Opinion: The cleanup and the cover up

In October, there was a massive diesel spill at the Palumbo shipyard.  An Enemed pipe burst during a fuel transfer operation and hundreds of tonnes of diesel seeped out.

Such massive diesel spills constitute a major hazard to personnel, carry significant risks of fire and cause huge ecological damage.  Most countries consider such massive spills a national disaster.

The public would be informed and kept updated about the clean-up. A comprehensive review of the incident involving all major regulatory authorities would be conducted, and a report would be published.

Details of the size of the spill, the scale of the damage caused, the costs involved in loss of fuel, clean-up and disposal, and the measures taken to prevent a similar major incident would be published.

Yet in Labour’s Malta, what is probably the biggest diesel spill ever was covered up.  There was no official government statement.

The Occupational Health and Safety Authority didn’t publish any information.  Nobody knew what happened – until Arnold Cassola raised the alarm. He asked pertinent questions:  Was there really €6 million worth of diesel spilt?  Was it really 1,500 tonnes of diesel?

The Times of Malta followed up. More than two weeks after the major incident at the Palumbo shipyard, Enemed’s Executive Chair was forced to admit that there was a massive diesel spill that could have caused an environmental disaster on 21 October.

He admitted that an Enemed pipe had burst and that “several bowsers” worth of diesel had spilt into the docks. Recovering the spilt fuel required a 12-hour pumping operation.

The Enemed Chair claimed that “the fuel overflowed in totally confined spaces and was collected to be exported as waste under ERA’s (Environment and Resources Authority) supervision”.  Why is the Enemed Chair making such statements?  Enemed is probably responsible for the spill and would be liable for damages.

Enemed has every interest in portraying the incident as an inconsequential little accident. Enemed’s chairman has a vested interest in convincing the public that nothing happened.

If the clean-up operation was conducted under ERA’s supervision, why isn’t ERA making a public statement?

Maybe because sitting on ERA’s board is Kurt Farrugia.  And Prof Saviour Formosa, a criminologist who is a Labour loyalist and ONE favourite.  There’s also Clarence Pace, a maxillofacial surgeon,  who’s also Director General for Health Services and Malta’s Ambassador to the Republic of Croatia.  He hardly has time for ERA left in his busy schedule.

ERA’s declared mission is to safeguard the environment.  What expertise in diesel spills does Kurt Farrugia, Saviour Formosa or Clarence Pace have?

ERA’s silence allowed Enemed’s Chair to make seriously dodgy statements.  “No environmental damage was caused”, he told The Times of Malta. “There were no health and safety concerns,” he added. Really?

Enemed’s chairman is not the OHSA.  How can a 1500-tonne diesel leak pose no health and safety concerns?  That’s absolute nonsense.  Diesel is flammable.  It’s highly damaging to the environment.

Was the OHSA involved at all?  If so, why are they letting Enemed’s chairman make such statements? And if not, why not?

“Enemed and Palumbo coordinated the response operation in the most efficient and professional manner,” Enemed’s Chair insisted.  What else would he say?  He has every interest in covering up the incident.  So does Palumbo.

Enemed’s chairman thinks we’re all dumb.  That’s not the way massive diesel spills are dealt with. The public has a right to know what happened.

The public needs reassurance that the situation has been thoroughly reviewed and measures put in place to prevent it from happening again.  We need to know no lasting environmental damage has been done, and if it has, the companies involved must be held responsible.

Is it possible that not a single drop of the 1,500 tonnes of leaked diesel seeped into the harbour? Who checked the diesel levels in the seawater in the port area after the event?  What were the results?

How much did the clean-up cost? Who paid for it? Who’ll pay for the disposal of the recovered waste?

More importantly, what caused the incident? Was it faulty equipment that hadn’t been serviced? Was it human error, inadequate staffing, or poor expertise?

Fuel transfers on that industrial scale constitute serious risks to personnel and the public. Everybody knows that.  Everybody realises Enemed’s chairman is bluffing when he claims there were no health or safety concerns.

Why was there no investigation carried out? The public deserves an explanation.

Labour’s handling of the massive spill is reminiscent of a similar diesel spill four years ago in the Russian city of Norilsk.  A corroding tank led to a diesel spill that caused a massive fire that took several hours to put out. One hundred tonnes of diesel leaked into the surrounding lowlands.  It took two days to mop up.  More diesel leaked into the nearby Ambarnaya River and the lake, and the Arctic Ocean.

The World Wildlife Fund issued a statement calling for Russian authorities to organise the clean-up. It took 681 people using 266 machines to try and clean-up the spill.

The local government had lied, saying the river hadn’t been polluted. But independent ecologists found that diesel levels were more than 2.5 times higher than permitted in the Pyasino Lake. Heavier diesel components invisible to the naked eye had sunk beneath the barriers set up to control the spill, and much of that diesel reached the ocean.

The company, Nornickel, claimed it had contained the spill.  Ecologists found that the damage done was irreversible and that diesel had contaminated the river, the lake and the ocean.

When Putin found out, he was furious: “So, are we going to learn about emergencies from social media now? Really?”.

Russia’s Federal Investigative Committee launched a criminal negligence case “in connection with the untimely distribution of information about the emergency”.

“You can’t explain this except by calling it an attempt to cover up what happened or the magnitude of what happened,” a Russian official said.

The company paid a record $2 billion when it was found guilty of causing environmental damage.

In Russia, Putin ordered criminal prosecution of those responsible for the diesel spill and its cover up. In Malta, Robert Abela didn’t even comment.