NOAA's Response and Restoration Blog

An inside look at the science of cleaning up and fixing the mess of marine pollution


Leave a comment

Keeping the Oil Pollution Act Updated

Cleanup worker and oiled boulders on Refugio State Beach where the oil from the pipeline entered the beach.

The pipeline release allowed an estimated 21,000 gallons of crude oil to reach the Pacific Ocean, shown here where the oil entered Refugio State Beach. (NOAA)

On August 18, 1990, President H.W. Bush signed the Oil Pollution Act.  The act gave NOAA and other agencies improved authorities for spill prevention, response, and restoration in the nation’s navigable waters and shorelines.

The act ensured those responsible for an oil spill must cleanup and restore the environment, and compensate the public for its lost uses—like beach and recreational fishery closures—from the time of the incident until those natural resources fully recover.

Now 27 years old, some parts of the law are dated. But, the Act signed by President Bush was not the final word on oil pollution.

Like many other laws, it has been subject to various amendments over time to address emerging issues or to strengthen or clarify the original law.

Often, the amendments advance through related legislation that move through Congress and reach the president. For example, a number of Oil Pollution Act amendments were added to U.S. Coast Guard authorization bills.

For instance, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 added a number of provisions including:

  • Requirements for oil transfers from vessels
  • Improvements to reduce human error and near miss incidents
  • Prevention of small oil spills
  • Improved coordination with tribal governments
  • Changed the definitions of certain ports
  • Altered uses of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund by authorizing appropriations for NOAA and changed liability provisions for single hull vessels.

Sometimes these amendments can be quite technical but can also have significant impacts on how we work.  For example, the Coast Guard authorization act included this language that affected waterways near Seattle:

Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commandant shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to modify the definition of the term ‘‘higher volume port area’’ in section 155.1020 of the Coast Guard regulations (33 C.F.R. 155.1020) by striking ‘‘Port Angeles, WA’’ in paragraph (13) of that section and inserting ‘‘Cape Flattery, WA’’.

There are about 15 higher volume port areas in the United States and these areas are subject to the most stringent response planning requirements.

As you might expect, these include the biggest oil ports in the nation, including New York, Houston, New Orleans, and Prince William Sound, Alaska.  In these high volume port areas, large amounts of response equipment has to be on standby, ready to deploy on very short notice.

However, Cape Flattery is on the northwest tip of Washington State. The fishing port of Neah Bay is nearby, but it is hardly a major oil port.

Hmm, so what did that accomplish? That simple definitional change meant that all tankers approaching the Strait of Juan de Fuca and oil terminals closer to Seattle had to have approved plans and meet the most stringent response times following a spill anywhere along our inland waters.  This required adding response vessels and equipment out near the entrance of the Strait and increasing the ability to rapidly respond to any spills.

There are already several bills in Congress this year that would further amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. In between spills and restoration work, we keep an eye on their progress through the legislative process.

You can read these articles for more information on the Oil Pollution Act of 1990:


Leave a comment

Argo Merchant: What if It Happened Today?

Large oil slick swirl on ocean with ship.

Oil slick from the Argo Merchant, December 1976. NASA

Whenever oil is transported there is a risk of accidents and spills, but the 40 years since the Argo Merchant oil spill have seen improvements in laws, shipping technology and spill response.

Tankers today are much safer, but they are also much larger. The Argo Merchant was carrying about 8 million gallons of oil, while modern tankers can carry 10 times that amount. A large spill is a rare event, but the impacts are still potentially catastrophic.

Improvements in ship construction and navigation

The Argo Merchant’s single-hull design is often cited as a factor to the spill. Tankers now have double hulls that have proven to be safer. Had the Argo Merchant been constructed with double hulls, it may have survived longer on the shoals, allowing more time to refloat or unload the ship. But even with a double hull, survival of the Argo Merchant through December storms in North Atlantic seas would be questionable.

In the same way a car’s air bag is useful only in a crash, a double hull helps only in preventing or reducing spillage once a ship runs aground. Preventing accidents is the key. Fortunately, there have been significant improvements in navigation technology since 1976. The Argo Merchant officers relied on a magnetic compass and celestial navigation during the last voyage, ending up more than 25 miles off course. Even after running aground, the captain was unsure of the ship’s location, hampering the ability of United States Coast Guard (USCG) pilots to find the ship. The owners were not legally required to install the then-new LORAN-C technology that would have given the ship’s position within 500 feet. Additionally, their radio direction finder and gyrocompasses were faulty and their charts out of date.

Today’s navigation technology could have pinpointed the ship within a few feet. Modern electronic charts have real-time updates. Today, the average cell phone has more navigation tools than were available to the officers of the Argo Merchant.

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990

Tankers today are subject to much more stringent inspection. Even in 1976, the Coast Guard had plans to inspect the Argo Merchant in Boston. The ship had a number of known deficiencies, but of course the ship never made it to port.

The geopolitics of the world have also changed in the past 40 years. When the Argo Merchant ran aground 29 miles off Nantucket, it was considered to be in international waters. Congress had just declared the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone, but that wouldn’t go into effect for a few months.

Under maritime policies of the time, the Coast Guard could rescue the crew, but the commandant had to declare the ship a “grave and imminent danger” before taking salvage and pollution action. And the USCG had only a few million dollars in a pollution fund. There was a strong incentive to let the ship’s owner mount the salvage and response plans.

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, passed after the Exxon Valdez spill, has a dedicated fund, and clear liability for pollution that includes natural resource damages. The law in effect then, the Oil Pollution Act of 1924, provided little help for a ship aground in international waters.

In 1976 a tanker owner had limited liability for spills, and an owner had little incentive to spend money to keep their vessel in top condition (or install the latest navigation electronics). The investigation and litigation after the grounding showed the Argo Merchant was a decrepit and poorly managed ship.

The 1990 act clarified liability for natural resource damages. Forty years ago, there was environmental concern about impacts to the fisheries and wildlife, but no way to hold the spiller responsible for damages. Today, NOAA and other resource agencies can conduct assessments and make claims for restoration, giving ship owners incentive to ensure vessels are well maintained.

Improvements in response and preparedness

Organizationally, the Unites States is in a much stronger position today to respond to spills. The Coast Guard does not have to wait to declare a threat. The ad-hoc science response in 1976 is now codified in the National Contingency Plan. National and regional response teams are in place, along with local area plans. Federal, state, and industry stockpiles of spill response gear are pre-deployed around the country. NOAA has a collection of response tools now, including satellites and models to track spilled oil, and environmental sensitivity index maps of all the coastline.

But some things are the same. Responding to a stranded tanker in rough waters offshore will always be tough. High sea booms are better, and skimmers and pumping systems are improved. Despite the heroic efforts of the USCG and salvage operators in 1976, no oil was recovered from the ship and none of the floating oil was skimmed.

Even with today’s advanced technologies, only a fraction of spilled oil is removed. The best solution, then as now, is to keep ships in good condition, and keep the oil from spilling in the first place.

This is the fifth in a series of six stories examining the oil spill in 1976 of tanker Argo Merchant resulting in the creation of the Office of Response and Restoration.


Leave a comment

Argo Merchant: The Growth of Scientific Support

Black and white photo of ship with waves crashing on it.

Heavy seas cover the decks of the Argo Merchant while the tanker lies aground near Nantucket Island. Credit: Coast Guard Historian

Disasters often spark major changes. The sinking of the Titanic led to increased international requirements for lifesaving equipment, and the Exxon Valdez led to double-hull tankers and a host of other safety improvements. The 1976 grounding of the Argo Merchant led to the creation of the Scientific Support Coordinator (SSC) program that today is the backbone of the marine spill response.

The road to SSC program started with the nation’s first National Contingency Plan (NCP) in 1968, a result of the massive oil 1967 spill from the tanker Torrey Canyon off the coast of the United Kingdom. There was no plan in place to cope with the more than 37 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the water, causing governmental confusion and massive environmental damage.

To avoid the problems England faced by response officials involved in the Torrey Canyon incident, the United States developed a coordinated approach to cope with potential spills in the nation’s waters. The 1968 plan provided the first comprehensive system of accident reporting, spill containment and cleanup. The plan also established a response headquarters, a national reaction team and regional reaction teams (precursors to the current National Response Team and Regional Response Teams).

Filling a gap in science coordination

But that 1968 NCP had some gaps. One was science coordination. The 1976 Argo Merchant spill threatened one of the most productive fishing grounds in the nation, and raised the immediate attention of the high concentration of federal, state and academic science institutions in the region.  And those scientists had no shortage of ideas, predictions, and samples they wanted collected as well as studies they wanted to conduct. However, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), the federal agency tasked with responding to spills, had its hands full with the stricken tanker, growing slicks, and mounting public concerns.

Earlier that year, NOAA and USCG had established the Spilled Oil Research (SOR) team to study the effects of oil and gas exploration in Alaska. This team was a network of coastal geologists, marine biologists, chemists, and oceanographers that could go on-scene at “spills of opportunity” with the goal of investigating oil spill impacts and improve oil spill forecasting models.

The Argo Merchant spill was the first major deployment of the SOR Team. After arriving on scene, the Coast Guard quickly asked the SOR Team to act as its scientific adviser and be an informal liaison with the scientific community concerned with the spill.

The coordination was rocky at first, but within a few months of the spill, the NOAA team compiled and published “The Argo Merchant Oil Spill; a Preliminary Scientific Report.”  The 200+ page initial report represented the work of over 100 scientists from numerous agencies and institutions:

  • NOAA
  • USCG
  • NASA
  • The U.S. Navy
  • Department of the Interior
  • The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
  • University of Rhode Island
  • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • University of Southern California
  • Manomet Bird Observatory
  • Marine Biological Laboratory

Several other synthesis reports were published in the following year.

From HAZMAT to the Emergency Response Division

After the Argo Merchant spill, NOAA created the Hazardous Material Response Division (HAZMAT team) to provide scientific expertise during a response incident. Now called the Office of Response and Restoration’s Emergency Response Division, it has grown from a handful of oceanographers, mathematicians, and computer modelers in 1976, into a highly diverse team of chemists, biologists, geologists, information management specialists, and technical and administrative support staff.

The once-informal role of scientific coordination is now formally recognized in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. NOAA has a dozen Scientific Support Coordinators (SSCs) attached to USCG offices around the country. During spills, training, and exercises, the SSC is a direct science advisor to the Federal On-scene Coordinator.

In 2016, the SSC team responded to 178 spills around the country. The SSCs still serve USCG to help protect the public, the environment, and economic interests — in the nation’s ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security and help maintain the health and vibrancy of our nation’s oceans and coasts.

This is the second in a series of six stories examining the oil spill in 1976 of tanker Argo Merchant resulting in the creation of the Office of Response and Restoration.


Leave a comment

1976: A Winter of Ship Accidents

Ship broken in two in water.

The tanker Sansinena exploded in Los Angeles harbor on Dec. 17, 1976, spilling 1.3 million gallons of heavy oil. USCG

The winter of 1976-77 was a bad time for oil spills in the United States. I was still in middle school, but I remember doing a science report on oil spills. In a short time period there were multiple major oil spills, including these:

  • The tanker Argo Merchant ran aground on Dec. 15, 1976 and later broke apart off Nantucket Island, Massachusetts, spilling 7.6 million gallons of heavy fuel oil.
  • The tanker Sansinena exploded in Los Angeles Harbor, California, on Dec. 17, 1976, spilling 1.3 million gallons of heavy oil. Nine crew were killed and 46 people were injured.
  • Christmas Eve 1976 was not all quiet, when the tanker Oswego Peace spilled 5,000 gallons of bunker fuel into New London Harbor, Connecticut.
  • The tanker Olympic Games ran aground in the Delaware River, south of Philadelphia Pennsylvania, on Dec. 27, 1976, spilling 145,000 gallons of crude.

The rash of incidents continued into the New Year.

  • On Jan. 4, 1977, the tanker Universe Leader, loaded with 21 million gallons, ran aground in the Delaware River, New Jersey. It was refloated without a spill.
  • Also on Jan. 4, 1977, the tanker Grand Zenith, loaded with 8 million gallons of oil, was lost with all hands off the coast of New England. Only a few pieces of debris and an oil slick were found.
  • On Jan. 10, 1977, the tanker Chester A. Poling broke in half and sank off Gloucester, Massachusetts. It had just discharged its cargo and was only carrying ballast, but still spilled 14,000 gallons of diesel. One crew member was killed.

The large number of tanker accidents and loss of life alarmed the public and Congress. Hearings were quickly held in the District of Columbia in January, 1977. The hearing transcripts provide an insight into shipping and pollution concerns of the time. These concerns included the risk of spills from the still-under-construction Trans-Alaska Pipeline System that would open in a few months. The hearings concluded, but the rash of spills that winter did not.

  • On Jan. 17, 1977, the tanker Irene’s Challenger, loaded with 9.6 million gallons of crude oil, broke apart and sank near Midway Island in North Pacific Ocean. Three crew were lost.
  • On Feb. 2, 1977, the tank barge Ethel H spilled 480,000 gallons of crude oil into New York Harbor.
  • On Feb. 26, 1977, the tanker Hawaiian Patriot broke apart and sank off Hawaii, spilling 31 million gallons of crude oil. All but one of the crew were rescued. This little known incident is still considered the largest tanker spill in United States waters.

This winter marks the 40th anniversary of NOAA’s spill response program — a program that began, not surprisingly, in the wake of all of these incidents. In December, the Office of Response and Restorations (OR&R) will post a series of stories on NOAA’s leading role in oil spill response.


Leave a comment

In Some Situations, Ships Dump Oil on Purpose

Oil on water.

Port Sulphur, La. (Nov. 29)–An aerial view of a section of the Mississippi River containing a dense amount of the Nigerian ‘sweet’ crude oil spilled by the M/V Westchester Nov. 28, 2000. USCG photo by PA1 Jeff Hall

 

We generally think of oil being accidentally spilled, but there are situations when oil might be intentionally spilled.

Historically, ships at sea have sometimes intentionally dumped some of their cargo to save the ship and perhaps prevent a complete loss. However, this is a thorny area of maritime and environmental law, made even more complex by the engineering stresses on a foundering vessel and the political dynamics underlying a decision to intentionally dump oil.

On March 18, 1973, the tanker Zoe Colocotronis ran aground on a reef 3.5 miles off the southwest coast of Puerto Rico. The master unilaterally ordered cargo from the forward tank jettisoned to help get the vessel off the reef, and 1.5 million gallons of crude oil were intentionally released. The tanker was refloated with the remaining 6.3 million-gallon cargo, but the captain was later convicted for multiple violations.

When the Argo Merchant ran aground on Nantucket Shoals in 1976, jettisoning was suggested but rejected. The vessel eventually broke apart and the entire cargo was lost. In 1996, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences developed a lengthy report, “Purposeful Jettison of Petroleum Cargo,” to clarify when such a drastic measure might be the best way to prevent a larger spill.

Aircraft in distress may also sometimes intentionally jettison fuel to reduce landing weight. Even though the dumped fuel is thought to vaporize rapidly, this technique is rare, in part because of environmental concerns.

Dumping oil at sea hasn’t always been prohibited. In fact, steamships and lifeboats were required to carry equipment to slowly release oil (generally vegetable or fish oil) at sea during storms. The lifeboats carried by the Titanic fell under British Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 that required carriage of “oil for use in stormy weather.”

The USCG regulations also used to require that lifeboats be equipped with storm oil. What? How does spilling oil help you in a lifeboat?

One of the behaviors that makes oil hard to clean up — its ability to spread rapidly into thin layers — has the effect of reducing the wave height and breaking waves. This is also why spilled oil becomes a “slick”. Oil spilled on the water absorbs energy and dampens out the surface waves making the oil appear smoother or “slicker” than the surrounding water.

Drawing of a cone-shaped container with labels.

A commercial ship’s lifeboat sea anchor. From the U.S. Coast Guard Manual for Lifeboatmen, Able Seamen, and Qualified Members of the Engine Department. “Oil, storm. One gallon of vegetable, fish, or animal oil must be provided in a suitable metal container so constructed as to permit a controlled distribution of oil on the water, and so arranged that it can be attached to the sea anchor.”

This phenomenon has been studied for a long time. The U.S. Navy produced several reports on the topic back in the 1880s, but my favorite is the research conducted by Benjamin Franklin. Everyone knows about his famous kite flying during an electrical storm, but in the 1760s, he also did some intentional oil spill experiments. On a sea voyage to Europe he noted that the greasy discharge from a nearby ship’s galley had smoothed the water, and later did studies on lakes to test his theories (these lakes were in England, not his home state of Pennsylvania). His letters were later summarized in a journal report on the “stilling of waves.” Franklin reported that “not more than a tea spoonful produced an instant calm, over a space several yards square, which spread amazingly, and extended itself gradually till it reached the lee side, making all that quarter of the pond, perhaps half an acre, as smooth as a looking glass.”

U.S and international regulations no longer require equipping life boats with storm oil. The requirement was removed in 1983, the same year the United States Coast Guard replaced open lifeboats with the requirement to carry fully and partially enclosed lifeboats.

Photo with old type from a 1774 document.

 


Leave a comment

Oil Spills, Seeps, and the Early Days of Drilling Oil Along California’s Coast

Black and white photo of early oil derricks and piers at Summerland, California, 1902

Some of the earliest offshore oil wells were located at Summerland in Santa Barbara County, California. Shown here in 1902, you can see the early wharves that extended from the shore out to derricks over the wells. (U.S. Geological Survey)

One of the challenges of the 2015 pipeline oil spill near Santa Barbara, California, was distinguishing between oil released from the pipeline and oil released naturally from the many seeps in the area. This challenge could become even more complicated when you consider the history of oil drilling in southern California [PDF] that dates back to the 1860s.

Unless you are a history buff or study environmental pollution, you probably didn’t realize that the beautiful sand beaches of southern California were once home to some of the earliest offshore oil rigs.

Oil seeps both on the shore and in the ocean were clues to the underground oil reservoirs in the Santa Barbara Channel. Even today, natural seeps in Santa Barbara’s Coal Oil Point area release an estimated 6,500-7,000 gallons of oil per day (Lorenson et al., 2011).

Drilling into History

The first offshore wells in the United States were drilled in 1896 in the Summerland region just east of Santa Barbara. Initial wells were built on piers sticking several hundred feet out into the ocean. Over the years, many more wells and offshore platforms were built in the region.

However, oil exploration and drilling was virtually unregulated at the time, and spills were common. California’s first out-of-control oil gusher occurred in February 1892 near Santa Paula, but since no one had a way to store so much oil (1,500 barrels were released per day), much of it eventually flowed into the ocean via the Santa Clara River.

Black and white photo of men building a pier over the ocean to reach oil derricks drilling offshore at Summerland, California, 1900.

A view looking down the Treadwell wharf toward shore and the central portion of the Summerland oil field in Santa Barbara County, California, in 1900. These early oil fields were essentially unregulated, resulting in spills and leaks back then as well as today. (U.S. Geological Survey)

In addition, many of these first flimsy piers and oil platforms at Summerland were destroyed by storms or fires or later abandoned without much thought about preventing spills in the future. The state’s first laws governing oil well abandonment came into place in 1915, in part to protect the oil and gas wells on neighboring properties. (Fortunately, the old and leaky Summerland wells were far enough away from the 2015 pipeline spill location that they didn’t add yet another possible source of oil in the area of the spill.)

By the 1960s offshore oil production began to take off in California, particularly along Santa Barbara County. That is, until January 1969, when Union Oil’s Platform A suffered a blowout six miles off the coast. The result was more than 3.2 million gallons of crude oil were released into the Santa Barbara Channel and on surrounding shorelines.

Public outcry was so great that not only did California ban new leases for offshore drilling in state-owned waters, but it helped catalyze a broader movement to protect the environment and prevent pollution in the United States. Still, natural seeps serve as a reminder of the area’s “Wild West” days of oil exploration.

Seep vs. Spill

Today, the region is much cleaner, but, as we saw after the 2015 pipeline spill at Refugio State Beach near Santa Barbara, that doesn’t mean it’s free of oil, either naturally released or spilled during extraction. While telling the two apart can be complicated, it isn’t impossible.

One clue for distinguishing seep oil from oil coming from production platforms is looking at how “weathered” the oil is. Oil being drilled by a platform is extracted directly from a deep underground reservoir and thus appears “fresher,” that is, less weathered by environmental processes.

The seep oil, on the other hand, generally appears more weathered, having migrated up through the seafloor and ocean depths. Seep oil is more weathered because many of its less stable compounds have been dissolved into the water column, oxidized by sunlight or evaporated into the atmosphere at the surface, or broken down by microbes that naturally metabolize hydrocarbon molecules.

Another method for distinguishing among oils is a process known as “fingerprinting,” which uses analytical chemistry to compare the relative quantities of hydrocarbons unique to petroleum in the spilled oil versus another oil.

Even though seeps release a lot of oil into the ocean, oil spills such as the 2015 pipeline spill near Santa Barbara have different and more significant impacts on the nearshore environment than the slower, steadier release of natural oil seeps. Spills often release relatively large volumes of oil suddenly into an area, which can overwhelm the ability of the environment (such as its oil-eating microbes) to adapt to the influx of oil.

That doesn’t mean seeps don’t have any environmental impacts themselves. Oil from seeps can be toxic to marine life, including fish, sea stars, shrimp, and seabirds, with impacts largely concentrated in the immediate area around a seep. While our job is to use science to minimize and evaluate potential environmental impacts during oil spills (and not seeps), knowing the history of an area like Santa Barbara can go a long way to helping us do just that.

NOAA environmental scientist Greg Baker also contributed to this post.


7 Comments

At the U.S.-Canadian Border, Surveying a World War II Shipwreck for History and Oil

Historical photo of the Coast Trader at port in San Francisco.

The Coast Trader, first launched in 1920, was sunk by a Japanese torpedo in 1942. (San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park)

On June 2, 2016, an underwater survey team is looking at what they believe to be the wreck of the 324-foot-long Coast Trader, a U.S. Army-chartered freight ship sunk somewhere off the Washington coast during World War II. The shipwreck being surveyed is located near the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca just across the border of Washington state and British Columbia in Canadian waters.

The Coast Trader sank on June 7, 1942 after the Imperial Japanese Navy’s deadly I-26 submarine torpedoed it on its journey between Port Angeles, Washington, and San Francisco, California. Its precise location on the seafloor remained unknown until a 2010 survey by the Canadian Hydrographic Service. A wreck with the same dimensions and basic shape as the Coast Trader lies in 450 feet of water just two miles from where the ship’s master reported his ship was attacked.

The survey team is led by archaeologist James Delgado, director of maritime heritage for NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, and Michael Brennan, archaeological director for the Ocean Exploration Trust, which was founded by underwater explorer Robert Ballard, who years ago discovered the wreck of the Titanic.

Joining the team at the University of Rhode Island’s Inner Space Center is Frank Cantelas, archaeologist for NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration Research, along with naval architects, corrosion and oil spill response experts from the U.S. Coast Guard, and a Canadian historian from the Vancouver Maritime Museum. While the Coast Trader appears to rest in Canadian waters, it is just north of Washington’s Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.

Natuical chart showing approximate location of Coast Trader wreck between Washington state and Vancouver Island.

A map of what was believed to be the approximate location of the wreck of the Coast Trader, on the border of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary and Canada. The likeliest scenario of oil release from most sunken wrecks, including the Coast Trader, is a small, episodic release that may be precipitated by disturbance of the vessel in storms. However, NOAA’s modeling shows that a worst-case scenario spill would oil shorelines on the southern coast of Canada’s Vancouver Island. (NOAA)

Why the interest in a 74-year-old wreck? History and the threat of oil pollution. While the Coast Trader was a pretty typical ship of its era, the wreck is now considered historically significant for being one of a handful of ships sunk on this side of the Pacific during World War II.

In addition, in 2013, it was one of the priority shipwrecks NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration, along with the National Marine Sanctuaries program, identified for its potential risk of spilling oil. While the Coast Trader was carrying a cargo of newsprint when it sank, it was also loaded with more than 7,000 barrels of a heavy fuel oil known as Bunker C.

The marine archaeologists looking at the wreck will be trying to confirm that it is in fact the Coast Trader, and they’ll be searching for clues as to whether the ship’s hull is still intact and likely still holding its fuel.

Our 2013 assessment of the Coast Trader’s pollution potential [PDF] reports the following about the ship’s sinking and its potential condition:

The explosion blew the hatch covers off the cargo hold and sent rolls of newsprint flying through the air. Survivors of the attack reported looking down into the hatches and seeing a “sea of oil and water” in and around the damaged portion of the ship and that “quite a bit of fuel oil surrounded ship.” The vessel eventually sank by the stern and the survivors watched as each of the hatch covers were blown off in succession as the ship sank.

Based on the large degree of inaccuracy in the reported sinking location and the depths of water the ship was lost in, it is unlikely that the shipwreck will be intentionally located. Although the survivor reports of the sinking make it sound like substantial amounts of oil was lost when the vessel sank, it is not possible to determine with any degree of accuracy what the current condition of the wreck is and how likely the vessel is to contain oil since the shipwreck has never been discovered.

The only way to conclusively determine the condition of the shipwreck will be to examine the site after it is discovered.

Hopefully, we’ll soon find out if this wreck actually is the long-lost Coast Trader. You can watch video of the underwater survey as it takes place at http://www.nautiluslive.org/.

UPDATED JUNE 2, 2016: The survey team has confirmed that this wreck is, with very little doubt, the Coast Trader. Here are a few photos of the livestream exploration of the wreck: