KARACHI, July 26: Five years after the Tasman Spirit caused the oil spill that is considered the most serious environmental disaster in the country’s chequered history, no settlement is in sight for the nearly half a dozen related petitions still pending in the Sindh High Court.

Meanwhile, the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (PNSC) faces a 6.57 billion dollar damage suit filed by the owners of the Tasman Spirit in a London-based arbitration court, who argue that the vessel was grounded since the approach channel was not as deep as had been claimed, and that the PNSC violated the safe berth warranty.

By contrast a petition for damages filed by the shuttle tanker Sea Angel, which took part in cargo off-loading efforts after the incident, has been settled in the High Court of the Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court), London.

Owned by the Edwinton Commercial Corporation (Edwinton), the Sea Angel was chartered by Tsavliris Russ (worldwide salvage and towage) limited since the latter needed assistance in salvage operations concerning the Tasman Spirit. Laden with 67,537 tonnes of light crude oil, the Tasman Spirit was grounded near the approach to the Karachi Port on July 27, 2003. A few days later, on August 13, the ship broke into two and the resulting oil spill constituted a major environmental disaster.

Other vessels that took part in the salvage operation included Endeavour II and Fair Jolly, as well as several other small ships.

Subsequently, the Karachi Port Trust (KPT) detained the Sea Angel by not issuing it the ‘No Demand Certificate’ which proves that no outstanding dues remain to be cleared and is a prerequisite for port clearance. As a result, the vessel remained detained at Karachi port for 108 days although the anticipated period of charter had been three days.

“We went first to the Sindh High Court to plead the case of the Sea Angel,” said advocate Aga Faquir Mohammed, who also represented the case in the London court. “The SHC directed the Karachi Port Trust to release the vessel since the both the claimants – the owners of the ship and Tsavliri Russ ltd – were foreigners and decided to go to court in London.”

When the case was settled subsequently, the owners of Sea Angel were paid a compensation of one million dollars by Tsavliris Russ Ltd.

A bungled affair

The break-up of the Tasman Spirit released an estimated 30,000 tonnes of crude oil into the sea and caused great harm to the area’s ecological and environmental systems, including the mangrove forests.

In view of the colossal losses, the KPT, the PNSC and the Defence Housing Authority laid a seven billion dollar claim against Tasman Spirit’s insurer, the New York-based American Club. This company part of a network of Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Clubs that insure the majority of sea-faring tankers.

The Tasman Spirit’s crew members, meanwhile, were released on bail and were initially barred from leaving Pakistan, although they left the country despite the fact that their passports remained deposited with the court in Pakistan.

On behalf of the American Club, Nicholas Brown, an employee of the UK-based Maritime International Limited, visited Pakistan in December 2003. He maintained that the American Club was ready to support the establishment of a legal framework to ensure that compensation could be paid as soon as possible, particularly to those who needed it the most and those whose livelihoods had most significantly been affected by the spill, such as fishermen and others who earn their livelihoods on Clifton Beach.

“The affair was badly-handled by unprofessional and non-technical persons,” said an expert on the condition of anonymity. “To make matters worse, Pakistani ministers jumped into the ring and represented the country before the P&I Club in London whereas this role should have been fulfilled by technical experts or federal secretaries.”

Affairs were bungled in this manner despite the fact that international law dictates that irrespective of the party at fault, compensation must be paid to the aggrieved party, commented advocate Aga Zafar. When the Tasman Spirit disaster took place, Pakistan was not a member of the international Civil Liability Convention. And while the country signed this convention in 2005, it has yet to become a member of the International Oil Pollution Fund.

Port safety compromised

The many petitions pending in the SHC in terms of the Tasman Spirit include that of the KPT owners versus the owners of the Tasman Spirit, the Oil Insurances Company versus the owners of the Tasman Spirit, the Defence Housing Authority versus the Tasman Spirit and many others. Meanwhile, the PNSC faces a 6.57 billion dollar damage suit filed by the owners of the Tasman Spirit in a London-based arbitration court. Assimina Maritime Limited, the owner of the Tasman Spirit, has moved the Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court) in London against the PNSC for breaching the safe berth warranty. The complainants argue that the PNSC, which chartered the Tasman Spirit for a voyage from Kharg to Karachi, was responsible for the provision of a safe berth.

The claim is based on the controversial issue of the depth of the channel in which the ship was sailing. Assimina Maritime Ltd. claimed that at the time of their vessel’s arrival, the chart showed that the channel had been dredged to 12.2 metres but this was not in fact the case. The petition claims that the vessel was grounded since the approach channel was not as deep as had been claimed.

During the process of arbitration, Assimina and the P&I Club have secured unprecedented access to confidential reports prepared for the KPT by UK’s hydrographic consultancy, H.R. Wallingford. These are expected to confirm that the KPT had for many years been aware of serious safety deficiencies at the port, but failed to do anything about them and concentrated instead on income-generating projects.

There are, however, unconfirmed reports about some sort of settlement between the two parties over this issue, since the petition could open up a Pandora’s box for the port authorities, observed a senior advocate.

When contacted by Dawn on Saturday, the manager of KPT’s pollution control department, Mr Usmani, declined to comment on the issue. “I have contacted the senior public relations officer and will only give a statement following his directives,” he said. When the senior public relations officer was approached, he professed himself unable to direct Mr Usmani to give a statement, for this required the permission of the chairperson who is currently out of town. While he provided the cell-phone number of another official, this was found to be turned off.