U.S. seabed grab

U.S. seabed grab

Marine Pollution Bulletin station were informed of the possibility at 1700 h. Because of the concern expressed by the power station of the effects of ...

112KB Sizes 0 Downloads 93 Views

Marine Pollution Bulletin station were informed of the possibility at 1700 h. Because of the concern expressed by the power station of the effects of the oil entering their cooling water intake, and particularly because the Generating Board's oil boom was defective, two additional boats were placed at the entrance to Pennar Gut. They stayed in the vicinity of the mouth of Pennar Gut throughout the night spraying intermittently and no oil reached the intakes of the power station. The pollution from the original damaged part of the vessel in way of No. I starboard tank had ceased at 1545 h and had been contained and successfully dealt with in the vicinity of the ship, and the pollution from the overboard discharge on the port side aft ceased at approximately 1900 h. Nevertheless, two spray boats remained in the vicinity of the ship throughout the night intermittently spraying the small patches of oil which could be seen from the lights of the ship and jetty and a Conservancy Board at regular intervals throughout the night to ensure that no further pollution was oecurri.ng. The weather throughout the day of Thursday, 17 October had been fine, with a light northerly wind, which resulted in the pollution tending to remain on the south side of the Haven and to be carried up-Haven on the tide. It is believed to have reached the Pembroke Dock area in a thin slick of not more than 5 ft in width at its widest point. Dumag the evening the weather changed and the wind freshened from the south-west and at daylight, when a detailed inspection was carried out, no further traces of off could be found apart from one isolated patch in the vicinity of the BP Terminal, which was successfully dispersed. The ship was ordered not to recommence discharge until the overboard discharge had been sealed and an attempt was made, without success, to seal the opening during the afternoon of Friday, 18 October. The cause of this failure was the considerable depth at which divers had to work and the cumbersome nature of the seal, which had to be specially manufactured in great haste. On Saturday, 19 October, the discharge in the ship's side was plugged by means of an inflatable plastic buoy and permission was given to resume pumping at 1430 h with one pump. No pollution occurred, so at 1730 h permission was given to start a second pump under controlled conditions, but as soon as the second pump was started very slight oil pollution recurred and all pumping was immediately stopped. This pollution only occurred for two or three minutes and was dispersed without difficulty by the boats which were standing by. By the morning of Sunday, 20 October, engineers had carried out modifications to the ship's pumping arrangements and the contents of the line between the pumps and the ship's side had been stripped down into the slop tank and pressure reduced. At 1230 h permission was given to resume discharge with one cargo pump only and Conservancy Board Officers remained on board to ensure that no pollution occurred. No further pollution did occur, but spray boats remained in attendance throughout the discharge which was completed at 0545 h on Tuesday, 22 October, and the vessel sailed with the remainder of her cargo to Brurtsbuttel at the entrance to the Kiel Canal, clearing the port at 0955 h. It appears that something like 3 tons of oil was spilled. The Milford Haven authority describes any spillage of more 36

than 160 gallons as 'considerable' or 'severe' and this probably led to exaggerated reports in the press as to the extent of the pollution. Local authorities around the Haven did not report beach pollution and although some oil may have come ashore, it was probably of negligible proportions.

U.S. Seabed Grab Of concern to both government and conservationist interests, such as the Sierra Club of the U.S., is the Metcalf Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resource Bill. This Bill, requiring the U.S. to ~cense companies to mine large areas of the deep ocean floor, would permit U.S. companies to claim choice mining sites before other nations have acquired the capability to mine. In this sense, U.S. legislation facilitating claims to the best mining sites in the deep seabed would only aggravate developed-developing country tensions and lead inevitably to conflicts over claims and output. Provisional application of Law of the Sea treaty provisions on fisheries and deep seabed mining prior to ratification of the treaty would better serve U.S. interests than unilateral legislative action, according to the statement by John Norton Moore at the Marine Technology Society Conference last September. Of greatest concern to environmentallqs is that deep sea mining might commence before sufficient environmental protection standards are established. Unregulated deep sea mining could well have adverse effects upon the ecological balance of the oceans and specifically upon the oceans' living resources. In addition, once rnimng begins and techniques and equipment are developed without having to conform to environmental standards, it will be extremely difficult later on to impose such standards which would inhibit the use of those techniques or equipment. The Metcalf Bill has been reported out by the Senate Interior Committee and has been referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for consideration on foreim policy issues. Hearings have not been scheduled.

Soviet-U.S. Study of Whales The Soviet ship Vnushitelny left Vladivostok on 18 January for the Galapagos Islands to conduct joint Soviet-American work on the study of the life of whales in their wintering areas. The joint programme of work includes observations of the hydrological situation and the behaviour of marine mammals. The expedition will be working in the area for 5 months, two of them jointly with American scientists.

Japanese Oil Leak More than 8 million gallons of heavy oil leaked from an oil storage tank at the Mitsubishi Mizushima ref'mery in western Japan last December. As a result there was extensive contamination of shore line and coastal fisheries were affected by the pollution. The Mitsubishi Oil Company is now being sued for 10,000 million yen by fLshermen from four prefectures, in compensation for damage to fishery products.