select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
Scientists comment on the collision between a cargo vessel and an oil tanker in the North Sea.
Simon Bray, marine biologist and member of the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST) said:
“At the moment, it’s important to clearly establish what was being carried on both vessels before potential impacts on marine ecosystems and conservation areas in the region can be clearly established. There are several potential pollutants from the incident, but in terms of the jet A1 fuel carried by the Stena Immaculate, UK transport minister Mike Kane has suggested it may not be significantly polluting at this stage. Also, jet fuel is a lighter hydrocarbon and will either ignite and burn or evaporate and, at this time of year, bacteria that can break down hydrocarbons start to become more active and may be available to break down residual spill elements.”
Dr Jeff Polton, Leader of Shelf Seas Modelling at the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) said:
“The local weather and water currents determine movement of unpowered vessels and any fuel or cargo releases that may occur. The nature of the object in the water, and its buoyancy, will determine how it is transported by the marine environment.
“Surface objects are strongly affected by wind and waves, which cause a drift of surface waters that last from hours to days. These are strongly subject to local weather.
“Tidal motion controls the currents in the North Sea, moving the water back and forth twice a day. In the region of interest, the movement over a tidal cycle is about 10km, meaning that a floating object would move up and down the coast in a 10km streak.
“The northern part of the North Sea stratifies in the summer. The southern half of the North Sea is pretty much mixed all year because the tides are sufficiently strong and the water sufficiently shallow that they mix up the water every tidal cycle. The region of interest is just in this “tidally mixed” southern half of the North Sea. It is likely that neutrally buoyant chemicals will be mixed throughout the water column.
“This region of the North Sea is relatively shallow at <50m and has weak depth averaged currents of 1 – 5 cm/s that move southwards. The North Sea as a whole has a flushing timescale, whereby water is circulated and replaced, of about 9 months, though this can vary in different areas.”
Dr Shovonlal Roy, associate professor in remote sensing in ecosystems sciences, and lead for Marine Ecosystem Science Research, University of Reading, said:
“The massive collision between the cargo vessel and the oil tanker in the North Sea is deeply concerning due to its immediate and potentially far-reaching impact on the local marine ecosystem.
“The release of tonnes of jet fuel, toxic oil and chemical dispersants could severely harm the delicate balance of marine life in the region.
“This damage may affect not only seabirds and larger marine animals, but also microbial organisms that form the base of the marine food chain. The sudden introduction of high concentrations of contaminants can be particularly detrimental to planktonic organisms, especially zooplankton, which serve as a crucial food source for small pelagic fish and various shellfish.
“In the short to medium term, this disruption could trigger cascading effects throughout the ecosystem. For example, over the coming months, a sharp decline in zooplankton populations combined with oil-induced eutrophication may lead to unexpected harmful algal blooms, further destabilizing the North Sea’s marine life. Such events could significantly impact fish stocks and overall fish production in the North Sea Ecosystem.
“Immediate action is essential to mitigate the consequences of this disaster and remove all sources of potential pollution from the affected area.”
Dr Ross Brown, a Senior Research Fellow in the Ecotoxicology and Aquatic Biology Research Group at the University of Exeter, said:
“There’s a lot of uncertainty here. The light (high octane) jet fuel oil from the Oil tanker ‘Stena Immaculate’ is likely to remain mostly at the surface1 and from the sea surface the fuel oil is likely to volatilise or burn off. The concern is that some fuel may still reach the shore or sea bed if its caried to the coast by wind and tide. If it does, and concentrations are high enough (e.g. >0.3 mg/L (parts per million) its likely to cause toxicity.
“It seems that the chemical manifest of the Cargo ship ‘Solong’ is uncertain. The owners claim that, contrary to earlier reports, sodium cyanide was not onboard. If indeed it was on board and escaped, then this could be more problematic, since it highly soluble in water and is potentially toxic to all sea life (particularly fish) that are exposed to concentrations of above predicted no effect concentrations of 0.42 µglL short term and 0.052 µglL in the long term (i.e. greater than a week). These concentrations are parts per billion (indicating 1000x greater toxicity than the jet fuel.”
1 it has a density approx 70% of seawater = 0.703 g/cm3
Richard Gordon, Director of the Bournemouth University Disaster Management Centre, said:
“The collision of the Solong container ship with the anchored Stena Immaculate on Monday at 9:45am is in danger of becoming one of the worst environmental disasters in recent years. Lessons identified from Deep Horizon 2010 and the Napoli in 2007 indicate that, whilst the principle of ‘polluter pays’ may be reasonable and appropriate, any linked assumption that the polluter should be responsible for leading and coordinating the response is a mistake. The UK has an established mechanism for such events whereby a senior expert is appointed as the ‘Secretary of State’s Representative (SOS REP). This appointment assumes that the task of leading, coordinating, and equipping a response falls to the host country since any delay can only lead to a greater environmental disaster. Meticulous records are kept to justify receipts and expenses; however, the bill lands finally with the Polluter.
“Journalists may wish to enquire who has been appointed as the UK’s government ministry lead – SOS Rep – to take strategic control over what is a multi sector, multi agency and indeed multi ministry response, at pace.”
Mark Douglas, Maritime Domain Analyst at Starboard Maritime Intelligence, and Member of the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST), said:
“Collisions of this type are uncommon but not unheard of. In July 2024, the tanker HAFNIA NILE collided with another tanker, CERES I, in the South China Sea off Johor, Malaysia. Similar to yesterday’s incident, HAFNIA NILE was navigating through an anchorage when it struck the anchored CERES I, igniting fires on both vessels and triggering a rescue operation. However, in that case, the fires were quickly brought under control, and the loss of cargo was minimal. CERES I was not loaded at the time, and HAFNIA NILE lost only a small amount of her cargo of naphtha, which, like the jet fuel aboard STENA IMMACULATE, disperses and evaporates quickly.”
Marcus Jones, IMarEST member, marine surveyor and accident investigator said:
“The North Sea Ship collision is a very complex situation that will take time to sort through and establish causes. Looking after the crew members affected is the number one priority at this stage, and salvage and pollution prevention are urgent matters. To determine the end cause, interviews with the vessels’ crews will be already taking place (led by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch).”
Prof Jin Wang, Professor of Marine Technology at Liverpool John Moores University, said:
“The collision involving the Stena Immaculate and the Solong in the North Sea resulted in fires aboard both vessels, significant environmental damage, and the disappearance of one crew member. While the exact cause of the collision is still under investigation, there are several potential contributing factors, including autopilot failure, weather conditions, marine radar malfunctions, rudder issues, human error, automatic identification system problems, and others.
“In highly congested areas, such as coastal regions or near ports, Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) are implemented to guide ships and ensure smooth and safe traffic flow. However, this particular collision may not have been mitigated by such services.
“One possible cause could be a complete autopilot failure, as the Solong did not immediately stop after the initial impact. Another potential factor could be human error, such as navigational mistakes, poor management, failure to react to warnings, misjudgment, or being panic in a high-stress situation. Human error likely played a significant role in this incident. It seems improbable that all of the factors leading to the collision of this nature could have occurred simultaneously without human error.
“Human error can be minimized by incorporating more resilient systems with redundancy so that if one system fails, another takes over. Additionally, the crew’s training could have played a role in the tragedy, as operators might not have responded as effectively as possible. However, these aspects remain speculative until the full independent investigation is completed.
“A thorough investigation should be conducted to determine what occurred, how it happened, why it happened, and what measures can be implemented to prevent a similar incident in the future. The findings of this investigation could lead to changes in operational regulations by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations specialized agency responsible for ensuring the safety, security, and environmental sustainability of international shipping.”
Chris Goldsworthy, CEO of the Institute of Marine Science, Engineering and technology (IMarEST) said:
“I’d like to pay tribute to the brave marine professionals who were on board the MT Stena Immaculate and MV Solong, as well those working tirelessly to combat the effects of this devastating collision in the North Sea. Whilst we await a full investigation, our thoughts are with all those affected both onboard and ashore, and we are offering our full support to our members and the wider marine community.
“At this time, the expertise of marine professionals is critical to ensuring the safety of mariners and protecting our marine environment. It’s essential that we work together to combat the effects of this serious incident, and the IMarEST team is doing all we can to facilitate this.”
Andy Teasdale, a marine safety advisor to the Institute of Marine Science, Engineering and technology (IMarEST), said:
On the environmental impacts:
“We know that the MT Stena Immaculate was carrying a cargo of jet fuel, which is a non-persistent oil that has minimal environmental impacts when it leaks, because it will either ignite and burn, or evaporate. However, a bigger problem could be that both vessels may be carrying heavy fuel to power the engines (called bunkered fuel). If the vessel sinks or tanks are breached, then the bunkered fuel may leak out and start to produce pollution. However, we still don’t know what fuels were on board and whether the vessels have hull damage sufficient to cause leakage of the bunkered fuel.”
On the investigation process:
“An expert team of specialists from the Marine Accident Investigation Board will have been scrambled for this incident almost immediately and they will report in due course. We can’t speculate on the cause of the accident, but we can see that something was potentially amiss on the MV Solong, as no avoidance or slow down can be seen from the route tracking. To explore this, MAIB’s expert investigators will seek to recover both vessels’ Voyage Data Recorders (VDR) and assemble all radio messages between traffic control and coastguards. All those rescued from the vessels will be interviewed and given precautionary drug and alcohol tests.”
On the next steps for the operation:
“It may be several days before the hulls have cooled sufficiently to allow boarding, assess the damage, and get towlines in place to move the damaged hulls. Whatever happens, the very first priority will be to recover anyone remaining on board. Then salvage crews will secure the bunkers remaining on board and get them to a safe port, which reduce further damage, stop potential pollution spreading and help investigators to establish the root causes of the incident.”
Dr Leslie Mabon, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Systems at The Open University, and expert in climate risk and infrastructure in coastal and marine environments, said:
“There’s a lot that’s still not known for certain about the collision between the Stena Immaculate and the Solong. Establishing facts such as what exactly both ships were carrying, and how much leaked into the sea, is going to be crucial to get a clearer picture of the environmental and economic effects of this disaster.
“However, there’s plenty of evidence globally that can tell us what we need to be looking out for. First and foremost is the effect on the marine and coastal ecosystem. It’s close to nesting season, so puffins, gannets, Kitty wakes among others could be flying around the area and could be exposed to oil or petrol. Similarly, there are dolphins and seals. This is also a rich fishing environment with the Grimsby fishing port nearby, and there could be economic consequences if fishing has to be stopped or scaled back.
“But the things that perhaps have the potential to be the most profound and long-lasting effects are the things that we can’t necessarily measure or count. Historical events such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and even the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident all show us that seeing seascapes and landscapes that matter to us, being polluted or not being able to go and do the things that really matter to us and give us a sense of who we are, like fishing, are the things that can stick with us for years or decades and have a profound impact.
“So as fuller details of what exactly has happened over the coming days and weeks unfold, it’s going to be vital to remember these less tangible but very profound effects that an incident like this can have on the coasts and the people that live and work there.”
Prof Robert Marsh, National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, said:
“The North Sea south of Flamborough Head (north of the accident) is vertically well mixed all year around, due to strong tides and shallow depths, helping to disperse non-buoyant material vertically. Superimposed on twice-daily tidal currents (10’s of cm/s), is an associated residual (background) horizontal flow of a few (1-3) cm/s that is counter-clockwise around the southern North Sea; additional to this, fresh surface outflow from the Humber likely swings southward to complement this flow.
“In summary, any buoyant pollutants from the accident location will likely drift south and may be consequential for the south Lincolnshire coast, the Wash and north Norfolk coastal waters over weeks-months (at a drift speed of 1 cm/s, it takes ~115 days to drift 100 km). The weather may also be consequential – strong winds from the northwest (blowing towards the southeast) will act to direct surface alongshore (offshore) flows toward the coast.
“On timescales beyond days, environmental impacts may be limited through considerable dispersal of pollutants, due to the turbulence associated with strong tidal currents and potential storminess, over the timescale of drift with background flows.”
Dr Kabari Sam, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Systems and expert on Oil Spill Management and Response at the University of Portsmouth, said:
“This is a tragic yet avoidable incident. We must ask – who is rescuing the marine life? Seabirds, amphibians, and countless invertebrates have no immediate response teams rushing to their aid. We urgently need stronger protections for marine ecosystems, as their destruction ultimately threatens human populations too. Without a robust rescue system for marine life in such disasters, the long-term impact on our environment and food chain is unavoidable. Rescuing marine life must be a priority, not an afterthought.”
Dr Jennifer Allan, an expert in global environmental politics at Cardiff University, said:
“It’s a disaster in every sense of the word. The health and environmental effects will be short and long term, local and regional. Sodium cyanide is highly toxic and poses a risk if it enters the waters. The jet fuel will be harmful to local wildlife and beaches and the livelihoods that rely on them. In the long term, it could move up the food chain; for example, from fish into birds and people. A rapid response is required and there are longer-term questions of who is liable for the cleanup operations and, potentially, the lasting health and environmental effects.”
Prof Alastair Hay, Professor (Emeritus) of Environmental Toxicology, University of Leeds, said:
“The two principal products of concern arising from the collision of the two ships in the North Sea are sodium cyanide and jet fuel.
“Cyanide is a potent poison of cells in living creatures. Sodium cyanide, once absorbed, becomes sodium and cyanide ions. The cyanide ion is a potent, but reversible inhibitor, of the mitochondrial enzyme, cytochrome c oxidase, disrupting production of a key energy regulator, adenosine triphosphate (ATP) , resulting in oxygen starvation in cells which then causes cell and tissue death.
“The disruption of ATP production causes cells to switch from aerobic metabolism ( in which oxygen is used) to anaerobic metabolism resulting in a build-up of lactic acid, a lactic acidosis in other words ( similar to what happens with extreme exercise). The lactic acid makes blood more acidic and this is used sometimes to diagnose cyanide poisoning.
“Symptoms of cyanide poisoning depend on the dose. About 200 milligrams of sodium cyanide is a lethal dose for a 70 kg individual.
“Given the disruption of cellular energy, tissues which have a high metabolic demand are vulnerable to cyanide poisoning. This includes the central nervous system and heart. Initial symptoms of poisoning include anxiety, dizziness, headache, nausea, and weakness. As exposure increases lethargy, vomiting, tightness in the chest, incontinence, ataxia, convulsions and rapid breathing and rapid heart rate appear. This may progress to a deep coma, respiratory arrest , heart attack and death.
“Cyanide antidotes are available and well known. The preferred is hydroxocobalamin. Sodium nitrite and sodium thiosulphate also work. Cyanide is also cleared from the body naturally and broken down by the mitochondrial enzyme rhodanese to the less toxic thiocyanate, which is excreted in the urine. Rhodanese is in all mitochondria.
“Sodium cyanide can react vigorously with water to produce the gas, hydrogen cyanide , which is highly inflammable. Drums of sodium cyanide in contact with water, or heat, can explode and release the gas. Hydrogen cyanide is lighter than air and will rise into the atmosphere.
“Jet fuel varies in composition. The more common one for the US AirForce is JP-8. It is a highly refined, mixture of some 200 chemicals, primarily aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons plus anti- corrosion inhibitors and lubricants, amongst others.
“Jet fuel is highly volatile and, so much surface liquid evaporates. In the atmosphere, oxidation processes break the chemicals down. The reported half life ( time for concentration to halve) is said to vary between 0.2 to 1 day. Bacteria in water will help to degrade the fuel.
“As the composition of jet fuel varies and is very dependent on the crude oil from which it is refined, it is not possible to cite exact toxicity specifications. In general, lethal doses in a range of animal species are between 4000 to 8000 milligrams per kilogram bodyweight. So, jet fuel, in crude toxicity terms, is over a thousand (1000) times less toxic than cyanide.
“The priority, I imagine, for the crews trying to contain the damage, will be to extinguish the fires and keep vessels afloat. This will reduce the quantity of chemicals entering the water and the risk for wildlife downstream. Sampling of chemicals in the water, and modelling will enable predictions to be made of where pollution may occur.”
Prof Tiago Alves, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Cardiff University, said:
“The accident is coming to its end and, unfortunately, one crew member seems to have lost their life. I can only add that jet fuel evaporates very quickly – most fuel spilt yesterday must have evaporated by now. Jet fuel does not tend to mix with sea water and also does not adhere to marine sediment. The (still) present danger is that of bunker fuel, but the situation seems to be under control by now.
“Hopefully, the integrity of the two ships will be maintained and they will be towed to the harbour whenever the rescue teams find necessary. The next step in the rescue procedure (and environmental mitigation) is to make sure the ships can be taken to a safe harbour so that any further spill can be controlled. Harder to achieve when the spilt substance is flammable as jet fuel is, but surely this is something being equated at the moment.”
Dr Ciara Baines, Postdoctoral Research Assistant in the School of Biology at the University of Leeds, said:
“The impacts from the oil spill, due to the type of oil being carried, are likely to be less severe than if the tanker had been carrying crude oil. However, it is worth noting that exposure to oil pollution can impact wildlife in the long-term as well as the short-term. Oil pollution can increase cancer rates in wildlife and lead to a decline in the long-term health of marine life exposed to the oil spill. However, it is hard to predict the impacts of this disaster at this point, without knowing the extent of how much and which chemicals have been leaked into the water.”
Prof Ben Garrod, professor of Evolutionary Biology and Science Engagement, UEA, said:
“This is the second example in a year of toxic cargo from ships ending up in the North Sea. It’s likely to impact everything from the smallest plankton to the largest whales and dolphins in our waters. We should be doing all we can to monitor the impact that the release of tonnes of ecologically damaging chemicals has on our fragile marine environment, and more importantly, should be doing all we can to ensure this never happens again.”
Dr Jonathan Paul, from the Department of Earth Sciences at Royal Holloway, University of London, said:
“The most visually obvious liquid in the cargo ships spill is A-1 aviation fuel, some of which caught fire.
“This is basically kerosene, a very ‘light’ hydrocarbon, but with additives like de-icer and lubricants. Containers of sodium cyanide were also involved, which is typically used in several different areas of light industry like electroplating and paint manufacturing.
“However, the plume of sodium cyanide, which we now know is present, is likely to be localised to the spill and removed from the water within 12-15 days (it volatilises to cyanide gas in the atmosphere).
“There is a potential immediate risk to humans and wildlife from this toxic gas, which depends on the volume released (i.e. whether the containers had been pierced or breached).
“Cyanide spills are more hazardous in enclosed water courses like lakes and canals, as there is no dilution and dispersion from tides and currents you would encounter in the North Sea.
“Most wildlife will likely already have vacated the area due to the reverberations from the crash / subsequent explosions.
“The jet fuel is likely to be longer lived and would require immediate action first to extinguish the fire (obviously using water does not help), then to remove it from the surface of the water.
“Kerosene fuels are ‘light’, unlike ‘heavy’ crude oil, so we’re unlikely to be dealing with thick deposits washed up onshore and coating nesting birds.
“The risk is that the fuel might bioaccumulate, i.e. pass up the food chain.
“You can’t just wait for a dilution effect to remove the fuel (like cyanide) – it needs to be actively removed from the water.
“It can be broken down by certain types of bacteria; but for an immediate effect, the authorities are likely to try to mop it up using polyurethane foam or similar, which absorbs the fuel and expands (like kitty litter). It is then out of the aquatic environment and can be skimmed off the surface relatively easily.”
Dr Seyedvahid Vakili, maritime expert at the University of Southampton said:
“It’s difficult to determine the main cause of the collision, but in most cases human factors play a significant role. This is particularly relevant for container vessels where high workloads and fatigue can be major contributing factors. At this stage it needs further comprehensive investigation.
“The time required to contain and clean up sodium cyanide spills depends on factors such as the extent of the spill, weather conditions, and the effectiveness of the response measures. Given the chemical’s high toxicity, specialized hazardous material teams are needed for cleanup operations. While minor spills might be addressed within days, larger incidents can take weeks or longer to fully remediate.
“A similar accident, the Sanchi Oil Tanker Disaster (2018, East China Sea), occurred due to poor visibility and navigational failure while waiting in an anchorage zone. The ship, carrying 136,000 tonnes of condensate oil, burned for over a week, releasing toxic fumes and oil slicks and causing severe ecological damage.”
Prof Daniela Schmidt, Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, said:
“There are several Marine protected areas near Hull such as Flamborough Hea and Holderness. These areas are protected due to their rich habitats supporting marine wildlife including fish, bivalves, crabs and birds. Around Flamborough the nesting season will soon start. While the first focus is on containing the fire, the pollution connected to the accident has the potential to spread widely depending on the currents and waves with the risk of impacting these protected areas. Natural England and North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority will be monitoring the distribution of the oil film closely but at the moment it is to early to determine the impacts.”
Quotes from Monday 10 March:
Prof Tiago Alves, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Cardiff University, said:
“It is clearly too early to know, but adverse weather conditions may have played a part. However, it is reassuring to know that most crew members are well, and can contribute to a future investigation. A fire in a vessel is one of the most, if the not the most, dangerous situation one can find offshore.
“The oil tanker was seemingly under a military mission and might have been found, unexpectedly, anchored in a area that is not common for ships to moor. The tanker is now visible on vesselfinder.com, but it may have also been ‘radar silent’ at the time of the crash, for security reasons. Only a thorough investigation will reach a final conclusion on what happened this morning.
“We don’t yet know if bunker fluid, the fuel used by vessels, has been released from any of the stricken vessels. The fire was likely due to the more flammable jet fuel, but bunker fuel is denser and less likely to evaporate, and mix, in the water column. However, it is worth noting that the stricken tanker is relatively far off-shore from the coast, so there is time to mitigate any bunker fuel spill.
“Environmentally, jet fuel evaporates easily and also combusts easily, as we have witnessed. Any impact depends on the volume of jet fuel spilled and if it was almost completely combusted during the ensuing fire. Details as these will be found in the next few hours.
“The authorities will be doing everything possible to contain the spill, and fight the ensuing fire. They will be monitoring the situation where the accident happened, while helping any onshore teams in the mathematical modelling of potential oil drift, dispersion and evaporation. Similarly to the mathematical modelling techniques that Cardiff University teaches for a few years now, and applied in past accident scenarios equated for the North Sea area.
“The local Port Authority and the responsible environmental agencies will now be monitoring the spill, and eventually contain it (if possible). They will not be investigating the accident at this point. We will know, in the next few days, what will be the composition of the team responsible for investigating the accident. As with an air crash, teams of experts are needed in maritime accidents as today’s.
“The environmental impacts depend on the volume of jet fuel spilt, and if any bunker fuel was/is already spilt. Jet fuel evaporates very quickly, so impacts may be felt only near the accident site. There is an expected impact on local marine life from the jet fluid, but this likely be limited due to the ship’s distance to the coast, and also today’s meteorological and oceanographic conditions, which have been relatively windy, with a dynamic wave energy. These are conditions that favour jet fuel’s dispersion and evaporation by natural means.
“A more detailed mathematical modelling, and quantification of the jet fuel spilled, will allow the cleaning teams to understand how quickly the jet fuel will disperse.
“In UK waters, a known accident of this kind that also spilled light fuel (gasoline in that case) was the MV Braer accident in January 1993. However, a key difference was that the 1993 accident occurred much closer to the coast under adverse weather conditions. The accident had a relatively limited impact on the coast due to the light fuel components released to the water. Local seal colonies were mildly affected and, fortunately and justifiable, the accident led to a lengthy monitoring of ecological impacts on the Shetland Isles. Perhaps one of the best at the moment, as the remote location of the accident allowed the surveying teams to compare their data with a baseline reference, i.e. with data collected prior to the spill in unpolluted waters. Some of the data collected have been paramount to understand what happens in maritime oil spills, especially those spills in which refined fuels are lost to the sea, as the one occurred today.
“An investigation on the collision will likely take months. Teams of experts will likely be assembled to understand all the aspects that led to this accident, and collect all relevant data. At this moment in time, it is crucial to monitor the spill and avoid any losses of heavier, bunker fuel to the sea.”
Dr Tom Webb, Senior Lecturer in Marine Ecology and Conservation at the University of Sheffield, said:
“First and foremost, it is good to hear that all crew members are now safely ashore. Now attention can turn to the environmental impacts of this collision. The wildlife of the Yorkshire coast and Humber Estuary is of immense biological, cultural and economic importance. In addition to the wealth of marine life that is present all year round, this time of the year is crucial for many migratory species.
“Wading birds and waterfowl gather in large numbers as they move between wintering and breeding grounds, while soon Yorkshire’s iconic seabirds will be coming inshore to breed at sites like the world famous Brampton Cliffs.
“Chemical pollution resulting from incidents of this kind can directly impact birds, and it can also have long-lasting effects on the marine food webs that support them. We have to hope that any spills can be quickly contained and pollution minimised.”
Prof Alastair Grant, Emeritus Professor of Ecology, University of East Anglia, said:
“Jet fuel has a high boiling point, so will evaporate only slowly. It contains up to 25% aromatic hydrocarbons, which are relatively toxic and slow to break down in the environment. This makes it approximately 50 times more toxic to aquatic life than diesel oil, which in turn is more toxic than crude oil. So it is more of a concern than an equivalent spill of crude oil would be, and the environmental risks require a more detailed evaluation.”
Dr Alex Lukyanov, researcher on advanced mathematical models of oil spills from the University of Reading, said:
“Forecasting the environmental of oil spills is extremely complex. Oil spills like the one in the North Sea are affected by multiple factors. The size of the spill, weather conditions, sea currents, water waves, wind patterns, and the type of oil involved all play crucial roles in determining environmental outcomes.
“This particular incident is troubling because it appears to involve persistent oil, which breaks up slowly in water. Unlike lighter oils that evaporate quickly, persistent oils like marine diesel can smother habitats and wildlife, affecting their ability to regulate body temperature, potentially resulting in death. Over time, this oil will likely disperse into the water column in the form of emulsions, with the timeline depending on the level of turbulence in the area. The environmental toll could be severe.”
Chris Goldsworthy, Chief Executive of the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology:
“At this time, our thoughts are with those who have been involved in this incident in the North Sea and hope that all are safe. While we await a full investigation, the IMarEST offers its full support to our members and the wider marine industry as we learn more about the events, with a focus on environmental risk mitigation and lack of speculation, regarding root causes.”
“There are many potential factors, including but in no way limited to, to consider:
1) Equipment issues, can be: failure in service, parts supply scheduling, time for maintenance, etc.
2) Time pressure
3) Watchkeeping and routing
4) Distraction policy
“However, there are, at present, zero indications of which multiple root causes, never one, and there should be no speculation nor assignment of ‘blame’ until a full casualty investigation has taken place, to take into account all parameters and human factors, not only vessel-specific.”
Dr Mark Hartl, a Marine Ecotoxicologist from the Centre for Marine Biodiversity & Biotechnology at Heriot-Watt University, said:
“Whilst the images look worrying, from the perspective of the impact to the aquatic environment it’s less of a concern than if this had been crude oil because most of the jet fuel will evaporate very quickly. Also, the fact that it happened out at sea and not closer to land or within an estuary setting is fortuitous and will minimize the environmental impact. However, it will have an acute effect on organisms in the immediate aftermath of the spill and lead to various degrees of stress in exposed animals. There must also be a concern that heavier ship fuel was spilled as a consequence of the collision which could have a more lasting effect on the coastline.”
Prof David Slater, Honorary Professor in the School of Engineering, Cardiff University, said:
“From what I understand, a cargo vessel from Grangemouth to Rotterdam has ploughed into a moored (stationary) US tanker. There is a standard coastguard response in these cases, and there is a major coastguard station close by on the spit out of the Hull estuary.
“There are set routes that ships sail and they are supposed to stick to lanes to avoid offshore platforms etc. One thing that needs to be established is, where was the tanker moored in relation to the appropriate shipping lane? It will be important to know whether the cargo ship was on the right course or whether the US tanker was incorrectly moored.
“It is being reported that jet fuel has been spilt into the sea. If so, that means it was more likely to ignite (as appears to have happened); the upside is it’s less of an environmental problem than black crude oil. In some cases like this it’s better to leave it to burn, but that depends on how much fuel is leaking.”
Dr Abdul Khalique, head of the Maritime Centre at Liverpool John Moores University and who has been using simulators to reconstruct the incident, said:
“It can be assumed that the watchkeepers on MV Solong were not performing their duty to ‘maintain a proper lookout by all available means’ as required by International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.
“Although lookout by sight may have been hampered by the poor prevailing visibility at the time of accident, had the watchkeepers been maintaining a proper lookout by Radar, they would have spotted this imminent collision threat and taken an action to avoid collision. Preliminary reports suggesting that poor visibility may have played a role in the collision too.
“The incident will be fully investigated by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) and other stakeholders to fully understand the reasons for such a mishap.
“According to our reconstruction, MV Stena Immaculate’s heading was approx. around 065⁰ when she was hit on her port side by MV Solon at 9:48:07 between the rear half of MV Stena Immaculate’s length. After collision, MV Stena Immaculate’s heading turned to heading 131⁰ (T) and took all of MV Solong’s speed away. Both ships appear to have remained in contact for around 4 minutes dragged southeast until 9:52:42.”
Prof Mark Sephton, Professor of Organic Geochemistry at Imperial College London, said:
“The fact that it is jet fuel is significant. Jet fuel is dominated by relatively small hydrocarbons, compared to the more diverse and sometimes larger organic structures found in crude oil. Smaller hydrocarbons are very attractive to bacteria who will degrade them more quickly than larger molecules – called ‘biodegradation’.
“The fact that we are moving into warmer temperatures will also speed up biodegradation rates. In the end it all depends on the rate of introduction of fuel and the rate of destruction by bacteria. Let’s hope the latter wins out.”
Declared interests
Abdul Khalique: I was involved in a MarRI-UK funded project between 2020 – 2023 which was related to maintaining a proper lookout on the bridge of a ship. The project was ‘LADDER – Lookout Awareness of Distractions: the creation of a Distraction Evaluation Ratio’ – Details of this project are here ‘https://marri-uk.org/index.php/2023/05/26/lookout-awareness-of-distractions-ladder-led-by-liverpool-john-moores-university/
Daniela Schmidt: No competing interests.
Seyedvahid Vakili: I do not have any conflict of interest about the topic
Alastair Hay: I have no conflicts of interest.
Ross Brown: I have no conflicts of interest to declare.
No others received