|
BP plans backup tankers for Valdez use North Slope oil producer submits spill plan for charters; would fill in when regular ATC vessels unavailable; watchdogs have concerns Wesley Loy For Petroleum News
BP has submitted a spill prevention and response plan for backup tankers it might charter on short notice to haul Alaska North Slope crude oil out of the port of Valdez.
The submission of the plan, which is subject to state approval, is something of a surprise because an Oregon-based shipping firm, Alaska Tanker Co., normally hauls all of BP’s crude.
The spill prevention and response plan is known as a contingency or C-plan. It lays out how a company will respond, and keep people informed, in the event a tanker leaks oil or experiences some other emergency. The plan outlines a chain of command and includes details on each covered ship.
BP Oil Shipping Co. USA offered its tanker operations C-plan on Aug. 25, and it’s now under review by state regulators and others.
Some of the reviewers already have lodged concerns and have asked BP for more information.
The C-plan does not, at this point, name the specific tankers BP might charter. But it does say such ships will be compliant with the Jones Act, and the vessels will be U.S.-flagged with U.S.-licensed crews.
BP’s regular fleet BP, which operates the nation’s largest oil field at Prudhoe Bay and owns the largest stake in the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, normally moves its oil to West Coast refineries aboard ships operated by Alaska Tanker Co. of Portland, Ore.
Alaska Tanker’s fleet consists of four double-hull ships, each with a carrying capacity of 1.3 million barrels. BP invested more than $1 billion to build the tankers in a San Diego shipyard, launching the first of them in 2004.
The ships are named the Alaskan Explorer, the Alaskan Frontier, the Alaskan Legend and the Alaskan Navigator.
The North Slope’s other two major oil producers, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, also operate tankers.
Virtually the entire tanker fleet calling on Valdez today is double-hulled. Congress mandated a full transformation from single-hull to double-hull tankers by 2015 as part of reforms following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound.
Although BP paid for the four new tankers, the London-based oil giant is only a minority owner of Alaska Tanker. BP holds a 25 percent share, with global shippers Keystone and OSG each holding a 37.5 percent stake.
Anil Mathur, Alaska Tanker’s president, told Petroleum News on Oct. 13 that BP might need to charter an extra ship on a short-term basis to provide enough hauling capacity when one of Alaska Tanker’s vessels is unavailable.
That’s the case right now, he said, as the Alaskan Explorer is in a Singapore dry-dock until late November or early December. It’s a routine drydocking, required every five years under U.S. Coast Guard regulations, he said.
BP submitted the C-plan because it will be handling the short-term charters, Mathur said.
“My company is not designed to do that kind of thing,” he said. “Our product is these four ships.”
Questions raised At least two reviewers of the C-plan — the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council — have asked BP to provide more information.
In an Oct. 2 letter to BP, the DEC’s marine vessels section manager, John Kotula, based in Valdez, asked BP to clarify such points as how crews aboard the chartered ships will be trained to use equipment for towing a tanker in distress.
Kotula’s letter also asked BP to pledge not to bring in tankers exceeding a maximum cargo volume of about 1.5 million barrels.
The sort of spot charters BP is proposing are not unusual in Alaska, Kotula told Petroleum News on Oct. 13.
“We do spot charters in Cook Inlet very routinely,” Kotula said. He mentioned the port of Adak and the port supporting the Red Dog zinc mine near Kotzebue as other places where regulators approve C-plans for spot charters.
For now, the law would allow BP to charter single-hull tankers for trips into Valdez, Kotula said.
The Prince William Sound RCAC, a congressionally sanctioned oil industry watchdog group based in Valdez, has raised other concerns.
The organization wants BP to name the ships it might charter well in advance, so the group can research whether they’ve had a history of trouble.
RCAC staffers are troubled that BP, under its C-plan, could submit specific ship information to DEC only five days prior to a chartered tanker’s entry into state waters.
The RCAC “recognizes that spot charters are a necessary part of the oil transportation trade,” the group said in a Sept. 25 comment letter to DEC.
But the five-day notification “does not provide enough time for public review of the vessel-specific information,” the RCAC wrote. “The purpose of public review of oil spill contingency plans is for the planholder to disclose the facts about the vessels and people responsible for carrying crude oil through Alaska waters. The public has a right to review and evaluate this information as a major oil spill from a PWS tanker has the potential to devastate the waters of the Sound and the lives of all those that depend on those waters for their subsistence, livelihood and recreation.”
BP responds Petroleum News sought comment from BP’s C-plan administrator, Ed Thompson, about the company’s plans to charter tankers.
BP’s Anchorage spokesman, Steve Rinehart, e-mailed responses to these questions:
Q: Why wouldn’t BP’s tanker affiliate, Alaska Tanker Co., line up extra tankers if needed?
A: ATC is not structured to charter in vessels, whereas BPOSC does this routinely.
Q: Why did BP submit a tanker C-plan?
A: The intent is that ATC will continue to carry all of BP’s crude. BP is committed to ATC, which is an excellent ship operator.
BPOSC is obtaining a contingency plan for the rare event that ATC ships are not available to carry all of BP’s Alaska oil. This could be due to ATC vessel unavailability, such as dry-dockings.
BP will plan and schedule to avoid these events, but unforeseen circumstances may arise. So, it is prudent to be prepared.
Q: Under the C-plan, will any tankers BP charters meet essentially the same requirements in terms of towing capability, crew training, etc., as ATC’s regular tankers?
A: Any ship used to carry BP oil would meet or exceed all Alaska and U.S. Coast Guard safety requirements.
Q: Can you name any of the tankers BP might charter?
A: Not specifically. But vessels chosen would most likely be from a small pool of vessels BP is already using in the U.S. trade.
To better mitigate marine risk, BP prefers to use vessels and operators that it holds longstanding shipping relationships with.
| 