Oct 29, 2009

Will Timor Sea oil slick be curtains for bluefin tuna?

The already-devastated Southern bluefin tuna population could be sunk for good by the recent Montara oil spill.

Andrew Crook — Former <em>Crikey</em> Senior Journalist

Andrew Crook

Former Crikey Senior Journalist

Could the already-decimated Southern bluefin tuna population be about to be devastated for good by the Montara oil spill? Crikey's crack graphics department has uncovered some eerie parallels between the slick's current satellite status and the spawning zone for the prized high-value fish, which this week had its Australian quota cut by 25% amid tumbling global stocks. Here's the latest satellite image of the Montara slick:

And here's the Southern bluefin tuna's spawning zone:

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

24 thoughts on “Will Timor Sea oil slick be curtains for bluefin tuna?

  1. Margi Prideaux

    Finally, someone prepared to join the dots! Thank you Andrew

    I have often wondered how it is that the oil and gas industry is able to maintain the veneers that their operations are worlds best practice in the face of regular spills around the Australian coastline; and that the Government (of each political leaning) persist with the claim that they are responsibly regulating.

    Last week the Government and industry released their joint monitoring programme – a good six weeks after the spill started. Even a cursory read of document reveals how much baseline information has to be gathered, which begs the question why was this not collected before the drilling began?

    There is no mention of monitoring any impacts to Indonesian ecosystems, and not surprising no mention of tuna. The document also makes unsubstantiated statements that impacts of the oil spill on marine animals ‘remain unlikely’.

    The document claims that experts have been consulted, so why then does civil society need to remind policy makers that marine animals can ingest oil-derived toxic compounds either directly from the water or with their food. That poisonous vapor can also be inhaled by whales and dolphins and especially when the volatile components evaporate into the air from freshly spilled oil.

    With anywhere from 10 to 20 million litres of oil spilled into the ocean it is a good bet that there will be chronic longer-term effects of oil entering the food-chain potentially affecting the whole system. Much of this will happen far from sight and if marine animals are killed or otherwise affected – days, months and years into the future – we are unlikely to be witness to this.

    None of this information is particularly ground breaking nor new. We have know most of this information for a few decades. Why then is this not openly admitted? And more to the point why is it that there is minimal public (and media) concern?

  2. jeebus

    In situations like this, the government should force the companies responsible to hire a fleet of ships and mop up the oil from the surface of the ocean. It’s outrageous what they can get away with when pollution is not directly impacting communities of people or cute animals.

  3. Tom McLoughlin

    The oil spill figures are in my judgment greatly under estimated in both the story and the penultimate comment, though the general thrust is to be applauded and all credit to WA Greens senator Siewart in particular:

    Senator Siewart at Estimates October 21 evoked from a Dept of Environment official that the rate of flow from the blowout was 2,000 barrels a day, NOT 400.

    This was so important as industry and govt backgrounded agianst The Greens to Laurie Oakes resulting in national press she was exaggerating back on Sept 4th 2009. But Oakes was wrong. Siewart was vindicated as per the evidence and presser from that Oct 21-22, 2009.

    At 2000 barrels a day we are talking 2000 x 70 days (since August 19th) x 42 US gallons to the barrell, some 5,880,000 gallons of oil spill.

    The Exxon Valdez as quoted by wikipedia was 10.8 million gallons.

    Yesterday early we broadcast to that effect with chronology to all federal and NSW parliament a link explaining how Minister Garrett in particular, and for his master PM Rudd, operating a PR diversion the global scale disaster West Altas/Montara has become. (By the way most of the press via google seem to refer to it as West Altas).

    Refer also last Monday, and Tuesday Crikey and ABC Unleashed for backgrounders on this, with robust string of comments on each.

  4. Tom McLoughlin

    To quote The Greens presser 22 October 2009

    “Yesterday (Wed 21/10/09), under questioning by Greens’ Marine Issues Spokesperson Senator Rachel Siewert, Federal Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism officials said that PTTEP had given them no basis for their 400-barrels-day figure, and their own calculations based on Geoscience Australia data suggested a rate of around 2,000 barrels-a-day, plus condensate.”

    Notice too News Corp broadsheet The Australian runs this story yesterday showing dissension now in the industry sector on the north west shelf:

    “Industry lashes oil-spill firm
    Nicolas Perpitch | October 28, 2009

    AUSTRALIA’S peak oil and gas body has turned on one of its own, saying established safeguards exist to prevent oil-well blowouts and the disastrous West Atlas spill in the Timor Sea should never have happened. …..[continues]”

  5. Roger Clifton

    There are the makings of a good story here.

    The two images show no connection with each other, the distance between the oil and the spawning zone being as far apart as European countries. Nothing “eerie”about that. If there is a drift, please measure and quote it to your intelligent lay readers.

    You could have asked some experts and then told us what oil does to the seawater just below the surface. For example, are there enough soluble toxic compounds in the slick to threaten fish in the near surface zone?

    If there really are “experts on the ground” in the Timor Sea, we want to know who they are, and what they say about the sensitivities of fish assembling to mate, how tuna spawn in the open ocean and the sensitivity of the spawn itself.

    Who is it that have raised what concern over “other fish species”? I was under the impression that the snapper spawn on the continental slope, far below any oil slick. Whale sharks don’t come up for air and are big enough to dive under and swim past any oil slick, so how would they be affected?

    Similarly, the oilmen’s jargon is useless to us, whereas a quick conversion would tell us that oil is leaking at about 60 kL a day.

    Come on Crikey!

    PS: Er, did you really mean “a multi-million tourism industry in WA”?

  6. vovo

    “Crikey’s crack graphics department…”

    Are you insane? That first satellite image is unreadable!

    Perhaps you meant “Crikey’s graphics department, who along with this article’s author, is on crack,…”

  7. glazedham

    It’s amazing how the fishery has been allowed to get to this dire state in the first place. Very worrying indeed. The shame about the slick, is that it’s in such a remote region. Human tendrils can reach out and spoil areas a long long cooee from anywhere. Good luck depleted tuna spawn! lets hope you are a good Spain span from harms way.

  8. Margi Prideaux

    Roger, careful what you ask for!

    To provide some detail that corroborates Andrew’s piece, I can pass on this information from Mark Simmonds, WDCS International Director of Science:
    “Crude and other oils are mixtures of a great many organic compounds many of which are toxic, and animals can ingest oil-derived compounds either directly from the water or with their food. Poisonous vapours can also be inhaled and especially as the more volatile components evaporate into the air from freshly spilled oil”
    “Regrettably, whales and dolphins are unlikely to avoid oils spills and the more extensive the spill, the greater the encounter rate is likely to be. There will also be chronic effects of oil entering food-chains. Much of this is going to happen far away from the human eye and if marine animals are killed or otherwise affected, we are unlikely to be witness to this. All of this further explains the need to keep fossil fuel plants out of important wildlife areas.”

    And, from AMSA:
    “Oil, depending upon its form and chemistry, causes a range of physiological and toxic effects.
    For example, the low molecular weight aliphatics of oil can have anaesthetic properties and aromatic components such as benzine are known carcinogens and very toxic to humans and wildlife. Some polynuclear aromatics are also carcinogenic and toxic and, are concentrated in the food chain eg. in tissues of water filter feeding shell fish like mussels and oysters.
    … The eggs, larvae and young fish are comparatively sensitive to oil (particularly dispersed oil), as demonstrated in laboratory toxicity tests. … Reports also suggest that some fish species do not avoid oil but are actually attracted to oil because it resembles “floating objects”.”

    While AMSA does not speak to tuna specifically, having worked on tuna issues for many, many years, I can assure you tuna are species that are attracted to floating objects.

    We don’t know how deep the slick is, becasue the information is not being released. We don’t know how much oil has been spilled, becasue the information is not being released. We don’t know what harm the dispersant have done, becasue the information is not being released.

    And, if you are now bored (as I expect you are), perhaps you can reflect then why such information wasn’t part of Andrew’s excellent story!

  9. Andrew Crook

    The spawning zone overlaps the slick Roger.

  10. Andrew Crook

    And Vo Vo, I’m fairly certain the oil slick extent is well marked out in yellow text.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details