DOCSLIB.ORG

R-09-DMA-0066-12-18.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
R-09-DMA-0066-12-18.Pdf Estudio de Riesgo Ambiental Área Contractual 3, Cuenca Salina, Golfo de México Estudio de Riesgo Ambiental Evaluación de los Riesgos Ambientales Relacionados con la Perforación Exploratoria, Área Contractual 3 del Contrato CNH-R01-L04-A3.CS/2016, Cuenca Salina, Golfo de México Fecha: 30 de noviembre del 2018 Nombre y firma de persona física. Información protegida bajo los artículos 113 fracción I de la LFTAIP y 116 primer párrafo de la LGTAIP. Líder de Offshore Oil and Gas México Nombre y firma de persona física. Información protegida bajo los artículos 113 fracción I de la LFTAIP y 116 primer párrafo de la LGTAIP. Líder de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental Estudio de Riesgo Ambiental Área Contractual 3, Cuenca Salina, Golfo de México Tabla de Contenidos 1.0 Escenarios de los Riesgos Ambientales Relacionados con el Proyecto ........................................ 1-1 1.1 Bases de Diseño .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Información General del Proyecto .................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1.1 Descripción del Proyecto ................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1.2 Alcance del ERA................................................................................................ 1-3 1.1.2 Características del Sitio y Susceptibilidad a Fenómenos Naturales y Efectos Meteorológicos Adversos................................................................................................. 1-4 1.1.2.1 Estacionalidad ................................................................................................... 1-4 1.1.2.2 Condiciones Meteorológicas .............................................................................. 1-5 1.1.2.3 Mareas .............................................................................................................. 1-9 1.1.2.4 Corrientes Marinas ............................................................................................ 1-9 1.1.2.5 Oleaje ................................................................................................................ 1-9 1.1.2.6 Vientos ............................................................................................................ 1-10 1.1.2.7 Patrones de Circulación ................................................................................... 1-12 1.1.2.8 Eventos Extremos ........................................................................................... 1-12 1.1.3 Criterios de Diseño y Estándares Utilizados Para el Proyecto ........................................ 1-17 1.1.4 Proyecto Civil ................................................................................................................ 1-20 1.1.5 Proyecto Mecánico ........................................................................................................ 1-20 1.1.5.1 MODU ............................................................................................................. 1-25 1.1.5.2 Control del Pozo .............................................................................................. 1-25 1.1.5.3 Sistema de Prevención de Reventones ............................................................ 1-26 1.2 Prevención de Incendios del Proyecto ........................................................................................ 1-27 1.2.1.1 Sistema de Bombeo de Agua Contra Incendio ................................................. 1-27 1.2.1.2 Red Contra Incendios ...................................................................................... 1-27 1.2.1.3 Hidrantes y Mangueras .................................................................................... 1-27 1.2.1.4 Sistemas de Detección de Incendios y Gas ..................................................... 1-28 1.3 Descripción Detallada del Proceso ............................................................................................. 1-28 1.3.1 Secuencia de Perforación .............................................................................................. 1-28 1.3.2 Control del Pozo ............................................................................................................ 1-32 1.3.3 Prueba de Pozo ............................................................................................................. 1-32 1.3.4 Abandono ...................................................................................................................... 1-32 1.3.5 Materias Primas, Productos, y Subproductos ................................................................. 1-33 1.3.5.1 Perforación ...................................................................................................... 1-33 1.3.5.2 Prueba de Pozo ............................................................................................... 1-34 1.3.5.3 Flujo No Planeado o No Controlado ................................................................. 1-34 1.3.6 Hojas de Seguridad ....................................................................................................... 1-35 1.3.6.1 Riesgos de Petróleo Crudo .............................................................................. 1-35 1.3.6.2 Riesgos del Gas Natural .................................................................................. 1-35 1.3.6.3 Ácido Sulfhídrico.............................................................................................. 1-36 1.3.7 Almacenamiento ............................................................................................................ 1-37 1.3.8 Equipos del Proceso y Auxiliares ................................................................................... 1-38 1.3.8.1 MODU ............................................................................................................. 1-38 1.3.8.2 Buque de Prueba de Pozo ............................................................................... 1-40 1.3.8.3 Árbol de Prueba Submarino ............................................................................. 1-42 1.3.8.4 Válvula de Seguridad de Fondo de Pozo ......................................................... 1-42 1.3.8.5 Colector Múltiple de Estrangulamiento ............................................................. 1-42 1.3.8.6 Intercambiador de Calor con Vapor .................................................................. 1-43 1.3.8.7 Separador Horizontal Convencional ................................................................. 1-43 1.3.8.8 Tanque de Compensación Vertical .................................................................. 1-43 1.3.8.9 Quemador ....................................................................................................... 1-44 1.3.9 Pruebas de Verificación ................................................................................................. 1-45 Final – AECOM & OSRL – Noviembre 2018 ii Estudio de Riesgo Ambiental Área Contractual 3, Cuenca Salina, Golfo de México 1.4 Condiciones de Operación ......................................................................................................... 1-45 1.4.1 Especificaciones del Cuarto de Control .......................................................................... 1-46 1.4.2 Sistemas de Aislamiento ................................................................................................ 1-46 1.4.2.1 Sistemas de Paro de Seguridad ....................................................................... 1-46 1.4.2.2 Sistema de Contención de Derrames ............................................................... 1-47 1.5 Evaluación y Análisis de Riesgo ................................................................................................. 1-48 1.5.1 Histórico de Accidentes e Incidentes .............................................................................. 1-48 1.5.1.1 Mayores Incidentes de Derrames de Hidrocarburos en los Mares de Estados Unidos ............................................................................................... 1-48 1.5.1.2 Incidentes de Derrames de Hidrocarburos de PEMEX ..................................... 1-51 1.5.1.3 Frecuencias del Peor Escenario ...................................................................... 1-51 1.5.2 Identificación de Riesgos y Metodología de Jerarquización ............................................ 1-52 1.5.2.1 Alance de la Evaluación de Riesgos ................................................................ 1-53 1.5.2.2 Metodología de Evaluación de Riesgos ........................................................... 1-54 1.5.2.3 Metodología de Análisis BowTie ...................................................................... 1-54 1.5.2.4 Metodología de la Evaluación de Riesgos Ambientales .................................... 1-57 1.5.2.5 Escenarios de Incidentes y Accidentes ............................................................ 1-57 1.5.2.6 Clasificación de Riesgos y Evaluación de Impactos ......................................... 1-64 1.5.2.7 Jerarquía de Escenarios .................................................................................. 1-69 2.0 Descripción de las Zonas de Protección Alrededor de las Instalaciones ....................................... 2-1 2.1 Radio Potencial de Afectación .....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Refugio Oil Spill Response & Recovery
    Refugio Oil Spill Response & Recovery Incident Summary • On 19 May 2015 at 1243, report to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services • The report indicated a pipeline rupture had occurred near Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara County, CA • The responsible party (Plains All American Pipeline) estimated the total release at 500 barrels (21,000 gallons) of crude oil on the shoreside of Hwy 101 which then flowed into the Pacific Ocean • 23x7 mile (138 square mile) fishery closure Incident Summary (con’t) • Initial reports estimated a sheen to be 3.5 NM along the beach and 50-100 yards into the water • Revised worst-case release: 101,000 gal (2,400 bbl) • On May 19, Governor Brown declared a State of Emergency for Santa Barbara County • On June 5, Governor Brown issued a subsequent Executive Order to Further Expedite Oil Spill Recovery Efforts in Santa Barbara County Location of Incident (Approximately 25 miles west of Santa Barbara) Incident Command Post Shoreline below the cliff Photo Courtesy of CDFW‐OSPR Refugio State Beach Photo Courtesy of NOAA Significant Environmental, Cultural, Historical & Social Concerns • 2 Marine Protected Areas (Kashtayit & Naples) • 23‐mile by 7‐mile mile fishery closure • Wildlife impacts – birds, mammals, Grunion Spawning • Chumash Indian Tribe – 2,000 ‐ 5,000 members coastal members – Inhabitants of SB Coast for over 13,000 years • Varied Beach composition & environments: – Cobble, Rock, Sand, Cliffs, Kelp, Marinas, Parks Areas of Special Interest/Concerns Volunteers Extensive Fisheries Closure Zone Cultural and Tribal Integration Wildlife Operation - marine mammals NGO and community involvement At Maximum Effort • Personnel – 1287 in field – 129 in ICP • Vessels on water – 21 skimmers – 2 support barges • 6,000 ft boom deployed • 5 SCAT teams deployed • 23 x 7 mile fishery closure • 1000‐ft temporary flight restriction within a 5‐mile radius of Refugio Beach – Daily responder overflights Unified Command Established USCG Sector LA‐LB Sector Commander, EPA Region 9, CA DFW, Santa Barbara Co OEM, Plains All American.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ) in Re: ) Chapter 11 ) WHITING PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ) Case No
    Case 20-32021 Document 362 Filed in TXSB on 05/21/20 Page 1 of 147 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) WHITING PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ) Case No. 20-32021 (DRJ) et al.,1 ) ) Debtors. ) (Jointly Administered) ) GLOBAL NOTES AND STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS, METHODOLOGIES, AND DISCLAIMERS REGARDING THE DEBTORS’ SCHEDULES OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS The Schedules of Assets and Liabilities (collectively with attachments, the “Schedules”) and the Statements of Financial Affairs (collectively with attachments, the “Statements,” and together with the Schedules, the “Schedules and Statements”), filed by the above-captioned debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the “Debtors”), were prepared pursuant to section 521 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) and rule 1007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) by the Debtors’ management, with the assistance of the Debtors’ advisors, and are unaudited. These Global Notes and Statement of Limitations, Methodologies, and Disclaimers Regarding the Debtors’ Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statements of Financial Affairs (the “Global Notes”) are incorporated by reference in, and comprise an integral part of, each Debtor’s respective Schedules and Statements, and should be referred to and considered in connection with any review of the Schedules and Statements. While the Debtors’ management has made reasonable efforts to ensure that the Schedules and Statements are as accurate and complete as possible under the circumstances, based on information that was available at the time of preparation, inadvertent errors, inaccuracies, or omissions may have occurred or the Debtors may discover subsequent information that requires material changes to the Schedules and Statements.
    [Show full text]
  • Check out This Factsheet on the Project
    The GETFACTS ABOUT PLAINSPIPELINE’S NEW THREAT TO COASTAL CALIFORNIA Plains All American Pipeline caused California’s worst coastal oil spill in 25 years – the Refugio Oil Spill of 2015 – and now it wants a second chance to spill again. anta Barbara County is processing Plains’ application to build another coastal oil pipeline that would restart Sdrilling from six decrepit offshore oil platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel. Houston-based Plains was criminally negligent in allowing its previous coastal oil pipeline to become corroded and fail, coating Santa Barbara area beaches in crude and killing hundreds of birds and marine mammals. It doesn’t deserve another opportunity to kill threatened wildlife, poison our communities and wreck the climate. THE PROJECT • Plains All American Pipeline is proposing to build more than 123 miles of new oil pipeline through Santa Barbara (73 miles), San Luis Obispo (37 miles) and Kern counties (14 miles), transporting heavy crude pumped from offshore drilling platforms to onshore processing facilities. Plains also proposes to abandon in place about 123 miles of its old failed oil pipelines. • The new pipeline will mostly follow the same route as the old broken pipeline – which was built based on environmental studies done in the late ‘80s – in a rapidly changing coastal zone that is now being affected by coastal erosion, sea level rise and other impacts from climate change. HISTORY OF VIOLATIONS • Investigators responding to a massive coastal oil spill near Refugio State Beach in 2015 found the source, Plains’ Pipeline 901, to be severely corroded and poorly maintained. In September 2018, a Santa Barbara jury found Plains guilty of a felony for failing to properly maintain its pipeline and eight misdemeanor charges for a delay in reporting the spill and for its deadly impact on protected wildlife.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-2024 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program
    NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL August 17, 2017 Ms. Kelly Hammerle National Program Manager Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 45600 Woodland Road Sterling, VA 20166 Submitted online at http:www.regulations.gov Re: NRDC Comments on the Request for Information and Comments on the Preparation of the 2019-2024 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program. Dear Ms. Hammerle: On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) and its more than 2.5 million members and online activists, we submit this letter to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (“BOEM”) regarding the Request for Information for the Preparation of the 2019-2024 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program (“Program”). For more than three decades, NRDC has monitored and engaged in policy processes related to leasing, exploring and producing oil and gas from our nation’s oceans. We object to the Administration’s initiation of a whole new process to develop a Five-Year Program so soon after the current Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program (2017-2022) was put in place (January 2017). An extensive, multi-year public process preceded the adoption of the current program, during which over 1.4 million comments were submitted opposing new drilling. The program finalized at the end of this lengthy public process contains no lease sales in the following areas: the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic, Bristol Bay or Eastern Gulf. New offshore drilling and leasing threatens billion dollar coastal economies, would open fragile and priceless coastal ecosystems to damage from pollution and spills, and would accelerate global climate disruption.
    [Show full text]
  • Inline Inspection / Integrity Management
    e Journal 1 / 2019 Issue Issue Pipeline Technology Journal INLINE INSPECTION / INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT www.pipeline-journal.net ISSN 2196-4300 Advanced in Sealing. DENSOLEN ® DENSOMAT ® Tapes and Systems Wrapping Devices ■ Reliable corrosion prevention and strong ■ For fast and secure application mechanical resistance ■ High flexibility for all diameters ■ For extreme temperatures: -50 °C to +100 °C (-58 °F to +212 °F) www.denso.de PIPELINE TECHNOLOGY JOURNAL 3 EDITORIAL We face many challenges – together we must find solutions Oil and gas pipelines around the world are facing a number of challenges that will shape our industry in a severe way and require us to work even more closely to- gether than ever before in order to develop innovative solutions to these challenges. At the annual Pipeline Technology Conference (ptc) in Berlin and in the Pipeline Technology Journal (prj), we regularly cover topics, lead them into international discussion and thus support pipeline developers and operators around the Admir Celovic world to make their pipelines safer, more reliable and more economical. Director Publications In addition to some 80 presentations on the further development of material, technology, construction and operation of pipelines, the 14th ptc will also include the two new side conferences Public Perception / Qualification & Recruitment, as well as panel discussions and plenary sessions about a number of current pipeline topics: Illegal Tapping Just a short while ago, a devastating pipeline explosion killed about 100 people in Mexico. The explosion was caused by illegal tapping of a fuel pipeline. This problem may be extreme in Mexico, but it certainly is not limited to this county.
    [Show full text]
  • Kinross Gold Corporation 2010 Annual Report
    TRANSFORMING OUR FUTURE KINROSS GOLD CORPORATION 2010 ANNUAL REPORT In 2010, Kinross established itself as the new growth leader among senior 2010 HIGHLIGHTS gold producers while delivering record operational and fi nancial results. We signifi cantly upgraded our portfolio by acquiring strategic assets in high- Acquired Red Back Mining The transformational combination with Red Back expanded our global portfolio, including potential gold regions — including Tasiast in Mauritania, one of the world’s the addition of the spectacular Tasiast project, giving Kinross the best growth profi le among fastest-growing gold resources. At the same time, we continued to build our senior gold producers. capacity to deliver on our ambitious growth plans by adding new strength to Increased Revenue, Cash Flow and Earnings For the fi rst time, annual revenue exceeded $3 billion, an increase of 25% over 2009, while our global organization. adjusted operating cash fl ow exceeded $1 billion. Adjusted net earnings increased by 57% and adjusted net earnings per share increased by 32%. With a balanced global portfolio of ten operating mines and four high-quality Advanced Growth Projects growth projects, Kinross expects to double its share of world gold production With new studies completed at Tasiast, Fruta del Norte, Lobo-Marte and Dvoinoye, we are in the next fi ve years. making signifi cant and steady progress advancing the projects that will fuel our next round of growth. By 2015 we expect production to grow to 4.5 — 4.9 million ounces, double our 2010 production. Expanded Gold Reserves and Resources In 2010, Kinross increased total proven and probable gold reserves by 23% to 62.4 million gold ounces.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Dianne Black, County of Santa Barbara, CA, Hearing On
    House of Representative Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power Testimony on “Oversight of Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 and Related Issues” Dianne M. Black, Assistant Director Planning and Development, County of Santa Barbara, California July 14, 2015 Summary of Remarks: Information regarding the limited County authority over the Plains All American Pipeline that failed on May 19, 2015 Santa Barbara County’s experience in review of oil and gas projects, including associated pipelines Santa Barbara County’s review of the whole of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act Oil Company applicant’s inclusion of state of the art leak detection and spill prevention technology, including automatic shutoff systems, in their project descriptions Review of major pipelines in the County and their leak detection and spill prevention systems, including automatic shutoff systems Good morning, Chair Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, and other members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify this morning. My name is Dianne Black and I am the Assistant Director of the Planning and Development Department for the County of Santa Barbara in California. I have been involved in the emergency response, permitting and recovery for the Refugio Oil Spill, which was the result of a ruptured pipeline onshore in the County. I have also overseen the permitting of oil and gas facilities in the County for nearly 20 years, and have been involved in other oil spill responses, including the Torch oil spill from Platform Irene in 1997. I am appreciative of being invited here to share the experiences of Santa Barbara County in the review and permitting of oil and gas projects and associated pipelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Mr. Vipul “Vipe” Desai Founding Member the Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast U.S. House of Re
    TESTIMONY OF MR. VIPUL “VIPE” DESAI FOUNDING MEMBER THE BUSINESS ALLIANCE FOR PROTECTING THE PACIFIC COAST U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES APRIL 2, 2019 Good morning, Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Vipe Desai, and I am a founding member of the Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast (BAPPC). I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today and represent the members of BAPPC in voicing the importance of protecting our coastlines from offshore drilling. My testimony today will address the economic and ecological consequences of offshore drilling, the overwhelming and ever-growing mass opposition to opening our coasts to the oil and gas industry, and the bipartisan legislation this Subcommittee is considering with the objective of ensuring the health and long-term sustainability of our oceans. I would like to begin my testimony with a quick story of how the Pacific has been an important part of my journey. I was an inner-city kid growing up an hour away from the ocean in Los Angeles, California. If you had asked me at that time to describe the ocean I would have failed to do so, as I had never actually seen it. However, a school oceanography field trip to the Port of Los Angeles would first open my eyes to the ocean and all its complexities. Years later, following a shooting at my school, my parents moved our family to Torrance, California, a small community nestled minutes from the beach, which became our real home.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing the Credibility of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR)
    energies Review Exploiting Microbes in the Petroleum Field: Analyzing the Credibility of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR) Marzuqa Quraishi 1 , Shashi Kant Bhatia 2,3,* , Soumya Pandit 4,*, Piyush Kumar Gupta 4 , Vivek Rangarajan 5, Dibyajit Lahiri 6, Sunita Varjani 7 , Sanjeet Mehariya 8 and Yung-Hun Yang 2,3 1 Amity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University, Mumbai 410206, India; [email protected] 2 Department of Biological Engineering, College of Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Korea; [email protected] 3 Institute for Ubiquitous Information Technology and Application, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Korea 4 Department of Life Sciences, School of Basic Sciences and Research, Sharda University, Greater Noida 201306, India; [email protected] 5 Department of Chemical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani, Goa Campus, Goa 403726, India; [email protected] 6 Department of Biotechnology, University of Engineering & Management, Kolkata 700156, India; [email protected] 7 Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Gandhinagar 382010, India; [email protected] 8 Department of Chemistry, Umeå University, 90187 Umeå, Sweden; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (S.K.B.); [email protected] (S.P.) Abstract: Crude oil is a major energy source that is exploited globally to achieve economic growth. To meet the growing demands for oil, in an environment of stringent environmental regulations and economic and technical pressure, industries have been required to develop novel oil salvaging Citation: Quraishi, M.; Bhatia, S.K.; techniques. The remaining ~70% of the world’s conventional oil (one-third of the available total Pandit, S.; Gupta, P.K.; Rangarajan, V.; petroleum) is trapped in depleted and marginal reservoirs, and could thus be potentially recovered Lahiri, D.; Varjani, S.; Mehariya, S.; and used.
    [Show full text]
  • Oil Spill Resource Guide
    Oil Spill Resource Guide The Santa Barbara Channel and its watersheds have suffered numerous oil spills in the past several decades. Our community knows all too well that as long as oil is produced, transported, and consumed in our region, oil spills will continue to happen. Santa Barbara Channelkeeper works to protect the Santa Barbara Channel and its watersheds from oil spills by playing an active role in oil spill response planning, advocating for stronger regulations to improve oil spill planning and response, and monitoring our ocean, beaches, and inland waterways to identify potential spills, document impacts, and inform the response to future spills. After the Refugio Oil Spill in May 2015, many people in our community were hungry for information and eager to get involved and help with the clean-up, but didn’t know where to start or how to help without getting in the way of the official response. Thanks to funding from the Fund for Santa Barbara, the J.S. Bower Foundation, Patagonia and the Crawford Idema Family Foundation, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper developed this resource guide to provide useful information and resources to help concerned citizens understand the threats posed by oil spills, the mechanics of oil spill response, what to do (and not do) to get involved, and more. Contents 1 History of Oil Spills in Santa 6 Oil Spill Response Plans Barbara 7 Unified Command 2 Impact of Oil Spills 7 Natural Resource Damange 2 Report Oil Spills and Oiled Wildlife Assessment (NRDA) 3 Safety 8-9 Laws and Enforcement 3-5 Volunteer 10 Refugio Oil Spill: Current 6 Getting Information During a Spill Status In the event of a future spill, Channelkeeper will update the online version of this guide (available at www.sbck.org/oilspill) with relevant and timely information and resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to Inspect Offshore Pipelines in the Pacific Ocean
    Via Email and First Class Mail August 6, 2015 Jaron E. Ming, Director Pacific Region Office Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement U.S. Department of the Interior 760 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 102 Camarillo, CA 93010 Email: [email protected] Chris Hoidal, Director Pipeline Safety Office, Western Region Office Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 12300 W. Dakota Ave, Suite 110 Lakewood, CO 80228 Email: [email protected] RE: Petition to Inspect Offshore Pipelines in the Pacific Ocean The Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”) requests that you take immediate action to protect California’s coastal environment from suffering the devastating impacts of yet another oil spill. Specifically, the Center petitions the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) to inspect all offshore pipelines on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf and in state waters off the coast of California. Inspecting the more than 200 miles of offshore pipelines that litter the Pacific Ocean off California’s coast would help ensure problem areas are identified and fixed before an oil spill occurs — not after. The recent Refugio Oil Spill near Santa Barbara that dumped more than 100,000 gallons of heavy crude oil into the environment shows why dirty fossil fuel development and transportation should not be allowed along California’s coast or in its offshore waters, and why offshore oil and gas development and transportation must be phased-out of these areas. But until they are, the millions of gallons of crude oil pumped through offshore pipelines every day pose a toxic threat to the people, wildlife and unique coastal environment of California.
    [Show full text]
  • Refugio Oil Spill
    REFUGIO OIL SPILL PUBLIC GUIDE TO NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT PROCESS Co-Author Co-Author Linda Krop Matt Haden Chief Counsel Intern, Environmental Defense Center Environmental Defense Center University of California Santa Barbara The Environmental Defense Center (“EDC”) is a public interest law firm that was founded in the aftermath of the 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill to protect and enhance the environment through education, advocacy and legal action. As the only non-profit public interest environmental law firm between Los Angeles and San Francisco, EDC has represented more than 115 clients since 1977. EDC’s current focus areas include protection of the Santa Barbara Channel, ensuring clean water, preserving open space and wildlife, and addressing climate and energy. EDC has a long history of responding to oil and gas development threats along the California coast. In 1994, EDC helped craft and pass the California Coastal Sanctuary Act, which bans oil leasing in State waters. In 2001, EDC lead the legal fight to provide the State of California with a voice in the matter of federal oil leasing, which resulted in the termination of 40 undeveloped federal leases. EDC has represented several groups in successfully defeating oil and gas projects offshore Santa Barbara County, including ARCO’s Ellwood project, Mobil’s Clearview project, Torch’s Tranquillon Ridge project, Venoco’s Paredon project, and two proposed Liquefied Natural Gas projects. In addition, EDC helped stop the expansion of the Petrochem refinery in Ojai and secured the end to tankering of oil produced offshore California. EDC’s expertise in oil issues was brought to bear on May 19, 2015, when an onshore pipeline carrying oil produced from offshore platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel ruptured, spilling more than 140,000 gallons of crude oil onto nearby beaches and into the Pacific Ocean.
    [Show full text]