Magazine Issue 3 - Spring 1997
Oil the way to the bank - The story ot the Sea Emporess oil spill

A special report by Corporate Watch
This is the story of the Sea Empress 'disaster'. It is a story of criminaI negligence, of corporate profiteering and - in the words of one local MP -"cretinous idiocy". It is a story which exposes the faiIure of politicians to act in the interests of the people, and of the inherent dangers of a system that aIlows powerful corporations to evade responsibility for their actions.

On 15th February 1996 the Sea Empress oil tanker ran aground on rocks at the entrance to Milford Haven in South Wales. Within a week she had leeked at least 72,000 tonnes of North Sea crude oil - a bigger spill than the Exxon Valdez. Some of the UK'S most protected coastlines - incuding 35 SSSI's - were devastated as the oil washed ashore. It will be years before the full effects of the spill on the bird and sea life of the area are known.

The oil which caused so much devistation to the Haven and Surrounding areas last February belonged to the American multinational Texaco. But the Sea Empress disaster hasn't cost Texaco a penny.

The grounding of the Sea Empress
On the morning of Thursday I5th February Texaco informed the Millford Haven Port Authority that there was a berth available at its docks and that the Sea Empress supertanker should be allowed To proceed to port. A pilot was sent out alongside the tanker, and one hour and 20 minutes before low tide the ship began steaming towards the Haven.

Suddenly, and for reasons still unknown the tanker grounded on St Anne's Head and began to leak oil. For the whole of the next week tugs and rescue workers battled to free the stricken vessel and to contain the rapidly spreading slick of toxic Oil. But violent gales and falling tides kept the ship stuck fast on the rocks.

"When you look at the handling of the thing you can almost smell the money the whole way through". Journalist covering the Empress oil spill -The Western Mail

That's the official story. The truth - should it ever come out - is probably very different. For a start there is the question or why the Sea Empress attempted to make an entrance to the Haven at such a tricky time - 80 minutes before one of the lowest spring tides ever. Was the pilot at fault? Did the harbourmaster at Milford Haven Port Authority make a fatal error? Or was Texaco, whose refinery many locals say was on the point of running out or oil, more to blame?

The Texaco Connection
Ever since that fateful day in February 1996 there has been a persistent rumour among the people of Milford Havean. It goes like this: Texaco was running low in oil stocks in its refinery. To have to close down the production process would have been disastrous - the whole system depends on a continuous throughput of oil. Because of this,Texaco put pressure on the port Authority to bring the ship in immediately, what-ever the tide.

The locals admit that the Port Authority - which is dependent on Texaco for 50% of its entire business - is not in a position to argue with one of the region's largest employers. And the muitnational oil company had just given the whole area -traditionally an employment blackspot - a big fright by threatening to move its entire operation to a new location in Malaysia. "Quite simply that is completely untrue," Texaco's Milford Haven spokesman David Lloyd told Corporate Watch. "The only involvement we have with tanker access is that our people tell the Port Authority when there is a berth available? In any case, says Mr Lloyd, 'we had sufficient crude for 7 - 8 days, which was quite normal for us at that time of the year.

But local Labour MP Nick Ainger is not so sure - and is calling for an independent inquiry into the whole affair. "It was an extremely unnsual situation to bring a ship in of that size an hour and 20 minutes before low water."

Accident turns into disaster
Just about everyone agrees on two things. One is that the Sea Empress oil spill was a minor accident that turned into a major environmental catastrophe. The other is that the Port Authority deserves to take much of the blame.

"She grounded on Thursday evening," says retired pilot and marine expert Ieuan Evans. "The disaster didn't start until Saturday evening. On the Saturday the vessel could have been brought upto the terminal quite easily."

A Friends of the Earth press release, issued on i5 April 1996, makes the same point "Once the tanker bad struck the rocks, FOE believes that the salvage operation was hampered by an apparent confusion in the command structure as to who was in overall charge. This could explain why permission to take the tanker to a safer location out to sea was refused even though the tides would have permitted this on four occasions subsequent to the initial grounding."

What is clear is that the Sea Empress was not stuck on the rocks at all. At each high tide from Thursday 15th until Sunday 18th the salvors could either have brought the ship safely into port to contain the oil spillage, or taken her out to sea where both she and the coastline would have been spared further damage. In fact the worst kind of indecision prevailed, and the tanker stayed where she was - taking further damage from the rocks at each low tide.

Milford Haven Port Authority
In a famous exchange, supposed to have taken place between a pilot on board the Sea Empress and the harbourmaster at Milford Haven Port Authority, the pilot explains that the ship's engines are working and that she could be brought into port. "I'd say bring her in, but I've got a roomful of people telling me not to," replied the harbourmaster. W?ho were this 'roomful or people'? It's a question no-one has yet answered.

By the Sunday evening, when the weather began to worsen, the Sea Empress had been at St Anne's Head for three days. Yet she had still only spilled about 2,000 tonnes of oil. On subsequent days, as the ship languished on the rocks and was buffeted by storm-force winds, oil flooded out in massive quantities. By the following Thursday when she finaly limped into Milford Haven port - still under her own power - she had lost 72,000 tonnes.

Says Ieuan Evans: "The question that has to be asked is why wasn't the ship brought up on the Saturday to the terminal where she eventually ended up? Because that's what caused the disaster;" There is no doubt that bringing the ship in was an option. Evans, an ex-pilot, has done the calculations himself. He worked out that at that time the Sea Empress would have had at least 3 metres of water - well within safety margins - between her keel and the sea floor.

So why was the decision not made? "Because they didn't do a back-of-an-envelope calculation," claims Evans. "They had made the wrong calculation and the whole salvage operation was based on assumptions that in my opinion will not be able to stand the test of an investigation."

Milford Haven Port Authority may also carry some or the blame for the initial grounding or the Sea Empress. The Port's radar was not covering the whole area (it still isn't). Only one pilot was assigned to bring the ship in - a job almost "physically impossible" to do single-handed, according to other pilots. And in a sense the Authority even had advance warning: another oil tanker had hit the same rocks the prevous October.

According to Ieuan Evans, management changes in the mid 1980's meant that commercial priorities had begun to overtake navigational ones. The Port Authority began using its funds to buy up smaller companies and leisure facilities, while neglecting to notice changes in shipping patterns. Ominously, the Authority failed to make a distinction between ship size and carrying capacity - at a time when tankers were getting bigger, but were still carying the sarne tonnage or oil.

An unpleasant aspect of the saga is the attempt to scapegoat the pilot John Pearns for allowing the Sea Empress to run aground. Stories mysteriously appeared in the press speculating that Pearns might have been 'intoxicated' at the time - a claim strenously denied by the pilot and all his coleagues. In addition, Pearns was called before a Board or Enquiry, found to be 'negligent' and demoted. Following an appeal he was reinstated - but his career has been badly damaged.

The Government connection
There is unanimity among the participants of the Sea Empress saga that Shipping Minster lord Gosehen, in the words of marine biologist Tim Deere-Jones, is "a complete prat". Dubbed 'Goschen who doesn't have a notion about the ocean'. "even hardened oil industry professionals were laughing at him."

According to Deere-Jones, Lord Gosehen spurned the order of clean-up help from a Norwegian vessel. He also stamped on attempts to have the affected area declared an EC disaster area - because it would have been bad for the Government's reputation.

Then there is the question of the tugs. One of the main reasons that the Sea Empress sustained so much damage on the rocks was the lack of tug pulling-power to keep her in position. Yet this had been one of the main recommendations of Lord Donaldson's report into the 1994 Braer 0il disaster in the Shetlands, that tugs should be stationed strategically around the British coastline to offer assistance to stranded ships.

But this recommendation was not implemented. When the Sea Empress ran aground the tug for the Western Approaches was down near Portugal - quite legitimately 'on business'. In the event a Chinese tug - one of the most powerful in the world - was nearby Milford Haven at the time. But according to observers none of the crew members spoke English, and the Port Authority had to engage the services of a local Chinese restauranteur as a translator. Now, to add insult to injury, the Government is questioning the need for tugs at all in the area.

The Marine Accident Investigation Branch of the Department of Transport is currently conducting an enquiry into the Sea Empress disaster. But, as Ainger points out, in effect DoT employees are being asked to investigate their colleagues." It's wrong to ask a civil servant working in the same department to actually investigate the political actions of a minister" Because of this, the report is likely to be little more than a"whitewash".

A criminal act?
You can forgive incompetence, and maybe even negligence. But what if much of the oil spillage was deliberate - a criminal act against a fragile ecosystem? This may sound unlikely - but there are many people who consider it a distinct possibility.

For a start, the biggest leakage of 20,000 to 30,000 tonnes was lost on the Wednesday night - hours before the Sea Empress came into port. Says leaun Evans: "I am told that on the wednesday oil was deliberately gravitated to sea."

Could the salvors, desperate to prevent the loss of the ship, have deliberately pumped oil out of the Sea Empress and into the sea at St Anne's Head? Bill Pritchard, environmentalist and journalist, thinks that they did. "Everyone was cleared off the headland. No planes were allowed to fly overhead. There was this ridiculous story put about that suddenly there was an explosion risk. What were they doing at that time? What didn't they want people to see?"

Pritchard believes that the Salvors, who have said they pumped compressed air into the Sea Empress to give her extra buoyancy, may have used it to dnve oil out or her tanks. They would have had a comercial interest in doing this - there is more insurance money to be earned saving a ship than in merely saving its Cargo and risking the loss of the ship itself.

In addition, many locals believe that far more oil than the admitted told of 72,000 tonnes was spilt in the disaster. "I saw the ship on its moorings and as far as I was concerned the thing was empty," a local fisherman told Corporate Watch. "Most of the people round here think the thing was empty when it came in. But then that would make it the biggest oil disaster ever - which means the Government would have had to pump money in, and they didn't want to put a penny in."

Another Sea Empress?
So could the Sea Empress happen again? The answer is a resounding 'yes'. Although supertankers now have two pilots to guide them in. Milford Haven Port Authority still does not provide total radar coverage -although "you need radar to operate a modern port", according to Mp Nick Ainger. "An awful lot of complacency has set in and safety margins have been cut and cut on a whole range of issues.

There is still insufficient tug pulling power available. And, despite being faced with increasing ship sizes, the Authority has done nothing to improve on-shore navigational aids - a major complaint of pilots.

Local environmentalist Joy Roland is campaigning for the whole area to be designated a 'Special Area Of Conservation' under the EC Habitats Directive. "I'm still worried about the level of safety in the haven," she told Corporate Watch. But the application is being opposed by Milford Haven Port Authority on the grounds that it would impede industrial development.

Who pays the price?
Knowing the inherent dangers or its business, the oil industry has setup a system which enables individual Companies to remain apparently blameless for spills of their own toxic cargo.

Take the Sea Empress. She was built in Spain, owned and skippered by a Norwegian, registered in Cyprus, managed from Glasgow, chartered by the French, crewed by Russians and was flying a Libenan 'flag of convenience'. It's the ultimate multinational business.

But who pays the price? Not Texaco. Although the company gave some help to the 'clean-up' as a goodwill gesture, it didn't have to. Liability for environmental damage was covered up to a limit of $15 million by the Scandinavian insurers Skuld. Additonal costs - including compensation claims - was covered by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, to which most oil compantes contribute.

The compensation claim period is 3 years. Afer that, the people of Pembrokeshire are on their own. "What I'm frightened of," a local fisherman told Corporate Watch, "is that all the fry died off this year because or the pollution. Then in four years time there'll be no Fish or lobsters or crabs to catch. And there won't be Compensation available then."

Some of the long-term effects will never be commercially quantifiable. One press agency photographer remembers the poignant moment when the full realisation of what had happened hit him. He was standing on the shordine with a local diving instructor - a big man who knew the waters of the haven well. Seeing thediver sobbing uncontrollably, the photographer asked what was wrong. "I grew up here," he said. " I loved these waters as a boy, and now they've destroyed them for my children."

So who's, to blame for the Sea Empress oil spill? Not Texaco, say Texaco. Not the Port Authority either, apparently. It was an unfortunate accident, they all chant in chorus. Blame the weather, the pilot, even the tides, they say. But none of this is true. Texaco and the profit-obcessed Port Authority must be forced to accept responsibility for the disaster. We must not let the complexity of the Oil industry blind us to the motivations of those who run it - those who put profit first and who were prepared to see 175 miles of Welsh Coastline ruined for the sake of a quick buck.

Reclaim The Coast
To connemorate the first aniversary of the Sea Empress disaster an action was planned and organised by concerned individuals of Pembrokeshire. Leaflets were posted, e-mails were sent and people came from across the country. The authorities were expecting to get a good thrashing, - with over 400 riot police with road blocks set to deter "undesirable" camper types. It was rumoured that a hospital ward had been booked by the police - who must have been expecting casualties.

On Fnday evening a meeting was held by the protesters and it was decided that a confrontation was worth avoiding. Friends or the Earth had announced a two month ultimatum to the government to begin criminal proceedings against those responsible for the oil spiIl. Charles Secret (bless) had apparently hired a top QC to begin the case.

Early on saturday morning, while Milford Haven swarmed with police and press, over a hundred envirotimentalists decended on Brynhenllys open cast mine (owned by Celtic Energy who are likely to let bought up by Hanson). The police, the press and the opencast miners were taken completely by surprise. Thirty confused workers switched off expensive digger engines as their machines were climbed. A couple of minor scuffles gave way to a peaceful action in gorgeous spring sunshine. The police finally turned up and after some pleasant discussion, agreed not to arrest anybody, on the condition that every one would leave at 12.30 to watch the rugby. A little bit of sabottge did happen and six people were arrested, three or whom were released shortly afterwards. The weekend was a dual action - the police got oil into the media, whilst we got open cast coal in.
TEXACO ...a corporate profile...
Texaco is the third largest Oil company in the U.S, with an annual turnover of over $36,700 million. It extracts oil to the local minimum legally required standards in Colombia, Equador, lndonesia, Angola, Nigeria, Myanmar (Burma), China, Korea, Russia. Mexico, Singapore, Thailand, Brazil and the US. Many of these countries are better known for their crippling debts, poor standards of living, and corrupt and un-democratic governments.

It owns four refineries in the US, sharing ownership with three more with Saudi Arabian Oil Co. It Owns another 19 abroad, in some of the poorest countries in the world. During its 20 years in Ecuador,Texaco spilt 17 million gallons of oil and 20 billion gallons of toxic wastewater.

The 1995 Annual report stated, "the Pembrokeshire team is creating its own margins by reducing costs, increasing energy efficiency, upgrading refinery yeilds.. (that) resulted in a 25% improvement in the refinery's gross margin in 1995."

Environmental effects of the Sea Empress spill
The Sea Empress disaster has had devastating ecological impacts. Over 175 miles of fragile coastline - including 35 sites of special scientific interest, 20 National Trust properties and a marine nature reserve - were affected by massive oil slicks.

The spill from the stricken tanker was the UK's third largest to date (after the Braer and the Torrey Canyon), and it may have been the most destructive. Of the 73,450 tonnes officially spilled, only 3000 tonnes are estimated to have been recovered during the 'clean-up' operation.

A comprehensive report by Friends of the Earth found that "the massive kill of marine animals will cause long term ecological changes, including a change in species diversity, and species and population numbers." Some sensitive eel-grass beds may not recover for two centuries - if they recover at all.

All this has taken place in an area which is already showing long-term environmental degradation. Milford Haven is a busy oil port, and pollution-sensitive species in the area are in long term decline. ManySSSIs in the Haven have been repeatedly damaged by smaller unrecorde spillages.

Included in the casualty list were fish - whose eggs and larvae are extremely sensitive to oil pollution - and 25 different species of birds. At least half the population of migrant Scoter Ducks was killed, as were thousands of Guillemots, Cormorants, Oyster Catchers, Gulls, Shags and Red Throated Divers. Aconservative estimate is that up to 20,000 birds died either from drowning, hypothermia or swallowing toxic oil whilst preening.

"There is no doubt that the Sea Empress wreck and subsequent oil spill constitute a major regional disaster," concludes the FOE report. "Long-term environmental and socio-economic effects will still be detectable well into the 21st century."

THE 'CLEAN-UP' OPERATION
Prom the day After the Sea Empress ran aground, government aircraft swooped repeatedly over the oil slick, spraying chemicals to break it up. In total some 445 tonnes of dispersants were used - the largest amount in UK waters since 1970. But as marine biologist Tim Deere-Jones says: "Dispersants are supposed to be not more toxic than the Oil - but they are still toxic." In addition, by breakirg up the slick on the sea surface, oil droplets spread throughout the water column - having a major impact on acquatic life such as shellfish.

Although their exact composition is protected by 'commercial confidentiality', most dispersants are oil-based, and ironically, are manufactured by the same oil companies whose oil they may be trying to disperse. Dispersants used on the Sea Empress oil spill were bought from Exxon and BP among others.

Spraying dispersants on the shoreline may also be little more than cosmetic exercise, cleaning oiled rocks and scraping sand off beaches may reduce visible damage and benifit the tourist trade - buit it may also do more harm than good. Deere- Jones points out that the Exxon Valdez spill showed tyhat such activities, "increase immediate ecological damage and delay or prolong the recovery process."