The Huntington Beach Oil Spill. Deja vu all over again. Will we ever get it right?
The Huntington Beach Oil Spill of October 2021 made headline news as a national environmental disaster. According to the agencies involved, their spill response was a resounding success. In my opinion, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and discerning the truth is vitally important, for this informs the discussion of our political leaders as they discuss the need for continuing offshore oil and gas development and production.
First, the spill recovery can hardly be labeled in my opinion the response to the oil spill was by no means a success. The agencies involved were way too slow to send out experienced local field staff to investigate the reports of oil and sheen on the water, the initial on-water response was late and did not use the appropriate resources and the implementation of the shoreline protection measures in the USCG Area Contingency Plan (ACP) were not deployed in time to prevent sensitive sites from being oiled.
Previous
Next
Let me tell you why I have this opinion. On the morning of October 2, I happened to be on my way to the Pacific Airshow in Huntington Beach when I started to hear calls of “oil sheen” off Newport Beach. As I drove my boat from Huntington Harbor to the Huntington Beach pier everything seemed pretty normal until we approached Platform Eva off Huntington Beach. Once we neared the platform we started to see sheen, and within minutes we were driving through pungent and thick patches of oil, not sheen. I used to do oil spill response for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Office of Spill Protection and Response (OSPR) and to us oil spill responders there is a big difference between “sheen” and oil or “free product”. Generally oil on the water is called a sheen when it is a very thin layer that produces a rainbow type effect on the water. Free product is what an oil slick is called. The big difference is that sheen is not generally recoverable by skimmers or on water response but free product is. As I mentioned I had been hearing reports of sheen all morning but no one was calling in a report of free product. I wanted the USCG and OSPR to understand that there was thick oil on the water so around 0930 I hailed the USCG LA/LB section on VHF channel 16 and let them know that there was a lot of free product, that it was pungent, that the oil seemed to be located between platform Eva and the area where container ships were anchored and that this was not sheen. I also let them know that I used to work for OSPR and that I used to do oil spill response. I tried to hail any CDFW vessel in the area and received no reply. I then called the 800 response number listed on the OSPR website and I relayed the same information I gave the USCG. I took pictures and video, sent them into the USCG and then left the area for the Airshow.
So what do you think happened when an experienced oil spill responder called in an oil spill off the coast and left a call back number? You would think that the OSPR or USCG staff that received the reports of oil on the water would give me a call to check in and get an on scene report. I have not been gone that long that I don’t know many if not all of the OSPR staff and I thought someone would call to ask what I saw, but that never happened. It was not until well after lunch that I saw and heard the first CDFW vessel on scene and saw a private helicopter doing an oversight. By that time the wind had kicked up and swells were ~2 which made observation of the spill and most importantly on water response much less effective.
Why did it take so long for the USCG and OSPR to mount a response? There were USCG vessels at the air show. There was at least one experienced responder on scene that would be me, who was willing to help out. I am betting that the people that received the initial reports were not local OSPR staff but OSPR staff located in Sacramento or outside of Orange County. I am betting that when these staff received calls of sheen that they did not see the need to actually send someone out to look. However once there was a report of free product then the response should have been much different.
In my experience initial reports are often very different from the situation on scene. When I was at OSPR it was common to get reports of sheen in and around the port and large vessels. The only way to determine if a report requires response or not is to go and look at the scene and make that determination onsite determination. You really can’t phone it in. In this case there were numerous calls of sheen being reported in waters off Newport to Huntington Beach. Also there was a very strong petroleum smell in the air and I had read that 911 calls had been received the night before by local fire and police. What should have happened is that once multiple reports of sheen, and odor were reported that the on-call staff should have dispatched to the area to see what was up. Other staff should have made contact with the oil operators in the area to see if they were reporting any upsets. I can tell you that if I had been dispatched to the area and smelled the petroleum that I would have started a response immediately. At the very least once a report of free product was received OSPR should have dispatched a full response. I have been involved in responses in the past where there was reluctance to launch a full response due to the fear by the local incident commanders of over responding. I am wondering if this is what happened here. I hope that someone investigates why it took so long to get the response going. Changes should be made to response decision making requiring a launch of a full response to reports of free oil off the coast until it can be verified that no response is needed. It takes time to mobilize response staff and large skimming vessels and by activating these assets early, damage to the environment can be mitigated.
I also hope that someone also investigates why once USCG and OSPR had verified free oil that they did not roll out the big skimmers and deploy staff to implement the Orange County Sensitive Site Protection Strategies. I left the air show in the afternoon and at that time I only observed one small skimmer trying to corral oil in two foot chop with no other recovery vessel nearby to skim the corralled oil or off load oil being skimmed by the skimmer. By the next morning the oil slick was ashore and had oiled wetlands. I heard that it was only by chance that the Santa Ana River had avoided significant oiling. It was a lucky break that local agencies had planned to open the mouth of the river the morning of the spill but instead build up a large berm to prevent oil from entering the river channel. The Santa Ana River at the coast is heavily used by birds for bathing, lounging and feeding and I have personally observed hundreds of birds on the water in the area. Oiling the river would have been a big problem. Also once crude oil adheres to rock it is almost impossible to remove. Agencies often use steam cleaning to clean the rock but the steam cleaning basically sterilizes the surface of the risk and in my experience it can take years for residual oil to weather and for the area to return to baseline. Had the rocks along the river been oiled then the area would have taken years to fully recover. Unfortunately rocks located in the Talbert Marsh were oiled and though cleanup occurred in my experience the area will likely suffer reduced productivity for many years. Oiling of intertidal mud and sand flats in wetlands is even worse because these areas are often quiescent water bodies and one oiled there is no good way to remove the oil and the oil often persists for years. I think that everyone agrees that it is much better to prevent sensitive sites from being oiled than it is to try and remove oil and restore the site.
In my opinion what should have happened is that once oil was observed offshore Orange County, the ACP sensitive site strategies should have been implemented. OSPR and the USCG do drills with local police and fire department on boom deployment for sensitive sites. The idea is that if there is a spill that local resources could deploy the protective booms around and in sensitive sites to prevent these areas from being oiled. It appears that this did not happen in time to protect the Talbert March and this and other areas were oiled.
What should also have happened is that response staff should have been on scene much earlier and they should have launched a large on water response. Within the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are numerous oil spill response organizations with skimming vessels up to 210 feet and with barges for off loading skimmed oil and booms designed for open ocean containment. What I observed, one small skimmer with no ability to offload skimmed oil, seemed to be just for show. Once crude oil was observed off the coast then these large assets should have been deployed. Why were they not deployed? Was it an effort to not over respond? Under the wait and see approach currently used by response agencies, can a timely response ever be mounted to near shore oil spills?
I think it would be good for the agencies to review this and past oil spills from the facilities offshore of Orange County. This current spill was deja vu all over again for me. In the late 1990’s I received a report of an oil spill off the Orange County coast. I immediately called the OSPR lieutenant in the area and he arranged for me to do an over flight of the area. I was on scene within two hours of the report and I saw a large oil spill response operation underway apparently initiated by AERA Energy the operator of the platform at the time. OSPR and the USCG immediately formed a unified command with the operator and ACP strategies were deployed. Apparently a leak in the oil pipeline attached to the offshore platforms developed during cleanout operations being overseen by the United States Department of Interior and the oil company immediately called out the large response vessels. Response operations continued for weeks and no sensitive sites were oiled but numerous birds were oiled, fortunately no Western Snowy Plovers were oiled. Also due to the full on water response mounted immediately by AERA there were far fewer tar balls and oil patches on the adjacent beaches than there was with the current spill. The immediate deployment of on water containment and skimming vessels by the oil company really helped reduce shoreline impacts. The current spill is in stark contrast to the spill from the 1990s. I think someone should conduct a full investigation of how early reports were handled and why a full response was not mounted until well into the release. I know the agencies will point the finger at the platform operator but there is no excuse for ignoring the oil spill reports that came in, especially the report that I made at 0930.
If OSPR had called I would have said respond with everything, send teams to implement the sensitive site strategies and have someone standing by the harbor mouths to deploy ACP recommended exclusionary booms if needed. Some would say it is impractical to boom the harbors closed but they only have to be boomed during the incoming tide, during outgoing tides booms can be opened to allow traffic into and out of the harbor. That’s how I would have played this scenario if I had been quarterback.
Regardless of how I would have played the scenario, our leaders need to fully understand what happened during this incident. Is it even possible to mount a response in time to prevent serious injury to our coast and residents the next time there is a spill from the offshore oil and production platforms? Has the state and federal government become complacent and why did the response agencies not send staff to the scene upon receipt of the first calls of oil and odor? Are the current operators and Oil Spill Response Organizations capable of on water containing and recovering another oil spill the size of the current one?
I hope these questions are answered as the investigation into the cause of the spill and the assessment of damages from the spill proceeds. I can tell you one thing: the full extent of environmental damage will never be known let alone be compensated. I saw numerous birds and bait fish surfacing in the sheen and slick. I have spent my life in, on and along the waters off Huntington Beach and I typically see numerous marine mammals in the area and if they were in the area of the slick they must have been exposed to the oil and vapors. It was intense. What happens to these animals is anyone’s guess. I am wondering if the response agencies did over flights to assess the numbers and types of animals in the area during the spill and will these agencies seek compensation for injury to wildlife? Considering the late and unimpressive response that occurred, I doubt resources were deployed to observe animals in the area of the oil. Only a few birds were recovered which is typical and it does not represent the true injury that likely occurred. Do the people of the State want to continue to allow offshore oil production to occur when events like this happen and will always happen? Can we rely on our response agencies to respond in a way to prevent significant injury and do the oil companies have adequate resources? I doubt it.
These questions should be answered through an update of the local Area Contingency Plan to include a worst case discharge from these offshore oil and gas platforms and pipelines. There is a 10,000 bbl worst case scenario analysis for the facilities in the Santa Barbara channel and a similar worst case scenario for the facilities located off Orange County should be analyzed and included in the ACP. Also the state should look at whether changes should be made to the way initial reports are handled. Having a person from San Luis Obispo be on call for spills in San Diego creates the kind of phone response that seemed to occur here. In my experience, on-call biologists located in Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara rarely if ever dispatched to our area on weekends to investigate reports of oil spills. Most of the time it was not necessary. Most of the time they waited until the local biologist, which was myself and another person, could be reached to investigate or they waited until the following Monday to hand off the report to a local staff person. However in the current situation trying to phone it in could be the reason why the response was so slow and under responsive.
As offshore oil and gas are debated in the coming months I hope the agencies involved take an honest look at their and the oil companies response and see if it is possible to adequately respond to the oil spill that will occur. I also hope that there is an honest admission that the true impact of this spill will never truly be known. Personally, having worked with the State for decades and knowing the parties involved, I don’t see much changing and the question boils down to can we afford to have oil spills off our coast? Do the benefits of these particular offshore facilities exceed the costs? I wonder.
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn