March 2006 News Stories
US Fed News
March 24, 2006
REP. DINGELL WRITES TO BP
EXPLORATION (ALASKA) PRESIDENT REGARDING NORTH SLOPE OIL SPILL, OIL SUPPLY
PIPELINE INSPECTION METHODS
24 March 2006
US Fed News
WASHINGTON, March 24 -- Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., ranking Democrat on the
House Energy & Commerce Committee, issued the text of the following letter:
Mr. Steve Marshall President BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. 900 East Benson Blvd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Dear Mr. Marshall:
Thank you for meeting with our staffs last week to discuss the North Slope oil
spill currently being addressed by cleanup crews. It is our understanding that
at least 200,000 gallons of crude have leaked so far from a major supply line,
which ultimately delivers product to the Trans Alaskan Pipeline. This is now,
unfortunately, the largest spill ever to occur on the North Slope, and one of
the largest in Alaskan history. We understand that the failed line is currently
being operated by BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (BP).
We are informed that, although company officials are still examining the root
causes of the spill, the existing leak detection system failed to discover the
leak. We also understand that the leading explanation appears to be corrosion
and that this occurred in an area where the line dips underground at what is
commonly called a "caribou crossing." While it is still unclear what caused the
corrosion, we do understand that BP believes its onset was quite rapid and may
have developed in as little as six months. Further, we are informed - through
our staff's discussion with you and your staff - that this particular line had
been tested using ultrasonic methods within the past six months, and that BP
believes that the last period of testing found that the thickness of the areas
of the pipe's walls that were tested were found to be within tolerance.
While we applaud such testing, we still remain unclear where such tests were
taken and whether such tests were made on the section that ultimately failed.
Moreover, we are unclear whether any of the spot testing associated with
ultrasonic testing can or should be seen as representative of the entire line's
condition. This is particularly important as we understand that this line had
not been examined with a "smart pig" since 1998 - a process in which corrosion
or other anomalies can be more thoroughly detected. In fact, we are still trying
to understand the frequency at which this line was pigged (either via
"maintenance pig" or "smart pig") and we look forward to receiving information
that details both the frequency and method(s) used to examine this line. It is
our understanding that such information will be made available to us soon.
We recently received correspondence that raised some concerns about BP
inspection methods, particularly those relating to corrosion matters. We
therefore have several questions that we would ask you to respond to in order
for us to better understand what specifically failed and what lessons have been
learned to avoid future spills. As some of our questions may pertain to the
upcoming reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, we ask
that you respond to the attached questions by no later than Monday, April 3,
2006.
We appreciate your cooperation and assistance in these matters of energy
transport, security, and safety. If you need further information regarding this
request, please contact us or our staff, Mr. Christopher Knauer with the
Committee on Energy and Commerce Democratic staff at (202) 226-3400, or Mr. Jeff
Petrich with the Committee on Resources Democratic staff at (202) 225-6065.
Sincerely,
JOHN D. DINGELL RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE GEORGE MILLER
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
Attachment
cc: The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman Committee on Energy and CommerceMr.
Brigham McCown, Acting Administrator Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration U.S. Department of Transportation
Questions for Steve Marshall, President BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.
1. Please provide a detailed schedule of all corrosion testing for the
entire Oil Transit Line (OTL). For this effort, please delineate the type of
testing used (e.g. visual, smart pigging, ultrasonic spot, etc.). Please also
indicate where specifically any testing occurred.
2. Please indicate whether BP had any specific warning(s) that the OTL faced
significant corrosion issues from within the company or through outside
engineers or consultants. If so, did any reports or consultations predict
problems in the low-lying caribou crossings? If so, please describe those
reports or consultations.
3. If the OTL had not been smart pigged since 1998 (as reports claim), please
indicate why it was not deemed prudent by BP to apply technology with greater
frequency to such a strategic line.
4. Please specify where ultrasonic tests were taken on the failed line prior to
the leak, and where those tests were taken relative to the failed section. In
particular, was the failed section tested prior to the leak? If not, why not?
Also, does BP believe that a test measuring tolerances in one section of the OTL
to be representative of tolerances for the entire line? Please explain.
5. It has been reported to us that the line in question, while having a low
water cut, also has a very low flow rate and that this essentially makes the OTL
a giant "oil-water separator." We are advised that results in the settlement of
solids in the underlying layer of stagnant water. Is this the case? If so, what
are or were the implications of this?
6. Were significant amounts of solids known to be present in the bottom of the
line prior to the leak, particularly at the caribou crossings where the pipeline
dips? Have significant amounts of sludge been found at the caribou crossings
since examining the pipeline post leak? If solids were known, what concern(s)
would this pose to the line? Also, if solids were deemed a concern, would a
maintenance pig have been able to remove them and by removing them, would this
in any way have made the line less likely to fail?
7. Please explain why the leak detection system on the OTL line failed to detect
the leak and what changes will be made to leak detection systems on this and all
of the BP North Slope lines.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anchorage Daily News
March 24, 2006
Governor to visit Prudhoe spill
site
FUTURE RISKS: Corrosion in
the pipeline will be focus of discussions.
By MATT VOLZ
The Associated Press
Published: March 24, 2006
Last Modified: March 24, 2006 at 03:08 AM
JUNEAU -- Gov. Frank Murkowski will travel to the North Slope today to meet with
state, federal and oil industry officials for an overview on this month's spill
in Prudhoe Bay.
For five days or more, a transit line operated by BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.
located upstream of the 800-mile-long main pipeline leaked up to 267,000 gallons
of crude from a small hole onto the tundra.
BP officials say the leak was due to corrosion in the transit line.
Murkowski said Thursday he will speak with federal, state and oil industry
officials about corrosion risks throughout the aging trans-Alaska pipeline,
particularly as heavy oil production is increasing.
"We're going to delve into the issue of what's the potential risk for any big
future, I guess, exposure to corrosion and other potential situations associated
with aging," Murkowski said.
The trans-Alaska pipeline will be 30 years old next year.
Viscous, or heavy oil, carries more sediments and water than does traditional
North Slope crude, which may have been the cause of corrosion in the transit
line, BP spokesman Daren Beaudo said.
One way BP plans to counter the corrosive effects is to install a different
emulsion breaker to better separate the water from the oil, but Beaudo
acknowledges there are challenges with the new technology in producing viscous
oil.
Beaudo also said not enough corrosion inhibitor was carrying over with the heavy
oil and the company will start injecting that inhibitor at a different point.
Xxxxxxxxxx
San Diego Union
March 22, 2006
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060321-1902-wst-prudhoespill.html
BP mulls options following federal spill response order
By Rachel D'oro
ASSOCIATED PRESS
7:02 p.m. March 21, 2006
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. is reviewing a federal order
that calls for sweeping changes in response to the record crude oil spill on
Alaska's North Slope, a company spokesman said Tuesday.
Among problems noted in the corrective order from the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration was the "ineffectiveness of the leak detection
system to identify the leak" in the Prudhoe Bay transit line.
The five-page document also noted that a post-spill inspection of the
30-year-old pipeline found several flaws, including an area of the 0.375-inch
wall worn ultra thin by internal corrosion.
Officials believe crude was leaking for at least five days from a small
corrosion hole in the line before the spill was discovered March 2 by a worker
who smelled the oil.
Crews are cleaning up the two-acre spill, which is estimated at up to 267,000
gallons. Slowed by bitter cold weather, they have recovered 63,546 gallons - or
1,513 barrels - of crude.
The pipeline safety agency, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, said
BP must review the leak detection system on the affected line as well as two
other crude transit pipelines in Prudhoe, 250 miles north of the Arctic Circle.
The company must make necessary modifications within three months.
BP officials are studying their options on how to proceed, according to company
spokesman Daren Beaudo.
"We haven't decided on what action, if any, to take," he said.
The company has until the end of the week to request a hearing on the matter,
said James Wiggins, a spokesman for the federal agency.
"It's part of the process available to them," he said. "We've got good reasons
for requiring certain things. The pipeline failed."
The order also calls for repairs of six anomalies found in the line after the
spill was discovered. The worst flaw was a spot where the wall thickness had
worn down to 0.04 of an inch.
Among other measures, BP must run maintenance pigs - electronic equipment put
through a pipe to check wall conditions - on the three lines. Since the spill,
critics have slammed BP for last running a pig through the ruptured line in
1998.
Officials with the Alaska Department of Conservation said the spill will lead to
fines against BP and possibly stricter regulations for such transit lines, which
have been subject to little government scrutiny in the past.
The federal agency did not address what BP suspects as a significant factor in
the rapid corrosion first found last fall inside the thick arctic-grade
carbon-steel pipe, which leads eventually to the trans-Alaska oil pipeline.
Beaudo said the corrosion may be related to the fact the pipeline is
increasingly carrying viscous oil, a hard-to-pump heavy crude being tapped as
the oil field is drawn down. Separation chemicals used on viscous oil may
interfere with corrosion-inhibiting additives that are put in the pipeline,
Beaudo said.
"What we believed happened to this line is unique," he said, adding that
corrosion inhibitors will now be injected directly into the line once it resumes
production.
Under the federal order, BP must submit a corrosion management plan for this
line and two other transit lines, which only carry crude and not viscous.
The company already runs an unparalleled job of staying on top of corrosion,
said Larry Dietrick, director of spill prevention and response for the state
environmental conservation department. This year, BP's corrosion inspection
budget for the North Slope is $71 million, up from $50 million spent in 2004.
But any input from the federal pipeline agency is welcome, he said, if it leads
to a better system following the largest crude spill ever on the North Slope.
The real issue is to properly identify the cause and properly get a fix on this
so it doesn't happen again," he said.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
San Diego Union
March 22, 2006
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060321-1858-wst-exxonvaldezanniversary.html
Pipe corrosion biggest threat as Alaska marks Exxon Valdez spill
By Matt Volz
ASSOCIATED PRESS
6:58 p.m. March 21, 2006
JUNEAU, Alaska Friday marks 17 years since the Exxon Valdez tanker ran aground
in Alaska's Prince William Sound and caused the worst oil spill in the nation's
history.
The 11 million gallons of crude oil that oozed from the grounded tanker created
a destructive slick that moved across 470 miles of shoreline to the Alaska
Peninsula, killing unknown quantities of flora and fauna and causing damage that
is still felt today by fishermen and the Alaska Natives who live off the land.
“You can still go and pick up a rock and find what looks like fresh oil,” said
John Devens, executive director of the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens'
Advisory Council.
Many of the lessons of 1989 have been applied. The oil tankers that ship
Alaska's crude to the West Coast have become stronger, most with double hulls
and redundant operating systems for safety. Two escort vessels now guide the
tankers out of Prince William Sound. More equipment, such as containment boom,
are housed nearby to respond if a spill happens again.
“In general, the changes that have occurred in Prince William Sound in terms of
oil transport since 1989 have been phenomenal,” said Nancy Bird, president and
chief executive of the Prince William Sound Science Center. “I feel much more
confident that we would be able respond to an oil spill today.”
But 17 years after the disaster, the potential for danger appears to have
shifted onshore. Corrosion in the aging oil supply system is seen by some as a
growing threat, as evidenced by this month's North Slope leak, the
second-largest spill in the state's history.
A transit line upstream of the main pipeline and operated by BP Exploration
(Alaska) Inc. for five days or more leaked up to 267,000 gallons of crude from a
small hole onto the frozen tundra of Alaska's North Slope.
Transit lines generally have not been subjected to regulations as rigorous as
the 800-mile line, though state regulatory officials say that could change
because of the spill. State environmental regulators say the spill will lead to
fines and possibly stricter pipeline regulations in Alaska, a state that has
grown rich on oil since crude began flowing from the North Slope via the
pipeline in the 1970s.
The leak in the transit line has caused some observers to worry about the
condition of the entire pipeline system.
“I think many of us are seriously concerned about the aging and the
deterioration of the pipeline and the facilities” Devens said. “We know that
corrosion is becoming a factor.”
The main pipeline, which stretches from Prudhoe Bay in the North Slope to Valdez
in Prince William Sound, will be 30 years old in 2007. Less than half the oil is
flowing now than at peak production, but the oil industry and state officials
figure on at least another 30 years of life out of the pipeline.
Devens said with that kind of expectation, the amount spent on maintaining the
pipeline should be increased.
Mike Heatwole, spokesman for Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., which operates and
maintains the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, said his company has all the funding
necessary to keep the pipeline running safely. Alyeska has an annual budget of
$350,000 for operations and maintenance and another $100,000 for capital
projects, he said.
“We are ready to handle oil flow for the next 30 years,” Heatwole said. “We're
making the necessary investments to do that.”
Heatwole said he does not know specifically whether the age of the pipeline was
causing corrosion.
“Probably the best way to describe it is that we've never had a leak in the main
pipe due to corrosion,” he said.
But as the oil fields of the North Slope decline, the quality of oil is also
declining, meaning coarser and heavier crude is flowing down the pipe.
This month's North Slope oil spill was caused by corrosion in the transit line,
according BP PLC officials.
The corrosion may have been due to the water and sediments that are carried with
the viscous oil, said company spokesman Daren Beaudo.
“There are technical challenges with viscous oil and these facilities were
created to handle light oil,” Beaudo said. “It's not necessarily the
characteristics of the crude oil, it's water. Water is the source of corrosion.
You've got to have water in the line to have corrosion.”
BP and other oil producers are asking state lawmakers for tax incentives to
develop viscous oil, which is more expensive to develop, is thick as molasses
and carries more sediments than typical North Slope crude.
The industry has estimated that in five years, heavy oil could account for
100,000 barrels per day flowing down the pipeline, or about one of every eight
barrels of oil in the pipe.
The spill was localized and no damage was seen closer to the pipeline, Beaudo
said. But what BP learns from this leak will be applied systemwide, he said.
“We're looking at a 50-year future here,” Beaudo said. “We'll take what we
learned about the potential impacts of viscous oil and share it across the
field.”
Heatwole said Alyeska was waiting for a detailed report on the cause of the
North Slope leak and could not comment on heavy oil being the cause of
corrosion.
But as the quality of crude oil changes, it is monitored and periodic analyses
are conducted. A scraper called a “cleaning pig” is sent weekly down the length
of the pipe, he said.
“We don't have a current concern about the crude oil coming down the line,”
Heatwole said.
On the Net:
Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council:
www.pwsrcac.org
Prince William Sound Science Center:
www.pwssc.gen.ak.us
Alyeska Pipeline Co.:
www.alyeska-pipe.com
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council:
www.evostc.state.ak.us
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anchorage Daily News
March 21, 2006
http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/7551686p-7463271c.html
BP and DEC North Slope
oversight:
Not good
enough
Oil pipeline spill detection fails to protect North Slope
Published: March 21, 2006
Last Modified: March 21, 2006 at 01:47 AM
Editorial Cartoon
http://www.adn.com/photo/2006/03/21/1883668-300-x-196.jpg
Yes, government and BP officials
are investigating the pipeline leak that spilled more than 200,000 gallons of
crude oil on the North Slope earlier this month. And yes, we expect they will
find not only the exact cause, but also will impose new operating and inspection
procedures to help prevent such a leak from fouling the tundra again.
As well-meaning as those responses are, they miss the point that BP did not do a
good enough job in leak detection and the state failed to impose tough enough
standards to guard against such leaks.
The spill was not detected until a worker happened to smell oil while driving on
an access road alongside the pipeline March 2. Good thing the worker didn't have
a cold that day, clogging up his sense of smell, or the spill could have been
much worse. Bluntly, that is not a level of risk the state should tolerate.
The 34-inch line has a leak detection system that is supposed to sound an alarm
if the pipeline flow drops by 1 percent. The line carried 4.2 million gallons a
day. That means a leak of anything less than 42,000 gallons a day, or 1,750
gallons an hour, would escape electronic detection. In this accident the alarm
never sounded, meaning it either failed to work or the pipe had been leaking at
just below 1 percent for at least five days.
But maybe it was leaking 20,000 gallons a day for 10 days? Or 10,000 gallons for
20 days? No one saw the spilled oil because the line is covered -- it's above
ground level but covered in gravel so caribou can cross. And the pipe, the
gravel berm and ground were all covered in snow, with the oil hiding beneath the
snow cover. As the hot oil melted the snow, it sank farther out of sight.
The state four years ago fined BP and ordered the company -- which operates the
Prudhoe Bay field -- to install the 1 percent leak-detection system on some of
its oil lines. The company had fallen behind schedule installing the system, and
the state issued an order in May 2002 to hurry up the work. The state Department
of Environmental Conservation the next year recommended BP also regularly patrol
the lines to look for leaks. As part of its spill-detection drive-bys and
fly-bys, the company reports it sometimes uses infrared equipment to look for
the heat of leaking oil.
Too bad but none of that worked quick enough in this month's spill.
The Department of Environmental Conservation has been working the past 18 months
to update its spill-prevention regulations, and officials say this latest
accident could lead to additional requirements for pipe inspections. That's
good, but the proposed regulations still are not in place.
Meanwhile, BP knew the line in this case suffered from corrosion -- in several
spots -- and that the corrosion was getting worse. The company this year plans
to spend $71 million on corrosion control, up from $50 million in 2004, but this
month's accident is more than enough proof that the budget is inadequate.
So what's next? The state could decide to lower the 1 percent threshold for
automatic leak-detection systems but BP has already objected to such a change,
saying the technology doesn't exist. North Slope Borough officials say
otherwise.
The state's message to BP and other North Slope oil companies should be: Find
better technology to meet tighter leak-detection standards. Spend more time
flying and driving the line with infrared devices. Run a corrosion-detecting
module through the line more often. And, if all else fails, get out of the truck
and take a whiff.
BOTTOM LINE: Accidents happen, but weeklong pipeline leaks should not happen.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Time Magazine
March 20, 2006
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1174706,00.html
Monday, Mar. 20, 2006
A Crude
Warning
The
largest oil spill in Alaska's North Slope raises sticky questions about future
drilling in the Arctic
By NATHAN THORNBURGH
PHOTO:
http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2006/0603/mopping.jpg
At 5:45 on a searingly cold
March morning, still 2 1/2 hours before sunrise, a BP worker driving along an
empty access road at Alaska's Prudhoe Bay oil field suddenly smelled oil.
On the side of the road, hidden below a field of snow, a massive slick of crude
oil had spread over nearly two acres of tundra. An aging pipe, installed during
the Ford Administration, had corroded from the inside and oozed oil out of an
almond-size hole--a leak that went undetected for at least five days. None of
the pipeline's alarms were tripped. In all, 201,000 gal. of crude escaped,
making the spill the largest ever to hit Alaska's North Slope.
The accident raises sticky questions about the oil industry in Alaska at an
awkward time for the Bush Administration and its supporters in Congress. While
the Senate was busy last week passing a largely symbolic budget amendment in
support of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to new drilling,
Prudhoe Bay was facing the harsh realities of operating the state's existing
wells.
The great petroleum reserves of Alaska are slowly but inexorably drying up,
along with the profits of the oil companies that operate there. Meanwhile,
30-year-old pipelines that stretch like a giant cobweb over the oil fields of
the North Slope, a flat expanse between the majestic Brooks Range mountains and
the Arctic shore, need more and costlier maintenance than ever. The new spill
puts into sharp relief the same question that has stalemated the ANWR debate
since the 1980s: Can oil companies focused on their bottom line be trusted to
protect Alaska's fragile environment?
There is no question that Prudhoe Bay, the nation's largest oil field, is in
decline. Production has slumped from a daily average of 1.6 million bbl. in 1988
to just 425,000 bbl. in 2005. To extract whatever oil remains, BP, which
operates the field for a consortium of petroleum companies that includes
ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil, has been taking measures that may have
unintentionally raised the risks. Drilling more wells to further develop Prudhoe
just adds to the more than 1,700 miles of pipeline that already crisscross the
North Slope, increasing the chance of leaks. And other techniques, such as
injecting water into old wells to flush out remaining pockets of oil, can be
hard on the pipes. The corrosion behind this month's leak, for example, is
thought to have been started by water that got into the pipeline, eating away at
the steel.
Even measures taken to protect wildlife can cause problems. The hole that
created the new spill was located at one of dozens of caribou-crossing sites,
where the pipeline is tucked in a culvert that helped shield the leak from view.
BP says that it increased corrosion-management spending 16% from 2004 to 2005 to
meet these challenges. But an alarming Department of Transportation document
obtained by the Anchorage Daily News raises questions about BP's diligence in
inspecting its pipelines, pointing to no fewer than six other anomalies found on
the same 10-mile stretch of pipeline, including a spot where the pipe had
corroded so badly it was less than 0.04 in. thick.
Local political leaders are concerned about the oil companies' priorities. "I'd
like to see them use the best available technology to prevent major spills like
[this one]," says North Slope Borough Mayor Edward Itta. "That's not happening
right now."
In Congress, supporters of the Administration's policies say the country needs
ANWR oil to be energy independent and to fight the pinch at the pump, while
opponents call it a land grab for Big Oil. Most observers agree, however, that
with House Republicans deeply divided on the topic, the Senate's ANWR amendment
will probably die the same death it did last year. One Republican staff member
called it the Groundhog Day amendment.
Back in Prudhoe Bay, the battle lines are clearer. Braving temperatures as low
as 40°F below zero, cleanup crews have contained the spill and are trucking in
fresh snow to absorb whatever oil can't be vacuumed up. BP hopes to recover 90%
of the lost crude, which it will funnel back into the pipeline and pump to the
port of Valdez for sale on the open market.
With reporting by Reported by Wesley Loy/Anchorage
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
National Geographic
March 20, 2006
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0320_060320_alaska_oil.html
Alaska Oil Spill Fuels Concerns Over
Arctic Wildlife, Future Drilling
John Roach
for National Geographic News
March 20, 2006
A recent spill of about 267,000 gallons (1 million liters) of oil in the tundra
of Alaska's North Slope is raising a new round of questions from environmental
groups about proposed plans to open more land in the region to oil drilling.
The North Slope region of Alaska (map) borders the Arctic Ocean and contains
most of the state's petroleum reserves. It is also home to thousands of
migratory birds, caribou, and other creatures.
RELATED
Geographic Magazine: "Oil Field or Sanctuary?" ( See Below )
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/08/01/html/ft_20010801.3.html
Exxon Valdez Spill, 15 Years
Later: Damage Lingers ( See Below )
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/0318_040318_exxonvaldez.html
Oil Spills Pollute Indefinitely
and Invisibly, Study Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1122_021122_OilSpill.html
The oil spill happened in the
Prudhoe Bay oil field in late February, but it was not discovered for five days.
The spill is the largest in the region's history.
"Thank God this happened in the winter," said Noah Matson, director of the
federal lands program for the nonprofit Defenders of Wildlife in Washington,
D.C.
Wildlife is scarce in the region this time of year but will return when the snow
melts this spring and summer.
Environmental groups have fought attempts by the Bush administration to open
more lands on the North Slope, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to
oil and gas development on the grounds that it would harm the environment.
The Bush administration believes the oil can be removed safely and that doing so
will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and natural gas.
Congress has repeatedly blocked initiatives to open the refuge, though the
battle is not over. Last Thursday the U.S. Senate passed a budget resolution
that contains instructions to open the refuge to oil drilling. This sets the
stage for a battle in the House of Representatives later this year.
Natalie Brandon, policy director for the Alaska Wilderness League in Washington,
D.C., said the Prudhoe Bay spill raises questions about the push to open up more
areas of the North Slope to oil and gas development.
"The bottom line is these kinds of risks are inherent when you have oil
production … Do you want to put that risk somewhere like a wildlife refuge?" she
said.
Undetected Spill
The Prudhoe Bay oil spill went undetected for five days before a field
worker smelled the crude oil while driving through the area on March 2, an
official with oil company BP said at a news conference in Anchorage on March 14.
Preliminary analysis suggests the oil leaked from a quarter-inch (two-thirds of
a centimeter) hole corroded in a pipeline, according to Ed Meggert, a spill
prevention and response coordinator for the Alaska Department of Environmental
Protection in Juneau.
"Both BP and the state are real concerned about that," he said.
The leaky pipe is part of the oil field infrastructure built in the late 1970s.
Officials are concerned that other sections of the aging system may be
susceptible to leaks in the future.
"That's being examined very closely," Meggert added.
The spill, which covers about 2 acres (0.8 hectares), occurred in one of several
caribou-crossing areas where pipes are laid underground and covered with gravel
to allow passage by animals.
Brandon said the crossing areas attract water and the pipes underneath are
particularly susceptible to corrosion.
While caribou, a migratory species, are currently absent from the North Slope,
they'll return to the region this summer.
"Can we get this cleaned up in time for when the caribou get there?" Defenders
of Wildlife's Matson asked.
Cleaning Up
Meggert expects the spill to be nearly 100-percent cleaned up before summer.
The liquid pools of oil have almost all been vacuumed, he said. Snow mixed with
oil is being melted and the oil recovered. Crews will also scrape oil residue
from the tundra.
He expects the spring melt to wash most of the remaining oil into an adjacent
lake where floating booms will prevent further spread and allow for recovery.
"We have a pretty good track record cleaning these things up," he said. "I'm
pretty confident we can do it, and if [the tundra] doesn't totally recover this
year, in time it will, next year or the year after."
But the cleanup is a slow, cold process. The wind chill at Prudhoe Bay was less
than -40ºF (-40ºC) Thursday.
"Right now, they are collecting a few hundred gallons a day basically, because
it's so cold," said Brandon of the Alaska Wilderness League. "So that's just
longer and longer the oil will be sitting out there."
Prior to this spill, the largest in the North Slope was a 38,850-gallon
(147,063-liter) spill in 1989.
By contrast, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons (41.6
million liters) into Prince William Sound on Alaska's southern coast that same
year.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bellona
Norway edition
March 20, 2006
http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/42428.html
Alaska
experiences worst oil pipeline leak in its history--
final damage still not tallied
MURMANSKA rusty and
corroded oil pipeline along Alaska’s northern coast near Prudhoe Bay sprung a
leak earlier this month, constituting Alaska’s largest oil pipeline accident on
record, and dumping some million litres of crude oil into the north Arctic
Ocean.
Anna Kireeva, 2006-03-20 12:32
Translated by Charles Digges
Oily spots where noticed in early March, but the scale of the accident is only
recently being ascertained and could grow considerable by the time the final
figures are in.
”There have been two spills recently due to corrosion of the feeder pipelines on
Alaska's North Slope. The larger spill was more than 200,000 gallons [760,000
litres]. We still don't know the size of the smaller spill,” said John Devens,
executive director the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council.
Devens was previously the mayor of Valdez, in southern Alaska when the infamous
Exxon Valdez set sail from the Valdez oil terminal and collided with a reef in
1989, leading to the most serious oil spill and ecological catastrophe at sea on
record.
According to researchers, the consequences of the Exxon Valdez spill sharply
reduced the population of native fish life, including humpback salmon, and the
restoration of a range of sensitive ecosystem will take at least 30 years. A
court decision forced Exxon to pay $4.5 billion in compensation.
Devens noted that, at the time, the foot-dragging response to the accident by
Exxon led Valdez residents to think they had been cheated by the oil-giant. But
literate societal action and pressure on the city administration force the oil
company to make a number of concessions. Directly following the Valdez accident,
the Citizens’ Advisory Council was created, which directed the actions of the
oil companies. The Council is financed by money earmarked for the purpose by oil
companies operating in Alaska.
Devins said that the pipeline on which this most recent accident occurred is
already 30 years old.
“The lines are 30 years old and cause us concern about what else is going wrong
with the system,” he said.
The Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council
The Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council has 18 members
consisting of groups impacted by the 1989 Exxon Valdez catastrophe, and includes
among its number environmentalists, cultural organisations, as well as fishermen
and tourist agencies.
Go to web page »
http://www.pwsrcac.org/
Many observers say that the pipeline spill and the Exxon Valdez crisis, the two
worst oil accidents to happen in the Arctic Region, cast a very poor light on
the Bush Administration’s plans to expand pipelines in Alaska and to drill the
Alaskan National Wildlife Preservation.
The reasons behind the accident
According to local officials, the source of the current pipeline leak was a
tear caused by internal corrosion in the pipeline, which is operated by the
Alaskan office of British Petroleum (BP).
The pipeline has a series of special leak detectors. But despite the elaborate
system, no one can as yet pin-point the time that the spill began. It was only
discovered on March 2nd, after which the pipeline was shut down and the leak
repaired.
BP will carry out an investigation during which it will determine if the leak
detection system was working properly when the leak arose.
“We still have a lot of work ahead of us,” said Dan Larson of BP to American
news agencies.
The scale of the leak
According to environmentalists’ calculations, crude oil is covering a
hectare of snowy tundra.
“I can confirm that this is the largest spill of crude oil on the northern slope
[of Alaska] of all that we have recorded,” Linda Giguere of Alaska’s
Environmental Department told the associated press.
Her calculations on the scale of the spill are based on measurements taken only
a few days after the accident around the spot of the rupture on the pipeline,
she said.
As the region where the spill took place is thinly populated, there is little
risk to residents. The accident took place along the Northern coast of Alaska,
some 1,040 kilometres north of Anchorage, Alaska’s most populous city.
The main problem caused by the accident is the damage done to an enormous
feeding territory for birds and other animals that will now have to migrate from
the accident site.
Cleaning up the accident
Accident liquidators are currently working on the site of the spill, but the
clean-up is dependent on weather conditions. Strong chills and ice make the oil
thicker, which spreads its diffusion over an even larger area.
The liquidators have a set goal of gathering at least 90 percent of the spilled
crude, according to BP’s Larson.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
New York Times
March 20, 2006
Oil Spill Raises Concerns on Pipeline Maintenance
By FELICITY BARRINGER
WASHINGTON, March 18 — An oil spill this month in Alaska, the largest ever on the North Slope, has raised new concerns among state and federal regulators about whether BP has been properly maintaining its aging network of wells, pumps and pipelines that crisscross the tundra.
BP Exploration Alaska, the subsidiary of the international oil giant that operates the corroded transmission line from which more than 200,000 gallons of crude oil leaked, has been criticized and fined in several different cases, most recently in 2004 when state regulators fined the company more than $1.2 million.
Now the division of the federal Department of Transportation responsible for pipeline safety is looking into the company's maintenance practices.
James Wiggins, a spokesman for the office, said Friday that BP had been informed that it could not restart the pipeline until the company had thoroughly inspected the line, internally and externally, repaired it, and given the agency a corrosion monitoring plan.
In addition, one of the company's longtime employees, a mechanic and local union official who has participated in the spill cleanup, said in a telephone interview that he and his colleagues had repeatedly warned their superiors that cutbacks in routine maintenance and inspection had increased the chances of accidents or spills.
In the interview, Marc Kovac, who is an official of the United Steelworkers union, which represents workers at the BP facility, said he had seen little change in BP's approach despite the warnings.
"For years we've been warning the company about cutting back on maintenance," Mr. Kovac said, adding that he was speaking for himself, not the union. "We know that this could have been prevented."
Asked about Mr. Kovac's account, Daren Beaudo, a company spokesman, said in an e-mail message, "Whenever employees raise concerns about our operations we look into them and address them." He did not specifically address Mr. Kovac's account of his complaints to his bosses.
In November 2004, the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission fined the company more than $1.2 million after an explosion and fire at one of its wells. The accident, in 2002, left an operator badly burned.
BP has cultivated a worldwide image as a company concerned about the environment, recognizing global warming and making conspicuous efforts at aggressive environmental protection in many places.
But the most recent spill, which spurted from an elevated transmission pipeline at a spot where it dips to ground level to allow caribou to cross, has prompted critics inside the industry and among environmental groups to revisit questions raised four years ago. They question whether the company is skimping on maintenance and inspections to save money — a complaint the company strenuously denies.
But it remains unclear whether the company had warning that corrosion in this line had worsened to the point of a breach, and whether the warning signals company officials say they picked up in September should have prompted them to shut down this section of pipe and route oil around it.
"When we inspected the line in September 2005, points of manageable corrosion were evident and all were within standards of operations integrity," Mr. Beaudo said in an e-mail message. "Something happened to the corrosion rates in that line between September 2005 and the time of the spill that we don't yet fully understand."
Gary Evans, an environmental program specialist with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, defended the company in a telephone interview. Referring to the September inspections with ultrasound imaging, he said, "I believe in my heart if they would have found a spot on that pipeline that set off a bell or a whistle they would have shut it off" and built the kind of detour pipeline now under construction.
"I can't believe for a second that they would chance it," he added. "This is a worst-case scenario."
Another question is whether the company postponed for too long a rigorous but disruptive internal inspection of the pipeline, known in industry jargon as smart pigging.
In the procedure, electronic monitors called smart pigs — successors to an earlier generation of cleaning devices that squealed as they ran through the pipe — are used to measure the thickness of a pipe's walls and detect defects. Mr. Beaudo and Mr. Kovac agreed that since 1998 no such inspection had been performed on the line that leaked.
Setting up the device is cumbersome, and its data are hard to analyze. The process also slows the movement of oil to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
BP's own 2003 plan for safe maintenance and management of its facilities, on file with the Alaska Department of Environmental Protection, says that "the interval between smart-pig runs is typically five years."
Mr. Beaudo, the BP spokesman, said that since 1999, 85 external corrosion inspections had been conducted on that line. Further, he said, 139 internal inspections were performed with ultrasound devices applied to the outside of the insulated pipe, providing a picture of the inside.
In a news conference on Tuesday, Maureen Johnson, the senior vice president and manager of the Greater Prudhoe Bay unit of BP Exploration Alaska, said, "We believe the leak was caused by internal corrosion and internal corrosion caused relatively recently" — in the last six to nine months.
In September, she said, inspections revealed advancing corrosion and showed "we needed to do something." She said an internal "smart pig" inspection was scheduled for this month.
In an e-mail message to a company lawyer in June 2004, Mr. Kovac, the union official, assembled a collection of his earlier complaints to management. One of these, dated Feb. 28, 2003, concerned "corrosion monitoring staffing levels." It began, "The corrosion monitoring crew will soon be reduced to six staff down from eight."
Later, it noted, "With the present staff, the crew is currently one month behind. The backlog is expected to increase with a further reduction in manpower."
Mr. Kovac and other workers have reported their concerns for several years to Chuck Hamel, a onetime oil broker who has made himself a conduit for getting press attention for worker complaints and whom Mr. Kovac called "our ombudsman."
Asked about Mr. Kovac's account, Mr. Hamel said: "Whatever I've been able to help the technicians publicize, they've fixed. Whatever we're not publicizing, we don't fix. They delay, and they schedule for next year. Everything's scheduled for next year. That way, if something goes, like in this case, they say, 'We scheduled that.' "
Mr. Beaudo, asked about staffing levels, said by e-mail, "We've significantly increased the number of external inspections since 2000," adding "and therefore have increased our staffing."
He pointed to the company's 2004 report to the state on corrosion monitoring. It shows that external and internal inspections on lines from the wellheads — usually smaller than the transmission lines like the one that leaked — rose from 39,001 in 2001 to 69,666 in 2002, before falling back slightly, to 60,666 in 2003 and 62,637 in 2004.
In a separate message he noted that staffing and scheduling decisions for the BP division that handles corrosion inspections "are carefully considered and managed according to the scope of the work being done."
In a news release Friday, Kurt Fredriksson, a commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Conservation, praised BP's efforts. "The oil spill response has been well managed," he said. "The spill occurred at a time when impacts to the environment are minimal."
The release also quoted him as saying, "We will be considering the investigation team's findings over the next several weeks in deciding whether to propose additional corrective actions or regulatory changes for leak detection, corrosion control and integrity management."
The line that leaked was in the last leg of a network that carries oil from the wellhead through processing facilities and on to the main pipeline that ends in Valdez.
The smaller lines nearer the wells are regulated by the state; lines like the 34-inch one that leaked are under the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration of the federal Transportation Department.
But that office exempts from its regulations pipelines, like the one that leaked, that are in rural areas and are run at low pressures. At a House subcommittee hearing on Thursday, Lois N. Epstein, a petroleum engineer and an environmental advocate in Alaska, called for the department to scrap that exemption.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Time Magazine
March 19, 2006
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1174717,00.html
An Oil Pipeline in Peril?
After a
leak in Prudoe Bay, an oil giant gets a
tough fix-it order from the federal government
By WESLEY LOY/ANCHORAGE
London-based oil giant BP, scrambling to clean up one of the largest oil spills
in Alaska history and stay out of further trouble with state pollution
regulators, now has federal authorities to satisfy as well.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued a "corrective action order" to
BP to repair a leaky pipeline and improve corrosion inspections in its Prudhoe
Bay oil field, the nation's largest. The order, first obtained by the Anchorage
Daily News, reveals alarming details about the deteriorated condition of the
pipeline, a major oilfield artery that leaked more than 200,000 gallons of oil
onto the fragile tundra on Alaska's North Slope.
The pipeline came very close to springing a second leak and maybe more, the
federal document says. It says a BP inspection turned up at least six additional
corroded spots or other "anomalies" along the 10-mile line, part of a vast web
of pipes that drains Prudhoe, funneling crude into the 800-mile trans-Alaska
pipeline to the port of Valdez. At one spot, the steel pipeline wall was eaten
down to only .04 of an inch, very nearly unleashing more oil onto the tundra.
The pipe is 30 years old, installed a year before Prudhoe oil production began
in 1977.
The leak, discovered by a passing BP field worker who smelled the snow-covered
oil early on the morning of March 2, has triggered a massive cleanup in
dangerous, subzero weather, and has cut North Slope oil production by 12%, or
nearly 100,000 barrels a day, because the leaky pipeline and more than 200 wells
were shut down. The reduced production could last weeks longer.
Stacey Gerard, the Transportation Department's associate administrator for
pipeline safety, said the unusual order was issued to BP because continued
operation of the pipeline without corrective measures "will be hazardous to
life, property and the environment." The order comes in the midst of renewed
Congressional fighting over oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, with supporters insisting that oil companies will be able to drill for
oil without damaging the sensitive arctic ecosystem.
The order requires BP to:
- Repair corrosion damage to the satisfaction of Transportation Department
officials before restarting the pipeline.
- Develop a better plan to reduce internal corrosion inside the failed pipe, as
well as other major oilfield lines.
- Review and improve the pipeline's leak detection system, which failed to warn
of the leak.
BP faces potentially millions of dollars in pollution fines from the state. The
company also faces a federal civil penalty of up to $100,000 daily if it fails
to follow the federal order.
The company had previously expressed surprise at the pipe's leak, but in the
wake of the Department of Transportation fix-it order, BP admitted that an
earlier inspection of the pipe had revealed numerous weaknesses that were, for
unknown reasons, rapidly worsening. The federal order was also noteworthy
because BP had previously tried to argue that the federal government had no
jurisdiction to oversee the pipe in question.
Company spokesman Daren Beaudo said BP already had planned to take many of the
steps the Transportation Department ordered. He added that the company spends
aggressively to combat corrosion, a major threat to the aging pipelines of
Prudhoe Bay.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Free Press
March 18, 2006
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/3/2006/1868
GOP bids to
take ANWR while region
was ravaged by major oil spill
by Jason Leopold
March 18, 2006
The Senate passed approved a measure in a budget bill Thursday that included a
provision to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling - just as
the region suffers through one of the worst oil spills in history.
The provision to permit drilling in ANWR was included in a resolution passed
last week by the Senate Budget Committee. The full Senate is expected to vote on
the issue as early as Thursday.
The measure was prepared by the Republican-controlled Senate in such a way that
it would be protected from a filibuster by Senate Democrats opposed to the
issue. Drilling in ANWR has been debated at least half a dozen times over the
past five years.
The issue is one of the cornerstones of President Bush's National Energy Policy.
Bush has said that drilling in ANWR is crucial in order for the United States to
cut its dependence on foreign oil.
Environmentalists and numerous lawmakers have derided the plan, saying it would
lead to the destruction of caribou and other wildlife that live in the refuge.
Moreover, severe safety and technological issues have plagued the big oil
companies that drill in nearby Prudhoe Bay and who would be responsible for
breaking ground in ANWR should the Senate measure pass.
Because the companies have yet to take measures to address the safety issues at
their Prudhoe Bay operations and make much-needed technological upgrades, there
have been dozens of oil spills in the area. The situation would likely become
even worse if ANWR were to be opened up to exploration, according to
environmental officials and activist groups.
Just two weeks ago, the worst spill in the history of oil development in
Alaska's North Slope forced the closure of five oil processing centers in the
region. Alaskan state officials said that as much as 260,000 gallons of crude
oil leaking out of a pipeline in an oil field jointly owned by Exxon Mobil, BP
Plc and ConocoPhillips blanketed two acres of frozen tundra near Prudhoe Bay -
just a short distance from where President Bush has proposed opening up ANWR to
drilling.
The oil spill went undetected for about five days before an oilfield worker
detected the scent of hydrocarbons during a drive through the area on March 2
that led him to believe there was a spill from one of the facilities.
It's expected that last week's spill will take a crew of 60 at least two weeks
to clean up and to restore crude production to pre-spill levels. The petroleum
processing centers will remain closed until then.
The spill underscores the hazards of drilling in the Arctic, despite the fact
that oil company executives have downplayed the severity of the technological
problems likely to be associated with it.
Last year, unbeknownst to the federal lawmakers who debated the merits of
drilling in ANWR, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation started
laying the groundwork to pursue civil charges against BP and the corporation's
drilling contractor for failing to report massive oil spills at its Prudhoe Bay
operation, located just 60 miles west of ANWR.
Despite those dire warnings, neither Congress nor the Senate has shown interest
in investigating the whistleblowers' claims or held hearings about the potential
problems that could result from drilling in ANWR.
But BP employees have warned lawmakers that oil spills like the one that took
place a couple of weeks ago could happen in ANWR if upgrades aren't made to the
oil companies' drilling equipment.
In March of 2002, a BP whistleblower went public with his claims of maintenance
backlogs and employee shortages at BP's Prudhoe Bay operations that he said
could become even worse if ANWR is opened up to exploration.
The whistleblower, Robert Brian, who worked as an instrument technician at
Prudhoe Bay for 22 years, had a lengthy meeting with aides to Senators Joseph
Lieberman and Bob Graham, both Democrats, to discuss his claims. But the
senators have never followed up on his claims.
At the time, Brian said he supported opening up ANWR to oil exploration but said
BP has imperiled that goal because it is "putting Prudhoe workers and the
environment at risk."
"We are trying to change that so we don't have a catastrophe that ends up on CNN
and stops us from getting into ANWR," he said, according to a March 13, 2002,
report in the Anchorage Daily News.
BP has long been criticized for poorly managing the North Slope's aging
pipelines, safety valves and other critical components of its oil production
infrastructure.
The company has in the past made minor improvements to its valves and fire
detection systems and hired additional employees but has dropped the ball and
neglected to maintain a level of safety at its facilities on the North Slope.
Chuck Hamel, a highly regarded activist who is credited with exposing dozens of
oil spills and the subsequent cover-ups related to BP's shoddy operations at
Prudhoe Bay, sent a letter to Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) on April 15, 2005,
saying the senator was duped by oil executives and state officials during a
recent visit to Alaska's North Slope.
"You obviously are unaware of the cheating by some producers and drilling
companies," Hamel said in the letter to Domenici, an arch proponent of drilling
in ANWR. "Your official Senate tour" of Alaska last March "was masked by the
orchestrated 'dog and pony show' provided you at the new Alpine Field, away from
the real world of the Slope's dangerously unregulated operations."
Back in the 1980s, Hamel was the first person to expose weak pollution laws at
the Valdez tanker port as well as electrical and maintenance problems with the
trans-Alaska oil pipeline.
Hamel has said that not only do oil spills continue on the North Slope because
BP neglects to address maintenance issues, but the oil behemoth's executives
have routinely lied to Alaskan state representatives and members of the United
States Senate and Congress about the steps they're taking to correct the
problems.
Hamel has obtained some damning evidence on BP to back up his claims. He has
photographs showing oil wells spewing a brown substance known as drilling mud,
which contain traces of crude oil, on two separate occasions.
Hamel says he's determined to expose BP's shoddy operations and throw a wrench
in President Bush's plans to open up ANWR to drilling.
"Contrary to what President Bush has been saying, the current BP Prudhoe Bay
operations - particularly the dysfunctional safety valves - are deeply flawed
and place the environment, the safety of the operations staff and the integrity
of the facility at risk. The president should delay legislation calling for
drilling at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," Hamel told the Wall Street
Journal last year.
In April of 2001, whistleblowers informed Hamel and former Interior Secretary
Gale Norton, who at the time was touring the Prudhoe Bay oil fields, that the
safety valves at Prudhoe Bay, which kick in in the event of a pipeline rupture,
failed to close. Secondary valves that connect the oil platforms with processing
plants also failed to close. And, because the technology at Prudhoe Bay would be
duplicated at ANWR, the potential for a massive explosion and huge spills are
very real.
"A major spill or fire at one of our [processing centers] will exit the piping
at high pressure, and leave a half-mile-wide oil slick on the white snow all the
way," Hamel said at the time in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.
That year, the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission found high failure
rates on some Prudhoe wellhead safety valves. The company was put on federal
criminal probation after one of its contractors dumped thousands of gallons of
toxic material underground at BP's Endicott oil field in the 1990s. BP pleaded
guilty to the charges in 2000 and paid a $6.5 million fine, and agreed to set up
a nationwide environmental management program that has cost more than $20
million.
Hamel also claimed that whistleblowers had told of another cover-up, dating back
to 2003, in which Pioneer Natural Resources and its drilling contractor, Nabors
Alaska Drilling, allegedly disposed of more than 2,000 gallons of toxic drilling
mud and fluids through the ice "to save the cost of proper disposal on shore."
Hamel has had his share of detractors, notably BP executives and several Alaskan
state officials, as well as the federal EPA, who have branded him a conspiracy
theorist.
But last March, Hamel was vindicated when Alaska's Department of Environmental
Conservation confirmed his claims of major spills in December 2004 and July 2003
at the oil well owned by BP and operated by its drilling contractor, Nabors, on
the North Slope, which the company had never reported as required by state law.
Hamel filed a formal complaint in January 2005 with the EPA, claiming he had
pictures showing a gusher spewing a brown substance. An investigation by
Alaska's Department of Environmental Conservation determined that as much as 294
gallons of drilling mud was spilled when gas was sucked into wells, causing
sprays of drilling mud and oil that shot up as high as 85 feet into the air.
Because both spills exceeded 55 gallons, BP and Nabors were obligated under a
2003 compliance agreement that BP signed with Alaska to immediately report the
spills. That didn't occur, said Leslie Pearson, the agency's spill prevention
and emergency response manager.
President Bush has said that the oil and gas industry can open up ANWR without
damaging the environment or displacing wildlife. But the native Gwich'in Nation,
whose 7,000 members have lived in Alaska for more than 20,000 years, say
President Bush is wrong.
"Existing oil development has displaced caribou, polluted the air and water and
created havoc with the traditional lifestyles of the people," said Jonathan
Solomon, chairman of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, in a May 7, 2005,
interview with the Financial Times. "No one can tell us that opening the Arctic
Refuge to development can be done in an environmentally sensitive way with a
small footprint. It cannot be done."
---
Jason Leopold is the author of the forthcoming memoir, NEWS JUNKIE, to be
published in April on Process/Feral House Books. Visit
www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview and to read an excerpt
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anchorage Daily News
March 18, 2006
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7542795p-7454269c.html
Pipeline has
been poorly monitored
By WESLEY LOY
Anchorage Daily News
Published: March 18, 2006
Last Modified: March 18, 2006 at 02:15 AM
AP Photo
http://www.adn.com/photo/2006/03/18/1876714-144-x-250.jpg
The Prudhoe
Bay oil field spill on Alaska's North Slope is seen, Mar. 12, 2006. Cleaning up
the spill, estimated at 201,000 gallons, has been slow going because workers
need frequent breaks to protect themselves against extreme conditions
A major pipeline that unleashed the
largest oil spill ever on the North Slope came within a whisker of springing a
second ruinous leak, and maybe more, according to a federal order for BP to fix
the problems.
The order, issued this week by the U.S. Department of Transportation pipeline
safety regulators, reveals new details about the weakened condition of the
pipeline. It also intensifies the question of how thoroughly BP was monitoring
the aging pipe's known corrosion problems.
Over several days, an estimated 201,000 gallons of oil squirted undetected out
of a hole smaller than an almond, coating almost two acres of tundra and the
edge of a frozen lake with crude. A BP field worker found the spill near the
heart of the Prudhoe Bay oil field March 2 after smelling oil as he drove down a
road along the pipeline.
BP and state investigators believe corrosion ate through the steel pipe from the
inside out. The pipe, 34 inches in diameter, was installed in 1976, a year
before production began at Prudhoe, the nation's largest oil field.
The company's leak investigation turned up at least six additional "anomalies"
along a 3-mile segment of the pipeline, with the same internal corrosion seen in
several places, the federal order says.
At the worst of the trouble spots, the pipeline's carbon steel wall, normally
more than a third of an inch thick, was down to 0.04 of an inch, a razor-thin
barrier between the oil and the tundra.
Spokesmen for BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., which runs Prudhoe on behalf of
itself and other field owners, did not return phone calls seeking comment late
Friday.
BP managers have previously said they were surprised the pipe sprang a leak.
However, they acknowledged checking the line in recent months and finding
corrosion that, for reasons not yet fully understand, was rapidly growing worse.
The company says it has an aggressive corrosion control program with a budget
that's increased from $50 million in 2004 to $71 million planned for this year.
Stacey Gerard, associate administrator for pipeline safety, said the DOT issued
BP the unusual order outlining steps to fix and better monitor the pipeline
because its continued operation without corrective measures "will be hazardous
to life, property and the environment."
Gerard said DOT pipeline safety officials investigated the leak and
preliminarily concluded the pipeline's leak-detection system "was not effective
in recognizing and identifying the failure."
They also noted that BP last tested the line with a smart pig -- a bullet-shaped
electronic device that slides through a pipe looking for corroded or weak spots
-- in 1998, and that the company had no regular pigging schedule. Pigging is one
of the most important ways to find flaws in pipeline walls.
Gerard ordered BP to meet 10 conditions for returning the idled pipeline to
service. The order applies not only to the leaky pipeline, which drains the
western side of the sprawling Prudhoe Bay field, but to two similar pipelines,
the eastern Prudhoe and Lisburne lines.
Under the federal order, BP must:
• Repair corrosion damage to the satisfaction of federal officials before
restarting the pipeline that leaked.
• Develop plans to reduce internal corrosion on all three major pipelines within
three months.
• Review and improve leak-detection systems on the pipelines within three
months.
Kurt Fredriksson, commissioner of the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, said Friday he welcomed the federal intervention in the spill, a
high-profile incident that's figuring in the current congressional debate over
whether to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
He said BP has "a robust monitoring system" to try to prevent and control
corrosion in the North Slope's hundreds of miles of pipelines but that the leak
was disappointing.
Fredriksson added that the state was already in the process of expanding
regulation of pipelines, and the spill might result in stricter rules.
BP could be subject to millions of dollars in fines for the spill, but another
DEC official, Larry Dietrick, said the amount can't be calculated until the
cleanup is complete.
A massive cleanup continues in subzero weather. Responders so far have recovered
about 64,000 gallons of spilled oil, and DEC officials believe tundra damage
might be light because the oil can't seep into the frozen ground.
Because the pipeline is shut down, North Slope oil production remains down by
nearly 100,000 barrels per day, or 12 percent of normal output.
Daily News reporter Wesley Loy can be reached at wloy@adn.com or 257-4590.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Seattle Post Intelligencer
March 18, 2006
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/263468_alaska-oilspill18.html
Saturday, March 18, 2006
BP faces fines
for not detecting oil spill in Alaska
By RACHEL D'ORO
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- For five days or more, crude oil oozed from a pipeline
through a corrosion hole about the size of a pencil eraser, silently spreading
underneath the snow in what would become the biggest spill ever on Alaska's
North Slope.
AP PHOTO
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20060318/226PRUDHOE_SPILL_AKRB102.jpg
A worker braves merciless cold
as he vacuums up some of the 267,000 gallons of oil that spilled at Alaska's
Prudhoe Bay oil field.
Ultimately it wasn't the pipeline's leak-detection systems that discovered the
spill.
It was an oilfield worker who caught a whiff of the petroleum.
Industry watchdogs say the spill was absolutely preventable and should have been
detected more promptly, and they blame cost-pinching practices at BP, which runs
the Prudhoe Bay operation. BP has defended its maintenance spending and
inspection practices.
Nevertheless, state environmental regulators say the spill will lead to fines
and possibly stricter pipeline regulations in Alaska.
The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is
investigating and this week ordered BP to inspect the affected pipeline and two
other transit lines and make any necessary repairs.
Up to 267,000 gallons are believed to have spilled onto the frozen ground from a
34-inch pipeline situated in the tundra about 250 miles above the Arctic Circle.
The arctic-grade carbon-steel pipe, which leads eventually to the trans-Alaska
pipeline, lies above ground but is covered by a layer of gravel, as well as the
snow.
Former state oil analyst Richard Fineberg, author of a report issued Thursday on
the spill by the Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility, said BP knew
there was a corrosion problem with the 30-year-old pipeline but was not
conducting frequent enough inspections. BP also steadfastly refused to install a
more accurate leak-detection system, he charged.
"How can you possibly not have the best available technology in the largest oil
field in the U.S., in view of the fact that aging pipes have been a problem for
years and years and years?" he said. "If you had a state-of-the-art leak
detection system, you probably would have known about a spill on the first day."
BP officials said they have an aggressive maintenance program, with a corrosion
inspection budget for the North Slope this year of $71 million, up from $50
million spent in 2004.
"Our intention is to be operating in Alaska for another 50 years," said company
spokesman Daren Beaudo. "Part of that requires renewed investments in our
facilities and pipelines."
Also, company officials said that after an inspection last fall revealed
corrosion, they stepped up their inspection schedule.
As for why the leak was not discovered sooner, BP said the leak may have simply
been too small to register. The pipeline's leak-monitoring equipment, installed
in 2002, is designed to detect a 1 percent drop in the oil flow over a 24-hour
period, BP said.
The spill -- which eventually was discovered March 2 by an oilfield worker who
smelled the acrid fumes -- covers an area smaller than two football fields in a
vast industrial hub traversed by pipelines, oil gathering stations and power
plants.
Given the size of the spill, officials believe the crude was pushing out of the
quarter-inch hole for at least five days. About 63,500 gallons of crude have
been recovered.
Ed Meggert of the state Department of Environmental Conservation said he expects
little permanent damage. "There could be a spot here and there that doesn't
recover," he said. "But with revegetation, it should look quite a bit like it
used to by the end of summer."
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Seattle Times
March 18, 2006
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002873044_prudhoe18.html
Critic blames
oil spill on cost-pinching
By RACHEL D'ORO
The Associated Press
PHOTOs:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2006/03/17/2002872803.jpg
The trans-Alaska pipeline as
seen Monday near the site of the Prudhoe Bay oil field spill. Cleanup has been
slowed by extreme weather conditions, which force workers to take frequent
breaks.
Animal Crossing Diagram:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2006/03/17/2002872854.gif
ANCHORAGE For five days or
more, crude oil oozed from a pipeline through a corrosion hole about the size of
a pencil eraser, silently spreading underneath the snow in what would become the
biggest spill on Alaska's North Slope.
It wasn't the pipeline's leak-detection systems that discovered the spill.
It was an oil-field worker who caught a whiff of the petroleum March 2.
Although the spill is much less than the 11 million gallons spilled in Prince
William Sound when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in March 1989, industry
watchdogs said the spill was preventable and should have been detected more
promptly. They blame cost-pinching practices at BP, which runs the Prudhoe Bay
operation. BP has defended its maintenance spending and inspection practices.
Nevertheless, state environmental regulators said the spill will lead to fines
and possibly stricter pipeline regulations in Alaska, which has grown rich on
oil since crude began flowing from the North Slope via the 800-mile trans-Alaska
pipeline in the 1970s.
The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is
investigating and this week ordered BP to inspect the affected pipeline and two
other transit lines and make necessary repairs.
Up to 267,000 gallons are believed to have spilled onto the frozen ground from a
34-inch-diameter pipeline in the tundra about 250 miles above the Arctic Circle
before it was plugged. The arctic-grade carbon-steel pipe, which leads to the
trans-Alaska pipeline, lies above ground but is covered by a layer of gravel and
snow.
Former state oil analyst Richard Fineberg, author of a report issued Thursday on
the spill by the Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility, said BP knew
there was a corrosion problem with the 30-year-old pipeline but was not
conducting frequent enough inspections. BP also refused to install a more
accurate leak-detection system, he said.
"How can you possibly not have the best available technology in the largest oil
field in the U.S., in view of the fact that aging pipes have been a problem for
years and years and years?" he said. "If you had a state-of-the-art
leak-detection system, you probably would have known about a spill on the first
day."
BP officials said they have an aggressive maintenance program, with a
corrosion-inspection budget for the North Slope this year of $71 million, up
from $50 million in 2004.
"Our intention is to be operating in Alaska for another 50 years," said company
spokesman Daren Beaudo. "Part of that requires renewed investments in our
facilities and pipelines."
Also, company officials said that after an inspection last fall revealed
corrosion, they stepped up their inspection schedule and had planned a follow-up
look this month. They said they were stunned the corrosion ate through the line
so quickly.
As for why the leak was not discovered sooner, BP said the leak may have been
too small to register. The pipeline's leak-monitoring equipment, installed in
2002, is designed to detect a 1 percent drop in the oil flow over 24 hours, BP
said.
Beaudo said the age of the pipe is not believed to be a factor. Instead, he
said, the accident may be related to the fact the pipeline is increasingly
carrying viscous oil, a hard-to-pump heavy crude being tapped as the oil field
is drawn down.
Viscous oil carries more sediments and water, and the separation chemicals used
on viscous oil may interfere with corrosion-inhibiting additives put in the
pipeline, Beaudo said.
The spill covers an area smaller than two football fields in a vast industrial
hub traversed by pipelines, oil-gathering stations and power plants.
Given the size of the spill, officials think the crude was pushing out of the
quarter-inch hole for at least five days. About 63,500 gallons or 1,513
barrels of crude have been recovered, with work slowed in the past week by
temperatures that plunged to 70 degrees below zero with the wind chill.
At the same time, the extreme cold thickens the crude, making it easier to scoop
up and less capable of seeping into the ground.
Ed Meggert of the state Department of Environmental Conservation said he expects
little permanent damage. "There could be a spot here and there that doesn't
recover," he said. "But with revegetation it should look quite a bit like it
used to by the end of summer."
Material from Seattle Times archives is included in this report.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Wall Street Journal
March 18, 2006
Oil spill on
BP-Operated Pipeline
In Alaska Went Undetected for Days
Associated Press
March 18, 2006 1:33 a.m.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- For five days or more, crude oil oozed from a pipeline
through a corrosion hole about the size of a pencil eraser, silently spreading
underneath the snow in what would become the biggest spill ever on Alaska's
North Slope.
Ultimately it wasn't the pipeline's leak-detection systems that discovered the
spill.
It was an oilfield worker who caught a whiff of the petroleum.
Industry watchdogs say the spill was absolutely preventable and should have been
detected more promptly, and they blame cost-pinching practices at BP Plc, which
runs the Prudhoe Bay operation. BP has defended its maintenance spending and
inspection practices.
Nevertheless, state environmental regulators say the spill will lead to fines
and possibly stricter pipeline regulations in Alaska, a state that has grown
rich on oil since crude began flowing from the North Slope via the 800-mile
trans-Alaska pipeline in the 1970s.
The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is
investigating and this week ordered BP to inspect the affected pipeline and two
other transit lines and make and any necessary repairs.
Up to 267,000 gallons are believed to have spilled onto the frozen ground from a
34-inch diameter pipeline situated in the tundra about 250 miles above the
Arctic Circle. The arctic-grade carbon-steel pipe, which leads eventually to the
trans-Alaska pipeline, lies above ground but is covered by a layer of gravel, as
well as the snow.
Former state oil analyst Richard Fineberg, author of a report issued Thursday on
the spill by the Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility, said BP knew
there was a corrosion problem with the 30-year-old pipeline but was not
conducting frequent enough inspections. BP also steadfastly refused to install a
more accurate leak-detection system, he charged.
"How can you possibly not have the best available technology in the largest oil
field in the U.S., in view of the fact that aging pipes have been a problem for
years and years and years?" he said. "If you had a state-of-the-art leak
detection system, you probably would have known about a spill on first day."
BP officials said they have an aggressive maintenance program, with a corrosion
inspection budget for the North Slope this year of $71 million, up from $50
million spent in 2004.
"Our intention is to be operating in Alaska for another 50 years," said company
spokesman Daren Beaudo. "Part of that requires renewed investments in our
facilities and pipelines."
Also, company officials said that after an inspection last fall revealed
corrosion, they stepped up their inspection schedule, and had been planning a
follow-up look this month. They said they were stunned that the corrosion ate
all the way through the line so quickly.
As for why the leak was not discovered sooner, BP said the leak may have simply
been too small to register. The pipeline's leak-monitoring equipment, installed
in 2002, is designed to detect a 1% drop in the oil flow over a 24-hour period,
BP said.
Mr. Beaudo said the age of the pipe is not believed to be a factor. Instead, he
said, the accident may be related to the fact the pipeline is increasingly
carrying viscous oil, a hard-to-pump heavy crude being tapped as the oil field
is drawn down.
Viscous oil carries more sediments and water, and the separation chemicals used
on viscous oil may interfere with corrosion-inhibiting additives that are put in
the pipeline, Mr. Beaudo said.
"Viscous is a challenge to get out of the ground and it's harder to separate.
That's presented new challenges," he said.
The spill -- which was eventually discovered March 2 by an oilfield worker who
smelled the acrid fumes -- covers an area smaller than two football fields in a
vast industrial hub traversed by pipelines, oil gathering stations and power
plants.
Given the size of the spill, officials believe the crude was pushing out of the
quarter-inch hole for at least five days. About 63,500 gallons -- or 1,513
barrels -- of crude have been recovered, with work slowed in the past week by
punishing arctic conditions that plunged temperatures to 70 degrees below zero
with the wind chill.
At the same time, the extreme cold thickens the crude, making it easier to scoop
up and less capable of seeping into the ground.
Ed Meggert of the state Department of Environmental Conservation said he expects
little permanent damage. "There could be a spot here and there that doesn't
recover," he said. "But with revegetation it should look quite a bit like it
used to by the end of summer."
Among the crews responding to the spill are Eskimos from North Slope villages
who live off the land and consider themselves caretakers of the wilderness.
North Slope Borough Mayor Edward Itta, an Eskimo hunter and whaling captain, is
urging state regulators to require better leak-detection equipment.
"It's fortunate this did not happen in a river or fish-producing lake and
fortunate it happened where it did," Mr. Itta said.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anchorage Daily News
March 17, 2006
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7540469p-7451963c.html
BP ordered to
ensure pipe safety
Wall Street Journal
March 18, 2006
NORTH SLOPE:
Letter from federal agency
follows record oil spill.
By WESLEY LOY
Anchorage Daily News
Published: March 17, 2006
Last Modified: March 17, 2006 at 03:21 AM
Federal pipeline safety officials have
intervened in the Prudhoe Bay oil spill, ordering BP to take aggressive steps to
ensure a major pipe that leaked more than 200,000 gallons of crude won't break
down again.
Daren Beaudo, a spokesman for BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., acknowledged the
company received a letter from the Office of Pipeline Safety, an agency within
the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The letter orders BP to take a series of actions, such as running an electronic
device called a pig through the 3-mile pipeline to test for corrosion or other
problems.
Beaudo said late Thursday that he was not at liberty to provide a copy of the
letter.
"We're still reviewing it," he said.
The federal intervention is somewhat unexpected because BP has long maintained
that the pipeline that leaked is not subject to federal regulation.
The Office of Pipeline Safety, however, has been studying whether to expand its
oversight to cover more of the thousands of miles of steel pipes lacing Prudhoe
and other North Slope oil fields.
The leaky pipeline, 34 inches in diameter, carries crude oil from a Prudhoe
processing plant called Gathering Center 2 to the starting point of the 800-mile
trans-Alaska pipeline.
A worker for BP, which operates the nation's largest oil field, discovered a
leak March 2 after smelling oil as he drove an access road running alongside the
pipeline.
Cleanup workers subsequently determined that the spill amounts to the largest
crude oil spill by far on the North Slope. The spilled oil covers close to two
acres, including the edge of a frozen lake.
Pollution officials with the state Department of Environmental Conservation say
they're confident that cleanup workers will be able to recover most of the oil
without much damage to the tundra.
But the spill has caused major disruption for BP, shutting down a pipeline that
carries about 100,000 barrels of oil per day, or 12 percent of total North Slope
production. Because of the size of the spill, BP could be fined millions of
dollars.
BP managers have said the leaky pipeline could remain out of service for weeks.
Meantime, they hope to restore some of the idled production by routing oil
through a nearby but smaller pipeline.
Top state officials this morning are scheduled to hold a Juneau briefing on the
spill investigation and the "regulatory implications to pipelines."
The officials include DEC Commissioner Kurt Fredriksson, Natural Resources
Commissioner Mike Menge, Attorney General David Marquez and John Norman,
chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
The Office of Pipeline Safety regulates 2.3 million miles of natural gas and
hazardous liquid pipelines, according to the agency's Web site.
But many of the pipelines on the North Slope -- predominantly smaller pipes
known as gathering or flow lines -- do not come under federal regulation.
BP believes the leaky Prudhoe pipeline is a gathering line not subject to such
regulation, spokesman Beaudo said.
Daily News reporter Wesley Loy can be reached at
wloy@adn.com or 257-4590.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.adn.com/money/story/7540491p-7451985c.html
North Slope February production down slightly
1.3 PERCENT: Repairs at BP's Milne Point
field lowered totals for the month.
By KRISTEN NELSON
Petroleum News
Published: March 17, 2006
Last Modified: March 17, 2006 at 04:56 AM
North Slope production was down 1.3
percent in February, driven by a 13 percent drop at BP Exploration (Alaska)
Inc.'s Milne Point field. The company did planned repairs on a gas compressor
there Feb. 19-26, causing the fall in production.
North Slope production averaged 846,127 barrels per day in February, the state
said. Production in March will be off significantly due to the March 2 shutdown
of a corroded main pipeline at the huge Prudhoe Bay field, idling about 95,000
barrels a day of production.
In February, BP-operated Prudhoe Bay averaged 400,383 barrels a day, down 1.5
percent from January. Prudhoe production includes oil from the small Midnight
Sun, Aurora, Polaris, Borealis and Orion nearby.
At the Slope's No. 2 field, Kuparuk River, production averaged 171,804 barrels a
day, up 1 percent. The Kuparuk totals include oil from the nearby West Sak,
Tabasco, Tarn, Meltwater and Palm fields.
The No. 3 field is Alpine, run by Conoco Phillips Alaska Inc. Production there
averaged 126,141 barrels a day, down 1.4 percent.
BP's Northstar field had the largest increase, 4.5 percent, averaging 51,662
barrels a day in February.
Lisburne production -- including oil from the Lisburne, Point McIntyre and
Niakuk fields -- averaged 39,231 barrels a day, down 2 percent.
Milne Point, where the gas compressor was repaired, averaged 36,684 barrels a
day.
Production at the Endicott field averaged 20,222 barrels a day, down 2 percent.
Endicott's numbers include oil from the small Sag Delta, Eider and Badami
fields.
In Cook Inlet, February production averaged 17,394 barrels a day, down 2 percent
from January.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anchorage Daily News
March 16, 2006
http://www.adn.com/money/story/7537497p-7449118c.html
Spill may boost
pipeline monitoring
PREVENTION: Corrosion, leak changes were proposed before recent Slope incident.
By WESLEY LOY
Anchorage Daily News
Published: March 16, 2006
Last Modified: March 16, 2006 at 01:48 AM
State pollution officials are planning
an overhaul of oil spill prevention regulations that would expand corrosion and
leak-detection requirements for pipelines.
Work on the proposed regulatory changes began about 18 months ago, long before a
pipeline leak discovered this month caused the largest crude oil spill on the
North Slope since production began 29 years ago.
Larry Dietrick, spill prevention and response director for the Department of
Environmental Conservation, said it's possible the investigation into the spill
will lead to further regulatory changes.
Spill prevention is "an incredibly technical arena," but state officials felt it
was time to review and update regulations imposed in the wake of the 1989 Exxon
Valdez oil spill, Dietrick said.
Under DEC's proposed regulations, more of the state's extensive network of oil
field pipelines would come under rules requiring corrosion monitoring, and in
some cases equipment to detect leaks.
In particular, smaller pipes known as "gathering" or "flow" lines would be
regulated. Such pipes haven't been regulated by either state or federal
authorities, Dietrick said.
Corrosion is suspected as causing a small hole in a major Prudhoe Bay pipeline,
causing an estimated 201,000 gallons, or 4,790 barrels, of oil to spill over an
area of tundra nearly the size of two football fields. Unlike most gathering and
flow lines, the leaky 34-inch pipeline has leak-detection equipment and carries
only crude oil, as opposed to a mixture of oil, natural gas and water.
The damaged pipeline's leak detector is under scrutiny by investigators because
the system didn't lead field workers to the leak. Rather, a worker driving by
the pipeline smelled oil early on the morning of March 2, and a search turned up
a snow-covered pool of crude more than a foot deep in spots, DEC officials said.
The leak detector is supposed to sound an alarm if the daily flow through the
pipeline drops by 1 percent or more. Managers with BP, the company that runs the
giant Prudhoe Bay field, believe no alarm sounded because the oil leaked out in
too small an amount over a period of five days or more.
As part of revising the spill prevention regulations, the state considered
lowering the 1 percent leak-detection threshold to half a percentage point but
decided against it, said Craig Wilson, a DEC environmental program specialist.
Lowering the threshold would create more false alarms, and while smaller leaks
might be detected, they wouldn't be detected as fast, he said.
BP, in comments to the state last June, opposed lowering the 1 percent standard,
saying no technological breakthroughs had been made in recent years to improve
pipeline leak detection. Officials with the North Slope Borough, however, argued
better technology does exist and BP should use it.
Dietrick said results of the investigation into the Prudhoe pipeline leak could
result in further regulation changes beyond those DEC already is proposing.
The agency finished taking public comments on its proposed regulations on March
3, the day after the spill was found. New regulations could take effect by July
1, Wilson said.
For more information, go to
www.dec. state.ak.us/spar/ipp/cpr.htm.
Daily News reporter Wesley Loy can be reached at
wloy@adn.com or 257-4590.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
New York Times
March 15, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Prudhoe-Spill.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Oil Company
Knew of Corrosion in Pipeline
By THE ASSOCIATED
PRESS
Filed at 12:43 a.m. ET
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) -- The oil company
blamed for the North Slope's largest oil spill said Tuesday its inspectors
were aware of corrosion in a pipeline months before it burst, but believed
the threat to be ''manageable.''
An inspection last fall revealed corrosion in the line and led officials to step
up their schedule of inspections, said Maureen Johnson, BP Exploration Alaska's
senior vice president of the Greater Prudhoe Bay Unit.
Johnson said corrosion was seen in the 34-inch oil transit line in a September
inspection but it appeared to be occurring at a ''low manageable corrosion
rate.''
A leak was discovered March 2 and now covers two acres of remote and frozen
tundra on Alaska's north coast near the Beaufort Sea. As of Monday, crews had
recovered about 60,000 gallons of an estimated 201,000 to 267,000 gallons of
spilled crude.
Spill investigators also found significant damage -- especially in low spots of
the pipe -- that likely occurred within the last six to nine months.
Similar problems have not been found in other lines downstream and elsewhere in
Prudhoe Bay, and Johnson said it appears the highly corrosive conditions were
unique to that line.
''We can assure you we are taking action on all the possible causes out there,''
Johnson said.
On the Net:
BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.:
http://alaska.bp.com/
Unified Command information site:
http://www.dec.state.ak.us
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anchorage Daily News
March 15, 2006
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7534712p-7446415c.html
Slope slowdown
costing state $1 million per day
OIL SPILL: BP managers say they think pipeline leaked unnoticed for five or more
days.
By WESLEY LOY
Anchorage Daily News
(Published: March 15, 2006)
PHOTO:
Cleaning up the oil in Prudhoe Bay has been slow as workers take frequent breaks
to protect against extreme conditions. (Photo by RICK BOWMER / The Associated
Press)
http://www.adn.com/photo/2006/03/15/1868078-300-x-241.jpg
PHOTO, Diagram Caribou
Crossings:
http://www.adn.com/ips_rich_content/915-15PrudhoeBaySpill.gif
PHOTO Gallery:
http://www.adn.com/photos/oil_spill/v-photo_gallery_0/
North Slope crude oil production
could remain significantly below normal for two more weeks or longer due to the
Prudhoe Bay pipeline leak that caused the Slope's largest oil spill, BP managers
said Tuesday.
The slowdown in production is costing the state nearly $1 million a day in
revenue.
The BP managers also said they figure the pipeline leaked for at least five days
before the snow-covered spill was discovered.
And they said corrosion that ate a small hole in the steel pipe might have been
caused by peculiar chemical factors in the pipeline.
BP managers said the shutdown of the leaky pipeline since March 2 has cut
production by 95,000 barrels per day, or 12 percent of overall North Slope
output. They said it will be two weeks before some or all of the production can
be restored.
The 95,000 barrels, plus an additional 4,000 barrels of idled production because
of another pipeline leak in the neighboring Kuparuk field, is trimming state oil
revenue by about $960,000 a day at current oil prices of around $60 a barrel,
said Michael Williams, chief economist with the Alaska Department of Revenue.
If the production cut lasts two more weeks, it'll mean some $26 million less
into state coffers this budget year.
Kemp Copeland, BP's Prudhoe Bay field manager, said company engineers are
working to restore at least some Prudhoe production by diverting oil that
normally flows through the damaged 34-inch pipeline into a nearby 24-inch line.
To do that, workers must link the two pipelines by laying a 10-inch "jumper"
pipeline about the length of a football field.
The bypass could start up in two weeks but would restore only 50 percent to 75
percent of the idled production, said Maureen Johnson, a BP senior vice
president.
Meanwhile, the 34-inch pipeline will be out of service for up to six weeks while
it is repaired and tested to make sure it doesn't have any other serious
corrosion problems, she said.
A massive cleanup of spilled oil continues in harsh winter conditions.
Pollution control officials with the state Department of Environmental
Conservation say about 60,000 gallons of oil has been recovered from a spill
estimated at 201,000 gallons, or 4,790 barrels. The oil has covered almost 2
acres of tundra, including the edge of a frozen lake.
The spilled oil was enough to fill 25 tractor-trailer tank trucks but a tiny
amount compared with Prudhoe's normal daily production of 490,000 barrels a day.
The average well in Prudhoe, the nation's largest oil field, averages 500
barrels per day, Copeland said.
BP managers and DEC officials said the pipeline's leak-detection system was
working, but no alarm sounded for field workers, most likely because the oil
leaked too slowly over time to trigger it.
By regulation, the system must detect leaks involving 1 percent or more of a
pipeline's daily oil flow. In this case, 1 percent would equal about 1,000
barrels, leading Johnson to figure the leak must have persisted for at least
five days given the spill's estimated size of nearly 5,000 barrels. Otherwise,
the leak volume would have been large enough to set off an alert.
"We believe the leak probably started as a pinhole and grew over time and was
too small to be detected by our system," Johnson said.
Johnson said BP and DEC investigators are looking into whether too little
anti-corrosion chemicals were flowing down the pipeline from Gathering Center 2,
a plant that separates water from oil. That or other chemical factors might have
caused the increased corrosion seen in the pipe over the last six months,
eventually leading to a hole about a quarter-inch wide and a half-inch long, she
said.
A different section of the same pipeline didn't show the same corrosion problem,
Johnson said.
BP plans to work with DEC on ways to detect smaller spills that might evade leak
detectors, Johnson said. One idea might be to increase the use of aerial
infrared surveys, which can spot warm oil obscured by snow.
Snow hid most of the Prudhoe spill, which a BP field worker reported after
smelling oil as he drove by early on the morning of March 2.
On Monday, the mayor of the North Slope Borough accused BP of failing to use the
best available technology to detect leaks in Prudhoe's vast and aging pipeline
network. Lydia Miner, a DEC official, said Tuesday that the state had started a
comprehensive review of spill-prevention regulations, including leak detection,
long before the Prudhoe spill occurred.
BP runs Prudhoe and owns 26 percent of the production. The biggest Prudhoe
owners are Exxon Mobil and Conoco Phillips, each with about 36 percent.
Daily News reporter Wesley Loy can be reached at
wloy@adn.com or 257-4590.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anchorage Daily News
March 14, 2006
http://www.adn.com/money/story/7531594p-7443552c.html
Slope mayor
questions leak detection
OIL
SPILL: Clean-up complimented as crews pick up 60,000 gallons.
By WESLEY LOY
Anchorage Daily News
Published: March 14, 2006
Last Modified: March 14, 2006 at 01:47 AM
The ongoing effort to clean up the North Slope's largest oil spill ever is
"first-rate," but pipeline leak-detection equipment to prevent such spills is
lacking, the region's mayor said Monday.
A major pipeline carrying crude oil away from a processing plant known as
Gathering Center 2 sprang a leak, sending an estimated 201,000 gallons, or 4,790
barrels, of crude oozing over nearly 2 acres of tundra. That's enough oil to
fill 25 tractor-trailer tank trucks.
Officials with the state Department of Environmental Conservation said clean-up
workers have recovered about 60,000 gallons of the spilled oil using vacuum
trucks and other methods while working in subzero temperatures.
The spill is near the heart of pipeline-laced Prudhoe Bay, the nation's largest
oil field. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. runs the field on behalf of itself and
other owners, including Exxon Mobil and Conoco Phillips.
"BP's response to this spill has been first-rate," North Slope Mayor Edward Itta
said Monday. "I'm very pleased with the speed of their response, the amount of
resources they have mobilized, and the degree of communication they have
maintained."
Itta added: "The industry uses state-of-the-art equipment to find the oil and
get it out of the ground, and I'd like to see them use the best available
technology to prevent major spills like the one at GC-2. That's not happening
right now."
Itta sent a letter to DEC Commissioner Kurt Fredriksson, the state's top
pollution control official, endorsing a joint BP-state investigation into the
leak-detection system on the 34-inch pipeline. The borough also wants "an audit
of other pipelines with similar leak-detection systems."
The North Slope Borough is the local government for the Minnesota-sized
territory across the top of Alaska, including the Slope's many oil fields.
Over the past year, the borough twice urged DEC to require better leak-detection
equipment than that used on the failed Prudhoe Bay pipeline, Itta's letter adds.
The borough said currently available leak detectors are capable of performing
more than twice as well as those the state now requires.
Fredriksson could not be reached for comment Monday. DEC spokeswoman Lynda
Giguere said the agency had not yet seen Itta's letter.
Corrosion is suspected of causing a quarter-inch hole in steel pipeline.
Now patched and no longer leaking, the line remains shut down and North Slope
oil production is down by 95,000 barrels a day, or 12 percent of total Slope
production. A BP spokesman has said it could be weeks before the pipeline is
fixed or engineers figure out a way to reroute oil to bring production back to
normal.
BP and DEC officials who are investigating the spill have said they're not yet
sure whether the leak-detection system failed to work as designed.
It's possible, they said, that the leak was small and slow enough to escape
detection. Under state regulations, the system is required to sound an alarm
only if the flow through the pipeline drops by 1 percent or more over a 24-hour
period. A DEC official said
