ALL THE actors are, essentially, connected to the State, and yet there seems to be an aura of chaos when it comes to the facts relating to the emergence of reports on Sunday of an oil spill in the Gulf of Paria.
The confusion speaks to the need for a more robust regulatory environment.
But it also tells us something is fundamentally amiss with the State's approach to environmental issues across its multiple agencies and quasi-private entities.
According to the Paria Fuel Trading Company Ltd - which is, for the moment, owned by the State - its marine security discovered 'areas of oil sheen and oil streaks' near the Pointe-a-Pierre harbour between Saturday night and early Sunday morning. (Paria Fuel Trading is one of the entities that replaced Petrotrin, handling crude exports, product imports, terminal operations and bunkering.)
'A comprehensive investigation will be undertaken to determine the root cause of the spill,' the company added. At the same time, it said it had already notified regulatory authorities.
Meanwhile, the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) - the statutory body in charge of compliance and the control of pollution - said it had received a report from Paria informing it of streaks of oil in the Guaracara River resulting from a line that leaked crude.
'The EMA has been advised that mostly a sheen was observed in the Gulf of Paria and vessels were used to mechanically break up the sheen,' the EMA said on Sunday. It appeared to defer to the findings of the company, adding: 'Paria Fuel Trading is still establishing the volume of oil spilled.'
On Monday, the Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA) - the statutory body in charge of safeguarding marine affairs - announced it had initiated an investigation of its own.
The investigation apparently includes officials from the IMA, the Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries and the EMA. (The IMA falls under yet another ministry, the Ministry of Planning.)
So who exactly is in charge here?
On Monday, Paria declared a leak in a 12-inch crude pipeline had been repaired on Sunday. It said 'assurance checks' found no additional leaks, the spill was contained and clean-up ongoing.
None of this has reassured people like Gary Aboud, secretary of the environmental NGO Fishermen and Friends of the Sea (FFOS). Mr Aboud has suggested what's at stake is something much bigger.
'It's not a sheen, it's large volumes of crude oil,' Mr Aboud said on Tuesday. 'We suspect it's thousands of barrels.'
Who is correct? There is no common ground between the two descriptions of the incident made public to date.
But we do not need any investigation to know this: all the state entities should be on the same team.
The State and all of its various arms should be together enforcing environmental standards through robust investigatory action and strong governance at state companies. This confusion proves otherwise.
The post Slick chaos appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.
