Adequacy and Effectiveness of Oil Sighting and Alert Mechanisms, and Maritime Incident Response and Mitigation Strategies

Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Transport in view of the three recent oil spills into Singapore waters (a) what is the impact on our seawater quality and marine ecosystem; and (b) what are the mitigation measures that will be imposed by MPA to prevent and treat further occurrences of an oil spill.

My response today will also cover related questions that have been filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Hany Soh, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for subsequent Sittings, and if the hon Members are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this session.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the underlying causes of the incidents. Allow me to, first, emphasise that the nature and scale of each incident were different and the cause of each incident was unrelated to the others. The 14 June incident, as the Minister for Transport explained in great detail in his Ministerial Statement on 2 July 2024, was due to an allision between a dredger and a bunker tanker at Pasir Panjang Terminal. This led to a sudden discharge of an estimated 400 tonnes of oil into the sea.

The 20 October incident was the result of a leak in Shell's land-based pipeline at Pulau Bukom. This led to an estimated 30 to 40 tonnes of slop, which is a mixture of oil and water, leaking into the sea.

The 28 October incident occurred due to an overflow of bunker fuel in the receiving vessel during a bunkering operation off Changi. This led to an estimated five tonnes of oil overflowing into the sea, which is a much smaller amount compared to the 14 June incident.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Hany Soh asked how our response times to the October incidents compare with our response to the incident in June, and whether the response to the 28 October incident was more efficient than the response to past incidents. Given the very different natures, scales and locations of the three incidents, the time and resources required to monitor, clean up and mitigate the spread of oil from these three incidents were different. It is, therefore, not as useful to compare the response times for these incidents.

Suffice it to say that in each of the three incidents, our Government agencies responded in a coordinated, swift and effective manner. Once they became aware of the incident, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) coordinated with other agencies, such as the National Environment Agency (NEA), National Parks Board (NParks), Public Utilities Board (PUB), Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC), Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and JTC to activate resources and capabilities to respond.

For the oil leak and overflow incidents on 20 and 28 October respectively, agencies activated an emergency operations team which implemented precautionary measures to monitor and prevent the further spread of oil. These measures included the activation of craft to spray dispersants, the deployment of current buster systems, the installation of oil absorbent booms to protect our beaches and biodiversity sensitive areas, and the use of drones and satellite capabilities to assist with oil sightings.

For the oil leak on 20 October, Shell activated resources to clean up the leaked slop in the channel between Pulau Bukom and Pulau Bukom Kechil. Clean-up operations were completed on 29 October.

Thanks to the close collaboration and efforts amongst agencies and industry players, we were able to ensure smooth clean-up operations and prevent the further spread of oil in our waters. There have also been no other oil sightings at sea and ashore arising from these incidents. Agencies have since stood down seaward oil response assets and the booms that were earlier deployed.

To Mr Dennis Tan's question about the timeline for the discovery of the oil leak on 20 October, the leak in Shell's pipeline reportedly occurred at about 5.30 am that day. At around 1.00 pm, Shell alerted MPA, which, in turn, alerted NEA shortly after. NEA and MPA are conducting investigations into the incident, including the time taken before Shell notified the agencies. According to the rules, Shell is supposed to inform MPA and NEA as soon as possible when they detected the leak. If there are lapses by Shell, the agencies will take the necessary enforcement actions against the company.

Miss Cheryl Chan and Ms Joan Pereira asked about our alert and monitoring systems for such incidents. Once there is a discharge of oil into our waters or land, the responsible parties are required under our legislation to immediately notify MPA and NEA respectively. In our waters, MPA has a surveillance system in place to identify and monitor oil sightings, including regular patrols by MPA patrol craft and close collaboration with other Government agencies, industry partners and ships at sea. Aerial drone flights and satellite imagery may also be deployed when there are reports of oil spills.

Concurrently, MPA also informs agencies to be on standby to deploy resources to prevent further pollution or facilitate clean-up operations for seaward spills. Under the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation) Regulations, oil handling facilities or offshore installations in Singapore are required to have containment booms, oil skimmers and dispersants. If necessary, MPA may ask that these resources be deployed to oil spill incidents to supplement resources from MPA and our contractors.

So, there is a system in place comprising a network of stakeholders and capabilities to detect, monitor and respond to oil spills or leaks into our waters. It is also important that our maritime partners and companies with assets close to shore alert the relevant agencies as quickly as possible once there is an incident so that resources can be mounted to mitigate the impact of the incident.

Mr Dennis Tan and Ms Poh Li San asked about the environmental impact of these three incidents on our marine ecosystem, coastal areas and seawater quality. Thus far, NParks has not observed any immediate impact on our marine and coastal ecosystems and wildlife, and SFA has not observed any immediate impact on fisheries. No oil from the October incidents has landed on any of our recreational beaches. PUB is also monitoring the seawater intakes at its desalination plants and readings remain normal.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked for updates on our investigations into the recent incidents. Mr Yip, Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about the responsibility for costs and losses incurred.

Following every incident, agencies carry out investigations as to whether any applicable laws have been breached and legal action may be needed to be taken where appropriate. Where agencies and private parties have incurred costs in the incident response or losses from the incident, they may also have civil recourse to recover these. Processes would differ depending on the nature and circumstances of each incident. But allow me to provide some examples from the incident that occurred on 14 June.

Agencies are consolidating their claims for compensation under the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. MPA has also completed its investigations and assessed that key crew members of Vox Maxima, the dredger that allided with the bunker tanker Marine Honour, failed to discharge their duties properly on the day of the incident. Four crew members have just been charged in the State Courts for contraventions under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Court proceedings are ongoing.

As investigations by agencies into the incidents on 20 and 28 October are ongoing, we are unable to share more details at this juncture.

Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Dennis Tan asked about the learning points from past oil spill incidents. We conduct regular oil and chemical spill exercises to test our contingency plans with industry partners and agencies and improve our plans to take into account learning points from these exercises and past incidents. This has helped us to strengthen communication and coordination among agencies and with the public. New technologies, such as drones and satellite imagery, have also been incorporated as part of MPA's response to oil spills in our waters.

Separately, the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB) is also conducting safety investigations into the incident on 14 June to identify safety lessons with the aim of preventing future transport accidents and incidents. The TSIB investigations are not meant to apportion blame or liability. Upon completion of its investigations, TSIB will publish its investigation report.

Ms Poh Li San, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about measures to prevent the occurrence of oil spills or overflow from bunkering operations into our waters. As a major hub port, it is not possible to completely eliminate the risk of oil spills or leaks and we must expect that there will be such incidents from time to time.

A key pillar of our strategy is to ensure our readiness to respond through our regular exercises and a robust contingency plan, which I mentioned earlier. We have also taken steps to enhance the safety of vessels, bunkering operations and industrial facilities to minimise the risk of accidents and oil spills or leaks in Singapore. For example, we have: (a) safety guidelines and random spot checks to ensure that bunkering players follow proper procedure and reduce the risk of oil spills during bunkering operations; (b) ensured mandatory safety training and shipboard drills for vessel crew on incident response as well as inspections for vessels in our port to comply with international conventions; and (c) inspections at industrial facilities to ensure compliance with water pollution control requirements.

We take every oil spill incident seriously and expect companies and individuals involved to play their part and adhere to requirements that are imposed to keep our shores and waters safe from oil spills and leaks. We will hold parties accountable for any lapses or wrongdoings which may surface during the investigations.

Speaker, I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I want to ask the Minister of State, given the fact that we do this environmental impact study, will there be a study that will be conducted for every single oil spill and, if so, how long would the monitoring period be?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his answers. I have two supplementary questions. First, what regular checks are required to be carried out by owners of oil pipelines to ensure the integrity of oil pipelines and how does MPA ensure that these inspections and checks are carried out so that repairs and maintenance can be carried out in advance of oil breakages and leakages?

My second supplementary question is, following MPA's experience of the various oil spills this year, are there any plans to continue to improve the response time of MPA's oil response contractor to all future incidents of oil spills in our port waters?

I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his two supplementary questions. In relation to the first question, I believe the hon Member may be referring to the Shell incident. So, the hon Member would know those pipelines that the Member was referring to are on land; and MPA's responsibility, of course, are in relation to maritime waters. So, in relation to the specific checks, that would be something that NEA would specifically be looking into or, rather, it is part of NEA's area and perhaps this is something that can be taken up with NEA.

But what I could say is that, as far as MPA is concerned, in relation to protecting oil spills into maritime waters, whenever there are such incidents that occur, it would work with these industry players to ensure that the risks are minimised. If it is something that is land-based, they will work with the relevant Government agencies to have a system put in place that protects from land to sea as well.

In relation to the second supplementary question, which Mr Dennis Tan has referred to, it is something about continuing — May I just clarify, he referred to oil response, would that be correct?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, just to clarify my question: are there any plans to continue to improve the response time of MPA's oil spill response contractor to future incidents of oil spills in our port waters?

I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his clarification. We have worked with industry players to develop a robust contingency plan, which we rehearse and refine regularly, including during our inter-agency exercises for oil spills every two years. Our standard operating procedure was tested in these incidents and was effective.

It is important for us to recognise that every oil spill incident is different as there are a variety of external factors, such as tidal and current conditions, the location of the incident and the time of the incident. Some tailoring of our response to each incident will be needed.

In relation to proposals to prepare more equipment in Singapore, locating equipment nearer to the port or requiring bunker vessels to carry out oil spill response equipment, these proposals are carefully being assessed to determine the impact on navigational safety, efficiency and competitiveness of our port.

Singapore, as the hon Member Mr Tan knows, is an island with anchorages along the entire southern coastline. As specialised equipment is required for oil spill response, it may not be practicable to have multiple sets of equipment located close to any potential incident site along the entire coastline. Oil spills may originate from many types of vessels too. So, again, it may not be practical or feasible to require all vessels to carry their own booms as it may be costly. In addition, these vessels would likely be equipped with lightweight booms, which might not be suitable to deal with all types of oil spill incidents.

Currently, the MPA Guardian is equipped with 260 metres of lightweight booms to aid in dealing quickly with small-scale and localised oil spills, such as oil spills during bunkering operations.