Animal Fat or Oil at Kingston Seawall? You Decide

Sep 12, 2021 News

---

By Simone Mangal-Joly (Environmentalist)

Kaieteur News – On September 2, 2021, a few public-spirited citizens took photographs and reported a dark substance, which they suspected was oil, at the Kingston Seawall.

One day later, on September 3, the Civil Defence Commission (CDC), the body responsible for national oil spill response, informed the public that it had inspected the area.
It indicated that: “initial assessments revealed that the substance was in fact animal fat that was dumped in the vicinity. The assessment team witnessed no crude oil in the area, nor any slick or sheen.”(Stabroek News, September 3, 2021, CDC says substance at Kingston seashore not crude oil).
The CDC’s findings were swiftly reported by the Government’s Department of Public Information and all major newspapers.
The CDC did not specify what type of assessments it conducted, and it did not identify what type of animal fat was observed.
It did not indicate whether samples were taken for chemical analysis, nor did it indicate whether it had sent drones or done a fly-over offshore to thoroughly check and ensure that there was no oil release and further risk.
It also did not indicate whether any reconnaissance boats were sent elsewhere along the coast to look for the dark substance and collect any samples.
A 2016 study of long-term data collected at tide gauge stations located at Stabroek and Kingston, combined with multi-temporal Lands at satellite imagery, determined that the mean tidal variation at Kingston is 1.79 meters.
It stands to reason then, that after one high tide, the substance that presented at shore could have been swept back out to sea and towards West Demerara and the Essequibo with the current.
If we take the CDC to its word, and this was in fact animal fat, one wonders why the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the public body tasked

with preventing and controlling pollution, and holding polluters accountable, has not indicated that it is inquiring into who was responsible for this dump, if it is a regular occurrence, and the risk to public health and nature.
Aquatic life may suffocate and wildlife that becomes coated with animal fat or vegetable oils could die of dehydration, diarrhoea, hypothermia, or starvation.
However, it is difficult to reconcile the photographs of the dark substance spread over a large area with an animal fat dump or even remnants of an animal that had died at sea, unless large numbers of mammals had died.
The EPA did disclose on Friday September 3 that it had collected samples from the area and was awaiting the results of an analysis (Stabroek News, September 5, EPA says probing Kingston Seashore Pollution).
There is a two-step process for testing oil from a well spill or equipment waste discharge.
Firstly, in a rapid on-site evaluation, the substance feels greasy when rubbed between the hands and fingers, and it smells like hydrocarbons, which most people would be familiar with from using oil in their cars, boats, generators, etc.
It does not have the stinking biological degradation scent of animal fat. Second, is a chemical analysis. Samples are collected, labelled, sealed, and sent to a laboratory for analysis, which could help identify the source, whether crude oil, waste oil, or animal fat.
The EPA did not say whether it conducted the step-one assessment, and it never contradicted the CBC’s announcement that the substance was merely animal fat.
It also did not say whether it had sent its drones to inspect offshore, requested a fly over of the offshore production and exploratory drilling sites, or engaged a boat to check for the substance and collect samples. One can reasonably assume that if it had done these things, it would have said so.
Possible offshore sources of oil could be the Liza production operation, any of the exploratory wells being drilled, and/or a waste oil dump from a seafaring vessel.
There are increasing numbers of seafaring vessels servicing offshore oil interests. In fact, oilnow.gy, a Virtual site that promotes oil and gas exploitation in Guyana, announced on September 10, that Royston engineers had completed a 48,000-hour overhaul of a Wartsila W16V16 diesel generator onboard the Stena Carron, as it sailed from the Caribbean to a position offshore Guyana, where it is now carrying out drilling operations (Oilnow.gy September 10, 2021, Royston completes engine overhaul work on Stena Carron off Guyana’s coast).
Could oil waste discharge have come from this vessel or any other vessel?
If the dark substance at Kingston was the result of an oil spill rather than oil waste discharge, the operator would have likely applied chemical dispersants offshore to disperse the oil.
Conceivably, some escaped oil could have still made its way to shore in waves. As has been the experience of Trinidad and Tobago, and other oil producing countries, operators are not in the habit of self-reporting spills. They may do so only when the scale is obvious.
We should be concerned about oil spills during operation and exploratory drilling not only for their potential catastrophic impact on the environment and resources upon which other parts of our economy depend, but also for what their frequency tells us about the systems and procedures, capacities, and risks associated with specific operators.
While one is inclined to think about the devastating effects of a spill coming to shore here or in our sister Caribbean countries, one is often less appreciative of the damaging effects of multiple unseen spills over the long term to marine life, fisheries, and human health.
Precaution in operation as well as precautionary monitoring, evaluation, and event response are crucial for safeguarding our interests.
Yet, neither the CDC, the EPA, the Ministry of Natural Resources, nor the Office of the President conveyed a sense of urgency and thoroughness in ensuring that there was no looming risk offshore. It is worrying that both the CDC and EPA focused their discourse narrowly on the Kingston Seawall location.
Through collaboration with the Trinidadian NGO Fisherman and Friends of the Sea, I sought the assistance of Sky Truth, a NGO that makes available to anyone satellite technology and other remote sensing data specifically “to hold polluters and others accountable for harmful activities that would otherwise remain hidden from view.”
Of course, Sky Truth could not speak to the issue of animal fat. However, the reader does have here the satellite and remote sensing image and interpretation produced by the Sky Truth of Guyana’s offshore environment on September 2.
You can decide whether the data supports the conclusion that the dark substance observed by citizens was animal fat or whether it suggests some form of crude or waste oil from offshore.
Does the way in which this incident has been handled make you feel that you can rely on institutions entrusted with the responsibility for managing, monitoring, responding, and protecting us? Does this give you confidence in our leaders’ commitment to our natural wealth, health, and protection of the non-oil segments of our economy?

 

---

---