Ethical analysis of the Tasman Spirit oil spill disaster

Ethical Case Analysis

Johnso62

On the 27 July 2003, the oil tanker Tasman Spirit carrying approximately 67, 535 tons of crude Iranian Light oil ran aground in the channel port of Karachai (Janjua, Kasi & Nawaz, 2006) . In the weeks following the initial grounding of the vessel rough sea conditions as well as weather and structural damage resulted in the large scale release of crude oil into the beach area. It was determined that well over 35,000 tons of cargo was spilled into the sea (Janjua, Kasi & Nawaz, 2006).

Crude oil is composed of many chemical compounds including several which can become airborne when exposed to the correct conditions. These compounds are extremely volatile and pose significant health risks not only to local wildlife, but also to the local population. In the cargo being held in the Tasman Spirit, was particularly high in sulfur content, light and heavy naphtha as well as gasoline. The aromatic hydrocarbons contained in the oil evaporated following the spill and were dispersed into the highly populated towns and cities surrounding the beach (Janjua, Kasi & Nawaz, 2006. This release of aromatic hydrocarbons as well as other known toxins into the population may have long-term negative effects on the health of those individuals living in affected areas. Observed health effects include a higher rate of upper respiratory infection, skin irritation, and even psychological ailments though it is as yet undetermined whether those psychological effects were related more to stress from loss of livelihood or the chemicals themselves (Ha, et al. . 2008).

The natural resources of the area affected by the spill encompassed a minim of 40 square kilometers (Ha, et al. . 2008). This does not include the tidal waters, estuaries, rivers, and mudflats which were affected as a result of the high dispersal rate of crude oil through water. Air pollution was estimated to represent approximately 11,000 tons of volatile organic compounds which had been dispersed into the air for as long as 30 days following the initial spill (Janjua, Kasi & Nawaz, 2006). The effects on local wildlife include the death of substantial quantities of indigenous wildlife including fish, turtles, and birds. Further, it was found that the sediment and phytoplankton of the area were infected by the crude oil and as such the productivity of the phytoplankton was severely reduced for several months after the fact. The infection of the sediment with hazardous chemicals also resulted in the continuing introduction of said chemicals into the marine environment.

The analysis of the Tasman Spirit oil spill is a complex issue regarding not only the accountability but also the still ongoing environmental restoration necessary following such an event. The eight step linear model as presented by Trevino and Nelson will necessarily be flawed; however it represents a reasonable approach to addressing a number of issues from an impartial position as well as leaving room for personal interpretation. The eight step linear model asks the researcher to investigate the facts as well as the ethical issues without the bias of personal opinion and leaning. Researchers are also encouraged to investigate the individual parties involved as well as the differing responsibilities and obligations of said parties based in their rights and experiences in the given scenario. One interesting aspect of this method which distinguishes it from other methods of ethical analysis is the comingling of both hard fact and personal ethics. While initially the researcher is encouraged to investigate the facts in an unbiased fashion, in the final steps they are encouraged to investigate their personal feelings on the matter as well as weigh those feelings against the information that have uncovered as a result of their investigation. Finally, researchers are encouraged to pose interesting possible solutions to the dilemma. This invitation of an outside perspective is important because it facilitates practical appraisal of the situation on the part of the researcher and may actually result in the successful resolution of the ethical dilemma.

Step One

Gathering the Facts: An Explanation

This first part of the eight step process is significant in that it requires the researcher to thoroughly investigate the facts of the case. When assessing a situation in terms of ethical responsibility and obligation it is easy to respond to the first or the most inflammatory pieces of information regarding an event or a series of events. This however results in an uninformed and largely reactionary assessment in which critical factors are not considered. Below will be the most complete representation of the facts available at this time.

A minimum of 40 square kilometers of marine habitat were impacted not including tributaries, rivers, mud flats, and estuaries which were contaminated

600 kg of dead fish washed up on the beaches causing multiple health and safety concerns

Phytoplankton were contaminated virtually eliminating them from the habitat up to six months following the spill -- the loss of phytoplankton ultimately resulted in the depression of the marine habitat

The sediment to a depth of 80 mm was contaminated by the oil as well resulting in the continued contamination and leeching of chemicals into the marine habitat even one full year later

In the weeks following the spill upwards of 1,000 contaminated fish were found at local restaurant

Air contamination at toxic levels were experienced as far as one kilometer inland from the beach

Dispersants and booming were the primary methods of remediation implemented in response to the spill

Manual skimming as well as occasional low tide ploughing of the beach

Acute health effects were experienced by the population including but not limited to; upper respiratory tract infection, skin and eye irritation, a number of unspecified psychological problems.

Facts found in (Janjua, Kasi & Nawaz, 2006)

Step Two

Definition of Ethical Issues

The definition of ethical issues encourages thought on the possible ramifications of the outlined situation above. Rather than immediately considering facts within the context of a solution seeking or responsibility allocating framework, this step focuses on the simple understanding of what factors must be considered from both the perspective of the parties ultimately responsible for the tanker and subsequently the spill but also those individuals affected by the results of the spill. The consequentialist perspective is the one which will assess the nature of any potential harm to the community and society. The deontological perspective will take into account the rights, responsibilities, and effects of the event on both sides. That is to say where the consequentialist perspective addresses the global impact of the event, the deontological perspective addresses the specific effect of the event on the individuals claiming an actual stake in it.

Consequentialist Perspective

The results of the Tasman Spirit oil spill can still be felt in the marine ecosystem and in the communities which depend on that ecosystem for livelihood. Further, the physical health effects of exposure to and likely consumption of contaminated resources are still being addressed. Though there is information regarding the effects of oil spills which have occurred historically, that by no means indicates that the experience of those individuals in this affected area will be similar. The specific chemical makeup of the oil which was spilled in the Tasman spill is unique to the spill.

In this instance, clean up efforts as well as the rehabilitation of marine ecology are already underway. The effects of exposure on the population are also being studied. However, there has been a significant impact on the economy of the affected area as well as the health. Food supplies as well as inland vegetation were all affected significantly by the spill. It is ultimately up for determination the degree to which the crew of the tanker is responsible for resolving what is considered the most serious environmental event in the history of Pakistan. Seven years on, the legalities associated with the disaster are still in arbitration in multiple international courts. While the criminal blame for the event has been allocated to the ships crew members as well as the insuring body (American Club), counter suits against Pakistan National Shipping Corporation for violation of safety protocols the crew asserting that the approach to the port was too shallow resulting in the grounding and subsequent structural collapse of the tanker.

Deontological Perspective

Though there is an overwhelming degree of legal action already in arbitration regarding the matter it must be addressed that the relative value of such machinations in the face of what effectively constitutes a natural disaster may not be the most effective use of time or resources. Thousands of hours and millions of dollars are being spent defining the blame and fiscal responsibility for this disaster when those hours and dollars could perhaps more effectively be applied to the correction of the situation. While it is definitely important that victims of the disaster who have suffered financial and/or health effects of the event must be compensated and cared for, in the immediacy it is more important to recover the ecosystem and the health of the residents.

Ultimately while neither the Tasman Spirit nor the local population directly will benefit from the endeavors resulting from this disaster, there may be a way to repair the damage to such a degree that no continuing negative effects are felt. The Tasman Spirit crew and financiers should work to investigate acute health concerns as well as the marine ecosystem surrounding Karachai. The American Club, likely one of two involved parties with the financial resources to affect significant change in the region which actually suffered the effects of the environmental disaster. Rather than working against each other with suits and counter suits and the assorted other motions and legal actions underway, it would be most effective and positive for those two companies to work together with environmental awareness and protection agencies to restore the region.

Step Three

Affected Parties

This portion of the analysis is concerned with the specific affected individual parties. While it is important not to allow empathy for a specific group to outweigh the impartiality of an effective analysis it is also important to understand the relevant human components of a situation especially one which has such a great magnitude of impact on the lives and livelihoods of so many individuals. In this situation the two groups are the people of Karachai specifically in the port area which was directly affected by the spill and the individuals who crewed the grounded ship, the financiers of the American Club and the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation.

Harmed / Beneficiaries (Consequentialist)

All involved parties were in some way harmed as a result of this event. The residents of the Karachai beach region lost their livelihood, natural resources, and in some instances they lost their health as well. The individuals on the other side of the situation those arguably responsible for the disaster also lost a great deal. The crew of the Tasman Spirit lost not only their vessel and cargo but they could have lost their lives. The American Club lost a degree of reputation and may lose a significant amount of money in the resultant court fees as is the case with the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation. While the Residents are responsible for the protection for their natural resources, livelihoods, and health the business affiliated parties are responsible to their customers as well as their shareholders. The only way in which parties may benefit is through the union of all involved in progressing toward the common goal of reversing as much of the damage caused as possible and working to ensure that such disasters do not happen in this region again.

Identification of Consequences

The identification of consequences is one of the most important aspects of an ethical analysis of an event. These consequences more than anything else likely will drive the overall decisions made. In the context of a business and the ethics associated with successful running of businesses, there are three primary types of consequences considered. Long vs. short-term consequences are effectively the potential outcomes of decisions both in the context of the immediate present time as well as the way those decisions will impact the involved parties in the future. Symbolic consequences are the possible implications of decisions as observed by outsiders. Effectively what perceived greater message a decision carries. The consequences of secrecy are the effects of a decision intended to be kept confidential becoming public knowledge. All businesses should operate on the assumption that their "confidential" decisions may at one point become public knowledge. As such, they should only make decisions which would ultimately not be harmful to the business should they be made available to the public.

Long-Term v. Short-Term

The long-term consequences of this disaster are still unknown. The environmental and health effects are still to be seen but will likely be negative. The effect of this disaster on all corporate parties involved has been dire. The not insubstantial financial toll a pittance compared to the damage to the reputation of these firms. The decision to seek legal action and mediation on the part of the major financial players will reflect negatively on their commitment to protecting the environment. The fact that local residents had to file suit in order to facilitate the remediation of lost money and the hastening of medical care will also have a negative impact on their businesses standing as an organization which cares for human rights and well being.

Symbolic Consequences

The symbolic consequences potential in this situation are the effect of seeking legal arbitration and the negative image which results from such action. Rather than seeking immediately to rectify the situation, the first concern was protection of capital. Effectively conveying that profit and customer satisfaction were more important than the environment and the people who inhabited the affected area. Had efforts been humanitarian and environmentally focused initially, it is likely that not only would the disaster have been resolved more effectively and expediently, but other organizations would likely have contributed to the effort.

Consequences of Secrecy

The specific nature of proceedings undertaken by the corporate parties has been kept largely out of public eye. What has not been withheld though is that the primary focus of the suits and countersuits is monetary. Rather than working towards resolving an environmental crisis all parties seem to be interested in protecting their bottom line. Though it is their responsibility as business owners to protect investors and ensure that their customers are protected part of that protection is maintaining a positive image. These actions though intended to be confidential have given all three businesses a great deal of bad press.

Step Five

Identification of Obligations

The identification of obligation is the specific allocation of responsibility for various actions and decisions taken by representative parties. This also allows for the clarification of ethical decisions made by involved parties as identified throughout the analysis. Though this is simply the restatement of obligation it allows the researcher a degree of perspective, given the preceding assessment of ethical considerations from numerous angles.

Obligations

The obligations in this instance fall largely to the corporate interests involved in this disaster. Though the residents need to ensure that such risks are not taken again for the sake of profit, it is ultimately up to those corporate entities who took the risk initially to address the fall out of their actions. Tasman Spirit crew members will likely be unable to contribute much but, should perhaps have their sailing abilities revoked in place of serving jail time. America Club and Pakistan National Shipping Corporation should be responsible for ensuring the efficient and effective restoration of the disturbed marine habitat to its former homeostasis. Further, there should be a fund set up to address the resultant physical and psychological difficulties experienced by affected persons.

Step Six

Check of Personal Integrity

This step asks the researcher to investigate their own feelings in the context of the situation. In my own perspective, I feel very strongly about protecting the environment. I also believe that it is essential for big business to have accountability for their actions no matter how remote or poor the individuals those actions affect are. I realize though, that it is important to understand that in this case at least big business is not purposely perpetrating crimes against nature and the common man. Rather, that this was a series of poorly planned unfortunate events which ultimately resulted in disaster. Therefore, though it is their responsibility to address this disaster it is not strictly speaking their "fault."

Step Seven

Potential Resolutions to the Problem

America Club and Pakistan National Shipping Corporation should work together to engage the services of international environmental agencies in the clean up and study of affected areas. They should also engage international human rights and human health organizations to address the individuals possibly physically affected by the spill. Engaging researching bodies will not only defer the cost but also provide valuable insight into the specific effects of these conditions. It may also provide a means of preventing future spills or improving response strategy to future disasters.

Step Eight

Check your Gut

I would be remiss to lay the entire blame or responsibility on America Club or the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation simply because they are well funded. Such an attitude is in direct contradiction to many of the morals I personally hold as well as my contention that wealth does not and should not differentiate one individual from another. However, in practicality they are in a position to potentially save lives whether by cleaning up the spill and facilitating the rejuvenation of so many livelihoods but also by providing medical care where needed. I feel that this disaster was preventable, and had those in charge spent less time trying to cut financial corners and more time adhering to the rules and regulations governing safety and security that this never would have happened.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the damage caused by this spill goes deeper than contaminated sediment or respiratory infections. It reflects the culture of financial stratification. There are apparently instances where a bottom line is worth more than the planet and even it seems the people on it. This case causes all to reflect upon the true motivations and machinations undertaken by corporations in the face of an environmental disaster. Not because they are wrong per se, but because the immediate rush to divert blame and prevent financial penalty should certainly not be the first concern.