Spill Alert Issue 24

INDUSTRY NEWS

STAY UP TO DATE ON THE LATEST INDUSTRY NEWS at www.ukeirespill.org

OS35 - OIL SPILL BY GIBRALTAR PORT NOW UNDER CONTROL, WRECK REMOVAL BY MAY 23

winds. However as the weather changedso did the response and the decision wastaken to sink the forward part of the vesselonto the seabed.

UK and Ireland Spill Association members are involved in this incident. Ambipar Response, with support from Polyeco, have been working on behalf of the vessel owners and Oil Spill Response on behalf of the Port of Gibraltar.

On 4 October the Captain of the Port of Gibraltar gave the owners and insurers of the of OS35 until the end of May 2023 for its removal.

While the method of removal is still in the planning stage, the Captain of the Port order set a timeline, with some allowances for weather delays, for the shipowner and insurers for the wreck’s removal and allows them to proceed with the tendering process. Failure to remove the wreck within the schedule would constitute a violation of sections 179E and 179F of Part VIIIA of the Merchant Shipping Act.

On Monday 29 August a bulk carrier suffered significant damage and partially sunk following a collision with an LNG carrier off the coast of Gibraltar.

A survey inspection of the bulk carrier, the OS 35, confirmed a gash amidships measuring approximately 10 meters by 4 meters on the ship’s starboard side. Its bulbous bow is submerged approximately 1.2 meters in the sandy seabed.

All crew members initially remained on board whilst the ship remained stable. However on 31 August it was reported that the vessel had started to split in two, albeit the parts had yet to separate. Crew were removed and wait in Gibraltar. The vessel remains at anchor off Catalan Bay on the east side of the Iberian Peninsula, however the collision took place in the Bay of Gibraltar/Algeciras, on the west side of the peninsula, as the OS 35 was departing. The LNG carrier, Adam LNG, which was unladen, had no significant damage but was dented on its bulbous bow. The vessel suffered no water ingress.

Approximately 400 meters of boom were deployed around the vessel in the event of an oil spill, the port authority said. “A specialist team of marine salvors from the Netherlands conducted a full on-site assessment on their arrival,” the update said. “The Government is advised that weather conditions are forecast to be good in the coming days, which will assist in operations moving forward.”

The OS 35 was carrying a cargo of steel bars and has over 400 tonnes of fuel on board all of which was eventually removed by 6 September. However, some loss to the environment occurred which impacted temporarily beaches in Gibraltar and on the Spanish peninsula. There were also reports of oiled wildlife

As a result of salvor and responder efforts, the Gibraltar government scaled down he incident from a “major incident” to permit more activities in the port. The focus reverted to ensuring the vessel stayed afloat whilst other contaminants were removed.

In this they were helped initially by light

“Whilst the precise methodology for the removal of the OS 35 and its contents has not yet been established, this preliminary schedule is an important development in the operation. It confirms the intentions of the owners and their insurers to comply with the deadline and conditions specified in the Wreck Removal Notice, and allows them to proceed with the important Invitation to Tender process to identify and select a contractor with the expertise necessary to safely and efficiently remove the wreck in the safest way possible and in a manner that protects the marine environment as far as possible,” said Captain of the Port, John Ghio.

The wreck removal will take place in threephases:

1. The Caretaker Phase, which involves security, caretaking and the mitigation ofpollution;

2. The Invitation to Tender Phase, which will select a contractor with a track recordfor safely and successfully carrying outsimilar wreck removal operations;

3. The final Wreck Removal Phase, whichis expected to take approximately 6months with allowances made for weatherdisturbances, and is expected to becomplete by 30th May 2023.

news/2022/02/16/deal-reached-in-yemen-to-unloadoil-from-floating-bomb-tanker/

The IMO website has further information:https://www.un.org/press/en/2022/db220307.doc.htm

FSO SAFER - JUST $14 MILLION REQUIRED TO OFF LOAD THE CONTENTS!

leads UN efforts on the Safer.

“Less than $14 million is now needed to reach the $80 million target to start the emergency operation to transfer oil from the Safer to a safe vessel,” said Gressly’s communications advisor Russell Geekie.

“We’re deeply concerned. If the FSO Safer continues to decay, it could break up or explode at any time,” he told reporters in Geneva, via video-link from Sanaa.

The FSO Safer is a 45 year old oil storage vessel anchored 4.8 nautical miles off the Yemen coastline since 1988 where prior to the escalation of the conflict in 2015, it had been receiving, storing and exporting crude oil from the Marib oil fields. Due to the ongoing conflict in Yemen, all production and export operations related to FSO SAFER have been suspended, but an estimated 150,000 MT (nearly 1.1 million barrels) of crude oil remain onboard. This corresponds to four times the amount spilled during the Exxon Valdez incident in 1989, even though circumstances differ greatly.

The FSO has not been inspected ormaintained since 2015 and has beenout of class since 2016, leading to

serious concerns about its integrity. It is understood there is currently no oil leaking from the unit, but it is considered that the risk of an oil spill from the FSO SAFER is increasing as its structure, equipment and operating systems continue to deteriorate. As time passes the risk of a spill increases.

On 11 May this year the IMO announced a plan for the transfer of all products on board FSO Safer and held a pledging event to raise the $144 million that could secure the vessel of which $80 million is to transfer all products and therefore prevent a possible spillage. To date $66 million has been raised leaving a shortfall of $14 million.

David Gressly, the United Nations’ resident and humanitarian coordinator in Yemen,

“The volatile currents and strong winds from October to December will only increase the risk of disaster. If we don’t act, the ship will eventually break apart and a catastrophe will happen. It’s not a question of if, but when.”

He said the result would potentially be the fifth largest oil spill from a tanker in history, with the clean-up costs alone reaching $20 billion.

Lets hope this pledging accelerates as the risk increases every day that passes

For more information

https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/ HotTopics/Pages/FSO-SAFER-oil-spill-risk. aspx

PERU OIL SPILL – ITS CONSEQUENCE IS MUCH WIDER THAN SOUTH AMERICA

In the early hours of 15 January 2022, a rupture in an underwater pipeline sent crude oil gushing into the ocean from the Italian-flagged tanker Mare Doricum which was discharging from an offshore buoy linked to La Pampilla, Peru’s biggest oil refinery, just north of the capital, Lima.

As the state, the refinery and tanker owners played the blame game, damage to the region’s ecosystems continued to spread. The black slick, pushed north by wind and currents, tarred 25 beaches, polluted three protected marine reserves, and covered an area of about 106 sq km (40 sq miles) – the size of Paris.

It wreaked destruction on one of the world’s richest marine ecosystems; killing fish and invertebrates, leaving more than 1,000 seabirds coated with oil, several hundred dead, and a toll on marine mammals such as endangered sea otters, according to Peru’s national service of state-protected natural areas.

The catastrophe for one of the world’s richest marine ecosystems, and at least 2,000 coastal fishers who depend on it, has raised the question of how environmental crimes should be punished during a time

of climate crisis and catastrophic wildlife loss, as the oil firm, the captain of the tanker and the Peruvian state all blame one another.

Peru accuses Repsol of reacting late, launching its contingency plan for the spill the day after it occurred. This is denied by the company, which said in a statement that it “activated its contingency plan and communicated the facts to the relevant authorities … the same night as the ship’s accident”.

Under Peru’s strict liability law, Repsol is ultimately responsible for the spill, said Manuel Pulgar Vidal, the country’s former

environment minister and now global leader of climate and energy at WWF. But Peru has a poor record of holding big business to account for pollution, he says. “Expectations for getting [decent] compensation are very low.” We have the laws, we have good oversight agencies – the problem is enforcement Manuel Pulgar Vidal, former Peruvian environment minister

Four Repsol officials, including the company’s Peru president, Jaime Fernández-Cuesta, have been barred from leaving the country while a state prosecutor investigates whether the oil company properly maintained its system

of underwater pipelines. News reports showed photos of the ruptured pipes covered in rust.

While the oil company initially said a tsunami created by the eruption of a volcano in Tonga had triggered the spill, it later blamed the Mare Doricum, which it claims shifted its position during the oil discharge, allegations which the tanker company has denied.

In mid August Peru’s consumer protection agency started legal proceedings against Repsol. The civil lawsuit seeks $3bn (£2.54bn) for environmental damage and $1.5bn (£1.27bn) for damages to locals.

Repsol has denied responsibility. The company initially said the spill was caused by “sudden and extraordinary anomalous waves produced by the volcanic eruption in Tonga”. However, it later blamed the oil tanker.

the coastline, assist the communities in the area, and rescue and attend to the fauna affected by the oil spill,” the spokesperson added.Earlier this year, President Pedro Castillo described the spill as “one of the biggest ecocides ever on our coasts and seas”. Hundreds of fishermen and hospitality workers also lost income due to the disaster, according to the Peruvian environment ministry. Local fisherman staged protests because they were unable to go out to sea and work because of the spill. Indecopi has alleged that the ecological damage is continuing to affect fishermen and the environment.

“We are looking to get compensation for the affected population... that lives within 150km of contaminated coast,” said Julian Palacin, the head of Indecopi, in a statement.

In May, Repsol said the clean-up would cost the firm $150m (£127m).

“The final settlement may be influenced as much by Repsol’s valuation of its own reputation and future permissions to operate globally,” he added.

Melissa Moore, head of UK policy at Oceana, a charity campaigning for ocean protection, said she was pleased to hear the case would go to court. “This damaging oil spill wreaked havoc on two protected biodiversity areas: the Ancón Reserved Zone and the Pescadores Islets - home to iconic and legally protected species such as the Humboldt penguin and sea otter,” she said.

How Peru manages this legal action will influence how much control Governments can exert on oil companies when they pollute. Public sympathy is against Big Oil but government’s know that they need their hydrocarbon based products to keep the lights on and to run efficient economies.

A Peruvian judge admitted the $4.5bn lawsuit by Indecopi against Repsol, meaning the case will go to court.

“We have not yet been notified of the court’s acceptance of the complaint, and we do not know the details of the acceptance,” a spokesperson for the firm told the BBC. “We reiterate that the causes are still under investigation, but that the preliminary findings indicate that it was caused by an uncontrolled movement by the Mare Doricum vessel while it was unloading crude at the terminal.”

“Even so, Repsol has used all means at its disposal to contain, clean, and remediate

Professor in geosciences at the University of Edinburgh, Stuart Hazeldine said that communities and countries “have a right to expect safe transport of oil and gas”.

“There is no established market to buy a clean beach or a seabird colony - inevitably large and financially wellresourced oil companies can deploy cash, lobbyists and legal teams to delay and defocus the blame game away from their responsibility,” he said.

“This will be a contest on the strength of Peru’s legal system to enforce environmental justice onto an unwilling and well-resourced multinational.”

The war In Ukraine and Russian use of oil and gas as a political asset has bought Big Oil time and in effect delayed the transition to net zero. However, as economies move to net zero their value decreases other than as an investor in new greener technologies.

If Peru is successful in its claim, it will have and effect on Repsol, their claim Repsol posted a net income of €2.499bn (£2.11bn) last year - sixteen times the clean-up cost but just under 50% of the cost of the claim!

Whatever is decided it sets a precedent for future action against Big Oil for environmental damage.

MV X-PRESS PEARL – ONE YEAR ON

A year since the sinking of the cargo ship the X-Press Pearl, Sri Lanka continues to clean its beaches of the plastic pellets that the vessel was carrying, and still trying to claim compensation for the environmental damage it wrought.

An expert committee investigating the extent of damage to the country’s marine and coastal environment has now concluded the disaster to be the worst in terms of chemical and plastic pollution of the sea. That’s according to Ajith de Alwis, co-chair of the X-Press Pearl damage assessment committee and a professor of chemical and process engineering at the University of Moratuwa.

The committee has submitted itsassessment report to the AttorneyGeneral’s Office for use in claimingcompensation from the Singapore-basedoperators of the ship.

“However, the report is only the firstedition of the damage assessment, andfurther assessments would continuebased on the monitoring,” De Alwis toldMongabay.

Maritime law expert Dan Malika Gunasekerasaid Sri Lankan authorities have taken along time to file for compensation and arereluctant to go through years of strenuouslegal battles in international courts. SriLanka has obtained an interim payment of$3.7 million in damages, but the countrycould claim as much as $5 billion to $7billion, according to Gunasekera.

With Sri Lanka currently mired in theworst economic crisis in the country’shistory, those higher numbers wouldprove a much-needed injection of foreigncurrency. But further delays would diminishthe cash-strapped island’s chance ofgetting sufficient compensation for theenvironmental damage, Gunasekera toldMongabay.

WORST PLASTIC MARINE POLLUTION EVENT

X-Press Pearl was carrying 1,486 containerswhen it caught fire off Colombo on May 20,2021, and began sinking. Eighty-one of thecontainers were labeled hazardous, and thecargo included 25 metric tons of nitric acid— a key ingredient in the production ofexplosives, and touted as a possible factorfor the fire. There were several explosions,and it took more than a week to bring thefire under control. Attempts to tow thevessel to deeper waters failed, and thefreighter finally sank on June 2, 2021, a fewkilometers off Sri Lanka’s western coast.The ship was also carrying 400 containersof nurdles, the plastic pellets fromwhich all manufactured plastic goodsare made. The spill of the more than 50billion pellets made this the worst plasticmarine pollution event in the world, withthe pellets quickly spreading along thebeaches of Sri Lanka’s western coast.

The government carried out an initialcleanup of the beaches, but subsequentcleaning was done by volunteers like thePearl Protectors, a youth organization.“We had 28 major cleaning operationson main beaches and could collect asmuch as 1,500 kilograms [3,300 pounds]of nurdles,” said Muditha Katuwawala,coordinator of the Pearl Protectors.But more nurdles keep washing up on thebeaches, and with the island currentlyexperiencing the southwest monsoon,nurdles that had initially sunk to theseabed or were trapped in underwaterstructures such as corals have beenwashed free and are making landfall.“So it needs to be continuous work”cleaning up the beaches, Katuwawala said.The Pearl Protectors, like other volunteerorganizations around the program, aresuffering from the economic crisis. Thecost of organizing has doubled in thespan of the last few months, with inflationhitting a record 39% in May. The countryhas defaulted on loan payments for thefirst time, while the local currency, therupee, has nosedived against the U.S.dollar.

The sinking of the X-Press Pearl cargo ship has resulted in the world’s single worst incident of plastic marine pollution. Image courtesy of the U.N. Advisory Mission Report.

A container from the X-Press Pearl floating in the sea. Image courtesy of the Sri Lankan Marine Environment Protection Agency (MEPA).

SALVAGE OPERATION

As for the wreck of the X-Press Pearl, it’s now being salvaged by the Shanghai Salvage Company (SSC), which was handed the task by the ship’s owners, Singaporebased X-Press Feeders. In a statement, X-Press Feeders said the salvage operation includes round-the-clock monitoring to deal with debris or other pollutants that may get dislodged during the operation. It also said regular water sampling will be carried out at the site, and that any oil spills will be responded to immediately. According to SSC, the X-Press Pearl’s hull has essentially broken in half, so the wreck will be recovered as two separate sections. Operations were suspended at the end of April due to rough seas caused by the southwest monsoon. Cleanly separating the two halves of the hull is due to start in November, after the monsoon, while the actual lifting is expected to begin in February 2023. The final phase, to be completed by September 2023, will see the wreck completely dismantled, recycled, and disposed of.

CONTINUES

Salvation work is underway to raise the wreck of the X-Press Pearl and dismantle it. Image courtesy of X-Press Feeders.

LACK OF BASELINE STUDIES

INDUSTRY NEWS INDUSTRY NEWS

Terney Pradeep Kumara, a marine biologistwho previously headed Sri Lanka’s MarineEnvironment Protection Agency (MEPA),said it’s important to collect data duringthe salvation operation that can serveas evidence linking the environmentalpollution to the X-Press Pearl. In theaftermath of the ship accident, marinebiologists noted an unusually high numberof sea turtle mortalities, which theysuspect was the result of the pollution,but for which they currently lack definitiveevidence.‘Not having a baseline of the environmentalconditions has been one of the biggestchallenges in doing this environmentalassessment,” said Prasanthi Gunawardene,the other co-chair of the X-Press Pearldamage assessment committee. Therewere about 30 different subcommitteeswith members from different fields, andgetting input from different governmentagencies in the monitoring process was achallenge, Gunawardene told Mongabay.

PORT OF REFUGE

This incident highlights how the attitude to ports of refuge has changed over time. MV X-Press Pearl loaded some containers containing Nitric Acid when it departed the port of Hazira on 15 May. Arriving off Colombo on 19 May. However a container loaded at Jebel Ali was leaking nitric acid, and the company and the ship had requested both Hamad Port in Qatar and Hazira Port in Gujarat to allow it to be offloaded, but permission was not granted.[18]

According to X-Press Feeders, the requests were denied as “there were no specialist facilities or expertise immediately available to deal with the leaking acid”, and the vessel proceeded on its planned journey to Colombo.[19]

The ship reached Colombo on the night of 19 May and was anchored in the outer harbor awaiting a berth. The ship did not declare an emergency for the cargo acid leak. On 20 May the ship’s agents requested a re-working of the container. Harbour Master Nirmal de Silva said as a maritime hub, Colombo had the expertise to help. The vessel then issued its first report of a fire, which the crew had put out using its on-board system. [20]

The disaster at sea could have been avoided had either port offloaded the container. Why did they refuse? And what were their obligations in these circumstances?

Nurdle displacement after the X-Press Pearl marine disaster. Image courtesy of the U.N. Advisory Mission Report

It’s unlikely their actions will be examined in the official investigation, which will focus on the causes of the fire and actions of the crew. However, these answers reveal the hugely problematic conditions of shipping operations.

Both ports claimed they lacked the manpower and equipment to discharge the leaking container. However it is hard to imagine such recently built, state of the art, and well-resourced facilities lacking the means to deal with a nitric acid leak.

Ports may be reluctant to accept hazardous vessels because they lack emergency and contingency plans and preparedness. It’s one thing to adopt hazard and environmental policies, but quite another to actually implement them. This would require providing the training, and maintaining the necessary equipment, to address potential threats.

Port services are just as competitive as shipping companies. Ports aim to maximize the moving of containers through terminals. This makes the physical investigation of the contents of containers impossible, and any processing delay unaffordable.

Nevertheless, efficiency and profitability don’t mean quality services should be

sacrificed. There are three ways to begin addressing this issue:

Rigorous enforcement of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods regulations, which control their handling and stowage

Better training for supply chain workers who apply these regulations

Stronger sanctions issued by states where cargoes originate, and by shipping companies.

The investigation into the X-Press Pearl disaster will reveal whether the crew sought a priority berth for shelter while the ship was engulfed in flames at Colombo port.

Arguably, ships in distress have traditionally enjoyed the “freedom of ports” to seek shelter in the territorial waters of nations if they are facing the total loss of the vessel and its cargo, or the lives of its crew.

But states may deny ships entry if, for instance, they pose a serious threat to the environment or the safety or security of its people. Given the increasing size of vessels and the uncertain nature of the threat they pose, refusal of entry is the norm.

In 2003, following several high-profile incidents, the International Maritime Organization adopted resolutions creating “places of refuge” for vessels in distress.

These are sheltered waters, and not ports with the infrastructure to counteract serious problems on board. So while refuge may address the threat of fire, it does not avert the far greater risk of environmental pollution.

Places of refuge have assuaged some concerns, but they are not an international obligation. They also tend to be concentrated in developed maritime regions, and are virtually nonexistent where they’re most needed — where substandard vessels carrying illicit dangerous cargoes ply their trade.

It’s important we do not let the X-Press Pearl settle into the background as another spectacular story about a ship ablaze at sea. It should spark change, and serve as the cautionary exemplar of what happens with alarming frequency when we want our goods cheap and now.