EXPERT IN OIL-SPILL RESPONSE OUTLINES THE RISKS FOR B.C.
Prudence suggests planning for the worst case scenario, not hoping for the best
By Stephen Hume
The Vancouver Sun
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Advocates for offshore drilling on the British Columbia coast emphasize the expectation of economic benefits for coastal communities, but tend to minimize the probability of a major accident.
Of course, probability is one thing. Risk is another.
In lay terms, risk is just the probability of an event multiplied by the consequences. In other words, the probability of an event may be high, but the risk may be low. Conversely, the probability may be low, but the risk may be extremely high.
Thus, while we are repeatedly pitched the best-case scenario by proponents of offshore oil and gas development – they cite studies arguing that potential accidents will most probably be minor, that better regulations have improved safety, that technology and clean-up procedures have improved greatly – prudence suggests that the worst case is what we should keep in mind when we consider potential consequences.
And when thinking through those consequences, we should pay particular attention to where the worst impacts could occur, how extensive they might be, what is most vulnerable and over what time frame they might take place.
So what possibilities lie within the range of scenarios for an accident in Hecate Strait?
Gerald Graham is an expert in oil spill response. He has worked in petroleum exploration and has been a consultant on tanker safety, oil spill containment and clean-up deployment strategies.
Earlier this week, I listened in as he outlined for a group of naturalists who are interested in marine issues the different levels of risk posed by offshore oil development.
To prepare myself for his remarks, I’d done a little research myself….. For example, we’re repeatedly assured about safety. Yet when I checked statistics compiled by the International Association of Drilling Contractors, I discovered that there have been more than 12,000 reportable accidents involving drill rigs operating in water since 1995. And I came across a 1998 study of 1,206 oil well blowouts in Texas and on the offshore continental shelf between 1960 and 1998.
In Hecate Strait or Queen Charlotte Sound, Graham said, the best case for an accident would involve the release of a small volume of light crude oil in mid-summer at a location close to shore. This would mean that it could be swiftly contained and recovered and the environmental impact minimized.
The next level of risk would involve the spill of a large volume of medium weight crude, perhaps during a crucial biological event like the annual herring spawn in March and April when birds and sea mammals are congregating to feed. It would take place farther offshore, delaying response times. Bad weather would further hamper clean-up operations.
Such an incident would do extensive damage, Graham said, but the ecosystem should recover over a period of three to five years.
The worst case would involve an oil well blowout, a major pipeline rupture or a supertanker breaking up in the middle of winter with a hurricane-force storm generating waves as high as a six-storey building.
“In that case,” the oil spill expert said, “your number one option would be to do nothing, just let nature take its course and the politicians catch the flak. Conventional spill containment would not be applicable. The bottom line is that we don’t know how to clean up an oil spill in winter up there. Oil experts shudder when they think about working up there in the winter.”
So for the sake of our risk assessment, let’s assume we have not the best case, but the worst case – a massive mid-winter oil spill.
What species are most vulnerable? To begin, six species of salmon and the estuaries of their 650 spawning rivers. Then the sand lance, a small fish which is a crucial element of the food chain and spends its winters buried in the sand, which makes it especially vulnerable to oil spills. And 70 species of groundfish.
There are also dense concentrations of seabirds. Half the world’s population of ancient murrelets, 80 per cent of Cassin’s auklets, 50 per cent of the rhinoceros auklets and 20 per cent of the marbled murrelets congregate off the Queen Charlotte Islands.
“One spill in a particular area could affect numerous species at the same time,” Graham said. He estimated that 90 to 95 per cent of oiled birds would perish, even with intensive clean-up operations.
How extensive might the impact of a worst case spill be? In mid-winter, it might have an impact zone that extended from Prince Rupert to mid-Vancouver Island, Graham said. If oil was carried into mid-coast inlets without a lot of wave action, it might persist for decades – it’s still a problem in Prince William Sound, 15 years after the Exxon Valdez spill.
“If we have a blowout or a supertanker breaks up in a hurricane, that oil goes on-shore,” he said. “Consequences for the marine ecosystem in general could be catastrophic and irreversible.”
That’s the same seldom-quoted warning that’s also delivered in the provincial government’s own independent report assessing the moratorium.
As advocates of lifting the moratorium say, the probability of such an event is low. The question for citizens to ponder is whether the risk of such a catastrophic spill might be too great.
shume@islandnet.com