Legally, oil spill response appropriate: maritime lawyer

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150417145027.htm

Impacts of Gulf oil spill on marine organisms on Gulf coast

Date: April 17, 2015

Source: Florida Atlantic University

Summary: Researchers have determined the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on marine organisms such as oysters, conch, shrimp, corals as well as marine plankton (microalgae or phytoplankton, rotifers or zooplankton), which provide the basis of coastal and oceanic food webs.

Susan Laramore, Ph.D., a marine and molecular biologist at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at Florida Atlantic University, and Amber Garr, Ph.D., examine the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on shrimp in FAU’s Harbor Branch Aquatic Animal Health Laboratory.

Credit: Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Florida Atlantic University

On April 20, 2010, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) rig caused a release of 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico before the well was capped on July 15, 2010. Close to 100,000 kilometers, including more than 1,000 total linear miles of coastlines in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida were affected. A number of methods were used to prevent the oil from reaching the shoreline, including an estimated 1.9 million gallons of dispersant. Dispersants are one of the most controversial of these methods and are typically used when other methods are not adequate.

Researchers from Florida Atlantic University's Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute conducted several studies to determine the impacts of the DWH on marine organisms such as oysters, conch, shrimp, corals as well as marine plankton (microalgae or phytoplankton, rotifers or zooplankton), which provide the basis of coastal and oceanic food webs. Findings from their oyster and phytoplankton studies were published in 2014 in the Journal of Shellfish Research and the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.

Chemical dispersants do not remove oil from water, but merely accelerate its natural dispersion. Although the use of dispersants decreased the impact of oil to shorelines and surface-dwelling organisms, such as birds, dispersants allowed the oil to be more easily taken up by organisms that live in the water column. Rather than disappearing, the dispersed oil ended up in bottom sediments, where it remains, posing future threats to pelagic and benthic organisms.

"Oil releases may affect marine organisms in a number of ways including physically, through toxic effects known to produce carcinogenic and mutagenic effects by modifying behavior, or through modifications in their natural habitats," said Susan Laramore, Ph.D., an author in both of the publications, assistant research professor, and a marine and molecular biologist who studies aquatic animal health issues at FAU's Harbor Branch Aquatic Animal Health Laboratory. "The Deepwater Horizon oil spill happened to coincide with the spring spawning season for a number of aquatic organisms, including shrimp and the eastern oyster."

In the study published in the Journal of Shellfish Research, Laramore and her collaborators conducted studies to assess fertilization success, development, survival, and swimming behavior as well as sub-lethal exposure laboratory experiments to assess the impacts of brief exposures on the growth and survival of oysters (average lifespan of two years in the Gulf of Mexico). Findings from this study show that the DWH oil and dispersed oil impacted all of the factors listed above, although the extent of the impact varied depending on oyster life stage, amount of exposure and oil concentration.

Fishermen report that the population of oysters have not come back to pre-spill levels. Diminished populations of oysters also affect marine coastal food webs and associated ecosystems.

In the second published study, Laramore and her collaborators examined two species of algae, used to feed molluscs, crustaceans and fish. These two species served as "models" for phytoplankton species in the Gulf of Mexico that were exposed to crude oil and weathered oil, dispersant and dispersed oil during the DWH oil spill. Results from this study revealed that the dispersant and dispersed oil affected the growth and motility of the algae, which may have had negative impacts on the food chain.

"Although the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill may not have long-term consequences especially for short-lived species, the effects of oil and dispersant on lower trophic food sources impacted fisheries recruitment in the short-term, and longer term impacts are likely to be seen in some species and ecosystems," said Laramore.

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by Florida Atlantic University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal References:
1.Susan Laramore, William Krebs, Amber Garr. Effects of Macondo Canyon 252 Oil (Naturally and Chemically Dispersed) on LarvalCrassostrea virginica(Gmelin, 1791). Journal of Shellfish Research, 2014; 33 (3): 709 DOI: 10.2983/035.033.0305 http://dx.doi.org/10.2983/035.033.0305
2.Amber L. Garr, Susan Laramore, William Krebs. Toxic Effects of Oil and Dispersant on Marine Microalgae. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2014; 93 (6): 654 DOI: 10.1007/s00128-014-1395-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00128-014-1395-2
 
If I asked my boys to clean up their room, and they cleaned up 5-10% of it and then told me "job done", I'd say not so fast. But 5-10% recovery is exactly what the Conservatives say counts as a "successful" oil spill cleanup. Time to change the frame and give our communities and coastal waters the protection they deserve. Restoring the Kits Coast Guard station and the bases on Vancouver Island is a first step. Here's a short clip of my speech in the House today on our important motion calling on the government to do just that.

[1qpI5Bh3dQg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qpI5Bh3dQg
 
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Fe...oast+guard+station+reopen/10986071/story.html

Federal NDP calls for Kitsilano coast guard station to reopen

Leader Tom Mulcair announced motion in Vancouver Saturday

By Matthew Robinson, Vancouver Sun April 19, 2015

Federal NDP calls for Kitsilano coast guard station to reopen

File photo: A sailboat and water taxi pass a Coast Guard vessel moored at the Coast Guard’s Kitsilano Station in Vancouver, B.C., on Friday May 18, 2012.

Photograph by: DARRYL DYCK , THE CANADIAN PRESS

VANCOUVER -- Federal NDP fisheries critic Fin Donnelly is urging Conservative MPs from B.C. to stand up for the West Coast and support a motion he plans to introduce Monday to reopen the Kitsilano coast guard station in Vancouver.

The Conservative government shuttered the station in 2013 to save cash. It is a decision that some experts say left the coast guard slow to respond to — and unequipped to contain — a recent toxic fuel spill in English Bay.

“We are asking B.C. Conservative MPs to stand with the people of the West Coast, to stand up for the coast guard. Do the right thing and support this motion. If they alone support this motion with the opposition, it will pass,” said Donnelly, the MP for New Westminster-Coquitlam and Port Moody. “They can make the difference.”

Two Vancouver beaches remained closed on the weekend after 2,700 litres of bunker fuel spilled from the MV Marathassa and quickly spread through the region, depositing oil on the shores of English Bay, Stanley Park, North Vancouver, West Vancouver and Burrard Inlet, and fouling wildlife.

The Canadian Coast Guard — which has described its response as “exemplary” — has faced harsh criticism for its response. A recreational boater noticed the spill at about 5 p.m. on April 8, but it took six hours for the coast guard to arrive at the scene and another seven hours for a private company it contracted to secure an oil-absorbing boom around the vessel.

“This was a relatively calm day. It was in good conditions and we could not get a response within minutes. When you’re dealing with first response in emergency issues, time matters,” said Donnelly.

Former Kitsilano Coast Guard commander Fred Moxey has said his station would have been able to respond to the spill in about six minutes. It could have been contained within 30 minutes were the base still open, said retired Canadian Coast Guard captain Tony Toxopeus.

But active coast guard officials have been adamant that the Kitsilano base was not equipped to handle this type of spill, and Conservative MPs have applauded the coast guard’s response.

“It really is shocking that they’re trying to defend the decision to close the Kitsilano Coast Guard station and to close other coast guard infrastructure,” said Donnelly. “It was a question of penny-wise, pound-foolish.”

Donnelly’s motion will demand the station be reopened along with a recently closed marine communication and traffic centre in Ucluelet, and will call for a stop to planned closures of similar centres in Vancouver and Comox.

NDP leader Tom Mulcair first announced the motion in Vancouver Saturday.

“This is not about ideology anymore. This is about common sense. This is about protecting people, about protecting ecosystems,” Mulcair told reporters.“This is a dangerous precedent Mr. Harper’s set. But what we’ve learned is we don’t even have adequate response time for a moderately sized oil spill.”Sophie Doucet, a spokeswoman for Fisheries Minister Gail Shea, contested those assertions.

“Thomas Mulcair is clearly misleading British Columbians to serve his political agenda,” she said in a statement.Metro Vancouver officials have stated that the government’s plans to consolidate various marine communication and traffic centres will not compromise ship safety, Doucet added.Meanwhile, North Vancouver’s Squamish Nation demanded on Saturday to have a “priority-one role” in future spill responses — meaning it would be called first, on the same priority list as the city and the province.Chief Ian Campbell said the federal government has a long way to go before it meets a commitment made last year to have a “world class” tanker safety system including in aboriginal communities.“The English Bay heavy oil spill has the potential to damage our sensitive marine habitats in our waters. And the cleanup response can hardly be called ‘world class.’ In fact, the response was inept and sluggish,” he said in a statement.The Department of Fisheries said the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations have representatives on site at the incident command post and have discussed their concerns with coast guard officials.

All Vancouver beaches except for Crab and New Brighton park were reopened on Saturday, but beach-goers were warned to avoid contact with any small amounts of remaining oil. West Vancouver beaches are still closed.

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has also promised to reopen the station if his party is elected this year.

With files from Canadian Press

mrobinson@vancouversun.com

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Fe...tion+reopen/10986071/story.html#ixzz3XsRAEpEs
 
Yawn...didn't even bother, I'm done reading anything else you post,you prattle on and on,soooo bored of you ! Have a nice life, peace out...boop !
 
Yawn...didn't even bother, I'm done reading anything else you post,you prattle on and on,soooo bored of you ! Have a nice life, peace out...boop !

Well that's mature.... if your done maybe just stop reading it and move one to something your are interested in.

As someone that is directly impacted by the closing of coastguard stations I welcome the motion to reopen kits' and not close Comox and Ucluelet traffic / radio. These are things that effect our recreation angling community. Perhaps your not part of that and that begs the question as to why you are on this forum......
 
What is your impact of the closing of the station. I am a true recreation boater/ fisherman and not a guide and I have no impact. I can still use my boat at any time I want.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I'm on this forum to learn, meet fellow fishermen, and share info and experiences. I no longer have any interest in anything agentaqua posts. That's it. The closing of a coast guard station is unfortunate for the people who lost their employment or had to relocate. It's hard to listen to people complain all the time, just get tired of *****, *****, *****. Take a walk, catch a fish. This topic is constantly bombarded by people reporting one sided arguments, anyone with a different point of view gets over whelmed with an endless amount of page filler with accompanying colorful graphs. We all get it you have an agenda. I don't think a fishing forum should be used as a political vehicle....posting 15 threads in a day, most with political overtones. Really ?! This is allowed ?
 
I'm on this forum to learn, meet fellow fishermen, and share info and experiences. I no longer have any interest in anything agentaqua posts. That's it. The closing of a coast guard station is unfortunate for the people who lost their employment or had to relocate. It's hard to listen to people complain all the time, just get tired of *****, *****, *****. Take a walk, catch a fish. This topic is constantly bombarded by people reporting one sided arguments, anyone with a different point of view gets over whelmed with an endless amount of page filler with accompanying colorful graphs. We all get it you have an agenda. I don't think a fishing forum should be used as a political vehicle....posting 15 threads in a day, most with political overtones. Really ?! This is allowed ?

Ya, its suppose to be a discussion forum but agent anonymous seems to be having a discussion with himself half the time. lol I enjoy some of what he posts but for the most part I find it very offensive how he marches around this forum anti everything in Canada. If I hadn't been accused so often of being a pr shill I certainly would not say this but my bets are that agent does this stuff for a living and this is why his anonymity is so closely guarded. Fine by me, its a forum format, fine. His supporters will pipe up and defend his anonymity vigorously but they don't have too so leave it. He/she must have some fine job security tho with this vigorous secret keeping... anyway...

http://fair-questions.com/post-4/
 
I and I am sure many others like agentaqua's posts. They are informative, come from good sources and cover a wide range of interesting and important topics mostly from an environmentally sustainable point of view. A view that anyone who likes to fish and wants to have opportunity for their children and grandchildren to fish needs to share - or there will be few fish left in the future!

I say post on agentaqua!!! You are one of the reasons this forum is as successful and popular as it is! My 2 bits.
 
Yawn...didn't even bother, I'm done reading anything else you post,you prattle on and on,soooo bored of you ! Have a nice life, peace out...boop !


aw really? we're going to miss your insightful intellect.... :rolleyes:
 
What is your impact of the closing of the station. I am a true recreation boater/ fisherman and not a guide and I have no impact. I can still use my boat at any time I want.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This issue has been in the local papers for a few years.
Here are some links. Give the comments at the end a read also.
Bottom line is when the local CG folks say it's a bad idea, I take notice.
Think about it... one radio station for the SoG and if they lose power what then.
No back up and no way to cover the traffic.
That seems like a great way to lose people and ships.
I also know that they are having major problems with the automation equipment they have installed here in Comox. The guy's are down to putting posted notes on their computer screens to mark out the traffic. I know the theory sounds like a good idea but for crying out loud having people (boots on the ground) can't be replaced with computers and software.......
I know all this big talk of LNG tankers and tarsand tankers and more coal barges are right out side our door. If these big dreams ever come to pass why would we be closing down the stations that protect them. Must be a new con math where less is more because our dear leader tells us so. Propaganda at it's finest. DOH

http://www.comoxvalleyrecord.com/se...ie=UTF-8&cx=015619971846971042401:hjdwwjitkk8
 
Ya, its suppose to be a discussion forum but agent anonymous seems to be having a discussion with himself half the time. lol I enjoy some of what he posts but for the most part I find it very offensive how he marches around this forum anti everything in Canada. If I hadn't been accused so often of being a pr shill I certainly would not say this but my bets are that agent does this stuff for a living and this is why his anonymity is so closely guarded. Fine by me, its a forum format, fine. His supporters will pipe up and defend his anonymity vigorously but they don't have too so leave it. He/she must have some fine job security tho with this vigorous secret keeping... anyway...

http://fair-questions.com/post-4/
Seriously BN.... Ezra and Vivian and their con friends fair questions....
big-facepalm.gif
 
Your argument is the same as when the government at the time did away with the weather ships and people were going to be in grave danger.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Your argument is the same as when the government at the time did away with the weather ships and people were going to be in grave danger.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And your argument is less CG assets is a good thing?
Nothing could go wrong... right?
You OK with some bean counter in Ottawa deciding what we need here on the west coast?
I also did not post all the arguments as they are in the links from the local paper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This issue has been in the local papers for a few years.
Here are some links. Give the comments at the end a read also.
Bottom line is when the local CG folks say it's a bad idea, I take notice.
Think about it... one radio station for the SoG and if they lose power what then.
No back up and no way to cover the traffic.
That seems like a great way to lose people and ships.
I also know that they are having major problems with the automation equipment they have installed here in Comox. The guy's are down to putting posted notes on their computer screens to mark out the traffic. I know the theory sounds like a good idea but for crying out loud having people (boots on the ground) can't be replaced with computers and software.......
I know all this big talk of LNG tankers and tarsand tankers and more coal barges are right out side our door. If these big dreams ever come to pass why would we be closing down the stations that protect them. Must be a new con math where less is more because our dear leader tells us so. Propaganda at it's finest. DOH

http://www.comoxvalleyrecord.com/se...ie=UTF-8&cx=015619971846971042401:hjdwwjitkk8

Seriously they have no backup power for their traffic control station? I find this totally unbelievable! I cannot believe that for example the traffic centre in Victoria goes down with every power outage! While their may not be a backup station, I would be shocked (no pun intended) to find out that the station has no backup power available. Someone tell you this? Should be easy to check!
 
M/V Marathassa released by Transport Canada

Cargo ship could head to a berth for loading before departing Vancouver area

CBC News Posted: Apr 21, 2015 6:37 AM PT

A spill response boat monitors a boom placed around the grain ship Marathassa, from which a Port Metro Vancouver spokesperson said the fuel may have spilled. April 9, 2015. (Michael Mcarthur/CBC)

The cargo ship M/V Marathassa — which has been blamed for spilling several thousand litres of bunker fuel into English Bay — has been released this morning by the Canadian Coast Guard.

Around 6 a.m. PT, the vessel headed to a berth in Vancouver Harbour to be loaded with grain before departing on its next voyage.

The coast guard ordered the ship to remain at anchorage after the oil spill was detected two weeks ago. It was surrounded by a boom while crews worked to clean up the oil.

"This material will be carefully collected by crews and cleaned. While this operation is ongoing, pollution response equipment will be standing by to respond to any potential further release."

The hull of the vessel was cleaned to remove oil, but the coast guard says "a minimal amount of bunker C fuel — much like a bathtub ring at the vessel water line — remains adhered to the vessel's hull."

Oil Spill 20150409
A spill response boat secures a boom around the bulk carrier cargo ship Marathassa after a bunker fuel spill on Burrard Inlet in Vancouver, B.C., on Thursday April 9, 2015. (Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press)

"The incident command science and environment teams have concluded that further efforts to remove this ring would necessitate the use of chemicals which was deemed to be unacceptable to partner agencies represented at incident command."

Transport Canada is taking several measures to ensure the vessel does not further pollute Canadian waters.

"The vessel will be able to move on its own power, but be escorted by an environmental response vessel. In the unlikely event of an oil release during transit, this escort will be ready to capture it," said the statement.

The ship, which is flagged in Cyprus, was on its maiden voyage from Japan when a mechanical failure resulted in the accidental discharge of an estimated 2,700 litres of fuel into English Bay on April 8.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your argument is the same as when the government at the time did away with the weather ships and people were going to be in grave danger.
Good point, SS. The question becomes - how many safeguards does one remove until the inevitable happens and something serious occurs. If you live in Ottawa - constantly bombarded with industry lobbyists with deep pockets - isolated from the actual on-the-ground impacts - only looking to get re-elected every 4 years....

I would expect that that person and his/her lifestyle would be more accommodating to more risk at somebody else's expense.

How many safeguards can be removed before something serious happens?

Maybe browse the Transportation Safety Boards website and browse past marine accidents to have some insights into how this works:http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/marine/index.asp

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/surveillance-watchlist/multi-modal/2014/multimodal.asp
 

Attachments

  • Jenga.jpg
    Jenga.jpg
    5.2 KB · Views: 45
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/marine/1994/m94m0057/m94m0057.pdf

p.18: "Within ports and harbours, the responsibility for providing an emergency response plan, including firefighting assistance for vessels in port, generally rests with the port management. These plans often rely on municipal fire departments for fire-fighting support, many of which do not have personnel properly trained to fight shipboard fires. The Board believes that, with the ever-present risk of on-board fires, a well trained and equipped fire response team is essential in order to minimize the consequences of an out-of-control fire in the close confines of a port or harbour. Therefore, given that some Canadian ports and harbours appear to lack the proper facilities and resources to effectively contain shipboard fires occurring within their jurisdiction"
 
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/marine/2003/m03l0148/m03l0148.asp
"Response Plan and Emergency Resources

Despite the urgent calls for assistance by the master of the Yong Kang, no government or private agency took action under a pre-established response plan. Because no pollution was reported, Transport Canada (TC) and the Environmental Response Division only monitored the situation. The MCTS answered the call from the Yong Kang and relayed the information to the appropriate authorities at TC and DFO under the procedures in place for this type of occurrence. The Regional Operations Centre positioned the CCGS Martha L. Black, in case of an environmental emergency or marine rescue, but released it about two hours before the Yong Kang was refloated. Even though the master had informed the authorities of a developing emergency situation at about 0715, the Ocan Charlie, with the docking pilot on board, did not leave until 0845. The Ocan Delta, sent to provide additional assistance, turned back because of mechanical trouble. No other tug or SAR unit was dispatched to replace it.

The key to success in an emergency response is to take action in a timely and orderly fashion. The parties involved must know the primary risks and dangers as well as the economic and environmental input. Only then is it possible to establish a response plan, make preventive administrative decisions, and determine the resources needed to support the actions in the plan.

In its report on the Alcor,Footnote 5 the Board recommended that

The Department of Transport, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Canadian pilotage authorities, in consultation with marine interests, develop, implement, and exercise contingency plans to ensure that risks associated with navigation-related emergencies are adequately addressed (M03-03, issued January 2004).

This occurrence demonstrates that no effective measures have been initiated to mitigate risks, pending development of such a final formalized plan. .Although several government agencies were involved in the response, they did not coordinate their actions. Without a response plan, they were unable to assess the relevance and effectiveness of the actions taken. A predefined risk matrix controlled by proper authorities provides a framework against which navigation risk can be assessed in Canadian waters. Except for search and rescue and oil spill operations, other marine emergencies can occur without an appropriate response. While risks associated with uncoordinated SAR or environmental emergency response are not tolerated, the risks associated with developing navigation-related emergencies are tolerated.
"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top