permission was refused however (by whom is the question) and, that evening, because of gale force winds, the lines holding the Sea Empress snapped. The ship ran aground for the second time: on the rocks at St. Anne's Head.
With the oil leaking badly and risk of explosion, the Russian crew and the salvage workers were taken off the tanker in the night to Sunday 18 and people were also evacuated from the St. Anne's Head area.
By lunch-time a salvage team was airlifted back onto the ship. The weather and water conditions were calmer by then and the world's 7th largest tug, the Chinese De Yue, arrived. In the afternoon they managed to refloat the Sea Empress and she was now kept in position by the De Yue and other tugs.
In the night to Monday 19, however, the De Yue lost one of its holding shackles and was replaced by the Anglian Duke. As the weather worsened, the Sea Empress broke loose again and ran aground, a third time.
The next day the situation got most difficult, as she was held fast by a rock that was so pointed and sharp that it had penetrated the hull of the ship from below. By then 65,000 tonnes of oil had been lost. In the evening they tried to refloat her at high tide, but were not successful. By Wednesday they managed at last to achieve their aim after having pumped air into her and as 12 tugs had been employed to pull her free at last.
It was one week after the first grounding, Thursday 22, when they managed to tow the Sea Empress to a disused jetty at Milford Haven in calm waters in order to prepare her for pumping the oil out of her onto a smaller tanker.7 At last the oil dispersion operation by ships and aircraft could begin. As the preparations were not completed by the Friday the offloading did not begin until Saturday. Over 72.000 tonnes of crude oil had been spilled by then.
On March 27, the Sea Empress left Milford Haven and lost some more fuel oil on its journey to a dry dock in Belfast, where it arrived on April 2.8 The oil spill from this tanker was the 3rd greatest ever to happen in the United Kingdom (after the Torrey Canyon, which spilled 117.000 tonnes around Cornwall in 1967 and the Braer off the Scottish coast in 1993).9 All the same, no-one at that time could imagine what vast consequences this disaster would really have for the environment.
3. The Immediate Consequences
3.1 The Contributing Factors
The damage done to the environment was even more serious than in the two previous oil disasters mentioned above. There were many factors that contributed to this. The type of oil carried by the Sea Empress was decisive: It was Forties Blend crude oil that was spilled - a mixture of crude oils that are led into the Forties pipeline in the North Sea. The resulting blend is a light oil, a third of which is supposed to evaporate from the sea surface within the first 24 hours after a spill occurs. This type of oil combines with water very quickly and forms a so-called "mousse" or emulsion (70% water and 30% oil), which has more than three times the volume of pure undiluted oil. The ship lost about 72,000 tonnes of this crude oil, but also 360 tonnes of heavy fuel oil (used to power the ship) were spilled. Although this does not sound like a large amount, it nevertheless had an enormous effect on the environment, as fuel oil is much thicker and stickier. It makes the natural cleaning process and human clean-up operations much more difficult, as it does not disperse very easily and therefore remains in the environment for a very long time.10 In addition, the tide and the weather conditions at the time of the spill are of great importance. When the worst oiling of the shoreline in and around the Haven took place, there was a spring tide of unusually great height. This meant that the water, and therefore also the oil, reached a higher level of land than normal and the following tides were not high enough to play their part in washing the oil away again. The wind, moreover, changed direction several times, so the oil was spread in many different directions.11
3.2 The Extent of the Pollution
The polluted coastline is estimated to be about 200 km long, whereby about half of this length was badly contaminated and one third slightly. The Haven itself up to the Cleddau Bridge and the shores to the south and east of Milford Haven (even as far away as Pendine Sands in Carmarthen Bay) were the worst polluted regions. But also Skomer island that lies northwest of the Haven, Lundy Island in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Coast were affected.12
Copy: oil sheen
3.3 The Effects on the Wildlife
The results the oil spill had for the environment were terrible and cannot yet be described completely. First of course the wild life suffered devastating losses. Sea birds, including many rare species, were among the worst affected. By June it was reported that more than 6,900 oiled birds of at least 28 different kinds had been collected by helpers, either dead or alive.
Two thirds of them were common sea ducks (scoters) and the rest were mostly guillemots and razorbills. The highest rate of contaminated birds was reported between February 24 and March 4.13 The disaster occurred at a very bad time of the year when the birds were returning to their breeding places on land, especially on Skomer Island or nearby Skolkholm, but also Lundy Island. These islands are nature reserves of great national and even international importance with high bird populations. Thousands of birds return to them for breeding every year.
Not only birds but also grey seals and dolphins were threatened by the oil to some extent. Many were treated in special centres but fortunately no deaths were reported.14 The marine biologist Robin Crump fears that nearly all, if not all, of the very rare green rock-pool starfish, Asterina phylactica, and about 3,000 other common starfish in West Angle Bay have been killed.
Besides this, of course, the shoreline and land environment itself suffered from the oil pollution, as limpets, periwinkles, barnacles, sea slaters, coralline algaes and seaweeds were affected to a great extent.
I must not forget especially to report about the impact of the harm done to the fish in the area. Fin fish were only poisoned in rare cases, but shellfish such as bivalve molluscs (clams, mussels, etc.) were badly contaminated.15
Copy: Welsh wildlife at risk
3.4 The Fishing Ban
As the extent of poisoning was not known, fishing within the polluted region was prohibited, first by a temporary ban.16
This was of course a severe blow to Pembrokeshire's fishing industry, as the oil threatened to make fish poisonous for eating and to diminish fish supplies in the region. On February 28, a ban was finally put on fishing within a certain area, prohibiting the catching of fin fish (such as herring, hake, ray, plaice and mackerel) and shellfish (lobsters, mussels, crabs and shrimps) and even the sale of some kinds of seaweed commonly used in some traditional Welsh dishes (e.g. laver bread).17 This area reached from St. David's Head down to the Gower Peninsula in the southeast and included all estuaries and bays along the coast (as can be seen on the following map).18
illustration not visible in this excerpt
As the contamination of fish was carefully analysed and monitored, the ban was gradually loosened. First the prohibition of salmon and sea trout fishing was lifted on May 3. On May 21, the fishermen received permission to catch again. From July 3 on, it was once more allowed to collect shellfish in the very east of the banned zone and also some other areas have recovered bit by bit. Within the Haven itself, however, this process seems to be taking longer, as it was very badly polluted and the enclosed area cannot be freed from pollution so easily by natural means as the open coastline.19
4. The Reactions of the Population
After the spill, enormous clean-up operations started to take place. Everyone seemed concerned to lend a hand and it was really amazing how many volunteers there were. These went to the beaches and helped to clean them up. This was a dirty, unpleasant job, the strong smell of the oil making it more unpleasant still.
They raised money and made donations to various organisations such as the Dyfed Wild Life Trust or the P.S.P.B. (Pembrokeshire Society for the Protection of Birds). Even young pupils in schools collected money to help these organisations and school classes were often to be seen cleaning up the beaches. In addition, practical objects like towels, sheets and washing-up liquid (used for the cleaning of oiled birds) were collected among the population. Even supermarkets were involved in this and served as collecting centres.20
The reaction of the people living in and around Pembrokeshire to the disaster was one of anger and sadness first of all. They saw all the beaches they loved to visit covered with thick black oil and they could smell the stinking fumes. The newspapers were full of letters from the public, in which people expressed their bitterness and frustration about the situation and called it "shameful"21 and "a complete tragedy".22 Even young children were obviously very upset and touched, as they were forced to realise that their former "playground" beaches, with all their rock-pools, containing interesting creatures like sea anemones and water fleas and the occasional crab or star fish, with their huge variety of shells they loved to collect, the rocks and cliffs they enjoyed climbing on, the safe clear water for bathing in and with all the adventures these beaches had to offer, had turned into horrible, oily, ugly places covered with dead fish and birds and other sea creatures. During my visit in Wales I talked to many parents who told me they had been too worried to let their children go to the beaches, as they had been afraid that they might be harmed in their health by the oil lying everywhere, not to mention the problem of removing the oil stains from their clothing. The children wrote down their feelings or expressed them in paintings, composed poems, wrote little stories and also sent letters to the Prime Minister to tell him their disgust and sadness at what had happened.23
Everyone was upset and angry that the disaster had occurred in the first place and that, when it had taken place, the salvage operation had been so slow and full of mishaps. Most local people I talked to were demanding an independent public inquiry, so that those responsible for the catastrophe would also bemaderesponsible for it with all consequences. Action groups were formed and these involved themselves in the clean-up processes. Local collections to support these groups raised high sums of money.24 One housewife in Freshwater West, a magnificent beach, which was particularly badly polluted, started collecting signatures against the use of single-skin tankers, in order to reduce the risk of another similar disaster.25
5. The Clean-up Operations
5.1 The Clean-up Operations on Land and at Sea
The enormous clean-up that was necessary on land and at sea involved a huge number of people and organisations. It was reported that almost 900 people took part in cleaning up the shoreline at a certain time. Milford Haven had its own oil spill contingency plan and the Dyfed County Council was responsible for the areas outside the Haven. The MPCU (Marine Pollution Control Unit) handled the operation at sea, whereas the JRC (Joint Response Centre) was in charge of cleaning up the shoreline. This centre has its office within the Port Authority building and consists of a technical team and an environment team, involving a large number of different organisations.26
The first five days after the disaster, the oil was recovered as much as possible from the sea surface by two small vessels belonging to the Milford Haven Port Authority. On February 21, larger recovery vessels were put into action, which were able to recover about 30 times as much oil. Two French and two Dutch ships supported the recovery of oil outside the Haven. The oil in shallow waters, however, could not be recovered by these boats, so local fishing boats using booms were put into action to drag out the emulsion to where the water was deep enough for the recovery vessels to operate again.27
The use of dispersants at sea was the subject of much discussion. The movements of the wind and the waves are able to disperse oil in a natural way, but chemical dispersants, although diminishing the harm done to the beaches and coastline in general and to wildlife on the sea surface, are a danger to life below the surface. They break up the oil into small droplets, so that it cannot affect the beaches and shoreline to such a high degree, as it remains in a much less concentrated form.28 For this reason 445 tonnes of dispersants were sprayed from aircraft onto the oily sea surface, in addition to 8 tonnes of demulsifiers that were considered necessary to separate the oil from the water beforehand and so destabilise the emulsion.29
There are still different opinions as to whether this use of chemicals has done more harm than good in the end, as it meant even more toxic pollution of the sea water and the use of the demulsifiers was not very successful.
On the shoreline, the beaches were in a terrible state. First of all people tried to clear them from the worst oil pollution and it was really amazing how many volunteers helped. The beaches were full of people shovelling away oil. Other methods of removing the oil from the beaches were the use of gully suckers, that were able to collect the oil layer on the surface, or low pressure flushing. Shingle beaches were either cleaned by taking the pebbles into areas where they could be washed by surf in a natural way. Or they were cleaned from oil in special concrete mixers. Booms in the water were also used to keep the oil from reaching the shore, but this was not always successful. A few beaches were left untouched, as it was believed that they might be able to recover naturally.30
5.2 Help for the Wildlife
The methods of cleaning the oiled seabirds were and are controversial. The RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) was responsible for co-ordinating and keeping a continual record of this work. They finally set up an emergency area in Steynton with a washing facility and full treatment equipment, where about 3,155 birds were taken in. They were collected from the beaches and transported to this centre or to RSPCA "hospitals" in Somerset, Cheshire and Norfolk. There they were washed and let free again after being ringed so that they could be recognised again later on.31
This sounds very efficient, but in an interview with Terry Leadbender (cf. tape) of the Welsh Marine Life Rescue, I got quite a different impression of the work of the RSPCA. Terry Leadbender is a volunteer in a team that devotes its time and energy to the rescue of stranded marine life and I was really very impressed to hear about the work he was doing. It was obvious that he was very angry with the RSPCA and dissatisfied with their work. He said that they were "riding on the backs" of many other similar charities and that there was such a lot of money in the society that had not been put to use, or not properly used. He accused them of having even tried to profit from the whole disaster (as many other big charities, such as the Earth Kind, have as well) by using this situation for fund-raising, but not really caring about the welfare of the affected wildlife. He said the RSPCA had put up caravans on the main beaches, where people could deliver oiled birds. They were then stuffed into boxes and transported to the hospitals on up to 6 hour journeys. He thought it was really disgusting.
People even came to him with birds they had stolen out of the vans, as they were so upset about the way these birds were treated.
Mr Leadbender felt that the RSPCA did not care at all. With their attitude, he could have no confidence in them. He also accused them of not having sufficient rescue equipment and of giving the birds no proper treatment. After the long and torturous journey in the vans, they just gave the oiled birds to any inexperienced volunteer to be washed. These inexperienced helpers were only briefly shown how to carry out the procedure and it took them about two hours for each bird. Terry Leadbender expressed how horrified he was by the way the birds were being treated and told me about the Wildlife Rehabilitation Document of June 1994. This document says that the washing of oiled birds by anyone who has not had the proper training could cause unnecessary suffering or even death, as it is a skilled task. What makes him especially furious is the fact that the RSPCA prohibited the use of bird-washing machines for a long time, although these facilities had been highly praised for their effectiveness, wherever they had been used. A bird-washing machine was flown over from France to Elf Oil's Milford Haven refinery.
Specialists claimed that this method was much more efficient and would reduce the stress caused to the birds, as the washing process takes a lot less time with these machines. Another advantage is that a lot more birds can be cleaned in the same space of time. Although this method was proved on over 2,000 birds, the RSPCA refused to use it for a long time, as they thought they would be breaking the animal experimentation laws. They said it had not yet been tested by their own technical experts.32
Terry Leadbender also said that the RSPCA's managing and co-ordination of the rescue operation was catastrophic. They always seemed to be exactly where the press was at any particular moment, making sure they appeared in front of the cameras, but they neglected areas that did not get the attention of the media. No-one in the organisation knew who was working when at which beach and so there was no efficient co-ordination possible.
I could fully understand Terry Leadbender's anger over this issue and noticed how concerned he really was about the rescue of the wildlife. He and other volunteers had been working on their own, as the RSPCA had not been co-operating with them, but they always informed the RSPCA about what areas they were working in. They did all this without being paid, driving back and fore between the beaches and the hospitals. I think all these volunteers did a great deal for the suffering sea birds (and also the seals) and we should all be very grateful for their work.
6. Causes of and Responsibility for the Accident and Criticism of the Salvage and Clean- up Operations
The question of who was really responsible for the whole disaster is very hard to answer, as there were so many factors contributing to it, but it must be asked. Some questions have not been fully answered yet. This, however, is exactly the reason why a public inquiry is necessary, to focus attention mainly on the efficiency of the salvage and clean-up operations. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) has been trying to examine the matter.
Of course the tanker should not have run aground in the first place. The Milford Haven Port Authority says it was due to an error of the pilot, John Pearn, aged 34, whose duty it was to guide the Sea Empress into the Haven. They found him guilty of incompetence, as he had probably underestimated the run and stretch of the tide.33
It is also claimed that the pilot did not board the Sea Empress early enough, but that he was taken on board only 15 minutes before the tanker was grounded. So the time he had to deal with any difficulties that could occur was reduced. There was no time left for the pilot to discuss a plan of action with the Russian captain of the tanker, Eduard Bolgov.34
But the grounding of the tanker was only the beginning of a disastrous chain of events. The salvage operation that followed was a real fiasco and has been greatly criticised. First of all there is the mystery about who really was in control of the operation. There was a disagreement between the pilot and the harbourmaster and no-one knew who was really in charge and had the final say. There were obviously too many people all giving directions, as decisions were made by a committee. It seems as if the main concern of some was not to save the environment but to rescue the ship and its cargo.
It is also supposed that strong winds and currents altered the position of the navigation buoys, which are placed in order to mark the tanker route into harbour.35 But human error is again a main factor in the claim that those in charge of the Sea Empress were rushing to enter Milford Haven, as they did not want to wait hours for the next high tide. The tanker should not have been allowed to enter just 90 minutes before an extremely low spring tide that day, especially as there is a huge difference between low and high water in the Haven. In addition entry into the Haven is made quite difficult by a string of rocks on its southern side.36
There were also some cost-cutting factors that are very decisive. They should, for example, have had two pilots on board, one of them a senior pilot, but as the vessel was just 3,000 tonnes below the weight limit, they were able to evade this rule.37
Secondly the Sea Empress is a single-hulled tanker. Many experts claim that the disaster could have been prevented if the ship had been double-hulled. At least this would surely have reduced the damage done. The experts say that oil companies should stop using single-hulled tankers to transport such huge cargoes of oil.
Another "fiasco", as Simon Lyster, director general of the Wildlife Trust, said, was that there was not a proper salvage tug in the region. The whole salvage operation according to his opinion was "under-resourced by the government". As a result of the Donaldson Report on the Braer oil disaster in January 1993, two large and powerful salvage tugs were placed in the Shetlands and at Dover, but none was allocated to Wales, although it was known that Milford Haven, the second largest oil port in Europe, is a very sensitive region of great environmental importance and that tanker accidents had already occurred there.38 In fact there are over 30 oil spill incidents there every year.39 What is more, a tanker loaded with 112,000 tonnes of crude oil, struck the rocks at the entrance to the Haven only a few months before the Sea Empress! This was on October 29, 1995. The Borga, a Norwegian vessel, had a double hull and luckily no oil was lost.40
Mrs Sheila Russell, former mayoress of Milford Haven and friend of our family, told me in a conversation that we should not, however, rely on double-hulled tankers alone to prevent such catastrophes. It is the whole running of the Port Authority that she criticises. A disaster had to occur sooner or later. The main aim of Michael Hyslop, who took over the job of administering the port in 1988, was obviously to cut costs where he could, saving money everywhere - at the expense of safety! Right from the beginning of his administration, he started reducing the number of tugs, crew members, pilots, the whole work force. In the last 3 to 4 years about 100 tugmen have been put out of work and the number of pilot boats (which patrol the Haven and bring the pilots back and fore to the tankers) and tugs has been cut by half. The remaining staff have had to work a lot of overtime and suffer stress through overwork. She claims that he cut costs to the danger point.41
A former senior pilot, who was employed at Milford Haven from 1973 until the late 80s, said that there had been a drift away from an emphasis on safety and navigation by the Port towards more commercial operation and this had seriously affected the morale of the port's pilots.42 Another pilot said that John Pearn was not the only one to blame. Maybe he had grounded the tanker because of lack of experience. But he believed that the Port Authority must also be criticised for this, as they did not offer the pilots sufficient possibilities of training for their job. They refused, for example, to provide their pilots with the means for simulated training and only sent one to Rotterdam, where there is an excellent training programme. The others were not allowed to go for reasons of expense.43
A real scandal is that the radar system at the entrance to the Haven had not been operating properly for months and that it was not working when the ship grounded, although there had been many demands to have the over 10-year-old system renewed. If it had been working, the Haven would have been alerted that the tanker was on the wrong spot and could have asked if help was needed.44
The Port Authority is also accused of not having sufficient emergency equipment and that their salvage tugs were not powerful enough. Another accusation is that they did not use booms as soon as the disaster occurred. Why, too, was the tanker not brought alongside the Herbrandston fuel carrier at the Herbrandston jetty on the Monday night (the first night) to lighten the load? This tanker was available and near at hand. 45
Another mystery is the decision taken after the Sea Empress had been refloated and was pointing straight out to sea. The pilot told the JRC (Joint Rescue Committee) that he could take the tanker out to the open sea. However the harbour master, Mark Andrews, replied: "I agree with you but there is a room full of men here saying no".46 Nobody seems to know definitely who those men were and this is one puzzle the Enquiry should solve. The harbour master's decision to allow the pilot to take the ship out to sea would surely have been the right one and normally his word should have counted, as he is the "boss".
Mrs Russell thinks that probably neither he nor the pilot were experienced enough to handle the situation. She also believes that the use of the escort tugs, that are sent out to accompany tankers into the Haven, as was the usual practice in previous years, would have helped to control the vessel, but here again oil companies and ship owners tried to save money. She thinks the refloating operation failed mainly because "too many cooks spoil the broth", as she described it. She thinks there were too many people saying different things and no-one really knew what to do.
If the tanker had been towed to the Herbrandston jetty the first night, surely the environmental pollution would have been a lot less, the cleaning of the oil would have been a lot easier and there would have been better chances of recovering it, as it would have stayed outside the Haven. As a great part of oil was floating inside the Haven, this created a lot more difficulties in cleaning it up.
The captain of the Sea Empress declared in an interview on the BBC television programme 'Panorama'47 that the problem at the beginning was not a language problem, as he himself and some members of the crew could speak fluent English. The problem was that no-one on land seemed to have a coherent strategy for the whole salvage operation. There was no overall plan for what had to be done. Nick Ainger, the MP for Pembrokeshire, also expressed his anger and said in this programme that it should have been apparent right from the start that the strategy they had worked out could not be successful, as the necessary resources were just not there on the spot.
The spillage of oil could have been greatly minimised if they had asked other oil recovery vessels for assistance. The lightening tanker Sareta from Norway, for example, would have been able to extract up to 120,000 tonnes of oil from the grounded tanker, even during strong gales. But the excuse was made that, if the Sea Empress remained in the same position for too long, the probability of its breaking up would be extremely high.
Another possibility would have been to use the services of the anti-pollution vessel "Crystal Sea", which had been planned and constructed to collect the oil-water emulsion resulting from oil spills and to separate the oil from the water, retaining the oil and returning the clean water to the sea. In addition to this new invention, the "Crystal Sea" would have had five times the capacity of all ships that were actually employed.48
So it seems as if the whole pollution problem was not dealt with in the most effective way. There had even been offers from Norway to provide pollution control and dispersal vessels, but these were rejected. Instead toxic chemical dispersants were used in huge amounts and this may have done more harm than good.49
Sheila Russel believes that there should have been far more people working in the clean-up operation. For example the army should have been taking part in this.
The 'Western Telegraph' reported on March 13 that the German staff of the army at Castlemartin had offered their help directly after the incident but that this offer was refused.50 A German acquaintance of mine, who was stationed at Castlemartin at the time, told me that the local authorities had turned down the German Army's offer of help, claiming that everything was under control and that the situation was not all that serious.
7. The long-term Consequences
7.1 The Consequences for the Wildlife
The disastrous consequences that developed out of the whole incident are wide- spread and not yet assessable. I have already mentioned the fact that the whole marine wild life has been seriously affected, from its smaller forms such as cockles, mussels, starfish and sea anemones to the large sea birds, seals and dolphins.51 Fauna in rock pools along the shore was killed off completely. The research of the Countryside Council for Wales shows clearly that the population of seabirds has declined greatly. The Marine Conservation Society reported 1035 dead birds and 2831 oiled birds that received treatment. It is estimated that up to 20,000 birds must have died, but as most of them died at sea, their deaths are unrecorded. The most affected species were the guillemots and the razorbills, also shags and cormorants, mainly those of South Pembrokeshire. For example about 3,400 fewer guillemots bred there in 1996 than the year before.52
7.2 The Consequences for the Fishing Industry
The contamination of fish and shellfish was not only an environmental tragedy, but also badly affected the fishing industry in the area, one of Pembroke's main industries, along with tourism, agriculture and the oil industry. Fishermen lost their jobs, as fishing was prohibited.
It is reported that this may have damaged some fishing companies for more than six years. Obviously personal hardship for individual fishermen and companies has been the result.53
7.3 The Consequences for the Agricultural Industry
Agriculture in the area also suffered big losses. The chemical dispersants that were used at sea after the oil spill have damaged about 15 square miles of crops, as they were blown onto the land. Some farmland was also covered with oil. This had grave results, as some drinking water was contaminated and may have caused health problems in cattle and sheep.54
7.4 The Consequences for the Tourist Industry
Pembrokeshire's thriving tourist industry was hit very badly by the disaster, and all involved in this industry for their livelihood were horrified to see the transformation of the country's beautiful golden beaches into black oily graveyards.
It is claimed that the beaches are now clear from oil. But environmentalists and people like Terry Leadbender say that the oil is still there ("If you went down to Tenby with a spade and started digging you would find oil and you wouldn't end up to be a rich Arab."55 Less than 3,000 tonnes of oil have been recovered, so about 90% of the Sea Empress's lost cargo is still somewhere in the environment, as the programme "Panorama" reported. Indeed, during the storms of October 1996, newspaper reports stated that a lot of oil from the spill had again been washed ashore, having been stirred up from the seabed.56
In August 1996, I talked to Mr Denis Wyatt of Milford Haven's tourist information centre. He said that it still remained to be seen to what extent tourism had suffered, as the season was not yet over. He estimated that business had gone down by about 10% to 20% and he was hoping that it would revive again. Surprisingly, after the disaster had happened, there was a real boom, even if this sounds contradictory. There were people coming from all over the world - journalists, camera teams, marine biologists, etc. - in order to be on the spot. The hotel managers and restaurant owners I talked to confirmed this and said that, after the accident had occurred, their places were overcrowded and they had even made great profits. This, of course, was only the immediate effect and had nothing to do with the usual holiday bookings. The oil spill had taken place at a very inconvenient time indeed, as most holiday makers start booking their places for their main holidays in March. So as people knew that Pembrokeshire beaches were covered in oil, many arranged their holidays elsewhere.
The bookings for the next months stopped totally. The water sport business including canoeing, water skiing, windsurfing and surfing suffered immensely. So many water sport events and courses were cancelled, as they were not sure about the future quality of the water and if it would be safe at all to go into the water. By now the water has been declared to be clear again and beaches have been cleaned very well on the surface at least, especially the main tourist beaches. So people have started booking again and business has begun to recover a bit.
Mr Wyatt also mentioned that, as a result of the fantastic summer weather in 1995 and the good impression Pembrokeshire had thus made on the tourists, who saw the region at its best, many businesses were heavily in debt with their banks, as they had taken out large bank loans in order to expand and develop, ready for the boom they hoped for in 1996. They had expected to be able to repay the loans easily. They had never reckoned with this disaster happening and they would probably now have immense problems in surviving. By the time the compensation money was paid out to them - if it was at all - it would be too late for them and they would have been ruined. Many would at least make losses.
Mr Wyatt said that some would suffer more, some less. Some would be hit to a degree of 50%, others only to 5%. The main branches to be affected would be the water sport centres, the hotels, guest houses and caravan sites. Beach towns such as Tenby might recover more quickly, as a great effort had been made to clean its sands. It is a unique tourist centre, which people like to visit even without going to the beaches, as it offers a range of other holiday amenities and activities. Indeed in the meantime, Tenby, the beach, which attracts the most tourists, has even received the "blue flag", an award which is supposed to prove that this beach is clean. 57
Since the disaster there has been a huge campaign made by the tourist board, in newspapers and magazines as well as on television to demonstrate that the beaches of Pembrokeshire have been cleaned up and can be safely visited again. They have also endeavoured to make it clear that the North Pembrokeshire beaches escaped pollution. So hopefully, as the weather in 1996 was quite good, the next main tourist season in 1997 will no longer be negatively affected by the Sea Empress oil disaster and the tourist industry will recover completely.
7.5 The Consequences for the Local Population
But the oil disaster has touched the lives of Pembrokeshire's population in general, not only of those people working in the affected industries. Very many people are angry about this incident, not only about its horrendous results for their environment and their jobs, but also about the resulting dangers for their health. A survey published by the Dyfed-Powys Health Authority reported that thousands of people from South Pembrokeshire were suffering from health problems that were caused by the pollution from the Sea Empress oil spill. The symptoms related to these were headaches, nausea, sore throats and itchy skin.58 There was one case of suicide directly connected with the disaster. Michael Northover, a member of Esso's managing staff, could no longer stand the pressure of directing the clean-up of the spill and took his life with an overdose of anti-depressants.59
The people of Pembrokeshire are also annoyed at the fact that they might have to pay for the clean-up operation in some part, as 4 million pounds are owed to Pembroke County Council for this. If the insurance companies do not pay a sufficient amount, the local population may have to suffer for this by paying higher taxes (S. Russel).
This leads to the question of how high the expenses resulting from the Sea Empress disaster will be. They are estimated to reach £ 64 million, as the oil industry believes. The tanker's insurers from Norway, "Skuld", have to pay £ 8 million compensation and £ 49 million will then have to be covered by the IOPC (International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund). These said they would pay 75% of this amount to the local people when the latter had proved their claims. They wanted to keep the rest first, as they are afraid the claims might be higher than estimated.
The clean-up process has been calculated to have cost between £ 11 million and £ 16 million. £ 34 to 48 million is supposed to be paid to fishermen and the tourist industry. It is however doubtful whether all claims will be accepted.60
8. Orimulsion
In spite of experiencing this terrible oil spill and with the knowledge of the wide-spread and disastrous results it has had in the area, the Milford Haven Port Authority now wants to build yet another jetty in the Haven, as there are plans of burning Orimulsion in the vicinity to fuel the Pembroke Power Station, which up to now has been using residual fuel oil. Orimulsion is an emulsion of water and natural bitumen to which the chemical nonylphenol is added.
Many people in Pembrokeshire dread the coming of Orimulsion (as you can see in the following poem from Peter Bossom:61)
'SEA EMPRESS'
The great she sea dragon Hasting to spawn in her nursery waters Suddenly raped by red rocks Her soft underbelly ripped and ruptured Shattered she lists, sinking sideways Lifeblood leaks into storm tossed waters Basilisk black and reeking poison Soft and viscous, clinging and choking Dealing destruction to all it touches. Disintegrating the complex community Of fin and feather, shell and seashore. Can those who caused it now control it? Or do all die in its writhing death throes. Sighted afar is Orimulsion Elder sister, black and turgid Will she come to revenge her sibling Blanket all with her own blind fury And finally finish all, our beauty. Can the Welsh dragon defend his homeland? Or be betrayed by those he trusted Sold for Judas' sordid silver While we look on in anger and anguish Generations will gibe at our lack of honour If we do not seek to act with wisdom And ensure these things will never happen.
There is very little experience of it up to now, but it would supposedly have even worse effects in the environment, if it was spilled, than oil. As it disperses quickly right down to the seabed, there would be no chance of cleaning it up from the surface of the water with the usual techniques already known in Milford Haven.
So most people in Pembrokeshire are clearly against this project, as there are so many risks involved. To start with, it is reported that, by burning Orimulsion, fine particles of toxic metal such as nickel, vanadium and arsenic are spread into the atmosphere. 62 This would obviously increase respiratory illnesses such as asthma (which is very common in this area anyway) and could also cause heart conditions and cancer.63 The sulphur dioxide emissions would greatly increase the total emission of this in the area and the level of oxides of nitrogen would be six times as high as it is now. There would also be the problem of where to deposit the huge amounts of gypsum and other side products that have to be dumped somewhere.64 Orimulsion is also reckoned to affect fish nursery sites and if there really was a spill, it would have horrendous consequences for the whole fishing industry, as it would harm the fish population even more than oil does.65
If sea water is polluted with Orimulsion, the chemical content has a harmful effect on the reproductive ability of its aquatic life.66 Some experts also believe that Orimulsion could cause acid rain.67 It seems irresponsible to consider burning Orimulsion on a site, where the risk of transport accidents has proved to be extremely high, and knowing about the poor safety measures (salvage capacity, etc.).
It is said they would use double-hulled tankers to transport the Orimulsion, but whether this would make much difference is a matter of opinion, as it is also claimed that the use of a double-hulled tanker instead of the single-hulled Sea Empress would not have prevented the disaster. Moreover, if the plant was built, there would surely be more traffic on the waterway, which would automatically increase the risk of ship collisions.68
Of course, burning Orimulsion also has its advantages. As the rate of unemployment in this area is extremely high, the project would give a great number of people the chance of getting a new job. But this would be at the expense of workers in other parts, as other power stations in various parts of South Wales are supposed to be shut down as a consequence.
I personally believe (and I think most people in Pembrokeshire do as well) that burning Orimulsion in a region of such high environmental sensitivity is just not acceptable and should not be allowed from the point of view of the conservation of nature. Pembrokeshire is really an area of very special scientific and environmental interest and this fact should be taken seriously at last. Fortunately, in the meantime, the plan has been rejected, at least for the present time, and hopefully it will never be realised at all in this lovely part of Britain.
Final Comment
I hope I have given you an insight into this topic as well as possible, although this report is not quite complete. This is because the results of the inquiries have not yet been published and it is feared that the official MAIB report of the grounding of the Sea Empress, which is supposed to be made public in the near future, will not bring all true facts to the light.
I also want to draw attention to the fact that, even if the consequences of the Sea Empress
disaster are not necessarily visible to our eyes, they are nevertheless present and long-lasting. When I visited some beaches around Pembrokeshire last summer, I was very glad and relieved that I could not see any oil anywhere,69 but I know that appearances are deceptive. A large amount of oil is still there, hidden beneath the surface - under the sand, on the seabed, etc.
At the present time, Japan has to contend with the same problem. At the beginning of January, an oil tanker ran aground and broke apart, spilling its contents over an area of about 300 kilometres. Lessons have to be learned at last, to make sure that no further disaster of this kind will ever happen again. Efficient safety measures will have to be taken in future and people must be a lot more careful about the claims they make on the environment. Thus, hopefully, one day we will be friends of our earth at last.
Marloes
Stack Rocks near Castlemartin Near Broad Haven
Springtime on Skomer
Limpets clinging to the rocks, as seen on all beaches
"... the rocks and cliffs they enjoyed climbing on ..." (p. 12) Children exploring one of the most popular beaches
The mighty Sea
An oil tanker similar to the Sea Empress Milford Haven dock area with boom to confine the oil
Photos of the Pembrokeshire Coast
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Marloes
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Stack Rocks near Castlemartin
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Near Broad Haven
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Springtime on Skomer
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Limpets clinging to the rocks, as seen on all beaches
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
"... the rocks and cliffs they enjoyed climbing on ..." (p. 12)
Children exploring one of the most popular beaches
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
The mighty Sea
An oil tanker similar o the Sea Empress
Milford Haven dock area with boom to confine the oil
List of sources:
1) Sea Empress Environmental Evaluation Committee, Initial Report, July 1996
2) Gammon, C., Remember the Sea Empress disaster? in: Night & Day, 21-07-96, p. 18-20 Many Newspapers between January 1996 and January 1997:
3) The Times
4) Western Telegraph
5) Western Mail
6) The Mercury (Milford Haven)
7) Information of 'Friends of the Earth' (WWW-Homepage: http://www.foe.co.uk/local/cymru/oilspill/)
8) WWW-Homepage http://www.widemedia.com/fix/empress.html
9) Countryside Council for Wales, Summer 96 Issue 15, at:Homepage, http://www.gov.uk/ad/ad14.htm
10) BBC Programme 'Panorama' (video tape enclosed)
11) Interview with Mr Denis Wyatt (audio cassette enclosed)
12) Interview with Mr Terry Leadbender (audio cassette enclosed)
13) Sketch: 'oil sheen', in: The Times Magazine, 24-08-1996, p. 19
14) Sketch: 'Welsh wildlife at risk' in: reference document n° 1
15) Map: Empress Environmental Evaluation Committee, Initial Report, July 96 (inside cover)
16) Photos (all private)
Annotations:
[...]
1 Beach near St. Govan's Head; more photos of the Pembrokeshire coast: p. 28-31
2 cf. Sea Empress Environmental Evaluation Committee, Initial Report, July 96 (SEEEC Report), p. 6 (3.2)
3 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 6 (3.2.)
4 Pollution wipes-out rare starfish colony, in: Western Telegraph, 21-02-1996, p. 5
5 The accident took place about 500 m to the right of this passenger boat to Ireland
6 cf. Stoddart, M., Four steps to disaster, in: The Mercury (Milford Haven), 01-03-1997, p. 7
7 cf. Stoddart, M., Four steps to disaster, in: The Mercury (Milford Haven), 01-03-1997, p. 7
8 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 6 (3.3.1)
9 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 6 (3.3.1,)
10 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 6 (3.3.2)
11 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 7 (3.3.3)
12 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 7 (3.3.4, 3.3.5); Copy of Oil sheen, in: The Times Magazine, 24-08- 1996, p. 19
13 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 3 (1.2.4)
14 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 3 (1.2.4)
15 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 3; Copy 'Welsh Wildlife at risk' in: reference document n° 1 (Map)
16 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 3 (1.2.3)
17 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 10 (3.4.6)
18 Map on the inside cover of the SEEEC Report
19 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 11/12 (3.5.1)
20 cf. A flood of help, in: Western Telegraph, 03-06-1996 (ref. doc. n° 2)
21 cf. Shameful, in: The Mercury, 01-03-1996, p. 16
22 cf. A complete tragedy, in: The Mercury, 23-02-1996, p. 9
23 cf. The oil disaster, in: The Mercury, 08-03-1996, p.11
24 cf. A flood of help, in: Western Telegraph, 03-06-1996, (ref. doc. n° 2)
25 cf. Housewife's petition for ban, in: The Mercury (ref. doc. n° 3)
26 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 8 (3.4.1)
27 cf. SEEEC Report, p.8 (3.4.2)
28 cf. SEEEC Report, p.8 (3.4.3)
29 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 10 (3.4.3)
30 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 10 (3.4.4)
31 cf. SEEEC Report, p. 11 (3.4.8)
32 cf. Harris, R., Bird washing machine sits idle, in: The Mercury, 01-03-1996, p. 6
33 cf. Gammon, C., Remember the Sea Empress disaster? in: Night & Day, 21-07-1996, p. 18/19 (ref. doc. 19)
34 cf. Fowler R. / Cusick, J., Pilot may have boarded stricken tanker too late, in: The Independent, 24-02-1996, p.1
35 cf. Pierce, A., Navigation buoys may have been in the wrong place, in: The Times, 22-02- 1996, p.18
36 cf. Former pilot criticises port control, in: Western Mail, Febr. 1996 (ref. doc. n° 4)
37 cf. Gammon, C., Remember the Sea Empress disaster? in: Night & Day, 21-07-1996, p. 19 (doc. 19)
38 cf. Pierce, A., Navigation buoys may have been in the wrong place, in: The Times, 22-02- 1996, p.18
39 cf. Other tanker accidents at Milford Haven, at: Friends of the Earth - WWW-Homepage http://www.foe.co.uk/local/cymru/oilspill/accident.html (ref. doc n° 5)
40 cf. Milburn, A., Human error caused tanker to run aground, say owners, in: The Times, 04- 06-1996
41 cf. Gammon, C., Remember the Sea Empress disaster? in: Night & Day, 21-07-1996, p. 20 (doc. 19)
42 cf. Former pilot criticises port control, in: Western Mail, Febr. 1996 (ref. doc. n° 4)
43 cf. Gammon, C., Remember the Sea Empress disaster? in: Night & Day, 21-07-1996, p. 19 (doc. 19)
44 Gammon, C., Remember the Sea Empress disaster? in: Night & Day, 21-07-1996, p. 20 (doc. 19)
45 cf. Tug boss questions salvage plan, in: The Mercury, 23-02-1996, p. 7
46 Stoddart, M., Four steps to disaster, in: The Mercury (Milford Haven), 01-03-1997, p. 7
47 video tape enclosed!
48 cf. Friends of the Earth, Critical Submission to Sea Empress Inquiry, 15-04-1996, at: WWW-Home- page http://www.foe.co/uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/current/19960415141959.html (ref. doc. n° 6)
49 cf. Friends of the Earth, Critical Submission to Sea Empress Inquiry, 15-04-1996, at: WWW-Home- page http://www.foe.co/uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/current/19960415141959.html (ref. doc. n° 6)
50 cf. Co-ordination problems prevented German help, in: Western Telegraph, 13-03-1996 (ref. doc. n°7)
51 cf. The Sea Empress Disaster, at: WWW-Homepage http://www.widemedia.com/fix/empress.html (ref. doc. n° 8)
52 cf. Countryside Council for Wales, Summer 96 Issue 15, at:Homepage http://www.gov.uk/ad/ad14.htm (ref. doc. n° 9)
53 cf. Friends of the Earth, Socio-economic Impacts on Milford Haven and Surrounding Areas, at: WWW-Homepage http://www.foe.co.uk/local/cymru/oilspill/people.html (ref. doc. n° 10)
54 cf. Friends of the Earth, Socio-economic Impacts on Milford Haven and Surrounding Areas, at: WWW-Homepage http://www.foe.co.uk/local/cymru/oilspill/people.html (ref. doc. n° 10)
55 Interview with Terry Leadbender (tape enclosed!)
56 cf. Tanker oil washed ashore, in: The Times, 31-10-96, General News, News in Brief (ref. doc. n° 11)
57 cf. Woodman, P., Blue Flag to fly proudly at Tenby as clean-up beats oil-spill pollution, 05-06-1996 (ref. doc n° 12)
58 cf. Thousands sick after oil spill, in: The Times, 04-12-1996, General News, News in Brief (ref. doc. n° 13)
59 cf. Suicide verdict, in: The Times, 02-08-1996, General News, News in Brief (ref. doc. n° 14)
60 cf. Curphey, M., Oil industry faces £64m payout and clean-up bill over Sea Empress, in: The Times, 18-04-1996, Business News (ref. doc. n° 15)
61 cf. The Mercury, Poet's Corner (ref. doc. n° 16)
62 cf. Orimulsion: The Great Debate, in: Western Telegraph, 21-02-1996, p. 5
63 cf. Friends of the Earth, Summary of Objections to the Orimulsion Jetty Application, at: WWW-Homepage http://www.foe.co.uk/local/cymru/oilspill/jetty.html (ref. doc. n° 17)
64 cf. Orimulsion: The Great Debate, in: Western Telegraph, 21-02-1996, p. 5
65 cf. Friends of the Earth, Summary of Objections to the Orimulsion Jetty Application, at: WWW-Homepage http://www.foe.co.uk/local/cymru/oilspill/jetty.html (ref. doc. n° 17)
66 cf. Friends of the Earth, Orimulsion, at:WWW-Homepage http://www.foe.co.uk/local/cymru/oilspill /orimulsion.html (ref. doc. n° 18)
67 cf. Orimulsion: The Great Debate, in: Western Telegraph, 21-02-1996, p. 5
68 cf. Friends of the Earth, Summary of Objections to the Orimulsion Jetty Application, at: WWW-Homepage http://www.foe.co.uk/local/cymru/oilspill/jetty.html (ref. doc. n° 17)
Frequently asked questions about the Sea Empress disaster
What is this document about?
This document is a comprehensive language preview discussing the Sea Empress oil spill disaster off the coast of Pembrokeshire, Wales, in 1996. It includes a preface, table of contents, chapter summaries, key themes, and a list of sources and annotations. It analyzes the causes, consequences, and cleanup efforts related to the disaster.
What caused the Sea Empress disaster?
The Sea Empress tanker ran aground on rocks while en route to the Texaco refinery in Milford Haven to deliver crude oil. Contributing factors included potential pilot error, possible underestimation of tidal conditions, and the ship entering the harbor shortly before a low spring tide.
What type of oil was spilled, and what were the immediate consequences?
The tanker spilled approximately 72,000 tonnes of Forties Blend crude oil and 360 tonnes of heavy fuel oil. This resulted in significant pollution of the coastline, devastating losses to wildlife, and a temporary fishing ban in the affected area.
How did the local population react to the disaster?
The local population reacted with anger and sadness. Many volunteered to help with cleanup efforts, donated to wildlife organizations, and expressed their frustration and concern about the environmental and economic impacts of the oil spill.
What cleanup operations were undertaken?
Cleanup operations involved a large number of people and organizations. The process involved recovering oil from the sea surface, using chemical dispersants, and physically cleaning the oil from the beaches. Help for the wildlife involved emergency areas and transporting animals to animal hospitals.
Who was held responsible for the accident, and were the salvage operations criticized?
The Milford Haven Port Authority found the pilot, John Pearn, guilty of incompetence. The salvage operations were heavily criticized for being slow, under-resourced, and lacking a coherent strategy. Additionally, the absence of a dedicated salvage tug in the region was criticized.
What were the long-term consequences of the Sea Empress disaster?
The long-term consequences included a decline in seabird populations, damage to the fishing and agricultural industries, a negative impact on the tourist industry, and health problems reported by the local population.
What is Orimulsion, and why was it a concern for the people of Pembrokeshire?
Orimulsion is an emulsion of water and natural bitumen that was considered as a fuel for the Pembroke Power Station. The local population feared the potential for even worse environmental damage than the oil spill if Orimulsion were to be spilled, due to the greater difficulty in cleaning it up.
What is the final comment of the document?
The final comment emphasizes that the consequences of the Sea Empress disaster are long-lasting, even if not immediately visible. It calls for lessons to be learned to prevent future disasters and for greater care to be taken of the environment.
What sources were used in creating this document?
Sources include reports from the Sea Empress Environmental Evaluation Committee, newspaper articles, information from Friends of the Earth, BBC programs, and interviews with local people.
- Quote paper
- Natalie Bayer (Author), 1996, The Sea Empress Oil Disaster and its Consequences for Pembrokeshire, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/98217
