Offshore oil cleanup an unlikely prospect

Trevor Taylor
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

I think it is fair to say that we have benefited tremendously from the development of our offshore oil reserves. The impact on the economy of the Avalon has been in many ways remarkable.

The St. John’s of the 1980s is scarcely recognizable as you drive about town today. This is equally true as you move throughout the surrounding municipalities. And the impact is felt throughout much of the province, with offshore rig and supply ship workers, construction workers and service company workers hailing from practically every bay and peninsula.

It is also fair to say that the environmental cost associated with the development has been fairly low, at least by mega-industrial development standards. Yes, there have been spills, but for the most part, they have been of a relatively minor size, dissipating with the strong wave action of the outer limits of the Grand Banks.

The human cost of the development has been much more real to most of us. Maybe it is because we naturally associate with men and women going down to the sea in ships that our primary focus since the beginning has been on ship, rig and worker safety.

The loss of the Ocean Ranger, two helicopters and at least one supply ship (if my memory serves me correctly) reinforces that in us.

But Harvey Jarvis’s letter to the editor of Dec. 16, “Out of sight, out of mind,” deserves some reflection.

In it he raises concerns about the ability to clean up major spills should they occur off our shores. Will we be able to clean it up? Quite simply, the answer is no.

In the quiet waters of Prince William Sound in southeast Alaska, less than 10 per cent of the estimated 260,000-750,000 barrels of oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez in 1989 was ever recovered. The remainder of the oil dispersed by wave action or remained in the sand of the coastline, much of it to this day.

The remoteness of the area and lack of infrastructure were cited as reasons for the small amount of oil recovery.

Fast-forward to 2010 and the Gulf of Mexico. When the Deepwater Horizon blew up, 4.9 million barrels of oil were estimated to have been spilled. Unlike Alaska, which is considered to be remote and infrastructure deficient, the Gulf of Mexico, home to much of the world’s oil industry giants, had the vessels, personnel and infrastructure to launch a massive recovery effort. Yet, just 810,000 barrels of oil were recovered.

History has shown us that when things go bad offshore, they go real bad. Trevor Taylor

Our waters are neither the quiet Prince William Sound nor the relatively placid Gulf of Mexico. Nevertheless, we have been extremely fortunate. Maybe it is because our regulatory bodies are doing a good job. Maybe it is because the oil companies are more vigilant in our backyard. Maybe it is because safety really is Job 1. Or maybe we have just been really lucky.

In any event, we should understand that if the regulatory bodies, the vigilance, the safety focus or the luck fails us, there will be no cleaning it up. We do not, and will not, regardless of the government, the company or the agency, have it looked after. As in other locales, Mother Nature will be the one who has to look after it.

On the Grand Banks, fortunately, the drilling is far enough out that the combination of the North Atlantic Drift and the prevailing winds will almost certainly carry any spilled oil toward Europe and away from our shoreline and fishing grounds. But, as exploration moves north, that changes. And, thanks to the Labrador Current, just as sure as pack ice formed off Labrador hits Fogo in the spring, oil spilled off Labrador will hit the northeast coast.

Does this mean that we should stop? No, but …

History has shown us that when things go bad offshore, they go real bad. Recovering oil in a disaster offshore is going to be no more successful than recovering people. Vigilance in safety and prevention can be our only guiding principles. That and a little bit of luck.

Organizations: Exxon Valdez

Geographic location: Gulf of Mexico, Prince William Sound, Alaska Labrador Europe

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Craig
    January 10, 2014 - 09:34

    So Mr. Know-it-all Taylor is good with spilled oil floating North to Iceland and or sinking to the bottom by spraying a dispersant on it?????????? And this guy claims to have been a fisherman? He is obviously infected with the same "brain fart virus" all of his current and former friends in the PC party are currently struggling with!!!!!!!

  • Cashin Delaney
    December 31, 2013 - 14:11

    The value of the oil lost should factor in, but strangely, it does not. Does Captain Feathersword care to propose why this is, or is he just content to play his role stating fact-like non-facts that his active urbane buddies in politics all want to SCREAM, but cannot do so politically, or environmentally correctly; "NO CLEANUP FOR YOU STUPID BAYMEN?" Some say (Thomas Gold, Russians, Fletcher Prouty) oil is abiotic, and therefore falsely inflated in price. This is why companies don't mind taking chances, and not recovering oil purged in preventable spills or locked in sunken carriers, or putting out fires. If multinational oil directors really believed in 'fossil' fuel, they would protect the fields like Apple IPad patents or Harry Potter copyrights, pump off old wreaks and prepare to respond and recapture their precious oil. They do not, because the occasional major oil spill further hypnotizes people into the 'end of oil' fossil fuel fantasy and justifies high prices. We can't start a war EVERY year, so a spill will do in lieu. The Gulf War was so effective; we just lit the wells on fire to drive prices and funnel money to cleanup contractors. You can't get any better than that. The best outcome for our OIL and ENVIRONMENTAL companies is not 100% recovery of the new oil, but the spilling of it. There is more profit in pipelining our offshore oil directly into Big Pond than the traditional refining and use model which 'poisons' the air with CO2 according to our energy policies. This is the pipeline model of global disaster-wealth. A final point for our friendly Captain to acknowledge; a good spill gives the Feds the excuse to further kill the fishery, so why would our resettlement-focused government not be excited about oil spill resettlement? A good spill may just be the best thing our Regressive Conservatives could hope for. Liberals would dearly love to 'manage the fallout' let us not forget. Someday the Captain will be back on-board a research vessel championing recovery technology to teenagers and hippy/scientists with the other side of his malleable maritime mouth. The Japanese can recover profitable gold from seawater, but separating oil from water is the big stumbling block of 21st century science?

  • Corporate Psycho
    December 31, 2013 - 08:28

    We have a company like Transocean operating in our waters as we speak. They brought us the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. After that they gave thier Board of Directors huge safety bonuses. Yet these companies pretty well regulate themselves (CAPP guidelines?). What a joke. How much oil spill equipment do we have here compared to NS? We are relying to much on luck.

    • Cashin Delaney
      December 31, 2013 - 14:14

      Don't need spill gear anymore now in our offshore - Captain Feathersword figures Mother Nature is good for it.

  • Cindy
    December 31, 2013 - 08:05

    This potential problem is a worry for all of Newfoundland and Labrador and it should be considered whenever a proposal for oil development is made. I think our province needs to take the initiative to look for a cleaner, safer source of renewable energy, and leave the oil where its to. Just think of our Children's future, the world we are leaving for them to live in. Why don't we put every effort into finding a better way? Don't let greed be our only motivation. Once the damage is done it cannot be undone, so we need to prevent this disaster from ever happening.