Oral Reply by Minister of State for Transport, Mr Murali Pillai to Parliamentary Questions on Recent Oil Spills

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Transport with the recent increase in oil spill or leak incidents 

a.     whether a fundamental review is required for oil sighting and alert mechanisms given the local oil and gas industry and Singapore's status as a global bunkering hub; and 

b.     how should the cost and workload incurred by multi-agencies involved to manage each incident be dealt with.

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.

Reply by Minister of State for Transport Murali Pillai:

1.     Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Parliamentary Questions 7 and 8 for oral answer and Question 35 for written answer in today’s Order Paper together? These questions pertain to the recent oil spill and leak incidents that occurred on 14th June, 20th October and 28th October this year. 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 Members are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this session.

Underlying Causes

2.     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 was different, and the cause of each incident was unrelated to the others.

a.     The 14th June incident, as the Minister for Transport explained in great detail in his Ministerial Statement on 2nd 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.

b.     The 20th October incident was the result of a leak in Shell’s land-based pipeline at Bukom – this led to an estimated 30 to 40 tonnes of slop, which is a mixture of oil and water, leaking into the sea. It was not a maritime incident.

c.     The 28th 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 5 tonnes of oil overflowing into the sea, which was a much smaller amount compared to the 14th June incident.

3.     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 28th 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 useful to compare the response times for these incidents.

Agencies’ Response 

4.     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 Jurong Town Corporation (JTC), to activate resources and capabilities to respond. 

a.     For the oil leak and overflow incidents on 20th and 28th 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 bio-diversity sensitive areas, and the use of drones and satellite capabilities to assist with oil sightings.

b.     For the oil leak on 20th 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 29th October. 

c.     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.

5.     To Mr Dennis Tan’s question about the timeline for the discovery of the oil leak on 20th October, the leak in Shell’s pipeline reportedly occurred at about 5.30am that day. At around 1pm, Shell alerted MPA, who 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.

Alert and Surveillance Systems

6.     Ms Cheryl Chan and Ms Joan Pereira asked about our alert and monitoring systems for such incidents. 

a.     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.

b.     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.

c.     Concurrently, MPA also informs agencies to be on standby to deploy resources to prevent further pollution or facilitate clean-up operations for seaward spills. 

d.     Under the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation) 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.

7.     So there’s 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.

Environmental Impact 

8.     Mr Dennis Tan and Ms Poh Li San asked about the environmental impact of the recent 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. 

Investigations and Liability for Costs

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

10.    Following every incident, agencies carry out investigations as to whether any applicable laws have been breached, and legal action may need 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 14th June. 

a.     Agencies are consolidating their claims for compensation under the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund.

b.     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. 

c.     As investigations by agencies into the incidents on 20th and 28th October are ongoing, we are not able to share more details at this juncture. 

Learning Points from Past Incidents

11.    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 between 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.

12.    Separately, the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB) is also conducting safety investigations into the incident on 14th 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 investigation, TSIB will publish its investigation report. 

Prevention of Future Spills

13.    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 in 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. 

14.    A key pillar of our strategy is to ensure our readiness to respond through our regular exercises and a robust contingency plan, which I have 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. 

15.    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 wrongdoing which may surface during the investigations.