|
|
|
|
|
|
23.11.07
|
The Kerch Catastrophe
|
|
|
By Yelena Biberman
|
A Bang for the Buck
Reports of soaring oil prices nearing $100 per barrel were recently countered with grotesque images of seabirds lying on the seashore drenched in fuel oil, unable to move let alone fly. These most visible victims of the November 11 oil spill in the narrow Kerch Strait, which links the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov, became vivid symbols of negligence triggered by the increasing gains from exporting the “black gold.”
Strong winds and high surf at the Kerch Strait split in two the Russian oil tanker Volganeft-139, which was carrying 4,000 metric tons of fuel oil, as well as three dry freighters containing sulfur. Then, high waves cracked the hull of the oil tanker Volganeft-123. The Volnogorsk and the Nakhichevan, each carrying roughly 2,000 tons of sulfur, also broke apart. A third sulfur-transporting vessel, the Kovel, went down after striking the Volnogorsk.
Designed primarily for inland and coastal service, the tanker Volgoneft-139, built in 1978, was carrying fuel oil from the southern Russian city of Samara to an oil terminal in Ukraine. When the tanker split, 2,000 metric tons of fuel oil and 6,800 tons of sulfur was spilled into the sea, creating one of Russia’s worse environmental disasters in recent years. Twenty-foot waves and gusts of 78 miles per hour hampered the rescuers’ immediate efforts to control the spill. Thousands of dead birds soon washed up along the shore of Russia’s southern Krasnodar territory.
Both the Russian and Ukrainian high authorities quickly responded to what has been termed a catastrophe. Ukrainian Prime Minister Victor Yanukovych announced that his government has allocated $3 million to repair the damage caused by the storm, and promised to make extra funds available as soon as the total damages had been assessed, though he added that the oil slick presented no direct threat to Ukraine, as it was moving in the opposite direction – toward Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin immediately instructed Prime Minister Zubkov to travel to the Krech Strait “to deal with the situation and take appropriate measures.” Upon arrival, Zubkov described the event as “the biggest mass sinking of ships” in Russia’s history, and admitted that it is not only the weather that is to blame for it.
Who is to blame?
“Human factors played an important part in the catastrophe. The captains were unable to react adequately to the storm. However, the catastrophe also underscores the fact that the Russian government was not ready to deal with such an environmental crisis,” says Nina Popravko, a representative of Bellona Foundation, an international environmental NGO based in Oslo, Norway. “Given the current conditions, an environmental catastrophe could happen at any moment. What if the substance was radioactive? Then the damage would have been truly irreversible,” she adds.
“The government reaction has been inadequate,” comments Vladimir Slivyak, head of Ekozashchita, a Russian environmental group. “The event received a lot of media attention, but not enough attention was given to the companies in charge of the vessels. The government needs to step up and hold these companies financially accountable, as they clearly broke the rules.”
“The very act of transporting oil by water is dangerous,” says Alexey Kiselev, coordinator of the toxic substances division of the environmental group Greenpeace Russia. “The authorities responded as best as they could, but there was a lack of coordination between Russia and Ukraine. The two countries were even, at times, in each other’s way. In Russia, there is a lack of cooperation between various departments. The local governments were also completely unable and unprepared to work with the volunteers who came to assist with the clean-up.”
Andrey Rudomakha, coordinator of a local NGO, Northern Caucasus Environmental Watch, explains that since 1999, the shipment of “dangerous substances” across the Kerch Strait “using primitive technologies” has been adopted by both the Ukrainian and Russian sides. At the same time, “neither Russia nor Ukraine took any steps to ensure the safety of the shipments. The vessels used for shipment across the Kerch Strait are not capable of withstanding sea storms, which are very common there, and the ports are equipped with neither the weather stations nor the tools necessary for addressing oil spills.”
Rudomakha is less impressed with the reaction of the Russian than that of the Ukrainian side. “The fact that the Ukrainian authorities brought in experts from the European Union speaks of their desire to make the rescue mission transparent and, consequently, that they have nothing to hide. Together with the regional environmental organization Saving Taman’, my organization conducted an independent inquiry and found that, in their clean-up efforts, the Russian authorities ignored several very important and ecologically sensitive sites that required immediate attention.”
Igor Golubenkov, a local public official and the head of Saving Taman’, underscores that while the Kerch Strait is not fit for large shipments, “the interests of private companies outweighed any consideration of the region’s environmental security in the eyes of the authorities who sanctioned such use of the strait.” Golubenkov also points out that the captains knew in advance of the dangerous weather conditions, but financial considerations led them to make the decision to proceed with the shipment using “archaic river vessels.”
Greenpeace Russia states on its website that, according to the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control, the river tanker Volganeft-123, which was built in 1975, is a dead ship. “Why the company used the dead tanker to export fuel oil from Russia to Ukraine across the strait remains unclear,” writes Greenpeace.
After the storm
Oleg Mitvol, deputy head of Russia’s environmental watchdog and a member of the United Nations International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management, estimated that the fuel oil spill will lead to long-term contamination and will require deep re-cultivation over a span of 10 to 15 years.
“As a result of the oil spill into the sea, heavy elements of fuel oil will settle on the seabed and cause hydrocarbons to permeate the Sea of Azov. This will lead to a shortage of oxygen in the water, and the unique fauna will suffer greatly,” Vladimir Chuprov, head of the energy department of Greenpeace, told the RIA Novosti news agency.
There were also those who voiced skepticism about the significance of the damage, immediately turning their attention to the bigger picture. Pyotr Romanov, the first deputy chairman of the environmental committee in the lower house of Russia’s parliament, told RIA that while severe damage may have been caused, everyday industrial and car pollution was more detrimental to the environment than the oil spill.
There is no consensus so far as to whether the sulfur spill poses a lesser threat to the environment than the fuel oil. While Greenpeace contends that the sulfur is not as big a threat as the fuel oil because sulfur was transported in containers and there is nothing with which it can react in water, Green Cross Russia claims that sulfur is far more harmful to the environment than the fuel oil.
The polluted area is at the heart of the migration route from central Siberia into the Black Sea of red-throated and black-throated Siberian divers. Experts estimate that as many as 30,000 birds have been killed as a result of the spilled fuel oil.
“The Taman peninsula was one of the cleanest areas of the Krasnodar region,” commented Rudomakha. “Naturally, both the environment and people will bear the consequences of the catastrophe. Both the marine ecosystem and the health of the local inhabitants are at risk. Likewise, tourism, which is one of the main sources of income for many of the locals, will become significantly reduced.”
As Popravko points out, while environmental security may not be a priority for the Russian government, the health of the Black Sea is critical for Putin’s plans for the 2014 Winter Olympics, as he pledged to spend $12 billion on developing the port of Sochi. Coincidentally, on the day of the spill, the Russian president signed a federal law updating the regulations concerning Russian ports.
“The region received some very bad publicity,” says Kiselev. So did the entire country, as photographs of desperate birds drenched in fuel oil made front pages globally. It may be erroneous, however, to assign the blame for the catastrophe solely to the fuel supply side. |
| The source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The virtual community for English-speaking expats and Russians
