Escalating response from authorities suggests inadequate initial reaction to oil spill

Contrary to the assertions of an adequate response by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) to the oil spill on 14 June, the unfolding events and the progressive efforts by various government agencies suggest a different narrative.

The series of escalating measures taken by the MPA, National Environment Agency (NEA), National Parks Board (NParks), and Sentosa Development Corporation, and their contractors strongly suggest that the initial response was insufficient, potentially leading to damage that could have been contained on day one.

Initial Incident and Response

On 14 June, the MPA reported an allision between a Netherlands-flagged dredger, VOX MAXIMA, and a stationary Singapore-flagged bunker vessel, MARINE HONOUR.

The incident occurred at about 2:20 PM at the Pasir Panjang Terminal, resulting in some oil spilling from a damaged cargo tank on the MARINE HONOUR.

It was reported that 400 metric tons of fuel leaked into the sea, with another 400 metric tons remaining in the cargo hold.

In its media release, the MPA stated that the affected cargo tank had been isolated and the spill contained, and a patrol craft and an oil skimmer were deployed in response.

Skimmer craft (Photo: Chee Hong Tat’s Facebook page)

Subsequent Developments and Responses

However, the situation quickly evolved, revealing the inadequacy of the initial response.

On 15 June, the MPA acknowledged that patches of oil had reached the beaches at Sentosa and East Coast. To address this, 16 oil spill response craft were deployed to spray oil dispersants and collect oil slicks.

By the same day, a joint agency press release indicated that 18 response craft were in operation, with close to 1,500 meters of containment booms deployed and more planned over the next few days.

The continued escalation was evident on 16 June, with the deployment of an additional 1,600 meters of containment booms at various locations, including beaches at Sentosa, the entrance of Keppel Marina, and several parks.

The MPA also introduced two Current Buster systems on top of two skimmer crafts to enhance the containment and recovery efforts.

Further Actions and Statements

By 17 June, the joint agency statement reported that the containment efforts had ramped up significantly. The deployment included additional booms, oil recovery assets, and specialized systems like the Current Buster and skimmer systems to collect and corral the oil.

The efforts were further expanded on 20 June, with three Current Buster systems deployed and a total length of 3,400 meters of booms laid, surpassing the initially planned 3,100 meters.

Current Buster systems deployed to clean up the oil spills

Reflection on the Response

Given that the oil spill involved only 400 metric tons—a much smaller amount than what was simulated in the multi-agency Joint Oil Spill Exercise (JOSE) 2022 to test and demonstrate Singapore’s operational readiness to respond to a simulated oil spill incident resulting from a “collision” between a tanker and a bulk carrier near the Raffles Reserved Anchorage—the response to the actual spill raises concerns.

In that exercise, the simulated tanker collision would have caused an oil spill 30 times more severe than the spill on 14 June under the same parameters, yet the MPA’s exercise concluded with no issues.

Asia Dawn used in MPA’s JOSE 2022 exercise

However, the actual incident painted a different picture of MPA’s containment capacity and capabilities, with the scale and escalation of the containment efforts being quite telling.

The progressive increase in resources and measures suggests that the initial containment efforts of the 400-metric-ton oil spill were inadequate.

This discrepancy between the MPA’s initial definitive statement on 14 June and the subsequent frantic measures to contain the spillage points to a failure in the initial response.

The damages, which should have been contained on the first day, were allowed to escalate, affecting a broader area, which has even ended up in Johor and Bintan, Indonesia.

This situation suggests a critical gap in the MPA’s initial assessment and action, undermining their claim of having contained the spill early on.

Given the limited information available, Singaporeans can only get answers about what really transpired following the incident on 14 June through an independent review of the incident to determine whether MPA’s response was sufficient and to assess the extent of the environmental damage caused by the incident.

If a spill of 400 metric tons cannot be effectively contained, a similar incident involving a larger tanker could cause even greater environmental damage. Addressing these shortcomings now is crucial to preventing potentially catastrophic consequences in the future.

Source link