Samui, nearby islands also vulnerable to oil leaks

[webfact]

SAMUI
Samui, nearby islands also vulnerable to oil leaks
Bamrung Amnatcharoenrit
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The oil-spill crisis on Koh Samet has scarred the Kingdom's tourism industry and operators, especially those in Koh Samui and neighbouring islands, are voicing concern that their investments will go down the drain if something like this happens to them.

In fact, some say that the islands nearby, such as Koh Pha-ngan and Koh Tao, also face the risk of oil washing up at their shores.

At present, four concessions have been granted for petrol exploration in the area, and the farthest oil drill is only 65 kilometres from Koh Tao, while another, operated by Coastal Energy Co, is about 40km away from the shores of Koh Samui and Nakhon Si Thammarat district of Khanom.

''Even at the exploration stage, islands face the risk of an oil leak. Let's look at the Koh Samet's Ao Phrao as an example. The initial leak was 24km away, but the spill hit Ao Phrao overnight. Here, Samui is 40km away, so it will only take two days to destroy its beautiful beaches," Tanongsak Somwong, president of the Tourism Association of Koh Samui, said.

Tanongsak was attending an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) working-group meeting on tourism last week. At the meeting, he and other association members asked why the Energy Ministry had awarded such concessions, adding that the authorities should realise tourism is key to the Thai economy. Last year, tourism contributed up to Bt200 billion in taxes to national coffers and Koh Samui, Koh Tao and Koh Pha-ngan provided more than Bt1.5 billion combined.

For Samui, up to 75 per cent of its annual revenue comes from tourism, and if it is hit by a disaster such as an oil spill, many of its businesses could face the brink of bankruptcy. Not to mention the harm that will be done to marine life and bio-diversity - things that cannot be given a monetary value.

No confidence in preventive moves

This issue was also raised with Tourism and Sports Minister Somsak Pureesrisak, who was in Samui last week to meet with local operators after presiding over the opening of the APEC meeting on tourism. Last Friday, he also spoke with the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry to look for ways to secure tourism in areas by the sea.

Tanongsak said the association was not confident about the oil-spill preventive measures taken by oil companies, adding that the local community had learned from the Samet tragedy that firms don't have effective tools to save the island.

Last week, a fact-finding committee tasked with investigating the oil leak said that according to preliminary findings "unknown factors" - not human error - were behind the spill.

The leak apparently happened while crude oil was being transferred from a PTT Global Chemical offshore pipeline to a tanker at 6.30am on July 27. A gust of wind apparently destabilised the tanker receiving the oil, which lead the pipe to get disconnected, Khunying Thongtip Ratanarat, who is leading the investigation team, said.


-- The Nation 2013-08-19

[retell]

got em allready in samui not from the platforms but from the bloody jet skis

[MoonShadow]

got em allready in samui not from the platforms but from the bloody jet skis

And the fishing boats.......

[Gatorade]

Just waiting for the "must have oil at any price" apologists to wade in on this forum.

Eg. It's not very deep where the rigs are so any oil spill should be easy to contain.......Yeah!

[impulse]

Just waiting for the "must have oil at any price" apologists to wade in on this forum.

Eg. It's not very deep where the rigs are so any oil spill should be easy to contain.......Yeah!

Here I am.

Not so much "oil at any price", but a simple question.

Ready to park your scooter or your Mercedes and walk everywhere?

Of the 9 major spills in Thailand, 9 of them were related to transporting oil on Thai waters. None were from producing oil in Thai waters.

Given that Thailand imports about 800,000 BOPD (2009), unless you (and the rest of us) are willing to go back to the stone age, the risk from transporting oil on Thai waters will not go away.

Thailand does produce about 380,000 BOPD (2013 est), which is worth about $14 Billion (420 billion baht) per year. Take that away and the foreign trade balance sure takes a turn for the worse.

And finally, I compare pictures of Pattaya, Phuket, and Samui from the '70s to pictures today. In spite of dodging any major oil accidents, it seems that development for tourism is taking a significantly greater toll on the environment than anything the big bad oil companies have unleashed.

So who's for tourism at any price? I can guaranty you that the pollution created by 24 million tourists a year flushing the toilet dwarfs anything the oil companies have done. And we clean up after our messes.

[robertson468]

Just waiting for the "must have oil at any price" apologists to wade in on this forum.

Eg. It's not very deep where the rigs are so any oil spill should be easy to contain.......Yeah!

There are of course the other "apologists" who say, I like to fly in a plane, go on a Ferry, drive a car, drive a motor bike etc, etc, all of which are fueled by oil. But don't you ever drill for oil within 40ks of our shores, go do it in someone else's area and let them cope with the highly unlikely event of an oil spill (based on the percentage of barrels pumping out per day World Wide). On the other hand, if you are going to build water catchment areas, improve the roads and give us cheaper electricity and generally improve our infrastructure..................well at least we are 40ks away and not 24 and who knows, the oil companies might, just might put in the preventative measures needed to reduce the risk of a spill. Or the Government might put the appropriate legislation in place as a safe guard. There were certainly a lot of long faces around when Koh Samui was without electric for three days! Personally, I believe the incident happened due to human error. If the coupling from ship to shore is not sufficiently robust or a fail safe stop system is not in place to stop the flow of oil, should the pipe de-couple, the company engineers have failed to safe guard against this event, the possibility of which they should have foreseen.

[animatic]

I drive my bike most because it uses the least fuel and causes the smallest need.

I'd install solar if it wasn't intentionally being priced out of competition

with the oil interests who have gotten cronies to tax it grossly.

I have gotten out and protested the (sp)oil derricks right off our beaches,

because as Ko Samet Shows, it's not if there will be a leak, (there will be)

but when will it be and how bad will it be.

[carmine]

Just waiting for the "must have oil at any price" apologists to wade in on this forum.

Eg. It's not very deep where the rigs are so any oil spill should be easy to contain.......Yeah!

Here I am.

Not so much "oil at any price", but a simple question.

Ready to park your scooter or your Mercedes and walk everywhere?

Of the 9 major spills in Thailand, 9 of them were related to transporting oil on Thai waters. None were from producing oil in Thai waters.

Given that Thailand imports about 800,000 BOPD (2009), unless you (and the rest of us) are willing to go back to the stone age, the risk from transporting oil on Thai waters will not go away.

Thailand does produce about 380,000 BOPD (2013 est), which is worth about $14 Billion (420 billion baht) per year. Take that away and the foreign trade balance sure takes a turn for the worse.

And finally, I compare pictures of Pattaya, Phuket, and Samui from the '70s to pictures today. In spite of dodging any major oil accidents, it seems that development for tourism is taking a significantly greater toll on the environment than anything the big bad oil companies have unleashed.

So who's for tourism at any price? I can guaranty you that the pollution created by 24 million tourists a year flushing the toilet dwarfs anything the oil companies have done. And we clean up after our messes.

Such a cop out smart arse answer.

You are well aware i'd have thought that all people want is for greedy oil companies to take all the appropriate safety measures to prevent such disasters. From recent disasters from Samet to the Gulf of Mexico its not at all a given that they do. If they like to make the huge profits available then they should be prepared to drill in the safest way possible.

btw, not doing a very good job of cleaning up their mess that has destroyed the livelehoods of thousands of Samet residents are they

[stiggy]

Just waiting for the "must have oil at any price" apologists to wade in on this forum.

Eg. It's not very deep where the rigs are so any oil spill should be easy to contain.......Yeah!

Here I am.

Not so much "oil at any price", but a simple question.

Ready to park your scooter or your Mercedes and walk everywhere?

Of the 9 major spills in Thailand, 9 of them were related to transporting oil on Thai waters. None were from producing oil in Thai waters.

Given that Thailand imports about 800,000 BOPD (2009), unless you (and the rest of us) are willing to go back to the stone age, the risk from transporting oil on Thai waters will not go away.

Thailand does produce about 380,000 BOPD (2013 est), which is worth about $14 Billion (420 billion baht) per year. Take that away and the foreign trade balance sure takes a turn for the worse.

And finally, I compare pictures of Pattaya, Phuket, and Samui from the '70s to pictures today. In spite of dodging any major oil accidents, it seems that development for tourism is taking a significantly greater toll on the environment than anything the big bad oil companies have unleashed.

So who's for tourism at any price? I can guaranty you that the pollution created by 24 million tourists a year flushing the toilet dwarfs anything the oil companies have done. And we clean up after our messes.

You should edit to read : Mostly unplanned, unregulated greed driven growth.With very little thought towards the environment.

[Gatorade]

I accept that oil is needed. However I don't accept the arguments that any spill in Thai waters can be contained.

TIT and I just don't believe (along with many others) that the Thai industry and authorities have the wherewithal to cope with such a problem.

Just look at the lies that surrounded Koh Samet.

Quotes from the Industry and Authorities straight after it happened:

"It's all contained"

"Marine life all OK" etc etc.

Well it wasn't, and Koh Samet will suffer for a very long time. AND there is every possibility that this spill could end up on our beaches

anyway.

Many peoples fears that the oil industry here do not have oil spill containment procedures that work has just been proved!

[impulse]

I accept that oil is needed. However I don't accept the arguments that any spill in Thai waters can be contained.

TIT and I just don't believe (along with many others) that the Thai industry and authorities have the wherewithal to cope with such a problem.

Just look at the lies that surrounded Koh Samet.

Quotes from the Industry and Authorities straight after it happened:

"It's all contained"

"Marine life all OK" etc etc.

Well it wasn't, and Koh Samet will suffer for a very long time. AND there is every possibility that this spill could end up on our beaches

anyway.

Many peoples fears that the oil industry here do not have oil spill containment procedures that work has just been proved!

My apologies, then for my rude response. You're perfectly justified to be concerned about the ability to respond to a spill, based on what happened.

[amitsch]

I partially agree with you in terms of the effects of the tourism itself on the environment but also think the pullution flushed into the seas does not kill the marine environment in a degree as an oil spill does...

Of the 9 major spills in Thailand, 9 of them were related to transporting oil on Thai waters. None were from producing oil in Thai waters.

Did you actually read the report?

"The leak apparently happened while crude oil was being transferred from a PTT Global Chemical offshore pipeline to a tanker at 6.30am on July 27. A gust of wind apparently destabilised the tanker receiving the oil, which lead the pipe to get disconnected, Khunying Thongtip Ratanarat, who is leading the investigation team, said."

So, how the hell can you say "None were from producing oil in Thai waters"???

Also, i am surprised that ONLY 75% of Samui's annual revenue comes from tourism. I'd bet its more than that and as a matter of fact the long term effects of a major oil spill in the gulf would cause a negative monetary effect on the annual revenue that outweights the revenue from drilling oil...!.

"I should have been foreseen by the oil companies"...

Yeah but isnt the lack of foresight a general problem of the Thais???
Problems will ONLY be solved AFTER something happened....

[John 1]

I partially agree with you in terms of the effects of the tourism itself on the environment but also think the pullution flushed into the seas does not kill the marine environment in a degree as an oil spill does...

Of the 9 major spills in Thailand, 9 of them were related to transporting oil on Thai waters. None were from producing oil in Thai waters.

Did you actually read the report?

"The leak apparently happened while crude oil was being transferred from a PTT Global Chemical offshore pipeline to a tanker at 6.30am on July 27. A gust of wind apparently destabilised the tanker receiving the oil, which lead the pipe to get disconnected, Khunying Thongtip Ratanarat, who is leading the investigation team, said."

1. So, how the hell can you say "None were from producing oil in Thai waters"???

2. Also, i am surprised that ONLY 75% of Samui's annual revenue comes from tourism. I'd bet its more than that and as a matter of fact the long term effects of a major oil spill in the gulf would cause a negative monetary effect on the annual revenue that outweights the revenue from drilling oil...!.

"I should have been foreseen by the oil companies"...

3..Yeah but isnt the lack of foresight a general problem of the Thais???

Problems will ONLY be solved AFTER something happened....

Answer to your question

1. The 9 incident's mentioned by Impulse were from oil being transported in Thai water's do you think Thailand produces enough oil locally. No it has to come in by tanker and be refined.

2. You are surprised only 75% of revenue from tourism. your betting it's more than that, we know but do you.

3. Thai's have as mush foresight as the next person so what is your problem. This is unrelated but an example why did the train crash in Europe the driver had no foresight he was talking on the phone and speeding round a bend.and he wasn't Thai.

[impulse]

I partially agree with you in terms of the effects of the tourism itself on the environment but also think the pullution flushed into the seas does not kill the marine environment in a degree as an oil spill does...

Of the 9 major spills in Thailand, 9 of them were related to transporting oil on Thai waters. None were from producing oil in Thai waters.

Did you actually read the report?

"The leak apparently happened while crude oil was being transferred from a PTT Global Chemical offshore pipeline to a tanker at 6.30am on July 27. A gust of wind apparently destabilised the tanker receiving the oil, which lead the pipe to get disconnected, Khunying Thongtip Ratanarat, who is leading the investigation team, said."

So, how the hell can you say "None were from producing oil in Thai waters"???

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-30/oil-spill-on-koh-samet/4851866 (Omani Tanker)

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/31/world/asia/thailand-beach-oil-spill (Goodyear hose failed)

http://www.dmf.go.th/index.php?act=service&sec=map&ln=en (no oil production concessions nearby)

Edited August 20, 2013 by impulse

[Neilly]

From the above abc link

The group said the spillage came as crude oil from an Omani tanker moored offshore was being transferred to the pipeline for delivery to a PTT refinery.

First time I've read that it was being transferred to (not from) Thailand