The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation recently finished a draft report, three years in the making, that concludes aging oil infrastructure on the North Slope is basically in good shape and there's not much reason to be concerned that oil spills will increase substantially as production facilities get older.
But last week the investigative news site ProPublica published a story that suggests a much more serious situation. Data from an internal BP maintenance report shows a significant problem with corrosion in pipelines that are part of BP's North Slope operations, according to ProPublica. The story also cited oil field workers who contend "the company's fire- and gas-warning systems are unreliable, that the giant turbines that pump oil and gas through the system are aging, and that some oil and waste holding tanks are on the verge of collapse."
|
Alaska Risk Assessment North Slope Spills Analysis |
Read the draft reportBP now says the ProPublica story is overblown and that the corrosion documented in the maintenance records is part of the company's corrosion-control program that identifies and repairs high-priority spots. The company says the fact that corrosion has been identified does not mean a spill is imminent but just the opposite -- that the company is fixing the most worrisome spots before they cause trouble and has reduced its corrosion-related leaks by more than 40 percent in the past few years.
Still, the vastly differing pictures of the physical condition of the state's largest oil production facilities has critics wondering how the state could have spent more than $2 million and three years on a study and not uncovered the significant maintenance issues that ProPublica got through a relatively simple computer database printout.
"Obviously we've got a very dangerous situation on the North Slope right now," said Rick Steiner, a longtime Alaska marine conservation professor who's been deeply involved in oil industry operations here and overseas and, since the Deepwater Horizon blowout, the Gulf of Mexico. "We've heard all sides saying Alaska's regulatory system is the best in the world and it isn't. That simply is not true."
The state's "risk assessment" was put into motion by the Alaska Legislature in 2007 at the urging of then-Gov. Sarah Palin after a series of small spills on the North Slope was followed by a major spill in 2006 that caused the field to be shut down for a few weeks. Oil taxes, fees and royalties, primarily from the North Slope, fund more than 85 percent of the state government. Corrosion has been a major concern at the oil production facilities, which have operated for more than 30 years on the North Slope.
The state's risk assessment was funded by a $5 million budget and was supposed to go far beyond the North Slope. Initially it was to also cover the 800-mile trans-Alaska oil pipeline and the Valdez oil-tanker terminal, as well as Cook Inlet oil and gas production facilities.
But the scope of the project was scaled back to, in essence, a review and analysis of previous spills and incidents on the North Slope alone. State officials brought in the National Academy of Sciences to help shape the risk assessment and eventually concluded the scope was too big to get meaningful results. The oil companies also were reluctant to provide detailed information on their operations that would have been necessary to do a deeper look, something the NAS realized, and the state chose not to put up a legal fight to force the companies to cooperate, DEC officials have said.
The draft report has not been officially released but was obtained and published by the Alaska Dispatch on Oct. 25.
"The data does not indicate that the petroleum infrastructure is nearing its 'end of life,'" the draft North Slope Statistical Analysis says. "There is no significant change in spill trends which would indicate an increase in random failures."
It identified flow lines -- which carry a mix of oil, gas and water -- as the most potentially problematic and suggested those might need more monitoring. However, a "paradigm shift" in the way DEC regulates and oversees North Slope infrastructure isn't necessary, the report concluded.
'We need a watchdog, not a lapdog'
The draft study is the first look at the state's thinking, and environmental advocates were surprised by the reduction in scope as well as the conclusions and recommendations.
"My initial reaction is severe disappointment, bordering on disgust," Anchorage environmental attorney Peter Van Tuyn wrote in an e-mail. "Four and half years after the BP spills at Prudhoe Bay, and after so many layers of promises from Palin, (U.S. Sen. Lisa) Murkowski and (current Gov. Sean) Parnell that something would be done to ensure the integrity of North Slope and TAPS infrastructure, and Alaska can't even accomplish an assessment of the state of that infrastructure?! Why is it that the oil companies can simply say 'we're not going to provide you info' and the state accepts that? We need a watchdog, not a lapdog."
Larry Dietrick, the longtime DEC official who is director of the agency's Spill Prevention and Response Division and who oversaw the risk assessment process, said last week the report is still just a draft. "We're working pretty diligently to sort through and come up with proposed mitigation measures to do the best job to reduce the severity and frequency of spills," he said.
There's still not a firm date for a final report but the agency hopes to have it done in a few weeks, he said.
The draft documents "are a snapshot of our current thinking," he said.
The study looked at incidents from 1995 to the present and clearly showed the problems have been with "upstream" pipelines that carry oil from the wellhead to the treatment facility, Dietrick said.
"We do know where the spills are occurring in the current system now -- the flow lines have come out to be the highest risk," he said.
Flow lines are not regulated by the federal government -- the big TAPS pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez does fall under federal jurisdiction. "Alaska is the only state to attempt to regulate these," Dietrick said. "So what's going on is extremely significant."
He acknowledged that trying to make the oil companies turn over information "is a challenge." Partly, he said, the volume of information envisioned by the original broad study was "absolutely enormous" but certain information also was considered proprietary.
That notion doesn't sit well with Van Tuyn and Steiner, among others, who for years have watched the state back down from oil industry pushback on a variety of fronts.
"The state just gets walked over like it's some kind of welcome mat," Van Tuyn said in an interview last week.
He pointed to the information uncovered by ProPublica as the latest example of the state getting "snookered" by industry.
"Holy cow, we're on the precipice of another giant spill according to their own data," he said, noting that it is interesting BP is not denying the corrosion, just waving it away as something the company has a handle on.
"BP has got to be dizzy. That's world-class spin right there," Van Tuyn said.
He urged the state to "do something about it" -- subpoena records if necessary -- then identify the worst problems and take the lines out of service until they're fixed.
Taking the right measures
State officials did see the ProPublica story and immediately called BP about it, according to Betty Schorr, DEC's industry preparedness program manager.
DEC asked for the same information ProPublica had, which BP said appeared to be a query of the company's maintenance database. BP punched one out for DEC, she said, and the state brought in engineers to help with the review.
The state and its engineers were not surprised there are pipelines that have spots of extensive corrosion because that's to be expected in lines that carry corrosive materials, she said. The state's interest was in making sure BP had an acceptable maintenance plan and a priority repair schedule for high risk spots.
"And, indeed, they are following their own processes with regard to standards," she said.
"From my perspective, obviously there's always going to be issues with pipelines," added Schorr, noting that the review found 151 spots in hundreds of miles of pipeline that are "F-ranked," meaning the most serious.
"Given the amount of piping, to me it doesn't sound like (a huge problem)," she said. "The important thing to us is that they are taking the right measures" to stay on top of it.
Still, environmental watchdogs say the disconnect between the state's research, BPs own records, and what BP employees are saying about other serious problems on the North Slope underscores the need for a citizens' oversight panel for the North Slope and the trans-Alaska pipeline, similar to what was put in place for Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet in 1990 following the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
Kristin Carpenter, executive director of the Copper River Watershed Project, said she was disappointed the long-awaited risk assessment did not cover the trans-Alaska pipeline because her group is very concerned about what effect an oil spill would have on the rich salmon fishery and delicate watershed of the Copper River, a rugged environment that would make cleaning up a spill extremely difficult.
"We would like to see some sincere analysis of the pipeline infrastructure," she said. "We keep hearing over and over about these problems. I'm just terrified of what we don't know."
"I feel like we can't get reliable data to know whether we should feel comfortable or not," she said.
Would a citizens' advisory panel help regulation?
Carpenter's group has in recent months been pushing Congress to set up a citizens' advisory panel -- perhaps a number of separate panels -- to cover the length of the 800-mile pipeline and the North Slope. That effort has gone essentially nowhere and now could be even more difficult since the congressman who had taken it up, Rep. James Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat, just lost his re-election bid and the Republicans will soon take over control of the House and name new committee chairs.
Steiner, who helped set up the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council 20 years ago, also has long been an advocate of creating similar panels for the Arctic, the North Slope and TAPS. He helped U.S. Sen. Mark Begich draft legislation for an Arctic RCAC that ultimately was "watered down," in Steiner's opinion, before it was passed by a Senate committee. But it hasn't made it much farther.
The situation on the North Slope is "basically what happened with the Deepwater Horizon," he said, referring to BP's Gulf of Mexico blowout in April that killed 11 workers and pumped more than 172 million gallons of oil into the sea before it was capped July 15.
"You had horrible government oversight, industry had become over confident in their abilities, they made a number of bad judgment call, and, boom, there it happened," Steiner said. "The same situation (exists) on the North Slope."
Van Tuyn also thinks a citizens' oversight panel would provide an "enduring change" in the amount of scrutiny given to the North Slope and the pipeline even when the administration changes and new state officials take over.
He is hoping U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who appears to have won her bid for re-election although write-in votes are still to be counted, will take up the issue of effective industry oversight when she returns to Washington, D.C., and her position as ranking member on the Senate Energy Committee.
Murkowski had been openly critical of BP's response to the March 2006 spill that shut down the pipeline for weeks. Earlier this year she met with Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. officials and encouraged them to do an audit of the pipeline and facilities following a significant spill at Pump Station 9 in May. Critics are concerned a self-audit by Alyeska is not in the public's best interest and also have been pushing Congress to order a thorough independent inspection of Alyeska facilities and equipment.
Van Tuyn says he is hoping Murkowski is paying attention to what he sees as the state's lack of ability to carry out an adequate review of the integrity of oil production facilities, especially in light of BP's own reports.
"I hope Sen. Murkowski finds it outrageous," he said. "It would be real egg on their faces if a big spill happens again."
Contact Patti Epler at patti(at)alaskadispatch.com.