Oil spillage warning

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33121, 11 January 1973, Page 7

Oil spillage warning

Research programmes on aspects of pollution from off-shore oil field development specifically related to New Zealand conditions are advocated by Dr A. M. Cundell, writing in the journal of the New Zealand Institute of Chemistry.

“The possibilities of oil spillage resulting from a blow-out or handling mishap cannot be discounted,” he says, “and the regulations and technology to cope with such catastrophic events must be in existence when off-shore production begins.” Dr Cundell, a New Zealander and a graduate of Lincoln College, now works for the Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Rhode Island, Kingston. There are about 30 nations with off-shore oil and gas production, he writes. The United States Department of the Interior has estimated that, by 1980, about 30 per cent of the oil and 40 per cent of the gas requirements will come from American offshore fields. PERTINENT TO N.Z. Many observations on

American conditions are pertinent to the proposed New Zealand off-shore field, he says.

| in an oil-pollution survey ; of the United States Atlantic i coast, it had been found that on-shore winds and currents tended to bring oil ashore, presumably from leaking hulls and’bilge and ballast tank cleaning on the high I seas. ■ Oil adhered to coral, limestone and boulder beaches; whenever sand was polluted ’ it was often covered over J within the space of two tides, and the sand became pemeated with oil. The value of imports of mineral fuels, lubricants and ; other petroleum products into New Zealand for the year ended June, 1970. was Ss9m. Dr Cundell says. The security of supplv and price made local oil production more at- •| tractive. CONSEQUENCES ; However the consequences of developing new resources are generally unknown, he i says. “Without the knowledge ■of the environmental impact I of off-shore production in the Taranaki Bight it is impossible to incorporate the possible cost of damage to the environment within the cost- ■ benefits analysis of the in- ( dustry. ! “Furthermore, the ecology ■of the marine habitat and an ! estimate of the value of natural resources such as fishing | grounds and recreational ( beaches within the area must |be known if criteria for assessing the liability over and above the cost of cleanup procedures are to be established in the event of an oil spill.” Prevailing on-shore winds and the northward convergence of the west wind drift and the eastern Australian currents would mean that any oil spilled might be deposited on the Taranaki and Cook Strait beaches. Dr Cundell adds. Maui condensate, which was of low specific gravity, with a paraffinic base and a predominance of low-boiling point fractions, would be more readily dispersed than ; high-residue crude oils containing asphaltenes or paraffin ‘ waxes. However, its aromatic ‘content might be toxic to marine organisms, especially (since the absence of a his-; torv of chronic oil pollution would mean that the habitat would have a low tolerance to petroleum. Because of the surface i temperatures on the continental shelf, the destruction i

of oil would be moderate! slow.

After examining precaii- i tionary practices and Ameri- i < can legislation applicable to i < pollution, Dr Cundell sums |1 up: “Petroleum serves an i | ever-increasing proportion of’i New Zealand’s source of; i energy requirements. The de- | velopment of off-shore oil ■ i

sly [fields will not only conserve ’ (overseas exchange but will

encourage the development of new industries. However, overseas experience and internal expertise must be applied to the comprehensive evaluation of the environmental impact of off-shore oil production within New Zealand waters.”