WHILE Moscow鈥檚 politicians and local officials from Komi province argue
over the size of Russia鈥檚 largest oil spill, teams of experts in the West wait
impatiently for the call to help with the cleanup.
The massive leak from the 19-year-old Komineft pipeline, which carries oil
from the Arctic to refineries in central Russia, is estimated variously at 14
000 tonnes by Komi鈥檚 civil defence department, 60 000 tonnes by the government
and 200 000 tonnes by American oil workers at the scene of the spill. The
Exxon Valdez spilt around 34 000 tonnes in Alaska鈥檚 Prince William Sound in
1989.
Advertisement
Local officials claim that the oil, spewing onto the tundra near the town
of Usinsk, is under control. But last week Russia鈥檚 environment ministry
acknowledged that the country had a potential environmental disaster on its
hands. The US Department of Energy says it has had reports of a slick 11
kilometres long and up to a metre deep.
Environmental Services, an oil cleanup company based in Anchorage, Alaska,
has staff working in the province. The company鈥檚 president, Jim Kross, says
the ageing pipeline which is operated by the Komineft company, had been
leaking for several months. The hole in the pipe was caused by corrosion.
Komineft built an earth bank to contain the oil, but heavy rains breached the
dam early in October.
鈥淥ur people were called around 5 October,鈥� says Kross. 鈥淭hey found quite a
significant spill 鈥� it was a huge impoundment. Later that month, the
impoundment was breached.鈥� By this stage, says Kross, oil had reached the
Kolva river, which flows into the Pechora river, which in turn empties into
the Barents Sea (see Map).FIG-mg19501001.GIF
The US Department of Energy has offered to provide technical advice and
help to assemble a task force to clean up the spill. A number of specialist
companies say they are waiting for the call. All agree that Russia must clean
up as much as possible over the winter. Any oil left in the spring will be
much more mobile and move faster through the thawing soil and downriver to the
sea.
鈥淚f a significant amount gets into the river then it鈥檚 not just a Russian
problem. It becomes a circumpolar problem,鈥� says Mark Tumeo, director of the
Environmental Technology Laboratory at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
鈥淲e still don鈥檛 know the long-term effects of these very toxic materials 鈥� as
we鈥檝e seen from the Exxon Valdez spill.鈥�
If the tundra is not to be damaged permanently, the cleanup work must be
done with care. 鈥淭undra is very fragile. You have to be very careful how you
operate on it,鈥� says Bruce McKenzie of Alaska Clean Seas, a non-profit cleanup
cooperative based in Anchorage. Once bulldozers or other heavy vehicles break
through the surface of the tundra, the permafrost melts leaving sink holes
that can alter drainage patterns over large areas of tundra.
In Alaska, heavy vehicles are only allowed on the tundra during the winter
when the surface is frozen hard and protected by snow. But the logistics of
cleaning up during the winter months pose immense problems even for the US and
Canada, which are well equipped to deal with accidents. 鈥淚t鈥檚 hard to get
people to operate in the dark and the cold,鈥� says McKenzie. In the Russian
Arctic, where cleaning up the environment is still a novelty and equipment in
short supply, the job will be much harder.
Russian officials suggest that Western observers and local environment
groups have exaggerated the risk to the tundra.
But studies from Alaska suggest the oil could contaminate the tundra for
decades. In 1976, before the Trans-Alaska pipeline started pumping oil from
Prudhoe Bay on the north coast of Alaska to the ice-free port of Valdez,
researchers carried out experimental spills to test the effect of oil on the
tundra. Today, it is almost unchanged. The process of chemical 鈥渨eathering鈥�
has hardly begun, says Joan Braddock, a microbiologist at the Institute of
Arctic Biology in Fairbanks.
Tests carried out in 1991 show that the hydrocarbon 鈥減rofile鈥� of the oil
was almost exactly as it was when it was spilled. In warmer environments, the
oil becomes less toxic as some fractions evaporate and others are broken down
by microorganisms. 鈥淚t still smells oily and looks oily,鈥� says Braddock. 鈥淲e
still have to wear protective gloves when we work there.鈥�
In other habitats bacteria would proliferate and break down the oil 鈥� using
the hydrocarbons as a food supply. On the tundra, bacteria are amply provided
with carbon from dead vegetation, but their growth is limited by a lack of
other nutrients such as nitrogen.
This week, 27 Russian environmental specialists from the oil and gas
industry begin a two-week workshop with Tumeo in Fairbanks on how to tackle
just such accidents.