Vancouver, English Bay Ship Oil Spill Map

Vancouver, English Bay Oil Spill Map

New vessel blamed for spill Transport Canada has confirmed the estimated 2,700 litres of oil was bunker fuel from the vessel M/V Marathassa, as had been suspected. People sit on the shore at Vancouver's Sunset Beach, in the West End, after bunker fuel leaked from the cargo ship Marathassa, upper right, beginning April 8, 2015. The ship is seen here anchored in Burrard Inlet April 9. About two metric tonnes of toxic fuel leaked into English Bay — double initial estimates — creating a slick 15-20 centimetres deep in places, coast guard officials said. 1 of 11 The official cause of the leak has not been released, but officials believe it was due to an unintentional malfunction on board the vessel, which was on its maiden voyage after being launched from a Japanese shipyard in February.  Read more 

It's Almost Impossible To Find Data On Oil And Gas Spills In Most States

WASHINGTON -- A new report from the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council has analyzed the data on spills and other violations at oil and gas wells across the country. But perhaps the most interesting aspect of the report is how little data the group was able to turn up.

Based on NRDC's evaluation of dozens of state databases, only three states -- West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Colorado -- have easily accessible, publicly available data on spills and other violations. That's three states out of 36 that have active oil and gas development.

"We looked at 36 states, and there are only three states where it would be easy for a member of the public to sit down at their computer and get some information about a company's compliance record," said report co-author Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst at NRDC.

There are other states where citizens can file requests for data, but these three are the only ones where the information proved relatively easy to access, the group said.

Even among these three states, it turned out there was some inconsistency in the types of data available. Colorado's database isn't searchable, nor does it include descriptions of any violations. Pennsylvania and West Virginia both organized their violation data in ways that NRDC called "overly vague." West Virginia's database for spills, for example, lists the names of affected streams, but doesn't describe the extent of any potential damage. Colorado, meanwhile, lists how far each incident occurred from drinking-water sources and notes whether groundwater or surface water was affected, but it doesn't name any of the bodies of water in question. The laws about what constitutes a violation also differ for each state.  Read more