Above: A boom used to contain oil spills for the purposes of skimming. Credit: the Canadian Coast Guard
The Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW) is calling for an immediate halt to tests by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) that are set to spill oil and chemical dispersants off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The tests are part of a Multi-Partner Research Initiative (MPRI) that aims to, “advance scientific knowledge and science-based decision making in oil spill response operations…”
“What we’re looking at is testing technologies used in other countries, but aren’t used in Canada, because we’d like to have more information on their use to make sure they’re safe,” said Ken Lee, a science emeritus with DFO who specializes in emergency preparedness and response.
Part of this MPRI is a test of in-situ burning of oil. In-situ burning is the controlled burning of oil that has been shown to significantly reduce the amount of oil in a body of water.
“What we’re looking at is, will they work in Canadian waters? And another thing we’re also investigating is if this will work on typical oil that we find on the East Coast of Canada,” said Lee.
The in-situ burning will include one test burn and five experimental burns taking place about 30 nautical miles off the coast of St. John’s in the 3L fishing area. The test burn will release one cubic metre, or 1,000 litres, of oil into the ocean and the experimental burns will release up to ten cubic metres, equaling up to 10,000 litres per burn. The experiments will be testing different technologies for burning oil to see how well it burns in an ocean environment.
“When you burn oil at sea, it is very efficient. You actually burn over 90 to 95 per cent of the oil very quickly,” said Lee. “So, when we’re looking at releasing 10 cubic metres of oil under controlled conditions, that oil will probably burn out in about 30 minutes.”
The second test would use dispersants — a mixture of emulsifiers and solvents that breaks down the oil into smaller droplets — and would see 12 releases of one cubic metre, or 1,000 litres, of oil along with dispersants released in the 3L fishing area.
FFAW inshore council member Ivan Lear says any amount of oil intentionally put in the ocean is unacceptable. He also pointed out the lack of transparency surrounding the tests and the timing of the tests coinciding with fishing activity and FFAW’s post-season crab survey.
“For one, the lack of transparency and lack of information we have here in February and they’re planning on doing this in August,” said Lear. “And the fact that you’re dumping oil into the open environment, and once you do so, where does it go? It could get out of hand.”
Lee says that DFO shares these concerns, which is why the experiments are under a strict regulatory process.
“The site where they are conducting the experiment; they wanted to make sure it was not in any environmentally or biologically significant area that was identified by DFO, hopefully outside of critical habitat areas or Marine Protected Areas. It’s not in any major shipping lanes, and it’s not close to any Indigenous communities,” said Lee.
“You have to remember this is a controlled, experimental release. The oil for the in-situ burning is released into a boom, so the oil is not floating freely in the ocean.”
The union posits that DFO should do these experiments in a controlled laboratory environment or use past data for their research. Lear has also questioned DFO’s statement that they’re looking to conduct the experiment during ideal weather conditions, wherein conditions 30 miles offshore compared to out on the open ocean can vary drastically.
“They’re looking for a good weather window, and everyone knows the Grand Banks — when do you have an ideal weather window?” said Lear. “It’s one thing to contain oil or to have a burn or have dispersants under good weather conditions, but once you have a high sea state and high winds, what’s the purpose? How will this experiment relate to weather like that?”
Concerns have been raised by the FFAW about the effect that the dispersant tests will have on surrounding ocean life.
“Where does the oil go? If the oil sinks, what effect does that have on the ocean floor? That portion of the ocean floor; does life still go on there? Are we jeopardizing any of the ocean environment for this project?” asked Lear.
Lee, however, said that the environmental effects are predicted to be negligible. He claims that as the oil is broken down by the dispersant, it enters the water column in small enough droplets to not cause harm to the surrounding environment.
“For the chemical oil dispersant experiment, the oil is actually released into a channel that’s over alongside the ship or behind it, so we know exactly how much oil is going into that channel which is released for a short number of minutes,” said Lee. “And at the other end of this channel, as the oil leaves the channel it is sprayed with a chemical oil dispersant, so we know all the dispersant is applied to the oil as it leaves that channel.”
While the FFAW isn’t sure whether they’ll be able to get the government to change course in their oil spill experiment, Lear is sure the union will not sit idly by over an issue the harvesters they represent feel so strongly about.
“The harvesters that sit on the inshore council were very, very distraught and upset with this experiment,” said Lear.
“I’ve got a feeling that if this isn’t changed, or if this isn’t altered in any way, or if they don’t share our concerns or have a conversation with us before this goes ahead in August, I’ve got a feeling they’ll possibly meet boats on-location once this experiment starts in August.”
