Gulf of Thailand oil spill: Legal action sought

[webfact]

GULF OIL SPILL
Legal action sought
Pongphon Sarnsamak,
Achara Wisetsri
The Nation
Rayong


A boat tries to control and eliminate the oil spill in the Gulf of Thailand after a leak in a crude-oil pipeline at an offshore platform in Rayong.

Greenpeace, SGWA urge govt to seek financial compensation as PTTGC moves to limit oil's spread

RAYONG: -- Environmental activists are pushing for legal action and compensation against PTT Global Chemical following an oil spill in the Gulf of Thailand, which experts say could cause severe damage to the marine ecosystem.

PTT Global Chemical (PTTGC) is seeking help to control the crude oil on the sea surface and has employed specialists to address the environmental impact.

At the same time environment agencies - Bangkok-based Greenpeace Southeast Asia and the Stop Global Warming Association (SGWA) - yesterday called for state agencies to take legal action and seek damages from the company.

Ply Pirom, campaign manager for Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said PTTGC must take responsibility and compensate for all cleaning up processes, the environmental impact and damage to tourism industries and local fisheries caused by the crude oil spill.

He said the company must also disclose all information related to the cleanup process as well as the chemical substances used to remove the crude oil from the sea surface.

The environmental watch agency also called for a fresh study of the establishment of new oil platforms, like on Surat Thani province's Koh Samui Island, that could cause environmental risk to marine ecosystems in the future.

SGWA's president Srisuwan Janya said he would file a lawsuit against four government agencies if they neglected to comply with the Environmental Quality Protection and Promotion Act BE 2535 to take legal action and seek compensation from the alleged polluter.

This compensation should be used to establish a special fund to help the public who might be affected by the crude oil spill, he added.

Rayong provincial Governor Wichit Chatphaisit said the surveillance team, standing by around the clock to monitor spread of the crude oil, had reported that, as of Sunday afternoon, the spill covered 500 square metres of the sea surface. It was only two kilometres from Samet Island, a popular destination for tourists.

The Democrat MP for Rayong, Sathit Pitutecha and a group of local fishermen had called for PTTGC to take responsibility for the damage to fisheries in the short and long term. Aggrieved local people might also file lawsuits against the oil company, he said.

PTTGC has asked the Singapore-based Oil Spill Response Limited to send a jet boat to spray solution to disperse spread of the crude oil on the sea. The company has also sent environmental specialists to collect seawater samples to analyse the impact on the marine environment.

Marine and Coastal Department director-general Noppon Srisuk said he had instructed his officials to set up a surveillance centre to monitor the impact on the marine ecosystem and aquatic animals. But due to heavy seas and strong winds, he said he could not send his officials out yet.

"When the waves and strong winds [ease], we will send the officials [out to make inspections]," he said.

The Marine and Coastal Department would also consider asking for compensation from the oil company after the clean up process, he added.

The Pollution Control Department's director-general Wichien Jungrungruang said he had asked the PTT to collect samples of seawater. The department will take the samples to analyse the quality of seawater and toxic contamination.


-- The Nation 2013-07-29

[ChrisY1]

Compensation from PTT????/....they must be joking....!!

[canman]

"the spill covered 500 square metres of the sea surface"

If this is accurate then it is nothing. If it is a typo and it was supposed to be 500 square Km then it is a major spill.

[OzMick]

If there's one thing you can rely on, it's Greenpeace to blow the impact of a minor spill out of all proportion.

"...damage to tourism industries and local fisheries..." Is there evidence that ANY has occurred?

BTW let's get the lawyers on the case, though there's nothing to indicate the company has not acted expeditiously to stop the leak and minimise any effects.

Edited July 29, 2013 by OzMick

[chooka]

Compensation from PTT????/....they must be joking....!!

The Australian government hit them heavily with fines for the incident in western Australia. They paid up well they had to or else they would have lost their rights in Australian waters.

[Soupdragon]

If there's one thing you can rely on, it's Greenpeace to blow the impact of a minor spill out of all proportion.

"...damage to tourism industries and local fisheries..." Is there evidence that ANY has occurred?

BTW let's get the lawyers on the case, though there's nothing to indicate the company has not acted expeditiously to stop the leak and minimise any effects.

It's too early to say what the environmental impact will be but one thing is for sure, 70,000 tonnes of oil + seawater + tonnes of oil dispersant chemicals does not equal clean sea water. PTT would have you believe that as you can no longer see the oil on the surface then it is case closed, there was still 70,000 tonnes of oil released into the environment and that is going to have an impact.

Also the question of what caused the leak. If this isn't thoroughly investigated and if fault is found punished then there is no incentive for the company to improve it's practices and ensure this doesn't happen again.

[webfact]

Oil slick from PTT Global Chemical pipeline leak spreads onto Koh Samet's Phrao Bay /MCOT

[Thai at Heart]

Oil slick from PTT Global Chemical pipeline leak spreads onto Koh Samet's Phrao Bay /MCOT

But, but, but, it was all cleaned up I heard.

[OzMick]

If there's one thing you can rely on, it's Greenpeace to blow the impact of a minor spill out of all proportion.

"...damage to tourism industries and local fisheries..." Is there evidence that ANY has occurred?

BTW let's get the lawyers on the case, though there's nothing to indicate the company has not acted expeditiously to stop the leak and minimise any effects.

It's too early to say what the environmental impact will be but one thing is for sure, 70,000 tonnes of oil + seawater + tonnes of oil dispersant chemicals does not equal clean sea water. PTT would have you believe that as you can no longer see the oil on the surface then it is case closed, there was still 70,000 tonnes of oil released into the environment and that is going to have an impact.

Also the question of what caused the leak. If this isn't thoroughly investigated and if fault is found punished then there is no incentive for the company to improve it's practices and ensure this doesn't happen again.

Do you work for Greenpeace, because that's the only way i could explain a leak previously estimated at 70 tonnes could become 70,000?

[NanLaew]

The regulatory authorities investigate incidents, report publicly on their findings, issue fines and other punitive measures and then work with the companies to develop preventative measures so that it doesn't happen again.

Greenpeace used to be all about working together to preserve the environment but the best they can come up with here is sue companies? Looks like they are just a bunch of ambulance chasers these days.

[tomross46]

PTT is a company on the SET, which is owned by the government, and influential political families. So if you sue PTT, the tax payer will be the one that pays.

[Time Traveller]

If there's one thing you can rely on, it's Greenpeace to blow the impact of a minor spill out of all proportion.

"...damage to tourism industries and local fisheries..." Is there evidence that ANY has occurred?

BTW let's get the lawyers on the case, though there's nothing to indicate the company has not acted expeditiously to stop the leak and minimise any effects.

It's too early to say what the environmental impact will be but one thing is for sure, 70,000 tonnes of oil + seawater + tonnes of oil dispersant chemicals does not equal clean sea water. PTT would have you believe that as you can no longer see the oil on the surface then it is case closed, there was still 70,000 tonnes of oil released into the environment and that is going to have an impact.

Also the question of what caused the leak. If this isn't thoroughly investigated and if fault is found punished then there is no incentive for the company to improve it's practices and ensure this doesn't happen again.

Where did you come up with the 70,000 tonnes number? I seriously doubt 70,000 tonnes could be leaked from a subsea pipeline.

[Soupdragon]

If there's one thing you can rely on, it's Greenpeace to blow the impact of a minor spill out of all proportion.

"...damage to tourism industries and local fisheries..." Is there evidence that ANY has occurred?

BTW let's get the lawyers on the case, though there's nothing to indicate the company has not acted expeditiously to stop the leak and minimise any effects.

It's too early to say what the environmental impact will be but one thing is for sure, 70,000 tonnes of oil + seawater + tonnes of oil dispersant chemicals does not equal clean sea water. PTT would have you believe that as you can no longer see the oil on the surface then it is case closed, there was still 70,000 tonnes of oil released into the environment and that is going to have an impact.

Also the question of what caused the leak. If this isn't thoroughly investigated and if fault is found punished then there is no incentive for the company to improve it's practices and ensure this doesn't happen again.

Do you work for Greenpeace, because that's the only way i could explain a leak previously estimated at 70 tonnes could become 70,000?

My bad, that should have read litres not tonnes and no I don't work for greenpeace.

[monkeycountry]

Ply Pirom, campaign manager for Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said PTTGC must take responsibility and compensate for all cleaning up processes, the environmental impact and damage to tourism industries and local fisheries caused by the crude oil spill.

When will the local fishing industry pay for the damage they do on a daily basis to everything? My guess is that the fishing industry does a lot more damage to the environment than the PTT does. Much of it simply because they do not care, such as when they dump oil, garbage and fishing gear which all ends up on the beaches.

[nakhonandy]

Ply Pirom, campaign manager for Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said PTTGC must take responsibility and compensate for all cleaning up processes, the environmental impact and damage to tourism industries and local fisheries caused by the crude oil spill.

When will the local fishing industry pay for the damage they do on a daily basis to everything? My guess is that the fishing industry does a lot more damage to the environment than the PTT does. Much of it simply because they do not care, such as when they dump oil, garbage and fishing gear which all ends up on the beaches.

Very well said, being a diver I see this all the time.

[webfact]

UPDATE:
More than 70 percent of spilled oil has been cleaned

RAYONG, 29 July 2013 (NNT) -- At least 70 per cent of the oil spilled off Rayong coast has been cleaned as the Royal Thai Navy's patrolling aircraft sprayed chemical to dissolve the crude oil.

The oil leaked from PTT Global Chemical Public Company (PTTGC)'s pipeline Saturday morning. More than 50 tons of crude oil was visibly seen 20 kilometers off shores southeastern from Mab Ta Put pier, threatening a major tourist beach.

According to the latest report, 7 of the Navy's aircraft have been deployed in the cleaning operation. It is estimated that about 20,000 liters of crude oil still remain on Rayong waters.

PTTGC will today deploy additional oil cleaning planes from Singaporean Oil Spill Response Company Limited to speed up the operation while environment experts will be sent to estimate the environmental impacts and damages from the incident.

Meanwhile, President of Thai Stop Global Warming Association, Srisuwan Janya, called on responsible entities to pay compensations for residents affected by the impacts made to natural resources and environment.

He claimed that Rayong's maritime wildlife variety would be affected from the chemical used in the cleaning operation.


-- NNT 2013-07-29

[sandman00927]

I live near the beaches near the harbor in Rayong, it is sad and disgusting that most all the beaches here are lined with garbage that flows in and out with the tide, there is no mind set here on how or why people should keep there beaches clean. Some say the fishing and oil ships dump garbage in the sea everyday, on the weekends people line the beach areas, picnic, drink, and throw their garbage on the ground beach, it's just disgusting, so now oil is coming to cover the garbage too. Another day in paradise.

[DocN]

If there's one thing you can rely on, it's Greenpeace to blow the impact of a minor spill out of all proportion.

"...damage to tourism industries and local fisheries..." Is there evidence that ANY has occurred?

BTW let's get the lawyers on the case, though there's nothing to indicate the company has not acted expeditiously to stop the leak and minimise any effects.

Aaaaahhh...yes: the ever so popular "blame the whistleblower"!

[OzMick]

If there's one thing you can rely on, it's Greenpeace to blow the impact of a minor spill out of all proportion.

"...damage to tourism industries and local fisheries..." Is there evidence that ANY has occurred?

BTW let's get the lawyers on the case, though there's nothing to indicate the company has not acted expeditiously to stop the leak and minimise any effects.

Aaaaahhh...yes: the ever so popular "blame the whistleblower"!

What bloody whistleblower? It was publicly announced, and then GP jumped on the bandwagon for a bit of free publicity while exaggerating the damage.

BTW GP is one of the worst purveyors of pseudo-science to the uneducated, constantly making idiotic statements exaggerating benefits and ignoring the downside of anything that takes their fancy, meanwhile raising millions of unaccountable dollars.

[rosst]

If there's one thing you can rely on, it's Greenpeace to blow the impact of a minor spill out of all proportion.

"...damage to tourism industries and local fisheries..." Is there evidence that ANY has occurred?

BTW let's get the lawyers on the case, though there's nothing to indicate the company has not acted expeditiously to stop the leak and minimise any effects.

It's too early to say what the environmental impact will be but one thing is for sure, 70,000 tonnes of oil + seawater + tonnes of oil dispersant chemicals does not equal clean sea water. PTT would have you believe that as you can no longer see the oil on the surface then it is case closed, there was still 70,000 tonnes of oil released into the environment and that is going to have an impact.

Also the question of what caused the leak. If this isn't thoroughly investigated and if fault is found punished then there is no incentive for the company to improve it's practices and ensure this doesn't happen again.

Yes soupdragon, unless there are consequences there is no incentive for improved infrastructure or training. Failures will occur, we have no faith that the real cause will ever be investigated thoroughly, professionally or with integrity.

We learn more from failures than successes but only if we look.

[xtof2]

If there's one thing you can rely on, it's Greenpeace to blow the impact of a minor spill out of all proportion.

"...damage to tourism industries and local fisheries..." Is there evidence that ANY has occurred?

BTW let's get the lawyers on the case, though there's nothing to indicate the company has not acted expeditiously to stop the leak and minimise any effects.

Aaaaahhh...yes: the ever so popular "blame the whistleblower"!

What bloody whistleblower? It was publicly announced, and then GP jumped on the bandwagon for a bit of free publicity while exaggerating the damage.

BTW GP is one of the worst purveyors of pseudo-science to the uneducated, constantly making idiotic statements exaggerating benefits and ignoring the downside of anything that takes their fancy, meanwhile raising millions of unaccountable dollars.

Sure, water is crystal clear. Go for a swim.

[Robby nz]

At least 70 per cent of the oil spilled off Rayong coast has been cleaned as the Royal Thai Navy's patrolling aircraft sprayed chemical to dissolve the crude oil.

If I understand it correctly the stuff they spray doesn't actually dissolve the oil but makes it sink to the bottom.

Scooping up as much as possible is by far the best way to get rid of the majority of the spill then soaking the remainder up with absorbent booms completes the job.

I believe they did scoop some up but there is far to much for the limited gear they have to handle.

Getting rid of it off a sand beach isn't too difficult, the stuff that is on the rocks is a different story.

And yes I have been involved in an oil spill clean up, from a grounded ship.

[rbrooks]

I was right they are using boat props again to wash away their problems in the water. Amazing Thailand.

[GentlemanJim]

the spill covered 500 square metres of the sea surface.

If that is true it would be damn difficult to even spot the spill from the air. I am positive that before printing this the journo's would have done a quick mental calculation and realised the 500 square meteres would be equivalent to a spill measuring 25m x 25 m, not even a belch for a big boat.

[chooka]

If there's one thing you can rely on, it's Greenpeace to blow the impact of a minor spill out of all proportion.

"...damage to tourism industries and local fisheries..." Is there evidence that ANY has occurred?

BTW let's get the lawyers on the case, though there's nothing to indicate the company has not acted expeditiously to stop the leak and minimise any effects.

Aaaaahhh...yes: the ever so popular "blame the whistleblower"!

What bloody whistleblower? It was publicly announced, and then GP jumped on the bandwagon for a bit of free publicity while exaggerating the damage.

BTW GP is one of the worst purveyors of pseudo-science to the uneducated, constantly making idiotic statements exaggerating benefits and ignoring the downside of anything that takes their fancy, meanwhile raising millions of unaccountable dollars.

Sure, water is crystal clear. Go for a swim.

saw it on the Australian news and the oil looks pretty thick along the coast line and on the sand.

[Thai at Heart]

If there's one thing you can rely on, it's Greenpeace to blow the impact of a minor spill out of all proportion.

"...damage to tourism industries and local fisheries..." Is there evidence that ANY has occurred?

BTW let's get the lawyers on the case, though there's nothing to indicate the company has not acted expeditiously to stop the leak and minimise any effects.

It's too early to say what the environmental impact will be but one thing is for sure, 70,000 tonnes of oil + seawater + tonnes of oil dispersant chemicals does not equal clean sea water. PTT would have you believe that as you can no longer see the oil on the surface then it is case closed, there was still 70,000 tonnes of oil released into the environment and that is going to have an impact.

Also the question of what caused the leak. If this isn't thoroughly investigated and if fault is found punished then there is no incentive for the company to improve it's practices and ensure this doesn't happen again.

Yes soupdragon, unless there are consequences there is no incentive for improved infrastructure or training. Failures will occur, we have no faith that the real cause will ever be investigated thoroughly, professionally or with integrity.

We learn more from failures than successes but only if we look.

They know more than well enough how to clean it up.

What concerns me, is why fib at the beginning.

[glegolo]

Poor Koh Samet.... wonder how long time it will take to repair that disaster......

Glegolo

[OzMick]

If there's one thing you can rely on, it's Greenpeace to blow the impact of a minor spill out of all proportion.

"...damage to tourism industries and local fisheries..." Is there evidence that ANY has occurred?

BTW let's get the lawyers on the case, though there's nothing to indicate the company has not acted expeditiously to stop the leak and minimise any effects.

Aaaaahhh...yes: the ever so popular "blame the whistleblower"!

What bloody whistleblower? It was publicly announced, and then GP jumped on the bandwagon for a bit of free publicity while exaggerating the damage.

BTW GP is one of the worst purveyors of pseudo-science to the uneducated, constantly making idiotic statements exaggerating benefits and ignoring the downside of anything that takes their fancy, meanwhile raising millions of unaccountable dollars.

Sure, water is crystal clear. Go for a swim.

Did I deny there was a leak? Did GP discover/announce it?

The BTW was a general statement, not related to the current incident, and I stand by it. For example, they continually push for "alternative" energy supply while refuting hydro without ever giving any of the detriments of alternative or the benefits of hydro, both well known to those who work in the industry.

[jamhar]

As I stated before in another thread,

I came across the channel today around 2 PM.

The channel was covered with a thin sheen of oil.

It looked bad and smelled bad.

At that time, Ban Phe was relatively unaffected.

I could see off in the distance, that ships had laid a boom out, near the mouth of the channel on the northern end of Koh Somet.

I think they were trying to manage the thicker stuff from reaching the resorts on the north shore.

Once our boat made the turn around Leam Yai, the waters were clear/

As of 2pm, Ao Phai to Ao WongDuen was clear, with no signs of oil.

As of 8pm, Ao WongDuen was still clear of oil.

I noticed that the surface winds were from the southeast.

As long as that wind heading remains the same,

The resorts on the eastern side should be OK.

I'll update in the morning.