Major Marine Oil Spill Impacts

8/22/2019 Major Marine Oil Spill Impacts

1/38

Environmental Impacts of

a Major Marine Oil Spill

Prepared by

Stafford ReidEnvironmental Emergency Planner

Enforcement and Environmental

Emergencies Branch

BC Ministry of Water, Land and

Air Protection


2/38

Presentation Outline

Major Marine Oil Spill Incidents

Oil Spill Risk In British Columbia

Oil Types and Characteristics Oil Behaviour (Fate and Effects)

Oil Impacts

A Case Study -Exxon Valdez

Coastal Inventory and Oil Sensitivity Mapping

Shore Cleanup and Assessment


3/38

Torrey Canyon - England

(March 1967)

A Liberian-registered

tankeren route from the

Persian Gulf was strandedby an error in ship

manoeuvring, releasing

93,000 tonnes of crude

oil. Contaminated 300kilometres of both

England and France.


4/38

Amoco Cadiz- France

(1978)

A Liberian-registered

tankeren route to

England grounded on

a reef off the coast of

Brittany (France) and

releasing 260,000

tonnes of crude oil.

Contaminated 400 km

of coast. Took sixmonths to collect and

dispose of the drifting

oil.


5/38

Sea Empress - Wales

(February 15, 1996)

The single-hulled

Liberian oil tanker ran

aground on St. AnnsHead at the mouth of

Milford Haven estuary,

Wales, rupturing several

tanks. It released 72,000tonnes of light North

Sea Crude.


6/38

Braer- Scotland

(January 5, 1993)

An 18 years old, American

owned, but Liberian-

registered, oil tanker that

ran aground at Garth Ness

in the Shetlands in severe

weather conditions. Cause

was complete enginefailure. Spilled its entire

cargo of 85,000 tonnes of

North Sea Crude.


7/38

Exxon Valdez- United States

(March 24, 1989)

A US-flagged tankeren

route to Long Beach

California wrecked on

Bligh Reef in PrinceWilliam Sound, Alaska

due to Captain error.

Eight of the eleven tanks

damaged, releasing

41,000 tonnes of AlaskaNorthslope Crude Oil.

Contaminated 1,900

kilometers of coast.


8/38

Nestucca - United States (December 23, 1988)

The fuel bargeNestucca and

its tender tug Ocean Service

collided of the mouth of

Grays Harbour, State ofWashington. An estimated

890 tonnes of heavy Bunker

C oil spilled from the

ruptured barge. The oil

drifted past Cape Flattery andstranded along the west coast

of Vancouver Island, British

Columbia.


9/38

Tenyo Maru - United States

(July 22, 1991)

Off the entrance to the Juan de Fuca Strait,

the Japanese fishing vessel Tenyo Maru and

Chinese freighterTuo Hai collided. The

Tenyo Maru sank, releasing 365 tonnes ofbunker fuel. The slick travelled southwest to

the State of Washingtons Cape Flattery


10/38

New Carissa - United States

(February 3, 1999)

A Japanese-owned, but

Panamanian-flagged bulk

carrier on its way to Coos

Bay, Oregon (US) lost

anchor during storm

conditions and grounded

outside of Coos Harbour. It

held 1,490 tonnes of bunkerfuel, spilling 268 tonnes

when it broke in half.


11/38

Kuroshima - United States

(November 26, 1997)

A 368 foot seafood

freighter broke away

from its anchorage

during a severe stormand ran aground spilling

145 tonnes of Bunker C

oil. Contaminated

approximately 10

kilometres of shorelineof Summer Bay on the

Aleutian Island of

Unalaska.


12/38

Quantities of Oil Spilled 1970 - 1999


13/38

Spill Trend - 1970 to 1999


14/38

Oil Barge & Tanker Routes

Nestucca

Exxon Valdez


15/38

The Great Circle Route

- Major Vessels

New Carissa

Kuroshima

Tenyo Maru


16/38

Relative Spill Risk - British Columbia

Oil Tankers

(e.g. US TAPS)

Risk = Function of Probability &

Consequences

Major Vessels (e.g.Cargo,

Container, Bulk Carriers)

Bulk Oil Barges

Fuel Handling Facilities

High Probability,Low

Consequences

Low Probability, High

Consequences


17/38

Spill Scenario 1 - Outer Juan de Fuca Strait


18/38

Spill Scenario 2 - Rosario Strait


19/38

Fate and Effect of Spilled Oil


20/38

Fate & Affect by Oil Type

DENSITY EXAMPLES

Group I less than 0.8 Gasoline, Kerosene

Group II 0.8 - 0.85 Gas Oil, Abu Dhabi Crude

Group III 0.85-0.95 Arabian Light Crude, North Sea Crude

Group IV greater than 0.95 Heavy Fuel Oil, Venezuelan Crude Oils


21/38

Impacts of a Major Oil Spill

Destroys Marine Life

Destabilizes MarineCommunities

Degrades Shore Amenities

Harms Economic Activities

Impacts Human Welfare


22/38

Destroys Marine Life

Physical contamination and smothering are primary

mechanisms that adversely affecting marine life -

particularly inter-tidal organisms. Oil can also change the

physical characteristics of a habitat.

Clean-up activities can add to these effects by crushing,

removing, and damaging marine life.

Birds and mammals suffer the greatest acute impact whenthey meet the oil/water interface and become contaminated.

Reduction in thermal capability, and directed toxicity from

fumes and ingestion are the greatest causes of mortality.


23/38

Destabilizes Marine Communities

and Populations

Marine communities, such as planktonic waters,

wetlands (estuaries/marshes), kelp-beds and mud-

flats, and marine populations such as seabirds, seals

sea otters, and whales have variable resiliency to oilspills - from highly tolerant (plankton, kelp beds) to

very intolerant (estuaries and sea otters).

Impacts to communities and populations are very

difficult to measure due to lack of scientific methodsto measure, long-term, sub-lethal, and chronic

ecological impacts


24/38

Degrades Shore Amenities

Contamination of coastal amenity areas is a common

feature with many marine oil spills, leading to public

disquiet and concern regarding impacts to boating, sun-bathing, swimming, angling and other recreational pursuits.

The prevailing question is how much and how long of an

impact? The degree of impact to recreation is largely based

on the season it occurred.. Summer being the highest impactperiod due to recreation and tourism.


25/38

Harms Economic Activities

Economic activities that can be adversely affected by

an oil spill include: tourism, hotel and restaurant

businesses, dive and fishing charters, rentals, marinaoperations. There can also be direct impacts to

commercial fishing and aquaculture due to closures or

concerns about tainted products.

The impacts to a coastal communities economicactivities can be accentuated by media press, beyond

the actual impacts to the recreational and commercial

opportunities.


26/38

Impacts Human Welfare

A spills impact to human welfare is often under-rated.

Coastal communities, and public in general, are deeply

passionate about a safe, clean marine environment. There is

no tolerance for accidental spills of oil of any quantity. Assuch a marine oil spill accentuates this passion, often

beyond rationale thinking.

During an incident, public stress and anxiety prevail over

the long-term economic uncertainty of lost welfare. Inaddition, a large influx of spill money can divide a

communities from those the volunteer from their

hearts and those the offer their services for a fee.


27/38

Spill Impact Recovery

The recovery of the marine

environment from the effects of

a spill is generally thought to be

a return to the preciseconditions that preceded the

oil spill. However, this is very

unlikely to happen. As such,

the measurement of spill

recovery is based on a

comparison of unoiled sites

with oiled sites of similar

ecological characteristics.


28/38

A Case Study -Exxon Valdez

This 1989 crude oil spill occurred in the most biological

active season

More than 1,900 kilometres of coast oiled

3,500 to 5,500 sea otter died

200 harbour seals

144 species of dead birds collectedEstimated bird loss ranges from 260,000 to 580,000

60 to 70% colony reduction in Common and Thick-

billed Murres


29/38

Case Study - Oil Reduction in

Intertidal Shorelines

Intertidal habitats of the Prince William Sound have shownsurprisingly good recovery. Many shorelines that were heavily

oil and then cleaned now appear much as they did before the

spill. There are, however, still oil vestiges 10 years later.

Surface oiling a study sites in

Prince William Sound


30/38

Case Study - Remaining Impacts to

Intertidal Habitats

Remaining impacts include:

some deeply penetrated oil continue to leach from

a few beaches, and weathered remnants of oil in a

few sites

some intertidal animals, such as mussels, are still

contaminated

some rock sites stripped by aggressive (e.g. high-pressure, hot-water) cleaning are still bare

a few rich clam beds that suffered high mortality

have not fully recovered.


31/38

Case Study - Remaining Impacts to Wildlife

Though a high number of

individual animals may have

been killed, the actual initialimpacts to communities

(populations) of salmon, sea

otters, harbour seals and sea bird

was low. Indications show that

wildlife species populationshave recovered within their

natural range of variability.


32/38

Case Study - Restoration Focus

The marine environment with its natural resiliency and

ability to recover required little work in restoration, beyond

initial cleaning. The bird and wildlife populations are more

threatened by upland activities such as logging, which

destroyed Marbled Murrelet nesting areas, bear foraging

sites, and salmon habitats.

Settlement funds - billions of dollars - enable purchase of a

million acres of forest lands to ensure a sustainable

environment. These purchases recognized that one can't

draw a line at the oceans edge.


33/38

Case Study - Some Lessons Learned

Natural flushing action of waves

and storms is far more efficient

and better in restoration than

mops, hoses, and rakes.

Wildlife rescue and rehabilitation

efforts had a marginal beneficial

effect on the recovery of bird and

mammal populations.

Conventional wisdom is that

habitat protection is a better cure

than damage mitigation, no

matter how extensive or tender.


34/38

Case Study - Conclusions

From an ecological perspective, the impacted area of the

Prince William Sound from theExxon Valdezhas shown

surprising resiliency - an ability to return to its natural state

within the range of natural variability. There are stillenvironmental scarring.

From a social perspective, the impact of theExxon Valdez

oil spill on those people who lived and experienced the

event remains as fresh in their minds as the day it happened.People still hurt.

In conclusion, the environment has a greater resiliency to an

oil spill than people.


35/38

British Columbias Ecological Approach to

Marine Oil Spill Management

TheExxon Valdezas well as many other major oil spills

has enable British Columbia to learn from the experiences

of what to do, or more importantly what not to do.

These lessons are reflected in two main areas that the

Province focuses on:

Coastal Inventory and Shoreline Oil Sensitivity

Mapping

Shore Cleanup and Assessment


36/38

Coastal Inventory and Shoreline Oil

Sensitivity Mapping

British Columbia has one

of the most extensive and

sophisticated coastal

inventory and shoreline

sensitivity mapping

program in the world.

Red = High Oil

Sensitivity


37/38

Coastal Mapping

Shoreline Oil

Sensitivity

Mapping ensures

the mostenvironmentally-

sound and

effective methods

are used. Based

on technical, not

political

evaluations


38/38

Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment

When a spill occurs, Canada utilizes the Shoreline Cleanup and

Assessment Team (SCAT) process adopted from Alaska to determine

when and how each individual shoreline will be cleaned based on

geomorphological, ecological and archaeological factors.

Major Marine Oil Spill Impacts

Documents

Transcript of Major Marine Oil Spill Impacts