This past June brought visitors to Alaska to learn about the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Raewyn Bennett and Elaine Tapsell, elders of the indigenous Maori people of New Zealand, came to look for information and best practices or guidance that might be useful to them in the aftermath of their own oil spill off the coast of New Zealand in 2011.
The cargo tanker Rena ran aground on the Astrolabe Reef in October 2011, releasing over 350 tonnes (approximately 110,000 gallons) of fuel oil and shipping containers into New Zealand’s Bay of Plenty. The Astrolabe Reef, known to the Maori as “Otaiti,” is considered sacred by the Maori, and they are concerned about a potential plan to leave the submerged portion of the wreckage on the reef.
The council has often written and commented about the significant difficulty of responding to an oil spill in the frequently challenging Alaskan environment. Typically, these observations drive home the point that, given this difficulty of response, extra spill prevention measures are merited and frankly cost effective. All this remains accurate and true.
What is not accurate is that if mechanical, or physical, recovery of spilled oil is anticipated to be difficult, protracted, and ultimately result in only a minimal recovery of the percentage spilled, then we might be better writing off mechanical recovery in advance. This would require us to shift our priorities to more controversial and definitely more environmentally murky options like burning or chemically dispersing the spilled oil.
Before you agree or disagree, here are a few oil spill response facts to consider. The sooner you respond to an oil spill, the easier the oil is to pick up. Getting to the spill before it spreads, emulsifies, and ends up in the water column and beaches is paramount. Alyeska’s Ship Escort/Response Vessel System, or SERVS, and the entire 400 plus vessel Tier I and II fishing vessel spill response fleet combined with tremendous amount of recovery equipment and oil storage capacity comprise the most comprehensive, fast acting oil spill response and recovery capability in America and most likely anywhere in the world. With the range of oil collection systems such as the NOFI Current Busters, Harbor Busters and Ocean Busters and the new Crucial Disk skimmers in the SERVS inventory the spill response oil skimming capability in Prince William Sound is not theoretical. It is real. It is also proven. If you can get to the spill in time and deploy equipment where the oil is, these collection systems will pick up oil. In 2002, Ocean Busters from the SERVS inventory were deployed to respond to a fishing vessel sinking and a resulting diesel spill. This incident in Windy Bay was a resounding success, recovering the vast majority of the spilled diesel.
Having the right equipment close by is no guarantor of success. On Christmas Eve 2009, the Pathfinder, one of the tugs associated with tanker transits, was out scouting for Columbia glacier ice in the tanker lanes. The tug hit Bligh Reef and ruptured one of her fuel tanks releasing a significant volume of diesel. Initial efforts to corral and recover the spilled diesel were abandoned and no significant volume was ever recovered.
Recovering oil is the only response tactic that removes the oil from the environment. Burning oil puts pollutants in the air, and eventually many of the also–toxic products of combustion eventually fall out of the air and return to the sea and land surfaces that lie downwind. In addition, environmental conditions that allow for burning oil are ideal conditions for mechanical recovery. If you can corral the oil enough to burn it, why not remove it from the environment completely?
Dispersants drive the oil and the chemicals that break it up into the water column and eco-system where they are least visible and least likely to impact beaches, but also where they have the most potential to cause invisible harm to the marine environment. Accordingly, National Oil Spill Response Policy gives priority to mechanical recovery. In practice, it appears that many response officials have been successfully dissuaded from following this sound policy and have opted for giving priority to burning or dispersing the oil.
In Alaska, there is absolutely no reason to deviate from sound national policy. In Prince William Sound, we have the best skimming tools, the best training, the most vessels, the greatest recovered-oil storage capacity, the most frequently tested response speed and proven capability to recover far more than the pitiful 1-2% of the volume that was estimated as mechanically recovered in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
As good as any capability to mechanically recover spilled-oil is however, it has to be used and prioritized. Increased proficiency can improve capability. This can be accomplished through the use of environmentally benign oil simulants or oil surrogates to practice recovery techniques. What we need is an understanding of what can be done and a firm commitment to use mechanical recovery to the maximum extent possible and to continue to sustain and improve oil recovery proficiency at every opportunity.
It is always better to prevent a spill than to try to respond to one. But, if we need to respond, let’s not write off mechanical recovery. It’s not perfect, and can surely be improved upon, but if there is another response system out there that has a better probability of success with mechanical recovery than our own Prince William Sound responders, the council is unaware of it. Mechanical recovery should always be given priority, with burning and dispersing spilled oil only being used after mechanical recovery has been given its fullest possible effort. The time for these is not before, and certain not in lieu of, mechanical recovery.
Life and death situations arise in an instant, at any location, in any environment. Remote field sites, urban settings, even on a casual drive home. Ask Cindy Keuler, Alyeska Environment Program Specialist.
On April 4, Keuler and her sister were returning from Wasilla to Anchorage when they noticed a vehicle pulled off to the side of the road. The driver was standing alongside his vehicle talking on a cell phone while tending to a passenger still seated in the vehicle.
“I could tell something wasn’t quite right.” Keuler asked her sister to turn around. “As we approached the scene, the driver said his friend was having a heart attack.”
Keuler and another passerby immediately began to perform CPR on the man in distress. Keuler ensured there were no obstructions to the man’s airway and began to perform mouth-to-mouth; the man lending assistance started chest compressions.
While relaying their actions to a 911 operator, Keuler noticed the victim was turning blue. “I could tell that the man assisting me was not administering his chest compressions fast enough or strong enough.”
One of the onlookers said that he couldn’t because he (the other responder) had a broken back. Based on this injury, “I told him we needed to switch. It was definitely a situation that required me to Speak Up, Step Up.”
Shortly after they changed positions, emergency personnel arrived on scene, took over the lifesaving tasks and loaded the victim into an ambulance.
Keuler was initially reluctant to share her experience. “I really don’t want the spotlight to be on me. What’s important is the training that allowed me to help. Although I have used my First Aid training many times in the past, I’ve never used my CPR training in a life-or-death situation and I thank God I knew what to do.”
As one of Alyeska’s Emergency Response Coordinators at Centerpoint West, Keuler receives training that keeps her current with First Aid/CPR/AED.
In talking with her sister afterward Keuler said she, too, had never witnessed CPR performed in a real life situation. “It was a true awakening for my sister, and she realized how important it was to know how to respond in emergency situations. She’s now decided to become certified.”
In the days following the incident, Keuler made several trips to the hospital to check on the man and his recovery. “While he was still in Cardiac Intensive Care, I was informed that although he had a long road back he was expected to recover.”
Exxon Valdez tanker leaking oil in Prince William Sound, April 13, 1989. Photo by Charles N. Ehler. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Collection, ARLIS.
The council recently partnered with the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Oral History Program to create an online oral history of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Visitors to the Project Jukebox website can access video, audio, and written resources that offer a rich understanding of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.
The stories of twenty people who experienced the spill firsthand have been recorded talking about the impact the spill had on their lives and on the environment, the cleanup response, the long-term effects of the spill, and changes in the oil industry since 1989.
