On January 30, 2000, a toxic chemical spill destroyed wildlife, devastated fish stocks and threatened the water supplies of nearly 2.5 million people in central Eastern Europe.

Romania’s Somes River, Hungary’s Tisza River and Yugoslavia’s Danube River, which is Europe’s largest waterway, were each catastrophically polluted. The toxic spill eventually reached the Black Sea and affected Romania, Hungary and, to a lesser extent, Serbia and Montenegro.

The spill began when the dam containing toxic waste material from the Baia Mare Aurul gold mine in North Western Romania burst and released roughly 3.5 million cubic feet (100,000 cubic metres) of waste water, heavily contaminated with cyanide, into the Lapus and Somes tributaries of the river Tisza, which is a tributary of the great Danube River.

Cyanide is extremely toxic and lethal to humans and animals, even in very small doses. It works by making the body unable to use life-sustaining oxygen. The cyanide-laced water continued to flow and soon reached the Danube, which flows through Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania.

At this point, the cyanide reached a deadly density of 800 times the accepted maximum safe level. The situation was going from bad to worse because Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania all get drinking water from the Danube. (As a point of reference, the American standard as regulated by the Environmenal Protection Agency allows 0.2 parts cyanide per 1 million parts water (0.2 ppm) in U.S. drinking water.)

Loyola de Palacio, the European Union Commissioner for Transport and Energy, called the cyanide spill “a catastrophe of European dimensions.”

Officials from Hungary called the spill Europe’s worst ecological disaster since the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant calamity in the Ukraine. Shortly after this disaster, Hungary’s Tisza River was officially declared a dead river.

In fact, Hungarian towns along the Tisza were forced to ban the use of water, fishing and the selling of fish. While this move seriously threatened the livelihoods of many fishermen, authorities appeared to have no other choice. For the townspeople who lived along the Tisza, large amounts of emergency water had to be brought in because of the deadly contamination.

At the time of the spill, Serbia’s Environment Minister Blazic was quoted as saying, “The Tisza has been killed. Not even bacteria have survived.” Although the chemical was gradually being diluted by the river water and was beginning to lose some of its lethal effect, over the next weekend hundreds of dead and dying fish were reported collecting at the junction of the Danube and Tisza. This is an area just 50 kilometres upstream from the Yugoslav capital of Belgrade.

The allowable maximum of cyanide per liter of water is 0.1 milligram. By this time, at the Hungarian town of Szeged, which borders Yugoslavia, the cyanide level was 1.1 milligrams per liter. Roughly 300 tons of dead and dying fish were removed from the river and disposed of.

However, Hungary estimates that the overall fish kill throughout Hungary was 1,240 tons. Other wildlife, including Mute Swans, Black Cormorant, horses, foxes and various other carnivores as well as other domesticated animals were also affected by this toxic spill.

Following the Baia Mare cyanide spill, various environmental assessments were carried out by several international organizations to determine the affect this spill had on the Tisza River and its tributaries.

According to these reports, acute effects were noted wherever the cyanide plume passed along the Tisza river system. Along with the dead fish, plankton and macrozoobenthos were also discovered.

The spill also drastically increased the existing heavy metal contamination of soil sediment, especially including copper, lead and zinc.

Despite the increased heavy metal pollution, it does appear that the Tisza River Basin’s ecosystem is trying to regenerate itself, and much of the wildlife is also recovering along the Tisza and its tributaries.

According to a report from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), more dedicated action is necessary in addressing the environmental “insecurities” and threats to the region, which includes Romania, Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia and Montenegro.

The report also points specifically at the mining industry. In the wake of the Baia Mare cyanide spill, the mines, both active and inactive, are still considered sources of potential accidental pollution. They are singled out by the new UNEP report for special and close monitoring and attention.

Despite a recovering ecosystem, some of the pollution and heavy metal contamination along the Tisza River still remain and more needs to be done to clean up the water as much as possible.

International experts indicated that the main cause of the Baia Mare cyanide spill is a combination of design defects in the facilities, unexpected operating conditions and bad weather. Whatever the cause, this toxic spill certainly exacerbated the serious pollution problems this region has been facing for years.

In this NASA Imagery you can see the ice bridge, in fragments.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf, on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula, used to have an ice bridge connecting it to nearby Charcot Island, until that ice bridge collapsed in early April, 2009.

Fred Clark over at Slacktivist had this to say about the mounting documentation of the world’s shifting climate:

My point here is not that this ice bridge is thought to have been the stabilizing factor keeping the entire, massive Wilkins ice shelf in place, and that the ice shelf is, in turn, considered to be the stabilizing factor keeping in place an even larger mass of ice in Antarctic glaciers and thus that the collapse of this ice bridge may therefore be a sign that we’re going to be Even More Screwed by climate change and rising sea levels. That’s all true, but that’s not my point here.

My point here is that these are photographs. Visual evidence. One need only look at those photographs to see that something is happening — to see it happening and thus to have to acknowledge that it is, in fact, happening.

But a great many people seem deeply invested in believing — photographs be damned — that nothing is happening. They insist that nothing is getting warmer, that ice is not melting.

In this ESA image dated April 28, 2009, you can see Charcot Island in the upper left and the Wilkins Ice Shelf in the lower right.

The Associated Press reported this story as “Huge ice chunks break away from Antarctic shelf”

“There is little doubt that these changes are the result of atmospheric warming,” said David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey.

Researchers said the quality and frequency of the ESA satellite images have allowed them to analyze the Wilkins shelf breakup far more effectively than any previous event.

“For the first time, I think, we can really begin to see the processes that have brought about the demise of the ice shelf,” Vaughan said.

Annotations by A. Humbert, Münster University

A tragedy of the commons is a type of social trap that involves a conflict over resources between an individual’s interests and that of the common good. In this situation, a group of people work toward short-term individual gains, which, in the end, leads to a loss for the group as a whole.
Tragedy of the commons originated from a parable published in 1833 by William Forster Lloyd. The theory itself, however, dates back to Aristotle who said:

“That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.”

Aristotle knew what he was talking about and one great example of this is the overfishing of our oceans, which has been increasing dramatically over the last 50 years as advances in fishing technology have been made.

In years gone by, it was common to see trawlers and fishing boats at the many ports around the country, and world. These boats, however, have been replaced by vast fishing ships that are capable of being at sea for weeks on end. These factory ships come with all the bells and whisles needed to preserve each day’s catch, which means that these efficient ships need to return to port only when their holds are full of fish.

As is the case with many advances in technology, the birth of the factory fishing ships brought about some devasting changes to the commercial fishing industry. While there was an initial seven percent increase in the number of catches each year during the 50s and 60s, there has been a steady decline in the size of the fish in each catch.

Additionally, roughly 20 of the planet’s smaller, but once prolific fisheries have vanished over the last 25 years. Many more fisheries are having serious trouble staying afloat and may not recover from this overfishing catastrophy.

As can be expected, technology found a way around the ever-decreasing size of the fish being caught in the indiscriminate trawler nets. Smaller mesh is being used, which allows much smaller fish, and other sealife, to be trapped. Because a lot of these smallfry are just that — too small — to be used as human seafood, many are crushed or minced and, ultimately, used as fertilizer or animal food.

As mentioned, net fishing is very indiscriminate, unlike a seasoned fisherman who knows what to keep and what to return to the sea to be allowed to grow into a real keeper. Today, just about any sea-living creatures, big or small, can get trapped in these new super nets.

It has been estimated that with every ton of prawns (or shrimp) caught, roughly three tons of other fish are caught, killed and discarded. Another estimated 20,000 porpoises die every year in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans in nets intended for salmon and tens of thousands of dolphins are killed yearly by the tuna-fishing industry.

Photo credit: Merkur Nallbani via Creative Commons

It is necessary to mention that many types of commercially-caught fish have been harvested so feverishly around the globe that a once seemingly endless supply is now threatened on global levels. In fact, some research says there is reason to believe that the commercial fishing industry has actually prompted a change in the gene pool of several species of fish. If this is true, these fish are much less likely to thrive and may not be able to bounce back from the overfishing.

A study at Stony Brook University in New York focused on six generations of a small anchovy-like fish. Striking evolutionary changes were noted. The latter generations of fish turned out to be smaller, were less interesting in foraging for their food and produced fewer viable eggs.
Although this study was conducted in a laboratory setting, the findings could help explain an odd occurrence that has had fishermen and scientists perplexed for years. Even after overfishing has been halted, the population of many fish species simply do not bounce back to their previous numbers.

It appears that, as the larger fish are removed from the species’ gene pool, future populations get a little smaller with each passing year. The larger fish may be caught prior to mating, therefore, their stronger, healthier genes are lost leaving the smaller fish to replenish the depleted population.
The findings of the Stony Brook study challenges the assumption that if a few million fish are left in the ocean, even after overfishing has taken place, there will be enough for a given species of fish to restock itself. This assumption is further challenged by another study conducted by researchers at the University of Washington.

The researchers focused on and studied a population of New Zealand snapper, which had been depleted to around three million remaining fish. They assumed that three million would be enough to allow the population to replenish itself; however, what they found was quite different.
The scientists discovered that only one in 10,000 fish was still capable of mating. This meant that the genetic diversity of the entire snapper population depended on just a few hundred fish. Consequently, a reduction in a species’ diversity leaves the remaining population much more susceptible to environmental factors and pollutants, and it makes them less able to survive or repopulate the species.

If these studies are correct, it would seem logical that longer periods of reduced or completely-halted fishing would be required for the successful repopulation of overfished species.

Nature’s ability of restoring depleted fish populations is also dependent on whether the oceanic ecosystems are still capable of supporting an increased number of certain species of fish. Drastic alterations in the makeup of different species’ populations might possibly create new equilibrium energy flows which actually start to involve other species.

This ecosystem shift can have startling effects. For example, if virtually all the trout are eliminated from a certain area, the carp will most likely take over. If this happens, it will be impossible for the trout to re-establish a successful mating population.

Photo credit: Atanas Entchev via Creative Commons

Because of global overfishing, trawlers must seek their catch in deeper waters, which is threatening the delicate deep-sea ecosystem and the much diverse marine life that calls these areas home. Look at the coelacanths, which are closely related to lungfishes. These amazing fish were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period. However, in 1938, a healthy, live specimen was caught off the east coast of South Africa.

What will happen to species, such as the coelacanths, if overfishing continues at the current rate?

While much factors into the problem of overfishing, one thing is sure. Ask just about any avid sea fisherman and they will confirm that the fish are smaller now than they used to be. With the whoppers being caught before they ever reach their spawning grounds, it may take many generations before the true kings-of-the-sea return. Hopefully, they will return.

With the help of such organizations as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), an independent organization committed to finding a solution to the overfishing crisis, maybe there is still hope.
The MSC was founded in 1997 and has developed an environmental standard for sustaining and managing today’s oceanic fisheries. They reward environmentally responsible fisheries with the use of their blue product ecolabel. Consumers concerned about overfishing are now able to purchase seafood that has been independently scrutinized against MSC’s standards.
Since this past January, 22 fisheries, nationally and internationally, have been evaluated and granted certification for meeting MSC’s environmental standards.

Today, there are roughly 500 seafood products being sold in 25 countries around the plant that meet these standards. This may seem like only a drop-in-the-bucket; however, many times environmental improvement begins as a small effort but ends up making huge, positive progress that benefits the common good.

It seemed like a good idea at the time. Let’s make an artificial reef from old tires and let corals establish themselves, creating a new marine habitat. At the same time, we’ll free up space in our landfills.

Ray McAllister, a professor at Florida Atlantic University, organized the project, with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval. Goodyear donated tires and equipment to bind them. Volunteers sent money and used their boats and barges to haul the tires. And everyone felt they had done a good deed, benefiting the sea and the land.

Unfortunately it did not work out that way.

Thirty-five years later, the man-made “reef” off Fort Lauderdale is a total flop. The steel clips used on the straps holding the bundles of tires together have melted away, and loose tires are scouring the sea bottom of any life. Tires are washing up on beaches and blocking the growth of a real coral reef further down the shore.

William Nuckols, coordinator for Coastal America, which is involved in organizing a cleanup effort, told the Associated Press, “They’re a constantly killing, coral-destruction machine.”

 Photo credit:Matthew Hoelscher

Tire-reef projects were popular off American coastal states and around the world. Millions of tires have been dumped into the ocean. But whether because the tires are too light and move too much to allow sea life to colonize, or because the tires are secreting some toxic substance, they do not work as a reef base.

The tires are often washed ashore, especially after storms. While some tires wash ashore, others have broken loose from the tire-reef and are doing damage to the sea bed.

Dr. Robin Sherman at Nove SE Oceanographic University obtained a grant to find a way to recover and dispose of the tires.
 Photo credit:Matthew Hoelscher

In Florida, the cleanup is expected to take three years and cost about $3.4 million. Many of the tires are buried in the sand and must be dug out, lest further wave action free them to continue the destruction.

One might be tempted to think that’s a good thing. After all, who wouldn’t enjoy a leisurely swim in bathtub-warm water? But there is a significant downside to the hot weather in this particular part of the globe, one that both tourists and natives alike will find hard to warm up to: the beautiful coral reefs that give the region’s Great Barrier Reef its fame, and its beauty, are losing their color.


The Great Barrier Reef from the air. Photo: charlton_b

It’s a fairly straightforward process: when the weather gets warmer, the ocean water heats up. Among other causes, it is this unusually hot water which causes the vibrant colors to, physically, leave the coral.

This is because the color is due to the presence of zooxanthellae, tiny algae that live in healthy coral. Under cooler temperatures, these algae thrive in their symbiotic relationship with their coral hosts. But when the temperature rises, these sensitive life forms literally can’t take the heat.

Close up of coral polyps, one of which has bleached. Photo: amell

When the water temperatures reach a certain point, the zooxanthellae are expelled from the coral, leaving a white, or bleached coral where there once was vibrant color. This not only leaves the coral bereft of its spectacular beauty, but causes a reduction in nutrients that would normally be created via photosynthesis.

In addition to diminishing the colorful nature of the reef’s coral gardens, which have historically made the Great Barrier Reef a prime destination for tourists, warming ocean waters have other deleterious effects. When the temperature of ocean water gets too high, it causes a decrease in the phytoplankton that grows in the top layer of the ocean. This is particularly problematic because phytoplankton are the “foundation of the marine food chain.” When they decrease in volume, the fish that live on them must eat less or go elsewhere.

The reason warmer temperatures cause a decrease in phytoplankton has to do with a mineral we are all familiar with: iron. It takes a certain amount of iron to feed the phytoplankton. But, when ocean waters become too warm, the colder water that typically pulls the iron up into the surface of the water (referred to as “upwelling”) does not occur. This prevents the phytoplankton from getting the iron they need, causing them to die off; which, in turn, leaves too little food for the fish that feed on it. Too little fish food, leads to fewer fish, which leads to fewer birds (who feed on fish) and so on.

It’s an endless chain of cause and effect. And it’s not just a theory. In 2002, 50 percent of the seabird chicks hatched on Heron Island, which is located in the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef, starved to death because there were not enough fish to feed them.

While many of the consequences of warming ocean waters are known, one can’t help but wonder what additional, and as yet unknown, dangers may await us if the current global warming trend continues. With over 1500 species of marine animals living in the Great Barrier Reef, which covers over 2000 km of the northeastern Australian coast, there’s a lot to keep track of. But one thing is certain: if we suffer a significant loss of one life form, we are pretty much guaranteed the death, relocation, or perhaps even mutation, of another.

For this reason scientists at NASA are studying the Great Barrier Reef with increased intensity, now that climate change is upon us. Gene Carl Feldman of the Ocean Biology Processing Group put it this way: “Coral, which can only live within a very narrow range of environmental conditions, are extremely sensitive to small shifts in the environment. Like the ‘canary in the coalmine,’ coral can provide an early warning of potentially dangerous things to come.”

In order to process such environmental changes more closely, NASA has installed an instrument known as a Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS). The MODIS system allows NASA to gather data from the region, via satellite, and make that data available for internet access within hours of the satellite’s passing over the area. This gives scientists an extraordinary “real time” view of what’s happening in the region.

Yet, despite the state-of-the-art data collection equipment NASA is using to transmit information across the globe, it appears that any real response to this troubling trend is in the future. While a recent editorial in the New York Times hailed the addition of two forms of Caribbean coral to the endangered species list (elkhorn and staghorn), the article failed to mention how labeling their destruction as bad will actually prevent the conditions that are destroying them.

If careless scuba divers, poachers and toxic waste were the sole contributors to the problem, the solution might be simpler. But the reality is that unless we control global warming, the main cause of coral bleaching will remain unchecked. And if that continues for long, we may not be able to predict the exact nature of the consequences that will follow, but there is little question that they will be tragic, indeed.

A century after Darwin wrote his seminal work, the Galapagos Islands were designated as a National Park and the Charles Darwin Foundation was established to protect the extraordinary ecosystem that has provided the backdrop for so much scientific research and so much enjoyment for so many.

But the people living in the Galapagos Islands today have needs Mother Nature cannot fill: foremost among them, the need for energy. There are now about 6,000 people living on San Cristóbal, the largest of the inhabitable islands in the archipelago. Like the rest of the modern world, residents of the island have growing needs for energy, but are concerned about the environmental impact of their energy consumption.

photo: jasonpearce
Positioned too far from Ecuador to tap into its electrical grid, the islanders have had to rely on oil shipments to provide the fuel needed to run their diesel generators. That has, historically, meant frequent trips using small boats, due to the limited capacity of the island’s generators to store the fuel necessary to keep them burning. And with each trip the oil tankers make, there is an increased chance of accidents. What’s more, every trip taken uses up additional fuel just to power the tankers.

photo: jasonpearce
So, the Galapagos Islands are turning–literally turning, green–with wind power. The project, slated to be completed sometime this year, will install three wind-powered turbines that are expected to reduce the number of oil shipments by half. They should also reduce the carbon dioxide being generated by about 2,800 tons per year.

But some residents of San Cristóbal are not altogether pleased. With wind turbines towering at 170 feet, blades that measure 193 feet in diameter and power lines that stretch for 7.5 miles, they are concerned that the visual impact of the turbines will hurt the tourist trade.

After all, people come to the Galapagos for its natural beauty: diving, bird watching, snorkeling, sea kayaking, wind surfing, surfing and fishing are all on the activity list for the tourists who flock there yearly.

photo: jasonpearce
Jim Tolan, Project Director for the wind farm project, is not concerned. He believes that the residents and the tourists who frequent the islands are committed to renewable energy and will welcome the opportunity to turn the island of San Cristóbal into a “showcase for their concerns about the environment” He’s probably right. After all, the residents of these islands surely have better things to do with their time than fight windmills, wouldn’t you think?

photo: jasonpearce

Sixteen years ago, in March 1989, the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska’s pristine Prince William Sound. Approximately 258,000 barrels of crude oil were spilled. One barrel of oil contains 42 gallons. Translated, that’s about 11 million gallons of slick, sickening oil.

In 1994, a federal jury ordered Exxon to pay $5 billion in punitive damages to the people so deeply affected by the oil spill. As of October 2005, has a penny of this money been paid? Guess.

No, it has not. The people at the top of Exxon think they’ve done plenty for the region and continue to use stall tactics to avoid paying the $5 billion award, even though this amount is trivial in the pockets of this huge corporation. Record profits don’t matter when you’re trying to avoid paying to clean up something that you’re responsible for.

Did you know that waiting pays? It has been estimated that Exxon has earned millions of dollars strictly in interest from the original figure of $5 billion it was ordered by a judge’s hammer to cough up.

Don’t let Exxon mislead you by their claims of paying a few billion for environmental cleanup and land restoration. Exxon has been reimbursed for the most part by the insurance industry . . . and by American taxpayers. Spill-related tax deductions?

Much of the environment has never recovered, including harbor seals, harlequin ducks, pacific herring, sea otters, certain whales, and other impacted wildlife. The lingering oil from the Exxon Valdez will kill or stunt Alaskan pink salmon for generations to come as well as create permanent genetic damage in various species of fish and other sea mammals. The death count (representing only 10-30% of the total accounted for that died): 4,000 sea otters, 1,000 adult eagles, 345 seals, 500,000 murres, and many, many invertebrates and intertidal creatures.

The towns’ responsibilities to provide food and clothing for their people were also dramatically injured. Clinical depression. Attempted suicide. Domestic violence. Broken families. Chronic psychological stress. All effects of the trauma suffered by self-made residents. $5 billion? A paltry amount when it comes to human suffering and loss of wildlife.

To add more tragedy to travesty, Exxon used 140º F water, sprayed at overly high pressure, to “clean” the shoreline. This action, which was like a poison to the beach and many animals, did more harm than good. The hot water, high-pressure washing removed the nutrients and sediments of the shore that would have aided in the recovery of the ecosystem.

Have you heard about the “secret” agreement in 1991 that Exxon signed with seven seafood processors based in Seattle? These processors lost business because of the Valdez spill, and here’s the deal they struck with the corporate giant: Exxon paid these processors $70 million in exchange for the processors giving Exxon their share of the punitive damages, if the damages were paid. That would have been $745 million—15% of the total $5 billion. Exxon was busted when they claimed this money was given to the processors out of the goodness of the company’s heart. A very blackened heart.

Were you aware that the captain of the Exxon Valdez was reportedly intoxicated when he took the tanker out across Prince William Sound on that cold March night? He had spent the day drinking with members of his crew. Coast Guard tests revealed that Captain Joseph Hazelwood’s blood alcohol level was .241, which is more than six times the legal level under Coast Guard regulations. He put the vessel on automatic pilot, left the bridge, and the rest is dark history. The supertanker struck Bligh Reef, spilling 11 million gallons of oil.

The Aftermath

What happened to Hazelwood? He was acquitted in 1990 of operating the tanker while drunk. Hazelwood was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of illegally discharging oil, and in 1998, the Alaska Appeals Court upheld Hazelwood’s sentence on that charge, and he was fined $50,000.

The Exxon Valdez was renamed as the SeaRiver Mediterranean, and still carried oil around the world, although this tanker was barred from entering Alaskan waters. In 2002, the single-hull tanker was pulled from service.

In 1990, the U.S. introduced and passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (subsequent to the Exxon Valdez oil spill). OPA 90 required new oil tankers to be double hulled and established a phase-out program for single-hull tankers, which rules that these older tankers complete their phase out by 2015. Double hull versus single hull reasoning: If the outer hull is breached, the inner hull will contain the fuel. While this measure has decreased the amount of oil spills, it surely has not eliminated them.

In 1999, many opposed the Exxon/Mobil merger because of Exxon’s failure to pay awarded punitive damages for the Exxon Valdez devastation. Unfortunately, the opposition lost.

In 2001, the Alaskan town of Cordova lost their mayor to suicide, apparently because of the seesaw events within the court system.

Oil Flows Into The Sea

Since the Exxon Valdez disaster, 13 other large oil spills have been caused by a variety of mishaps, not all of which were accidental.

• December 1989—The Canary Islands: Kharg-5, Iranian supertanker explosion. 19 million gallons of oil surged into the Atlantic Ocean.
• June 1990—Galveston, Texas: Explosion and fire on board Mega Borg. 5.1 million gallons of dispersed oil.
• January 1991—Kuwait: During the Persian Gulf War, Iraq purposely released 240-260 million gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf from tankers 10 miles off the southern coast of Kuwait.
• April 1991—Genoa, Italy: 42 million gallons of oil spilled by Haven in the Genoa port.
• May 1991—Angola: The ABT Summer exploded and spread 15-18 million gallons of oil off the coast of Angola.
• March 1992—Fergana Valley, Uzbekistan: 88 million gallons of oil gushed from an oil well.
• August 1993—Tampa Bay, Florida: Three ships collided. A freighter, Balsa 37, and two barges, Bouchard B155 and Ocean 255. Tampa Bay was deluged by approximately 336,000 gallons of oil by the Bouchard.
• September 1994—Russia: An estimated 84 million gallons of oil inundated the Kolva River tributary when the dam that had been built to contain the oil burst.
• February 1996—Milford Haven, Wales: Supertanker Sea Empress ran aground off the Welsh coast dumping 70,000 tons of oil.
• December 1999—Britanny, French Atlantic coast: Erika broke apart and sank. 3 million gallons of oil spilled.
• January 2000—off Rio de Janeiro: 343,200 gallons of oil spewed into the sea after the rupture of a government pipeline.
• November 2000—Port Sulphur, Louisiana: Westchester lost power and ran aground on the Mississippi River, south of New Orleans. 567,000 gallons of oil deposited into the lower Mississippi. This was the largest U.S. spill since the Exxon Valdez in 1989.
• November 2002—Spain: The Prestige suffered a damaged single hull and was towed to sea to sink. Almost 2 million gallons of oil leaked from the vessel before it sank, and approximately 18 million gallons of oil remain underwater.

The Prestige is a perfect example of loopholes. It was operated by a Greek firm but was registered in the Bahamas and flew a Bahamian flag. The ship had been chartered by a Swiss-based Russian oil company. Registering tankers in countries known to have ineffective safety regulations or loose taxation requirements is not uncommon. Countries have the right to close their ports to ships that cannot prove documentation of a recent safety inspection.

The OPA 90 Act will have a positive impact in the decrease of accidental oil spills, but the events of the past 16+ years are an ominous indicator of how the biggest, most profitable companies in the world will react to and whitewash the black oil spills of the future.

Jan Blair

sources
Official website of Exxon Valdez victims

enviroliteracy.org

Fact Monster—World and News—Disaster Digest

Full Resolution Images