The full extent of the Sea Empress disaster is not yet known. But after nearly six days of battering by some of the worst weather of the winter, the tanker has disgorged tens of thousands of tonnes of crude oil into the sea, with tens of thousands more still to come if the winds and tides do not subside in time to allow the rest of its cargo to be pumped off. The threat to wildlife is enormous, and it may take years before local sanctuaries for birds, seals and other creatures recover. And a huge area of sea and coastline including parts of this island, depending on the vagaries of shifting winds, though the risk appears to have receded faces incalculable economic losses. Few disasters are more complete and unpredictable than the wreck of a modern supertanker.
That thought was debated more than a quarter of a century ago when the first vessels of this kind made their appearance. But the lure of ever cheaper methods of transport, the availability of the necessary technology, and political considerations like the uncertainties hanging over the Suez Canal and the price of crude, acted as incentives to keep building bigger and more economic ships. There is obviously no going back, but the combination of factors has produced a fickle and dangerous boon.
As long as oil is the lifeblood of civilised living society will confront the consequence of periodic accidents like the Sea Empress and even worse.
The Exxon Valdes off Alaska seven years ago, the Aegean Sea at La Corunna in northern Spain at the end of 1992 and the Braer which drifted on to rocks in the Shetlands a few weeks later, are benchmarks against which the calamity off the Pembroke coast will be measured. But if such events are inevitable, there can be nothing fatalistic about the response.
The emphasis must, initially, be on limiting the spill and dispersing the oil already in the sea. The courage and energy of the rescue teams deserve recognition, but the basic fact of all such disasters, once they have happened, is that their outcome depends on elements over which there is no human control. Whether this is one of the worst such incidents in history or, as it is already, a major ecological threat depends on what the savagery of water and wind do to the vessel's hull, and where its contents are carried.
But serious questions are posed and will have to be answered. There has been, so far, no clear explanation of why the Sea Empress was where it was when it was overtaken by high seas and gale force winds. Perhaps the forecasts were at fault. There may be some other plausible reason. But too often human error is the root cause as was the case in a wreck some years ago where there was evidence that tanker captains had been in the habit of taking a shortcut which led them close to offshore rocks, leaving them no margin of safety when the weather turned against them. It will also have to be determined whether, once the vessel was driven ashore, the right action was taken in time to minimise the danger. Were all the necessary regulations observed?
The Irish public will want to know the answers to these and other issues raised by the incident. Such matters as the degree of co ordination between the Irish and British authorities, the steps that would have to be taken if the oil slick were to be carried westwards towards our coast, and what resources exist to deal with massive pollution, as well as related compensation demands, need clarification. Fortunately, in this case, the threat appears to be minimal because of weather conditions and the oil is of a type that will break up fairly soon. But it could have been very different.