Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

The Shetland Oil Disaster: Salmon farmers fearful of chemical dispersants: An industry vital to the wealth of the Shetlands may be threatened by dispersants used in the operation against the slick. Steve Connor reports

Steve Connor
Tuesday 05 January 1993 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

SALMON farming, the second biggest industry in the Shetlands after oil, is under threat from the spill.

Although the ship's cargo is largely harmless to fish because it floats on the surface, the chemical dispersants to be employed against the oil slick produce an oily emulsion that can kill fish as it sinks to the sea bed.

A senior government scientist said that although the chemicals used to disperse oil were less toxic than they were in the 1960s, they were still dangerous to fish. 'Fish as a whole don't suffer from oil pollution, except those close to the shoreline. The problem is excessive use of chemical dispersants. The combination of dispersant and oil is more toxic than oil alone,' he said.

Jim Moncrieff, chief executive of the Shetlands Salmon Farmers Association, said: 'If dispersants are used on oil, that would be far worse to salmon farming than the oil itself.'

The Shetlands account for more than a quarter of the UK's production of farmed salmon, and last year the isles produced 10,000 tons of salmon valued at more than pounds 35m, Mr Moncrieff said. 'And those prices were depressed,' he added.

The nearest salmon farm is less than 13 miles (21km) from the leaking tanker, and fish farmers are 'greatly concerned' about the impact a clean-up of a large spill would have on their businesses.

'It's potentially quite devastating, although it all depends on where the oil goes,' Mr Moncrieff said. Because the tanker ran aground at the southernmost tip of the Shetlands, fish farmers fear that oil could end up polluting both east and west coasts at tides and prevailing winds could carry any slick further afield.

Putting booms around the cages where salmon are kept could keep drifting oil out, but if it has been dispersed with chemicals, the resulting globules will sink and can be washed into the fish farms.

Commercial fishing could also be affected by the slick, as oily emulsions produced after a clean-up can wipe out very young fish feeding close to the shore. Fish larvae - which hatch in the early summer - are particularly prone to the effects of oil dispersants. Herring, sand eels, cod, and haddock are all at risk. The spill could add to the considerable problems already faced by fishermen working in areas of depleted stocks.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in