Freeport's Industrial Zone and the Water Lens
Grand Bahama's industrial zone employs about 2,000 people in a container port, a cement plant and a fuel terminal. The island is limestone with a freshwater lens, and the main towns draw water from wells. The zone lies near the coast and handles chemicals and fuels. A proposal would expand the fuel terminal by 30%, adding 60 jobs and more tanker traffic. Environmental groups point to past spills and to the lens, which is thin because the island is narrow. The port is a major employer and the island's economy depends on shipping and tourism. The government must weigh jobs, tax revenue and the risk of pollution. The expansion would also increase heavy truck traffic through a residential area.
1. Explain why a fuel spill in this zone would be especially serious for the island's water.
Read the worked answer
Grand Bahama is narrow and made of porous limestone, so the freshwater lens is thin and floats on salt water. Pollutants that enter the ground move quickly through cracks and are not filtered by soil. A spill near the coast could reach the lens and spread sideways, and because the lens is thin, even a small volume of fuel can affect a large share of the usable water. Cleanup in limestone is difficult because the fuel travels along unpredictable channels. The island also has few alternative sources; if wells are contaminated, water must be shipped or desalinated at high cost. The risk is worse because the terminal handles fuel near the coast, where a spill can also reach the sea and the beaches that support tourism. The combination of a thin lens, rapid groundwater movement and a tourism economy makes the same spill far more damaging here than in a wide, clay-rich country.
2. Weigh the 60 new jobs and extra tax revenue against the pollution risk, and recommend a decision.
Read the worked answer
Sixty jobs is small next to the 2,000 already employed, so the employment gain is modest; the tax revenue may be more significant for the island. The risk is a low-probability, high-cost event: a major spill could contaminate wells and beaches, harming the larger tourism and fishing economy and costing far more than the tax gained. The truck traffic adds a steady cost in noise, accidents and road damage for residents who gain nothing. A judgement should not simply refuse, because the existing terminal already carries risk and refusing expansion does not remove it. A better recommendation is to approve only with conditions: double-hulled tankers, secondary containment, independent monitoring of the lens, a bond large enough to pay for cleanup, a rerouted truck route, and a published spill-response plan tested each year. If those conditions cannot be enforced, refuse.
3. Describe how you would collect evidence to test whether the terminal has already affected the lens.
Read the worked answer
Select a line of wells from the terminal toward the residential area and inland, and sample each well for fuel indicators, nitrates and salinity once a month for six months, recording the grid reference, depth and distance from the terminal. Include a control well far from the zone. Test with field kits and send duplicate samples to a laboratory for accuracy. Record rainfall and tide at each visit, because salt water can enter the lens naturally and confuse the results. Plot the readings on a map with arrows showing groundwater flow. Limitations: the class cannot drill new wells, so it depends on existing access; one school year is too short to show a trend; and a single set of readings cannot prove the source. The design is still useful because the control well and repeated sampling separate the terminal's effect from natural variation.