Gibraltar bunker spill highlights the urgency to break free from fossil fuels. But how safe are the alternatives?

Operations at the Port of Gibraltar have ground to a halt following a bunker fuel spill from a ship anchored in the Bay of Gibraltar. The spill occurred during a ship-to-ship refueling operation involving the Panama-flagged LPG tanker Gas Venus, at approximately 8:22 a.m. on Tuesday morning. As informed, during the operation the vessel taking bunkers experienced an overflow of its tanks.

As the consequences of the spill unfold, the urgency for the maritime industry to decarbonize and find more environmentally-friendly fuel alternatives is further underscored.

The incident triggered a state of emergency as oil from the spill washed ashore, resulting in the closure of some area beaches. According to reports from Gibraltar’s national broadcaster, GBC News, the 56-year-old Captain of the tanker has been arrested in connection with the spill.

The spill took place in the southern part of Western Anchorage and has primarily impacted Camp Bay and Rosia Bay, along with the immediate vicinity, as confirmed by drone footage and an overflight. The Gibraltar Port Authority has been closely monitoring the situation, with no sightings of oil streaks moving away from the affected area as of now.

The oil spilled from the Gas Venus was very low sulphur fuel oil (VLFSO), and a rough estimate indicates that between 1000 and 2000 liters of oil were spilled into the sea.

The impact of the spill has been localized, enabling for the non-bunkering port operations to be resumed.

Based on the latest updates from the port authority, bathing has been allowed at Camp Bay and Little Bay from this morning, after ‘significant progress’ made yesterday in clean-up works.

“Full efforts will today be concentrated on the Rosia Bay area, which is the worst affected by the spill,” the update said.

The recent oil spill at the Port of Gibraltar comes as a significant blow to the region’s coastal ecosystems, intensifying concerns over the devastating impact of bunker fuel spills on marine life and coastal habitats.

The recent bunker spill at the Port of Gibraltar comes on the heels of the departure of the wreck of OS 35 from the same port after 11 months of being stuck in the port. The Tuvalu-flagged OS 35 collided with the unladen LNG carrier Adam LNG in the Bay of Gibraltar in August 2022 while outbound from Gibraltar Port, carrying a load of steel bars. Following the collision, the vessel partially sank and began breaking up, leading to the release of fuel oil into the surrounding waters.

While the successful removal of OS 35 brought closure to a challenging salvage operation, the latest bunker spill incident now poses new environmental concerns. The juxtaposition of these events highlights the pressing need for the maritime industry to prioritize decarbonization and explore sustainable fuel alternatives to safeguard the marine environment from further harm.

With the spill serving as a stark reminder of the environmental risks associated with conventional bunker fuels, the maritime industry faces mounting pressure to accelerate its decarbonization efforts. Transitioning to cleaner energy sources and adopting alternative fuels that are less harmful in case of spills becomes imperative in safeguarding our oceans and coastal communities.

Technologies like liquefied natural gas (LNG), ammonia, methanol, and biofuels offer promising alternatives to traditional bunker fuels. However, each option comes with its unique set of challenges and merits, demanding thorough research and stringent safety measures.

That being said, a closer examination of the environmental consequences of available alternative fuels becomes crucial. Understanding how these fuels interact with marine environments, their potential for spills, and their long-term effects on marine life is vital in making informed decisions for a sustainable and responsible transition.

LNG has emerged as one of the leading contenders in the race to decarbonize the maritime industry. It offers significant emissions reduction benefits compared to conventional bunker fuels.

LNG is stored and transported in its liquid form at extremely low temperatures. In the event of a spill, LNG would rapidly vaporize upon contact with the surrounding atmosphere, forming a cold and colorless gas. This characteristic reduces the volume and persistence of the spilled material, minimizing the potential for long-term environmental damage.

The vaporized LNG would disperse and dilute quickly due to its low density. This helps to reduce the concentration of the gas and minimizes the risk of harm to humans and marine life.

However, while LNG itself is not flammable, the vapor can ignite if exposed to an ignition source within a specific range of concentrations. This could lead to a fire or explosion, which poses risks to nearby structures, vessels, and personnel.

That being said, the vaporization of LNG and its subsequent dissolution in water could create a low pH environment in the immediate vicinity of the spill, potentially harming marine life and ecosystems, particularly organisms sensitive to changes in pH levels.

It is essential to note that while LNG spills have the potential to cause environmental impacts, their overall risks are relatively lower compared to conventional oil spills. The industry places a strong emphasis on safety protocols, containment measures, and prevention to minimize the likelihood of LNG spills.

Ammonia is gaining traction as a promising zero-carbon fuel candidate. It has the potential to produce energy without releasing harmful greenhouse gases when burned.

The impact of an ammonia spill on the marine environment can vary depending on several factors, including the quantity of ammonia released, the location of the spill, and the water conditions.

In case of a spill, ammonia could be toxic to aquatic organisms at higher concentrations, invertebrates, and other marine organisms. Ammonia spills near coastal areas can affect sensitive habitats such as coral reefs, seagrass beds, and mangrove forests.

In addition, ammonia can alter the pH levels of water and contribute to eutrophication, a process where excessive nutrients in the water lead to algal blooms and dead zones.

Therefore, implementing best practices and regulatory standards for ammonia handling and transport is vital to ensuring the responsible use of ammonia as a fuel and minimizing its potential environmental impact.

Methanol is another viable alternative to traditional bunker fuels due to its low carbon content and ease of production. Methanol is less toxic to marine life than ammonia at equivalent concentrations. It has a lower vapor pressure, meaning it is less likely to form hazardous vapor clouds in the event of a spill. Methanol spills are more manageable and easier to contain due to their lower volatility and a lower risk of explosion or fire.

While it poses a lower risk during spills compared to oil-based fuels, methanol can be toxic to marine life in higher concentrations.

Biofuels, derived from organic matter, have emerged as renewable and sustainable alternatives. They can significantly reduce carbon emissions and have a lower risk of environmental damage in case of spills compared to fossil fuels.

Biofuels are generally less toxic and more biodegradable than conventional fossil fuels.

While biofuels are considered less toxic than conventional petroleum-based fuels, certain components of biofuels may still pose risks to marine life in high concentrations.

Some biofuels, like ethanol, can reduce the dissolved oxygen content in water, especially in cases of significant spills. This can lead to potential harm to marine organisms that rely on oxygen-rich environments.

If biofuel spills contain excess nutrients, they can contribute to eutrophication, where algal blooms occur and can negatively impact marine ecosystems.

However, the extent of their impact will still depend on the spill’s size and concentration.

Among the options mentioned, LNG is generally considered the least harmful option for the marine environment in the case of a spill. Here’s why:

• Rapid Evaporation
• Non-Toxic: LNG itself is non-toxic and does not pose significant direct harm to marine life.
• Low Risk of Contamination: LNG does not contain harmful substances like heavy metals or toxic components that could contaminate water and soil.
• Minimal Impact on Water Quality:
• Lower Risk of Fire and Explosions: While LNG is flammable, its flammability range is narrower than that of other fuels, reducing the risk of explosions in the event of a spill.
• Established Safety Protocols: The LNG industry has well-established safety protocols and regulations for handling, storage, and transportation, minimizing the likelihood of spills.

Given the above characteristics, we could rank the fuel options and conventional fossil fuels, from the least to the most dangerous in the event of a spill at sea in the following fashion:

1. LNG: LNG is the least dangerous option in the event of a spill. It has rapid evaporation, is non-toxic, and has minimal impact on water quality.
2. Biofuels: Biofuels are generally less toxic and more biodegradable than conventional fossil fuels. They have a lower risk of contaminating water and soil.
3. Methanol: Methanol is less harmful than ammonia and conventional oil-based fuels. While it may still pose moderate risks to marine life in high concentrations, it is less toxic than ammonia.
4. Ammonia: Ammonia can be toxic to marine life at high concentrations and requires careful handling and containment. It is more toxic than LNG, biofuels, and methanol.
5. Conventional Fossil Fuels: Conventional fossil fuels, such as gasoline, diesel, and crude oil, are the most dangerous in the event of a spill. They can have significant environmental impacts, coat coastlines, beaches, and marine habitats, and pose a risk of fire and explosions.

It’s important to note that while LNG has lower environmental risks in the event of a spill, it is not without challenges. Methane, the primary component of LNG, is a potent greenhouse gas, and any unburned methane released during production, transportation, or handling can contribute to climate change. Therefore, addressing methane emissions throughout the entire LNG supply chain is crucial to maximizing its environmental benefits.

Ultimately, the choice of the least harmful option depends on various factors, including the specific circumstances, regional considerations, and the overall sustainability goals of the maritime industry. The industry should continue to prioritize research, innovation, and best practices to minimize the environmental impact of spills and transition towards greener and more sustainable fuel alternatives.

The incident at Gibraltar highlights the pressing need for the shipping sector to take collective responsibility and collaborate with governments, environmental organizations, and stakeholders to develop and implement sustainable solutions for a greener and more resilient maritime future.

As the maritime industry charts its course forward, finding a fuel that balances efficiency and environmental friendliness in case of bunkering spills becomes essential in protecting the marine environment and mitigating the risks posed by conventional fuels.