What the August Oil Spills of Mauritius & Venezuela Tells About Shipping?

August has been a very bad month for the ocean, having been battered by oil spills, explosions, and poorly regulated shipping, writes Nishan Degnarain in an article published in Forbes.

Venezuelan Oil Spill

While the eyes of the world were first shocked by the explosion on 4 August in Beirut Port from poorly stored Ammonium Nitrate being carried by a Moldovan-flagged vessel, and then the massive oil spill on 6 August in Mauritius by a Panama-flagged, Japanese-owned iron ore ship that split apart against a coral lagoon, Venezuela was experiencing its own major oil spill which officials first started detecting on 2 August.

It was a bunker fuel oil spill (same as Mauritius) and has now been estimated at being twice the size as the one in Mauritius.

The cause was not immediately obvious and satellite data suggests the leak either came from a Portugal-flagged vessel or an oil pipeline close to a petroleum hub in the region.

Another Protected Area Oil Spill

It was also in a pristine protected National Park, full of coral reefs, mangrove forests and turtle nesting grounds.

This is the second time Venezuela has experienced a major oil spill in the last year, following over 1500 miles of Brazil’s beaches experiencing over 2000 tons of heavy engine oil in September.

That spill was suspected to come from a Greek-flagged vessel, which, incidentally also uses shipping lanes close to Mauritius.

At the time, it was shown that 600 tons of oil could easily be leaked within 30 minutes of a ship transfer gone wrong.

Similarity With the Mauritius Incident

What do we know about the Venezuela Oil Spill, and in what way is was it similar to the oil spill faced by Mauritius?

Here are 7 similarities.

1.Oil Leaks in Protected National Parks

In both Mauritius and Venezuela, the oil spill occurred in the midst of what were supposed to be highly protected national parks.  In both Mauritius and Venezuela, these parks contain a rich variety of biodiversity and a range of different coastal ecosystems – protected coral reefs, mangrove forests that are breeding grounds for reef fish, sandy beaches that are habitats and nesting grounds for turtles.

Venezuela’s Oil Spill leak occurred in Morrocoy National Park in the North West of the country.  The Wakashio vessel oil spill in Mauritius occurred amid a network of internationally protected coral and mangrove reserves in Pointe d’Esny in the South East of the country, which was also home to rearing efforts of some of the rarest plants, birds, lizards, and butterflies on the planet.

It showed that while many Governments have announced protected areas on paper, they have not put in place the enforcement mechanisms to protect these areas from large, industrial disasters.

2. Both Bunker (Engine) Fuel spills

Both Mauritius and Venezuela were bunker fuel oil spills, rather than crude oil spills (like Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon).  This means they may be smaller in volume but could become a lot more toxic in sunnier environments due to the effect of the sun’s ultra-violet light on this heavy engine oil, turning it into an invisible, deadly chemical killer.  Secretive clean up efforts in many cases have resulted in outcomes worse than the initial oil spill by using chemical dispersants that harm the extremely fragile ocean microbiome, particularly around delicate coral reef systems (because of the way the cleanup was approached, Venezuela estimates the effects could last as long as 50 years).

In Mauritius’ case, it was clear that the oil came from the Wakashio vessel as this fuel type was not used to fuel any vessels in the lagoon previously.  However, in Venezuela’s case, it took a little detective work to figure out the source – despite Government claims the source was from a vessel, the local university showed through chemical analysis that the source could be from the petrochemical hub centered around the ‘El Palito’ refinery.  From satellite calculations, the stain of 7.6 km long by 1.5 km wide corresponded to a spill of 26,730 barrels of oil.

When asked about the effect of Bunker Fuel (VLSFO) in the long term over delicate coral ecosystems, the UN agency responsible global shipping admitted it did not know the long term implications of such fuels in fragile coral reef ecosystems. 

On 19 August 2020, an IMO spokesperson said “because this fuel is so new, research has only just been initiated on its fate and behavior in the environment, particularly over a longer period. It’s really the longer term fate and effects that are not yet known.”  

Yet, the IMO has sent experts specifically to advise on the clean up operations, raising greater concerns if the wrong approach to the clean up is taken that could cause even greater long term harm than the oil spill itself.

3. Satellites detected the spills

In both Mauritius and Venezuela, satellites were the critical technology to help understand the spread and impact.  While optical satellites only revealed the more concentrated dark patches of oil, it was the new technologies of Synthetic Aperture Radar, such as provided by Finish company Iceye and Ursa Space Systems, that was able to reveal the extent of the spread across the East Coast of Mauritius and into the protected areas of Blue Bay Marine Park and 14 miles North to Ile aux Cerfs (2 miles from where 18 dolphins were found dead on 26 August).

In Venezuela’s case, a large patch of dark oil could be seen from satellites.  Using AIS tracking correlated with the spread of the spill, some commentators were able to identify the vessels that had been close to the area when the oil appeared.  However, upon further investigation, it appeared that the oil leaked from a refinery on the coast linked to the state-run oil company PDVSA, that had been heavily criticized in the past.

4. Volume of the spill

In both Mauritius and Venezuela, officials had tried to state that the volume of oil spilled was relatively small (in Venezuela’s case, it was claimed that the authorities and oil company only started paying attention to the spill 22 days after the leak happened).  The Physical, Mathematical and Natural Sciences Academy (ACFIMAN) and the Engineering and Habitat Academy (ANIH) said in a statement on August 20th that “The procedures that the company implemented showed the precariousness of the equipment and personnel with scarce training and knowledge to respond to the magnitude of the damaged caused…  The delayed and precarious response of PDVSA and the Ministry of Environment, the MINEC, and the silence of the prosecutor’s office and ombudsman demonstrate again the level of deinstitutionalization of the country.”

A variety of confusing communication terms was used in Mauritius, such as only referring to the oil spill using a weight measurement (in metric tons) of the leaked oil, rather than the conventional volume measurements for oil spills (gallons and barrels).

In Venezuela, it is now estimated that 26,730 barrels were leaked at the end of July.  This is higher than the amount of barrels estimated to have been leaked from Mauritius (7000), although this figure is from 11 August (16 days ago) when over 15,000 barrels remained on board, and even though more oil could be seen leaking, the final number in the coral lagoon still has not been disclosed.

In Venezuela 15 km of coastline had been impacted compared with UN estimates of 30 km in Mauritius. These are critical habitats for a variety of wildlife.

5. Governments downplaying the true impact of the spill

Both Venezuela and Mauritius’ Government’s responses have been heavily criticized.  First, both have tried to underplay the incident.  In Venezuela officials repeatedly claimed they had the situation under control.

In Mauritius, the Government reassured the population that there was no risk when the single-hub vessel had spent 12 days on Mauritian’ reefs, dragging by over 1 km, then as oil spilled into the lagoon, the population were told it was a small leak, then the vessel split in two on 15 August and was deliberately sunk in the coral lagoon on 24 August, to the consternation of the entire population who then started seeing dozens of dead dolphins appear on their beaches, and are now organizing national protests on Saturday 29 August.

Both Venezuela and Mauritius did not disclose the amount of oil that was leaked – it took external validation and satellites to prove the impact was. Such secretive approaches ended up backfiring with environmental non profit groups.

6. Declaring victory too soon

Both Venezuela and Mauritian Governments have tried to declare victory too quickly.   The focus had been on ending visual pollution, but by using chemical dispersants, this could have extended length of time the impact would now have.

In Venezuela’s case, scientists have warned that it will take over 50 years to restore its habitat.  In Mauritius, the lack of transparency surrounding the science being done has meant that the science has been politicized (for example, at a press conference on 26 Aug attended by the Minister of Maritime Affairs, Govt sponsored NGOs and international specialists, it was announced that the cause of 18 dolphin deaths was not due to the oil spill or sinking of the vessel before an autopsy could even be performed).

What citizens need in a crisis is the constant drip of reliable information and transparency, in order to build trust.

7. Secretive and bodged oil spill cleanup

In both Mauritius and Venezuela, there has been growing concern about the use of chemical clean up agents along with some very protected areas of coastline.  Such chemicals (called dispersants) break down the oil into visible particles that become easier to be absorbed by marine creatures and corals (a process called increasing bio-availability).  This means that the effects could be a lot more toxic, and the process of spreading harsh chemicals along delicate beaches, mangroves, and corals would do untold damage to ecosystems facing the pressures from climate change, oil spill, and now a major chemical cleanup operation.

 Ongoing Risks

Even though the focus had been on Venezuela’s oil spill, another massive oil tanker was at risk of collapsing off the coast of Venezuela with 1.3 million barrels of oil in the Gulf of Paria, risking the entire Venezuela Coast and Caribbean islands.

In Mauritius, whilst the operation was still ongoing to remove the rear of the Wakashioa off the coral lagoon, another massive Marshall-islands flagged vessel broke down 300 miles North of Mauritius.

These root causes of safety in the global shipping industry have never been fully addressed, raising the question whether the next accident is just a matter of when, not if.

A Strong International Call For Change

At the same time as both countries were facing an outcry from environmental organizations within their countries, global NGOs had started to step up their fight against Big Oil and Global Shipping.

Greenpeace has issued a series of stern letters against the operators of the shipping company and salvage operation, calling for an international investigation into the deliberate sinking of the Wakashio.

Environmental NGO WWF has also called for leaders to look at the regulations surrounding how global shipping is regulated and calling for influential leaders to step up their support for reform.

This comes as a new petition for change in the Global Shipping industry has gone to leaders of the G20, calling for change.  In this petition, four asks are made:

• A call to end ‘Flags of Convenience’ (such as the Moldova-flagged vessel involved in Beirut, the Panama-flagged vessel in Mauritius, and a new Marshall Islands-flagged vessel has broken down 300 miles North of Mauritius, as the wreck of the Wakashio is still being removed).
• A call to ban fossil fuels from ships (the shipping industry notoriously excluded themselves from the Paris Agreement and subsequent industry-self regulation has been heavily criticized as greenwashing with weak targets that rely on self-reporting).
• A call to to ban single hull vessels immediately (the risks in Mauritius would have been avoided had the heavy engine fuel been contained in a double hulled vessels as global shipping had been asked to do following Exxon Valdez and which was about to be announced after 2007 Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco Bay, until lobbying from global shipping companies softened those rules).
• Safer habitats for large marine mammals (such as whales and dolphins) that could be achieved by reducing whale strikes in whale nursing grounds, avoiding such whale nursing grounds or slow steaming through, reducing the sound of vessel engines on ocean mammals, and setting up a proper global monitoring of the habitats and migration patterns of all major marine mammals.

For too long, the global shipping industry has operated under the cover of darkness.

With the fate of 150 million in the Red Sea dependent on the safe removal of oil from one vessel off the coast of Yemen, two national governments on the brink of collapsing in Lebanon and Mauritius over their handling of what started as shipping crises, and another major oil spill in an important national park, the shipping industry (and associated supporting industries such as marine insurance companies, oil companies, salvage operators, oil clean up specialists, and even the global shipping regulator, the IMO) have been shown to be out of touch with the direction of the world economy, global consciousness and a younger generation who is calling for cleaner, greener, safer transport options around the world.

If these industries are unable to show the ambitious changes needed on their own, it appears from Lebanon and Mauritius, that change may be imposed on them whether they like this or not.  It is the only moral response acceptable, given the scale of the ecological and human tragedy in each of the four regions that have been affected these past 2 months.

About the Author

Nishan Degnarain is a Development Economist focused on Innovation, Sustainability, and Ethical Economic Growth. He is currently working with leading Silicon Valley technology companies on sustainable growth opportunities, particularly targeted at lower income nations. He Chairs LSE’s Ocean Finance Initiative, and is a member of WEF’s Global Expert Network, and a member of CCICED’s China Council. His book on Sustainability in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, called ‘Soul of the Sea in the Age of the Algorithm,’ focuses on an Ocean and Climate Renaissance and builds on his experience as an Economic and Innovation adviser to Fortune 500 CEOs and Governments around the world. He holds degrees in Development Economics from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and University of Cambridge.

Did you subscribe to our daily newsletter?

It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe!

Source: Forbes

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•