Great Barrier Reef threatened by dispersants

Let us not forget old disasters that are stil with us. Discusses the threat to Australia and the Great Barrier Reef from dispersants

60 Minutes: Crude Solution 

Part 1

When petroleum giant BP spilled millions of litres of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico three years ago, it was the worst ever offshore oil disaster. Now, this environmental disaster has become a health catastrophe

60 Minutes: Crude Solution - Part 2

Matthew Simmons on Deepwater Horizon

I think that in view of what has been divulged in yesterday's article about the sick children of the Gulf of Mexico it is worthwhile to look back to what the late Matt Simmons (who was as likely as not, murdered for his knowledge) was saying about this at the time, back in 2010.

He pointed out that the seafloor was damaged by the horizontal drilling and that, with the use of toxic Corexit dispersants the oil sank to the bottom and is destroying the Gulf from the bottom up.

It seems that what he was warning us of then is coming to pass and the Gulf is dead. 

La sinkhole link - Matt Simmons states "BP lied about EVERYTHING". HUGE OPEN HOLE IN GULF!

I commend Mr Simmons for caring about people & being willing to take a lot of flack & put his life in jeopardy. In this interview just weeks before his highly suspect death he makes it abundantly clear that "BP LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH" and ALL they cared about is MONEY! I have another video which shows the gaping hole next to the purported riser however Mr Simmons made it abundantly clear that the actual blowout WAS NOT what we had been shown - that it is STILL an open hole 10 miles away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVluWEx9t84

Recently (as in just this last week) fresh oil was seen, collected and analyzed - positively identified as being the same as from the BP blowout. This is available online & if need be I will find it for you AGAIN! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFm2FRXautc

NALCO, manufacturer and distributor of Corexit-9500 IS a subsidiary of BP (See featured video on my channel by Michael Edwards) as is Synthetic Genomics of Rockville Maryland, the creator of Craig Venter's "SYNTHIA", loosed in the Gulf to EAT the oil. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vonarBCzlf8

Also of particular significance is another of my recent uploads entitled "BP runs Dept of Energy during BP disaster"! STEVEN CHU was appointed Secretary of Energy who in turn appointed BP Lead Scientist STEVE KOONIN as Deputy Secretary of Energy, from whom Mr CHU had been awarded a 500 MILLION DOLLAR GRANT from BP. There is an abundance of evidence that indicates THIS WAS NO ACCIDENT AT ALL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od88wWepWgA

I am justifiably angered by the Gross Negligence & wanton disregard for the Gulf of Mexico, all the inhabitants of the ENTIRE GULF COAST REGION by BRITISH PETROLEUM, TRANSOCEAN DRILLING, HALLIBURTON as parties to this ongoing Crime. I am peeved State Officials prostituted the once pristine "Sportman's Paradise" my Family knew & helped establish by permitting TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, DOW CHEMICALS and countless OTHER such companies & corporations to DUMP Oilfield Waste in excavated salt caverns. THIS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE! They also permit the US GOVT to dump radioactive Nuclear Waste into my native Homeland's "bowels".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F2KIrgwLQQ

The DAMAGE our State has needlessly incurred has been linked to GREED, CORRUPTION, MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE etc HOWEVER ELEVEN MEN DIED horrible deaths and friends, THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR MURDER!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFm2FRXautc

Here is another, clearer interview with him

Unfinished Business: The Unspoken Link Between Dispersants and Sick Children in the Gulf of Mexico

Corexit toxicity

Something we all knew is now being acknowledged by mainstream media

Dispersant Makes Oil 52 Times More Toxic

For microscopic animals living in the Gulf, even worse than the toxic oil released during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster may be the very oil dispersants used to clean it up, a new study finds.

Yahoo,

30 November, 2012

More than 2 million gallons (7.5 million liters) of oil dispersants called Corexit 9527A and 9500A were dumped into the Gulf of Mexico in an effort to prevent oil from reaching shore and to help it degrade more quickly.

However, when oil and Corexit are combined, the mixture becomes up to 52 times more toxic than oil alone, according to a study published online this week in the journal Environmental Pollution.



"There is a synergistic interaction between crude oil and the dispersant that makes it more toxic," said Terry Snell, a study co-author and biologist at Georgia Tech. Using dispersants breaks up the oil into small droplets and makes it less visible, but,  "on the other hand, makes it more toxic to the planktonic food chain," Snell told LiveScience.



Toxic mixture



That mixture of dispersant and oil in the Gulf would've wreaked havoc on rotifers, which form the base of the marine food web, and their eggs in seafloor sediments, Snell said.



In the study, Snell and colleagues tested ratios of oil and dispersant found in the Gulf in 2010, using actual oil from the well that leaked in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the dispersant. The mixture was similarly toxic at the various ratios tested, the study found. His group exposed several varieties of rotifers to concentrations of the oil-dispersant mixture likely seen over a large area of the Gulf.



"The levels in the Gulf were toxic, and seriously toxic," Snell said. "That probably put a big dent in the planktonic food web for some extended period of time, but nobody really made the measurements to figure out the impact." [Deepwater Horizon: Images of the Impact]



The dispersant makes the oil more deadly by decreasing the size of the droplets, making it more "bio-available" to small organisms, said Ian MacDonald, a researcher at Florida State University. "The effect is specifically a toxic synergy — the sum is worse than the parts," said MacDonald, who was not involved in the research. 



A cautionary tale



This is one of the first studies to look at the impact of the oil-dispersant mixture on plankton. A decline in populations of plankton could impact larger animals all the way up to whales, he said. In general, plankton can rebound quickly, although the toxicity to larvae in sediments is concerning, since it reduces the size of the next generation. This ocean-bottom oil slurry could have also impacted other species that spend part of their life cycles here like algae and crustaceans.



"This is an important study that adds badly needed data to help us better understand the effects of oil spills and oil spill remediation strategies, such as the use of dispersants," said Stephen Klaine, an environmental toxicologist at Clemson University who wasn't involved in the research. "Species' differences in the sensitivity to any toxic compounds, including the ones in this discussion, can be huge."



The results contrast with those released by the Environmental Protection Agency in August 2010. That study found that a mixture of oil and Corexit isn't more toxic than oil alone to both a species of shrimp and species of fish. However, several studies have found the mixture is more toxic than oil to the embryos of several fish species. The EPA could not immediately be reached for comment.



"To date, EPA has done nothing but congratulate itself on how Corexit was used and avow they would do it the same way again," MacDonald said.



However, Snell said the dispersant should not be used. It would be better to let the oil disperse on its own to minimize ecological damage, he said.



"This is a cautionary tale that we need to do the science before the emergency happens so we can make decisions that are fully informed," Snell said. "In this case, the Corexit is simply there to make the oil disperse and go out of sight. But out of sight doesn't mean it's safe in regard to the food web."



"It's hard to sit by and not do something," Snell said."But in this case, doing something actually made it more toxic."

More on the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe

2 Years After the BP Oil Spill, Is the Gulf Ecosystem Collapsing?

Zero Hedge,

18 April, 2012

The Gulf Ecosystem Is Being Decimated

The BP oil spill started on April 20, 2010. We’ve previously warned that the BP oil spill could severely damage the Gulf ecosystem.

Since then, there are numerous signs that the worst-case scenario may be playing out:

New York Times: “Gulf Dolphins Exposed to Oil Are Seriously Ill, Agency Says"

MSNBC: Gulf shrimp scarce this season (and see the Herald Tribune‘s report)

Mother Jones: Eyeless shrimp are being found all over the Gulf

NYT: Oil Spill Affected Gulf Fish’s Cell Function, Study Finds

CBS:Expert: BP spill likely cause of sick Gulf fish (and see the Press Register’s report)

Digital Journal: “Study confirms oil from Deepwater spill entered food chain

Pensacola News Journal: “Sick fish” archive

Agence France Presse: Mystery illnesses plague Louisiana oil spill crews

MSNBC: Sea turtle deaths up along Gulf, joining dolphin trend

MSNBC:Exclusive: Submarine Dive Finds Oil, Dead Sea Life at Bottom of Gulf of Mexico

AP: BP oil spill the culprit for slow death of deep-sea coral, scientists say (and see the Guardian and AFP‘s write ups)

A recent report also notes that there are flesh-eating bacteria in tar balls of BP oil washing up on Gulf beaches

And all of that lovely Corexit dispersant sprayed on water, land and air? It inhibits the ability of microbes to break down oil, and allows oil and other chemicals to be speed past the normal barriers of human skin. Background here.

NYT: Impact of Gulf Spill’s Underwater Dispersants Is Examined Speaking on the chemical ingredients of the dispersants used,

“The report finds that “Of the 57 ingredients: 5 chemicals are associated with cancer; 33 are associated with skin irritation from rashes to burns; 33 are linked to eye irritation; 11 are or are suspected of being potential respiratory toxins or irritants; 10 are suspected kidney toxins; 8 are suspected or known to be toxic to aquatic organisms; and 5 are suspected to have a moderate acute toxicity to fish.”

If you still don’t have a sense of the devastation to the Gulf, American reporter Dahr Jamail lays it out pretty clearly:

The Ongoing Tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico

For once words fail me.

BP Oil Spill Aftermath: Eyeless Shrimp, Clawless Crabs and Fish with Oozing Sores

Al Jazeera just published an astonishing report on the after-effects of the BP oil disaster, and it's not pretty. There are an alarming number of deformities in sea creatures: mutated shrimp, fish with sores and lesions, eyeless crabs and more. It's unlike anything local fisherman have ever seen.

Gizmodo,

18 April, 2012

How bad is it?

The effect that the oil spill and its reckless cleanup has on sea life is frightening, damning and sad. Here's a list of deformities that Al Jazeera found in its report:

• Shrimp with tumors on their heads

• Shrimp with defects on their gills and "shells missing around their gills and head

• Shrimp without eyes

• Shrimp with babies still attached to them

• Eyeless fish

• Fish without eye-sockets

• Fish without covers on their gills

• Fish with large pink masses hanging off their eyes and gills

• Crates of blue crabs, all of which were lacking at least one claw

• Crabs with holes in their shells

• Crabs with shells that have no spikes or claws or misshapen claws

• Crabs that are dying from within

The fishermen, scientists, and seafood processors who talked to Al Jazeera are all in unison: They've never seen this before. Some have worked in and around the Gulf for over 20 years, and most have seen thousands and thousands of fish. This is the first time they're seeing the mass mutation and destruction of seafood.

And it's not just the obvious deformities. Tests of the oysters that wind up on our plates have shown elevated levels of nickel and vanadium according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. And the jury's still out on arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury levels.

When did this start?

Scientists and fishermen are pointing to the 2010 BP oil disaster?and the dispersants and chemicals used in its cleanup?for creating these deformities. Specifically, the solvents used to clean up the spill are powerful enough to dissolve oil, grease and rubber. That's great for cleaning up an oil disaster, but terrible for the environment and worse for humans, not to mention the toll taken on anything that lives in the Gulf. And the thing is, these dispersants have always been known to be mutagenic. The chemicals very probably altered the genome of sea life.

Prior to the spill, only one tenth of one percent of Gulf fish had lesions or sores on them. After the spill, according to the University of South Florida, many locations showed 20 percent of fish having lesions with as much as 50 percent in other areas.

What exactly is the cause?

Dr. Jim Cowan of Louisiana State University believes that chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which the EPA terms as "a group of semi-volatile organic compounds that are present in crude oil that has spent time in the ocean," are causing the majority of problems. Fish and other sea creatures are being exposed to PAHs, which affect both the immediate health of the fish itself and the victim's genome.

On top of that, the dispersants used to clean up the oil spill are known to be toxic to humans. Symptoms of exposure include "headaches, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pains, chest pains, respiratory system damage, skin sensitization, hypertension, central nervous system depression, neurotoxic effects, cardiac arrhythmia and cardiovascular damage." Even more damningly, it can disturb the growth and development of a fetus.

Essentially: BP is cleaning up a spill with acid, and acting surprised when the floor disappears.

The government has lost control

The FDA, EPA and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) all refused to comment on the awfulness that's happening in the Gulf. BP, the company who created this mess in the first place, refuse to take the blame, saying the seafood in the Gulf is "as safe now as it was before the accident." The evidence, of course, indicates otherwise.

What happens next?

The Gulf of Mexico provides nearly half of the seafood caught in the US (40%). With its inhabitants dying or suffering mutations before they're caught, it looks like seafood shortages are inevitable. According to various fishermen, brown shrimp catch has dropped by two-thirds, white shrimp have been wiped out and some fishermen's seafood catch are ten percent of what they normally are. Seafood, as America knows it, has changed. And without the proper funding or commitment or BP accepting the blame, these effects might last longer than anyone thinks.

Darla Rooks, a lifelong fisherperson from the Gulf, says it best:

"We're continuing to pull up oil in our nets. Think about losing everything that makes you happy, because that is exactly what happens when someone spills oil and sprays dispersants on it. People who live here know better than to swim in or eat what comes out of our waters."

The cure may not have been worse than the disease. But it looks like it was nearly as bad

Islands, Birds Suffer 2 Years After Oil Spill

Two years after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, offshore islands still clamor with birds, but birders say there aren't as many as before and the islands themselves are simply washing away

Another oil spill in Gulf of Mexico?

Another oil spill?

Shell confident it is not source of Gulf oil sheen

Shell shares clawed back most of its early losses after the oil giant said it had a "high degree of confidence" that its operations are not the source of an oil sheen in the Gulf of Mexico that it estimated to be six barrels.

The Telegraph,

12 April, 2012

Shares in Royal Dutch Shell had dropped 4pc in London in early trading after the company said it had send a spill response vessel and asked for aerial surveillance to investigate the oil sheen "out of prudent caution", but by mid-afternoon they were down just 0.9pc. They closed down just 0.5pc at £21.74.

Traders said the knee-jerk response on investors reflected concerns that any possible Gulf of Mexco spill might be compared to that which resulted from BP's Deepwater Horizon rig disaster in 2010 - the worst offshore oil spill in US history.

Shell said in an initial statement that the source of the one-mile by 10-mile sheen is unknown and there was no current indication that it originates from wells in either its Mars or Ursa projects. It said its "priority is to respond proactively, safely, and in close coordination with regulatory agencies".

However, in a statement on Thursday afternoon, Shell it had it inspected its operations in the area and their was "no sign of leaks" or "well control issues" associated with it drilling operations.

Bill Tanner, a spokesman, said in an interview with Bloomberg: "This was an orphan sheen. We continue to look to identify the source of the sheen. We have a high degree of confidence that the sheen did not originate from Shell operations.”

Shell operations in the Gulf of Mexico. The Mars platform is about 100 miles south of New Orleans and Ursa is about 130 miles

Shell said it was continuing to cooperate with federal regulators in their efforts to determine the cause and nature of the sheen.

"Although we are confident at this time that the sheen did not originate from Shell operations, out of prudent caution we will continue to respond to the sheen," the company said.

It said the Louisiana Responder, the oil spill response vessel that is was sending to investigate the sheen, is on station and remains ready to respond and over-flights would continue as weather conditions permit.

Shell also has deployed two remote operating vehicles to inspect Shell and non-Shell infrastructure and search for potential naturally-occurring seeps in the area.

The Mars platform is about 100 miles south of New Orleans and Ursa is about 130 miles.

RBC Capital said in a note responding to the news."While the extent of the sheen ... is large and will be a concern, the sheen is light and could result from volume of only a couple barrels …

"We would expect a very efficient response in GoM [Gulf of Mexico] from Shell - if it can show the source is not theirs, and the response is swift, Shell may even turn it into a positive live exercise."

Thursday's Gulf of Mexico scare came on the same day that Shell published its annual Sustainability Report, which revealed the number of operational spills - those related to equipment failure or accidents - at its facilities rose from 195 to 208 worldwide last year, due to a doubling of the number of spills in Nigeria. The volume of operational spills doubled to 6,000 tonnes from 2,900 tonnes in 2010, largely due to a leak at its Bonga facility offshore Nigeria. The number of sabotage spills rose very slightly to 118 but the volume fell, to 1,600 tonnes.

Meanwhile, the North Sea is likely to see an increase in "difficulties" like the gas leak at Total's Elgin platform as more fields mature and require decommissioning, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said.

Total's gas leak began while it was trying to solve problems with the casing of a well that had been plugged and abandoned a year previously. "The problem that Total encountered as it decommissioned an old well at the field is likely to portend difficulties at other mature fields in the medium term," the IEA said.

A report by Douglas-Westwood and Deloitte said almost 500 platforms need decommissioning over the next 30 years.

Japan defies US

You know that Japan is really serious if it refuses a US demand. -- Rice Farmer

Japan refuses to stop Iranian oil imports

Japan’s foreign minister said Monday that his country would not stop imports of Iranian oil, striking a rare note of divergence with the United States during a visit to Washington.

Japan Today,

20 Cecember, 2011

After talks with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that focused mostly on North Korea, Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba highlighted Japan’s sanctions imposed on Iranian institutions due to concerns over its nuclear program.

But Gemba said: “I conveyed my view that there is a danger of causing damage to the entire global economy if the imports of Iranian crude oil stop.”

The United States and European powers have sought to step up global pressure on Iran after the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, came its closest yet to accusing Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons.

Japan has traditionally maintained cordial relations with Iran, although in recent years it has pared down its energy investments in the Islamic republic due to the concerns over its nuclear program.

But Japan, the world’s third-largest economy, is heavily dependent on foreign oil as it has virtually no fossil fuel resources on its own.

US Environmental Protection Agency Whistleblower

Toxic Oil Dispersant Cor-exit

From Radio New Zealand - Nine to Noon - Friday 11 November


Hugh Kaufman is a senior policy analyst at the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

He's got serious concerns about the use of highly toxic oil dispersants in the BP gulf oil spill - the same one used her in the Rena disaster.

Questions raised about Rena oil dispersants

Not too much about this in the media.

Bay of Plenty Times,

11 October, 2011

Dispersant used to clear oil spilled from the stricken cargo ship off the coast of Tauranga could be doing more harm than good, an expert claims.

The Rena this morning leaked between 130 to 350 tonnes of oil.

A Maritime New Zealand spokesman said the leak was in a main fuel tank.

Tauranga oil spill

As oil starts washing up on the shores of Mount Maunganui residents head out to clear up the mess.

University of Southampton lecturer in oceanography Dr Simon Boxall told the Science Media Centre the chemicals used to disperse the oil were very toxic and had been banned by countries including Sweden.

Reports dispersants were only as toxic as dishwashing liquid were inaccurate, he said.

"Dishwashing liquid doesn't carry hazchem advice and you don't wear protective clothing and masks to do the washing up.

"In their raw form some dispersants can be very toxic and I believe will do more harm than good."

Mr Boxall said the oil leaked from the Rena should be left to break down naturally.

Containing the oil should be the first priority, followed by a comprehensive beach clean up operation, he said.

"At sea, nature will disperse and break the oil down very quickly, without use of chemicals."

Stormy weather striking the Rena could help the oil disperse naturally, Mr Boxall said.

FOR THE LATEST ON THE OIL SPILL CLICK HERE

Corexit Is Killing The Gulf

I found these two videos made about a year ago after the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe on the dangers of Corexit.


It is extremely alarming to learn that Corexit is being used in New Zealand and touted as 'non-toxic'

Of course the scale of the two disasters are different, but it might be worthwhile revisiting the BP Gulf of Mexico disaster and ask what the possible consequences of deep-water drilling off the NZ coast might be.

BP Hazard: Oil slicks into blood, toxic waste ushers cancer

Update from Bay of Plenty disaster

Rena oil spill: masks could be issued

Masks being issues?  Makes me wonder if this could be due to the use of Corexit?

What you need to know:

* Ship's captain was granted name suppression in court this morning

* An estimated 70 containers have fallen off the ship

* Masks could be issued to Tauranga residents near toxic oil leak

* There's a large swell at Mt Maunganui this morning, with strong winds, low visibility

* Environment Minister Nick Smith last night said this was NZ's "worst maritime environmental disaster"

New Zealand Herald,

12 October, 2011

Maritime New Zealand is considering issuing face masks to people living near beaches affected by oil from crippled cargo ship Rena.

The Rena struck Astrolabe Reef, 20km off Tauranga, at full speed early last Wednesday.

Its captain has appeared this morning in the Tauranga District Court over the incident and has been remanded on bail.

The situation with the Rena has deteriorated daily as poor weather moves the massive ship around on the reef, and efforts to offload its 1700 tonnes of fuel oil have repeatedly failed.

Maritime New Zealand's director Catherine Taylor was this morning asked about the smell of oil in sea spray on the beaches.

"The way in which the oil has moved through the water, and how quickly it has moved, will be causing that,'' she said.

"We are concerned and we will be considering issuing masks to people.''

Containers reach Motiti Island

Meanwhile containers spilled from the Rena have reached shore at Motiti Island off the coast of Tauranga.

About 70 containers fell from the vessel amid heavy seas last night.

Maritime New Zealand said some containers had washed ashore on Motiti Island this morning, but could not confirm how many.

The agency said the eleven containers containing hazardous substances are still on the vessel and are not among the up to 70 estimated overboard.

The ship was listing at 18deg - sparking a navigation warning about the possibility of falling and submerged containers - after being at 11deg for much of the past week.

Maritime New Zealand this morning confirmed the Navy ship Endeavour had reported the loss of the containers.

More containers were expected to fall off as five metre swells and 30 knot winds continue to batter the stricken vessel today, a Maritime spokeswoman said.

"They more it's tilting the more they're just going to keep tipping off... The ones at the top are coming off first."

Simon Boxall, from the National Oceanography Centre at the University of Southampton, said the fallen containers would be a hazard to shipping.

They often float just below the surface of the water and are difficult for ships to track, he said.

"There should also be concern as to the contents of the containers. This could range from household good to chemicals."

Mr Boxall said the main concern for authorities should be securing the containers.

Captain in court

The 44-year-old captain of the stricken vessel MV Rena has appeared in the Tauranga District Court this morning, facing a charge under section 65 of the Maritime Transport Act of operating a vessel causing unnecessary danger or risk to a person or property.

His manner in court this morning was described as 'calm'.

He was ordered to surrender his passport and remanded to an unknown Tauranga address.

The judge has granted him name suppression to protect the integrity of the court process and to stop the man from being approached outside court.

The man, who appeared in court wearing a thick orange high-visibility jacket and flanked by three Corrections officers, was ordered to reappear on October 19, when further charges may be laid.

The charge he already faces carries a maximum penalty of $10,000, or a maximum term of imprisonment of 12 months.

The grounding of the Rena is believed to have happened on the captain's 44th birthday.

Police warn public over containers

Police have threatened to prosecute anyone found taking goods from containers that spilled off the grounded cargo ship Rena overnight.

Inspector Karl Wright-St Clair said the containers remained the property of the ship owners.

He said people have a statutory responsibility to notify authorities about their location.

They would be dealt with by police if they were caught interfering with the containers, he said.

"I can't reiterate enough, please do not attempt to open any of the containers. Not only do they remain the property of the original owners or insurers, they may contain hazardous material and need to be dealt with carefully and appropriately."

The Rena started moving in 4m swells yesterday - forcing an emergency evacuation of the crew.

It was revealed yesterday that maritime officials turned down an early offer to have two barges help remove oil from the ship.

Hundreds of tonnes of oil leaked from the hull yesterday.

Our reporter at the scene has described the beaches he's seen this morning as "coated black".

Maritime New Zealand: 'no quick fix'

Maritime NZ director Catherine Taylor told a meeting of about 400 worried Bay of Plenty residents that bad weather had hampered efforts to remove fuel oil from the Rena, and the situation was dangerous.

"We are at the mercy of the sea. It is not a quick fix," said Ms Taylor.

"I must prepare you for tomorrow morning - it will be much worse."

She urged people to work with authorities and register as volunteers, rather than cleaning up oil on their own.

"It is a bucket and spades operation," she said. "It will take some time."

Minister heckled

Environment Minister Nick Smith said the grounding was New Zealand's worst maritime environmental disaster.

Residents attending the meeting at Tauranga Boys' College gasped and shook their heads as they were shown pictures of oil spreading for kilometres around the ship. They were told 17 live birds had been recovered, but 53 had been found dead.

One local appeared to sum up the mood of the meeting, saying: "Minister Smith, please call a state of emergency so you really can throw every resource at this disaster."

Residents demanded to know whether the shipping company would pay for repopulating the affected wildlife areas, what dangerous cargo was aboard and what would happen if the ship sank.

A Greenpeace representative drew loud applause when he called on Mr Smith to stop using the dispersant Corexit 9500, which he called "nasty stuff".

Many heckled the minister as he tried to defend the chemical, some shouting, "It's banned overseas".

Another woman demanded: "There is 18,000 metres of boom evidently sitting in a warehouse in Auckland. Why is it not being used? We've got some equipment in our own backyard - why are we not using it?"

Waves of up to 4m knocked the Rena into a new position on Astrolabe Reef, 20km off Tauranga, early yesterday.

Efforts to offload its 1700 tonnes of fuel oil have repeatedly failed amid ferocious weather.

Maritime NZ on-scene commander Nick Quinn said a Navy rating received moderate injuries when a member of the salvage team fell on top of him while climbing off the ship during yesterday morning's evacuation.

Nobody was on the ship last night as the salvage team waited for better conditions to resume pumping the Rena's fuel load into the tanker Awanuia - which was being repaired after smashing into the ship in high seas.

Asked if there was a danger of the ship tipping over, Transport Minister Steven Joyce said there was no indication it would break up or sink, but the situation was "uncharted territory".

"It is entirely unusual for a ship to run itself onto a reef at 17 knots ... All of it is unusual so in this situation there is no copy book you can refer to," he said.

Containers of concern

Mr Joyce said all the ship's fuel tanks and vents had been sealed, so if it did break up or sink, the biggest concern would be the containers coming off.

If that happened, the Navy would work with Maritime NZ to find each container.

A Maritime NZ spokesman said seven containers stacked at the back of the Rena were empty, so the agency was less worried about them falling off the ship.

"We're probably getting close to that tipping point, but we're less worried because the weight isn't sitting seven-high on the lean. If those containers were full ... we'd be much more worried.

"But obviously a ship like that shouldn't be on an 18deg lean."

Mr Smith believed that the "tragic event" was "absolutely inevitable" from the point where the Rena struck the reef at full-speed early last Wednesday.

"The advice I'm receiving is that the amount of oil released over the last 24 hours is five-fold compare to the amount released in earlier periods, and that the situation over the coming days from an environmental perspective is going to get significantly worse."

Offer of help to pump oil declined

It emerged yesterday that on the day the Rena struck the reef, Maritime NZ declined an offer of two inflatable barges which could pump up to 100 tonnes of oil at a time.

The offer was made by Ronald Winstone, of Lancer Industries, who said the two barges would have easily emptied the ship of toxic oil in the four days of clear weather after the Rena ran aground.

"It would have taken them 17 trips to pump all the fuel off the ship and three or four days wouldn't have been unrealistic for that to have happened.

"It doesn't make sense why they didn't start pumping the oil earlier when they had the equipment to do it."

A Maritime NZ spokesman said Mr Winstone's offer was logged with its operations division, and "if they needed it they would have followed it up".