Oil spills sp 09

The Economic and Environmental Impact of the Prestige Oil Spill

Environmental Impact

Impact on Wildlife

The Prestige oil spill has proven to be one of the most environmentally damaging events since the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989. The ship continued to travel along the coast after the spill, thus spreading the oil in a larger region. Many different ecosystems were impacted. The tanker sunk on the Galicia Bank off the coast of Spain. The wreck’s geographic location heightened the devastation. The bank is an underwater island-like structure that supports a diverse ocean ecosystem. The ship sunk to about 12,000 feet near the Islas Cies wildlife preserve area. Islas Cies is made up of three islands that are known for their ecological diversity. A diverse population of organisms can thrive in the area due to the cold North Atlantic currents. Many species of coral grow on the bank structure. Coral hosts a vast assortment of wildlife including many rare fish species. Researchers have recorded the presence of approximately 86 fish species around the Galicia Bank. The area is home to 11 different species of shark including the threatened ray, Raja batis. The area is also home to a large population of sea birds that nest on the three islands of Islas Cies. 90% of the wildlife preserve region was impacted by the Prestige spill .The spill occurred in an extremely rich ecological area, and the damages have impacted a wide variety of organisms. [1]

Birds

It is approximated that over 250,000 sea birds have died as a result of the Prestige spill. The media has shown dozens of pictures of the oiled covered birds that have washed up on the Spanish coast. According the WWF, the oiled birds have come to represent the devastating impact of oil spills in general. [2] Within a year of the spill 25,000 sea birds were found dead and injured. Alberto Velando compiled research that portrays the relationship between the Prestige spill and sea birds.

Acute Mortality:

The incident occurred in November during sea birds’ over-wintering season. During this time large flocks of sea birds gather on the coast. Since the Prestige began releasing oil, and then continued to move around the coast, the oil covered a large surface region that was spread further by the wind. The birds most impacted by the spill were European shags, guillemots, puffins, and razorbills. Most of the birds that died as a result of the Prestige spill were found to be dehydrated and exhausted. When birds are exposed to oil their waterproofing properties are ruined. The main causes of avian deaths include drowning, smothering, hypothermia, and poisoning. Though approximately 25,000 birds were found many of them could have sunk to the bottom of the ocean before being washed to shore.[3]

Drift Block Experiment

One of the greatest difficulties in researching the impact of the Prestige spill has stemmed from the inability to quantify exact amounts of wildlife mortality. In an attempt to make predictions about the number of seabird deaths scientists conducted drift block experiments. The drift blocks allowed scientists to quantify the approximate number of birds that died, but that did not reach the shore. The results of this experiment approximated that between 150,000 and 250,000 seabirds died as a result of the spill.

Chronic Exposure:

The impacts of the oils spill did not all immediately occur. Long-term damage is often the most harmful due to bioaccumulation of toxins in various wildlife species. Research was done involving the yellow-legged gull to determine the impact of oil exposure. Seventeen months after the spill, blood samples were taken from yellow-legged gull breeding colonies that were located close to the spill. It was found that these gulls had concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that were double the standard level of gulls that were not located close to the spill. A presence of PAHs was also found in yellow-legged gull chicks. The presence in chicks shows that the contamination was spread throughout the entire food web. The chicks would have been exposed to the toxins from their various food sources. The gulls feed on a variety of marine species, mostly fish, which are found close to their breeding grounds. The contamination from the oil spill is not limited to only species that were present during the actual spill. It is unknow how long the toxins will persist in the various species. [4]

Remediation

Following the sinking of the Prestige on November 13, 2002 and the subsequent release of 63,000 tons of oil into the Atlantic Ocean, European authorities and volunteers initiated strong efforts to limit the impact of the spill on coastlines and sensitive aquatic ecosystems.

At Sea

An international taskforce comprised of Spanish, French, British, Norwegian, and Belgian forces organized an oil recovery effort 5 miles from the coastline. This taskforce utilized 14 oil recovery vessels as well as 25 helicopters and aircrafts, local fishing boats, and a system of booms and barriers 70 km long that helped deflect oil away from sensitive marine ecosystems (Rias). The Biscay Action Plan, initially an agreement between Spain and France in 1999, formed the basis of this international cooperation. In effect, this initial clean up proved highly unsuccessful because of the oil’s high density (992.1 kg/m3 at 150C) and high viscosity- factors which rendered worthless the use of dispersants, chemicals applied to oil that promote the formation of tiny oil droplets and delay the formation of slicks. As a result a slick quickly formed and spread out, making shoreline protection a priority.

Shorelines

The oil slick affected the entire coastline of Spain’s Galician region and also parts of Asturias, Cantabria, and the Basque Country. The spill’s varied impact on different segments of coastline was largely due to seaboard geography, ocean currents, and random weather conditions (See Figure). Many of the coastlines affected served as delicate ecosystems for numerous species and this prevented the use of heavy machinery in remediation efforts. Instead, most coastal clean up was conducted by teams of volunteers who scraped oil off rocks manually or used hot pressurized water to wash areas. In most cases volunteers simply filled buckets with collected oil, emptied the buckets into large collection tanks, and started the process all over again. This volunteer work was conducted by thousands of local people as well as volunteers who traveled from other parts of Europe and even from as far as Japan. On the weekend of Dec. 6, 2002, for example, less than a month after the spill, over 20,000 volunteers participated in coastal clean up efforts. It is important to note that many volunteers were misplaced fisherman from local communities who had based their economic livelihoods on fishing in the Galician territorial waters. Many of these people could no longer fish and had to spend every day for months- in some cases over a year- working in clean-up activities.

Clean up efforts were aided by the natural biodegradation of oil. (probably under ten percent in the first few months).

Some of the recovered oil was reprocessed into petroleum based products such as Tarmac. Other quantities of recovered oil were burned, recycles, or taken to landfills.

Bioremediation

Several scientists experimented with bioremediation techniques to encourage the biodegradation of oil 10 months after the Prestige spill. Bioremediation, or the use of biological organisms such as plants or microbes to aid in removing hazardous substances from an area, was used effectively on a beach of the Cantabrian coast in Northern Spain. The study by a group of researchers showed that adding the oleophilic fertilizer S200 to affected areas greatly enhanced the biodegradation rate of the spilled oil. In particular, n-alkanes, alkylcyclohexanes, and benzenes of high molecular weight were degraded at a much faster rate. This study substantiated former laboratory results and demonstrated the great potential of bioremediation for oil spill remediation.

Health Effects on Humans

Acute Exposure

The Prestige Oil spill affected the entire Galician coastline as well as parts of the Asturias, Cantabria, and Basque County coastlines. Affected areas were coated with a high-density crude oil, the Prestige’s own potent mixture of hydrocarbons, resins, asphaltenes, and heteromolecules. As a result of the spill’s immediate detrimental affect on natural aquatic and coastal ecosystems, thousands of volunteers were quickly mobilized to assist in the implementation of several remediation efforts. Through their work in affected areas volunteers were exposed to elevated levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other toxic substances found in crude oil. Several of the VOCs found in the Prestige fuel, such as benzene, are known carcinogens as classified by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). Other volatiles present in the oil included toluene and ethylbenzene, possible human carcinogens. Exposure to these volatiles was largely through respiratory, skin, and mucous membrane sources. Several studies conducted post-spill found that volunteers tended to have elevated levels of hydrocarbons in their lungs and other organs high in fat content.

Case Studies- Symptoms of Exposure

Key studies conducted after major remediation efforts indicated that the spill caused many health problems in volunteers. Reported health problems correlated to the spill include irritated eyes, headaches, throat irritation, and breathing difficulty. Initial data on the affects of exposure was first drawn from medical records provided by a local health service, the Plan Sanitario Combinado del Servicio Gelego de Saude. This data showed a dramatic increase in medical visits directly after the spill and for a full year after. Documented symptoms include irritated eyes, headache, throat irritation, and nausea and vomiting. A second study, done 4-6 months after the spill studied 835 participants in highly polluted areas and measured the internal exposure of workers and volunteers to toxics by measuring hydrocarbon metabolites in urine and metal concentrations in blood. This study found that VOC levels found in the blood of workers and volunteers was comparable to persons living in some of the world’s most polluted cities. Blood samples had especially high levels of light hydrocarbons such as benzene and toloune.

Long Term Health Impacts

Little research has been done on the long-term health effects of the Prestige spill. However, a study conducted 6 months after the spill by Gestal Otero determined that the spill was genetically toxic. Genetic toxicity was measured by the amount of DNA damage volunteers sustained due to beach cleanup activities and interactions with toxic substances. The study concluded that volunteers involved in cleanup activities experienced clear DNA damage. The degree of DNA damage can be correlated with the level of exposure of each person to VOCs, with those sustaining the most DNA damage being those exposed to the greatest levels of VOCs. This research, along with the identification of VOCs present in the spill as human carcinogens indicates that the spill will most likely be responsible for long-term health problems in many affected persons.

Economic Impact

The Prestige oil spill created tremendous economic damages for the affected societies in the region. Economists still struggle to assess the widespread repercussions completely since so many areas involve collective and public damages, instead of private damages. To this point, the main sectors that are most studied and assessed are the fishing industry, the seafood industry, the tourism industry, and the ongoing cleaning and recovery efforts(1). Unfortunately, the Prestige oil spill has only led to 10 million euro in total research investment compared to 270 million for the Exxon Valdez oil spill (5). Overall, the economic impact far exceeds the monetary compensation levels.

Economic Assessment

Some estimates of the aggregate damages over the next ten years after the spill are as high as 5 billion E (5). This type of figure is comprised of intensive studies at a more micro level with the help of biologists. Other sources identify the short-term, environmental, and cleaning and recovery costs from 2002 to 2004 at only 566.97 million E (1). Needless to say, the compensation cap of 199 million set by the 1992 Civil Liability Compensation Fund (CLC fund), the international compensation regulator, is insufficient. Subsequently, the Supplementary Fund increased the cap to $1159 million for member states in 2005, but this measure comes too late to help the affected communities (1). Galicia, in particular, accrued economic damages of about 1.57 percent of its total GDP (1). Yet, assessing damages is a challenge because of limitations due to a lack of knowledge. As of now, non-use values cannot be incorporated into the analysis, and contingent valuation has not been utilized (1). Instead, private costs to the fishing, seafood and tourism industries, as well as public damages highlighted by cleanup efforts, are valued (1). The IOPC (International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds) have received damage claims for only 743.73 m E, but only about 30% of affected individuals have applied (1). The oil spill caused a chain reaction of economic strife, but since there are no markets for passive use losses like lost recreation, true compensation equaling all costs is available and unlikely (3).

Fisheries

The fishing industry was devastated by the Prestige spill, with total losses for the Spanish fishing sector at 112.66 million E from 2002 to 2004 (1). In Galicia, the fishing sector employs 32,700 people directly and the Galician sector contributes 10 percent to the whole fishing industry of the EU (2). The economic valuation has been complicated by several factors that necessitate biological analysis. Specifically, these limiting factors include the morbidity effects of the oil on the fish species, the reproductive effects on the fish species, and the expansive variety of fish species in the area (1). Also, economists determined that biomass measurements of surviving fish would not be possible, so actual fish landings were used for the calculations (1). Economists compared the fish landings from previous years to the values after the spill. Incorporated in the calculation were the savings during the 2 to 11 month fishing bans that reduced input costs like labor, oil, and equipment (1). For Galicia, the study estimates that the fishing industry lost 63.08 million euro (1).

Seafood

The two main areas of the seafood industry apart from the fisheries affected by the spill were mussel farming and canning and fish processing. In 2003, the mussel farming industry lost 3.8 million euro for OPMEGA (the largest organization of producers), but estimates for the entire mussel sector are up to 12.83 million (1). Interestingly, the industry avoided some loss by shifting production from higher quality fresh market to lower quality industrial use (1). Economists conservatively estimate the net loss by small canning and fish processing firms during 2003 as 214,081 euro. The smallest firms were affected the most, many of them closing temporarily (1). As a whole, the seafood industry experienced a decrease of 34,000 tons and 65 million euro, as catch levels were down and prices dropped because of a loss of consumer trust (3). This sector provides about 22,600 jobs, making it a significant employer in the region and a vital part of the local economy (5).

Tourism

Tourism is the third industry that witnessed incredible loss due to the spill. Revenues in 2003 fell by 56.14 million euro in Galicia. This loss is partly explained by a decline in market image since many of the popular beaches were covered in oil or off-limits as volunteers tried to clean them up (5). Up to 745 beaches were affected, as well as the Atlantic Islands National Park (3). However, only private losses to tourism could be calculated accurately, so the existence-value aspect of the evaluation is absorbed by society at large. Tourism in Galicia contributes 5.7 percent of the gross added value of the local economy, so efforts to clean the coastline to enable a return of tourism were economically vital (3).

Cleaning and Recovery Costs

Economists estimate that the total cleaning costs following the spill reached 483.5 million euro (1). However, only 234.8 million euro was budgeted for the efforts. The money was used mostly for clean up equipment for pollution control, but the WWF criticized the budget for spending 80 percent on unnecessary, large-scale infrastructure (5). An additional 100 million euro was required to extract oil from inside the tanker (1). Labor played a huge role in the recovery efforts. Economists acknowledge that the labor costs are unusually low because of the high rate of volunteerism. Methods are available to calculate the economic contribution of this time spent, but the estimate of 4.8 million euro based off of the minimum wage is not very accurate (1). Volunteers are also controversial because any negative health effects from exposure are negative externalities (1).

Other Wildlife

Economists do not focus on the economic losses to other wildlife because as of now it is very difficult to precisely make any calculation. However, damages to the bird population have been calculated at 6.3 million euro based on the market price of birds determined by research after the Exxon Valdez spill (1). Hopefully, non-market based losses to the environment like these can be valued in the future to better represent the total effects of the Prestige disaster.

References

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4100-prestige-oil-spill-far-worse-than-thought.html http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=1&did=438008581&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1239991859&clientId=4534 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=242940391&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1239991784&clientId=4534http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=10&did=1537082041&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1239991592&clientId=4534http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=31&did=1521199841&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1239991709&clientId=4534 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=24&did=1526375871&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1239991684&clientId=4534 http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=17&did=1530993371&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1239991592&clientId=4534 http://etc-lusi.eionet.europa.eu/en_Prestige http://www.unep-wcmc.org/latenews/emergency/spain_2002_update/ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5807/1861a?maxtoshow=&HITS=&hits=&RESULTFORMAT=&title=Spain%27s+Prestige+Oil+Spill+Resurfaces&andorexacttitle=phrase&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=314&firstpage=1861&resourcetype=HWCIT