EPA
Decision Series
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of
Research and
Development
Energy,
Minerals and
Industry
EPA-600/9-77-019
October 1977
Alaskan Oil
Transportation
-------
THE ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT
R&D DECISION SERIES
This volume is part of the Energy/Environment R&D Decision Series. The series presents the
key issues and findings of the Interagency Energy/Environment Research and Development Pro-
gram in a format conducive to efficient information transfer.
The Interagency Program was inaugurated in fiscal year 1975. Planned and coordinated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), research projects supported by the program range from
the analysis of health and environmental effects of energy systems to the development of environ-
mental control technologies.
The Decision Series is produced for both energy/environment decision-makers and the interest-
ed public. If you have any comments or questions, please write to Series Editor Richard Laska,
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry, RD-681, U.S. EPA Washington, D.C. 20460 or call (202)
755-4857. Extra copies are available. This document is also available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Mention of trade names or
commercial products herein does not constitute EPA endorsement or recommendation for use.
CREDITS
Text: Richard D. Brown and Richard M. Helfand
Design: Bob Spewak and Steve Stryker
Photography: EPA's Documerica Program, The MITRE
Corporation, and The American Petroleum
Institute
-------
Alaskan Oil
Transportation
The tapping of the 9.6 billion barrel oil field on Alaska's North Slope
required the development and implementation of numerous environmental
safeguards before the 8 billion dollar, 800 mile, trans-Alaska pipeline could
be built. The transport and distribution of this oil poses serious problems
with respect to potential impacts upon the quality of air, water, and land,
especially in the Western United States.
Early in 1977, EPA prepared a summary of environmental issues asso-
ciated with the movement of Alaskan oil. The report was intended to
acquaint administrators, scientists, and concerned citizens with the history
and problems associated with assuring environmental compatibility in the
disposition of Alaskan oil reserves. This document presents the highlights
of that report.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
October 1977
-------
-------
History of Oil Transportation
In the early 1800's, oil was collected from surface
deposits and sold as medicine and for lubrication or
lighting. Following the "Drake" oil well completion in
1859, crude was carried in wooden barrels to western
Pennsylvania refineries by riverboats, horse-drawn wag-
ons, and railroad flatcars. At only l/20th the price for
the same service, pipelines quickly replaced other forms
of oil transportation by 1900.
Subsequent to 1900 crude production shifted from
the east-central states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana,
West Virginia, and Kentucky to newly discovered fields
in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and California. By 1940
more than 85 percent of crude supplies to eastern refin-
eries were derived from production areas located west of
the Mississippi River.
To aid acceleration of oil pipeline construction during
World War II, Congress passed the Cole Act in 1942
which allowed the President to grant a petroleum pipe-
line the right of eminent domain when acquiring land
and rights-of-way during wartime. Within two years this
accelerated construction provided more than 11 thousand
miles of new pipeline, 3,000 miles of relocation and
modernization of older lines, and 3,000 miles of reversed
flow in existent lines. Pipeline flow to the East Coast
increased from prewar levels of less than 50 thousand
barrels per day to a maximum of 754 thousand barrels.
As military demands declined after the war, pipelines
were taken out of service, reversed, or converted to gas
pipelines. Tankers soon became available for intercoastal
shipments. During the war, large diameter trunk lines
(20-24 inch) proved capable of transporting considerable
amounts of oil at a low cost relative to the prewar small
diameter lines (less than 16 inches). Such a situation
marked the beginning of a new era in U.S. pipeline con-
struction characterized by the building of large, long
distance pipelines. This trend began in the 1950's and
continues to the present. Many of the older lines have
been removed, used for the transport of products (gaso-
line, kerosene, turbine fuel, diesel fuel, and heating oil),
or converted for the transmission of natural gas.
-------
Focus on Alaska
In the early 1900's, many oil seeps were discovered
in Alaska, but further exploration determined that
these were not economically recoverable. However,
discoveries of oil along the south-central coast
of Alaska in the 1950's and 1960's led to a
modest production peak in 1970 of about
80 million barrels. Following the North
Slope discovery in 1968, oil consultants
estimated that the new field contained
5-20 billion barrels and speculated that
there may be 50 billion barrels.
Barrow
Arctic Ocean
PRUDHOC BAY FIELD
Beaufort Sea
Bering Sea
I
N
tra
National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska
VALDEZI I
$HW!v \ ^
'••*\. ,J*ferdovi>-•<• '• *+s\
~-m ~& ^n^i^i^Kii- ,•. ;.«.>
50 0 50 100 150
After a series of court injunctions and trials, the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act of 1973 authorized con-
struction of the Alaskan oil pipeline. Work began in
1974 under the direction of Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company and involved the construction of almost 800
miles of 48 inch pipe, twelve pump stations, three crude
topping plants (which provide turbine fuel for pump sta-
tions), an oil storage and shipping complex at the
southern terminus in Valdez, and various other support
facilities. The pipeline is planned to deliver 600 thou-
sand barrels a day beginning this year, and reach a nor-
mal flow of 1.2 million barrels a day by 1978.
At present, about 9.6 billion barrels in the Prudhoe
Bay field has proved to be economically recoverable.
Other North Slope reserves and those under the Beaufort
Sea are expected to bring the total proved reserves in
North Alaska to 15.1 billion barrels by 1989. As these
reserves are brought on line, the peak of production
should occur in 1985 at about 3 million barrels a day
and account for 21 percent of the total U.S. crude pro-
duction. Maintaining the flow after this time will be de-
pendent upon new findings in existing fields or from
potential new sources such as the National Petroleum
Reserve in northwest Alaska.
-------
A Problem of Surplus
During the debates and hearings on the proposed
trans-Alaska pipeline, the expected pipeline flow was not
anticipated to exceed present West Coast demand. At
that time crude oil prices had remained relatively stable
since the 1950's and, until 1970, the major oil producing
states had held production well below full capacity. Low
cost foreign crude overshadowed the world petroleum
market.
Just prior to the 1973 Arabian oil embargo, the U.S.
petroleum market was influenced by the following fac-
tors:
• Due to many elements including rising costs, low
cost foreign oil, and the lack of access to unex-
plored Federal lands (outer continental shelf and
Alaska), domestic oil drilling declined after 1959.
• As a result, domestic oil reserves (except for the
Prudhoe Bay field added in 1970) declined after
1966.
• Domestic production reached a peak in 1970 and
subsequently declined steadily.
• Meanwhile, domestic oil consumption increased,
reaching a pre-embargo peak in 1973 of over 17
million barrels per day.
• The ever widening gap between domestic con-
sumption and production of oil was filled with low
cost imports.
After the embargo, the historical trends in the factors
which determined petroleum supply and demand
changed drastically. A new situation prevailed which was
characterized by expensive imports (up to $12 a barrel,
excluding import fees) and high domestic crude prices
(an increase from $3 to over $8 or to $5 when adjusted
for inflation). These factors determined the following
conditions in 1974 and 1975:
• Until the enactment of the Energy Policy and Con-
servation Act in December 1975, price controls
continued for "old" oil (on the market before the
embargo), but "new" oil brought into production
after the embargo sold at the wellhead at market
price.
• For the first time in recent history, domestic de-
mand declined.
• New drilling sites increased dramatically in 1974
and 1975 to the highest level since 1962.
• An accelerated pace of offshore leasing was under-
taken.
• The higher prices stimulated the use of advanced
and costly processes to increase oil recovery in
existing wells.
• The rate of decline in domestic crude production
began to slacken.
• The Congress authorized full production from the
Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 (Elk Hills, Cali-
fornia) which by 1980 will supply oil at a rate of
200 to 250 thousand barrels per day to the West
Coast (if production is not curtailed).
In 1974 and 1975 higher oil prices, economic slow-
down, and energy conservation measures resulted in a 6
percent decline in oil demand. Since that time, however,
domestic consumption has been increasing as the econ-
omy recovers. Current price and conservation measures,
however, are expected to result in an estimated increase
in consumption of 2 percent a year as compared to a
4 percent rate forecasted before the embargo.
With this information, most forecasts of petroleum
supply and demand on the West Coast predict a crude
surplus when North Slope oil is available. Generally, this
surplus is created by a West Coast crude supply which is
in excess of demand.
WEST COAST
SUPPLY AND 0SMAND BALANCE
Alaska and West Coast
Production
Foreign Imports ,
Total Supply
West Coast Demand
Projected Excess
2,4
(Millions of Barrels
per Day)
1080
2.9
3.3-3.7
-3-.S
'*-[ *•- -- *- -,- / -
3.2-3,4. 3.6-4J
A basic assumption of all forecasts has been that pro-
duction would not be constrained to maintain an equi-
librium between West Coast supply and demand. Based
on this assumption, a need exists to develop a transpor-
tation method for moving the excess oil from the West
Coast to other parts of the U.S. such as the central and
eastern areas, which are becoming increasingly dependent
upon foreign crude sources.
-------
Transportation
The short-term options for handling the projected
West Coast surplus of North Slope crude include inter-
national exchanges, transshipment through the Panama
Canal, transport by railroad, transport by tanker around
Cape Horn, Canadian exchanges (for present imports) to
offset crude curtailments to the Northern Tier States
(Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota,
Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and
Ohio), reduced Northern Slope production, or possibly
strategic storage. By the end of 1978 at the earliest and
probably in 1979, more permanent long-term solutions
could be realized in the form of the Trans-Provincial
Pipeline, the SOHIO Pipeline, and others. By the end of
1979 or during 1980 a Northern Tier Pipeline could be
realized as well as a pipeline across Central America. On
line in 1981 could be the proposed deepwater Gulf ports
of LOOP (Louisiana Offshore Oil Port) and SEADOCK
(a deep-water mooring in the Gulf of Mexico), the rever-
sal of the Four Corners Pipeline which currently supplies
crude to southern California, and perhaps an equitable
balance between crude supply and demand on the West
Coast.
The pipeline, proposed by the Northern Tier Pipeline
Company is in the initial stage of federal-state permitting
processes. The project involves the construction of a 1,550
mile, 740 thousand barrel a day pipeline for receiving Alas-
kan and low sulfur foreign crude at Port Angeles, Washing-
ton and transporting it to refineries in Montana and North
Dakota and to Clearbrook, Minnesota. From there, con-
nections would be made with existing Minnesota and
Lakehead Pipelines. This project may be a means of trans-
porting Alaskan crude to Midwestern and Eastern U.S. In
addition, a major function of the pipeline would be to
supply Northern Tier refineries, which becomes increas-
ingly important with decreasing Canadian deliveries.
Emerging environmental issues related to the project are
air and water pollution within the Puget Sound area.
The SQHIO Proposal
A proposal for the transportation of North Slope
crude, which is furthest along in the permitting process,
is sponsored by the SOHIO Transportation Company of
California, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Standard
Oil Company of Ohio. The Company proposes a 3,500
mile sea/land transportation system to move North
Slope crude from the trans-Alaska pipeline marine ter-
minal at Valdez, Alaska, to Midland, Texas. From Mid-
land the crude would be distributed eastward through ex-
isting pipeline networks. A tanker fleet would carry the
crude 2,000 miles to the Port of Long Beach, California
where it would be delivered to a storage terminal. From
Tanker at Sea
there it would be transferred to Texas by way of a 1,026
mile pipeline system composed of 790 miles of natural
gas pipeline converted for the transportation of crude oil.
The conversion of the natural gas pipeline for oil
transmission has caused public concern that such action
may preclude the transportation of adequate natural gas
supplies to meet future California demand. It has been
estimated that the loss of one 30-inch pipeline would
reduce the throughput capacity of the Southern Cali-
fornia interstate gas network by about 5 percent. The
pipeline delivery curtailment is a result of rapidly de-
clining supplies of natural gas to California from sources
located east of the State boundary. The Bureau of Land
Management has indicated that a very unlikely combina-
tion of circumstances must occur before the abandoned
capacity would be required.
Another area of public concern centers on the poten-
tial of further deterioration of a degraded air quality
condition in the Los Angeles Basin. At present, tempera-
ture inversions occur on 90 percent of the mornings.
Such a condition, together with low wind speeds, causes
entrapment and poor dispersion of pollutants such as
oxides of nitrogen and reactive hydrocarbons. The abun-
dant sunshine in this region promotes photochemical re-
actions of these pollutants which produce ozone, a pri-
mary constituent of smog. The SOHIO proposal poses a
threat of releasing more pollutants, especially hydro-
carbons, into the air during off-loading of oil from
tankers and tugboats, and from storage tanks. In order
to assure that no "net" increase in air pollution will
result from this "new stationary source," SOHIO pro-
poses to use several mitigating measures which may in-
clude the use of low-sulfur fuel, seven fully segregated
and four partially segregated ballasted tankers, closed
inerting systems, exhaust scrubbers, avoidance of purg-
ing inside the port, use of vapor recovery systems on
-------
storage tanks, restricting the ballasting of cargo tanks
while in the South Coast Air Basin, use of foam-covering
systems to blanket tank spills, oil spill contingency
plans, and the abandonment of 33 existing storage tanks.
Since the transportation of North Slope oil to Long
Beach or any other West Coast port presents the possi-
bility of oil spills, several analyses have been performed
to determine the likelihood of their occurrence and ex-
tent. With respect to the SOHIO project, the most likely
places for accidents resulting in major spills are in Prince
William Sound, Alaska, and in the Santa Barbara Chan-
nel off Southern California. There is a greater possibility
for severe damage to the coastline along the southern
part of the route from Valdez to Washington, Oregon, or
California unloading sites, as tankers will be traveling
closer to shore.
Crude Oil Tankers
A major part of the transportation network that will
carry Alaskan crude oil to the lower 48 states involves
large crude oil tankers ranging in size from 50 thousand
deadweight tons (dwt) to 200 thousand dwt. The num-
ber and size of these tankers calling at various West
Coast ports will be a function of interacting factors such
as port location relative to Valdez, Alaska, the amount
of crude oil to be delivered, crude oil economic market,
and the location of proposed major west-east pipelines.
The current West Coast port areas expected to handle
a portion of the Alaskan crude are in or near Puget
Sound, Washington, and the Los Angeles/Long Beach area
(San Francisco, due to harbor depth limitations, will not
likely be a major Alaskan crude port destination). Either
of these locations, if it were to become the principal
port location for Alaskan tankers, will require new con-
struction of berthing docks, storage tanks, and auxiliary
facilities to handle the number and size of the anticipated
Alaskan tanker fleet. Of the U.S. tanker ports, the 1.2
million barrels per day expected from the Alaskan pipe-
line in 1978 far surpasses the 0.14 million barrels per day
currently handled by the Long Beach and Puget Sound
port areas, as it does virtually every other U.S. port.
The number of trips to the Puget Sound area has been
estimated to range from 400 per year to 600 per year,
depending on the tanker fleet mix. Should tanker size
limitations be imposed within Puget Sound (e.g., a maxi-
mum of 125 thousand dwt), then the 600 visits per year
would be necessary. If this size limitation were not im-
posed, or if a port location outside of Puget Sound were
chosen (e.g., Port Angeles), then the lower figure is more
likely. For the Port of Long Beach area, specifically the
SOHIO project, estimates have indicated that approxi-
mately 280 visits per year (based on an average of a two
week round trip for the 12 SOHIO ships) would occur
from tankers carrying Alaskan crude oil. The 280 visits
would account for 700 thousand barrels per day, with
the remaining 500 thousand barrels delivered to other
areas in Los Angeles/Long Beach, Puget Sound, San
Francisco, and the Panama Canal. It is recognized that
the movements of these tankers and their dockside oper-
ations pose substantial environmental hazards of oil pol-
lution due to accidental and operational spills and
degradation of air quality due to the release of crude oil
vapors and tanker stack emissions.
Tanker in Port. Valdez, Alaska
-------
Environmental
Air Quality Issues
Assuming that one or more of the West Coast port
alternatives will be chosen as an entry point for Alaskan
crude, the air quality issues focus on the impact of large
crude oil tankers and of crude oil storage tank facilities
on the immediate port area and its associated air basin.
In the loading port of Valdez and at possible unloading
sites along the Washington, Oregon and Northern Cali-
fornia coasts the issue is one of possible degradation of
ambient air quality in areas that are, for the most part,
currently meeting state and federal air quality standards.
For the southern California alternatives, and specifically
the SOHIO project at the Port of Long Beach, the issue is
one of possible degradation of air quality at a time when
extensive efforts are being made to bring poor air quality
to within state and national air quality standards.
The majority of emissions which could emanate from
Alaskan tankers are in the form of escaping hydrocarbon
(HC) vapors from onboard and fixed storage tanks and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and oxides of sulfur (SOX)
from stack emissions during the offloading procedure
(The offloading procedure for large tankers involves
using onboard engines at about 80 percent full power for
10-12 hours to pump the crude to shore.)
Estimates based on the SOHIO project, the proposed
major terminal at the Port of Long Beach for handling ap-
proximately 700 thousand barrels per day of Alaskan crude
(involving approximately 280 tanker visits per year), in-
dicate that on a yearly basis SOX emissions could range
from 220 tons per year to 880 tons per year. The ranges
are based on differences in fuel sulfur content (0.5-2.0
percent). If transit time in the port vicinity is included,
the range would be from 500-2,000 tons per year. It is
evident that requiring low sulfur fuel to be burned near
or in port greatly reduces these emissions. NOX emis-
sions are estimated to range from 120 tons per year to
210 tons per year, again dependent on whether transit
time is included. Carbon monoxide and particulate emis-
sions are minimal and have not been an issue (particu-
lates are estimated to be 40 tons per year and CO esti-
mates have generally not been calculated).
The outstanding issue involves the release of hydro-
carbons which, with NOX, are precursors to the forma-
tion of oxidants. The operations of ballasting in non-
segregated ballast tankers and purging by tankers may
involve the release of large quantities of hydrocarbon
vapors in or near port.
Ballasting involves taking on board sufficient water to
permit unloaded ship's screws and rudders to be low
enough below the surface to control the ship's move-
ments. Approximately 15 percent of the ship's dwt is
necessary to leave port and 35-50 percent of the dwt is
necessary for open sea operation. In nonsegregated bal-
lasted tankers water is placed in the empty crude storage
causing hydrocarbon vapors to be displaced to the
atmosphere through the tanker's vents.
Purging of empty cargo tanks is performed primarily
before tank washing when a new cargo type is to be
introduced or when human access to the cargo tank is
necessary for maintenance. Air or an inerted (oxygen
poor) gas mixture is used to displace the hydrocarbon
(HC) vapors that are present from oil clinging to the
tank sides and bottom. The range of HC estimates that
could occur is extremely large, reflecting differing
assumptions as to the operations to be performed and
the types of tankers to call. For the SOHIO project, the
yearly estimates have run from essentially zero HC emis-
sions to as high as 10 thousand tons per year. The lower
figure represents a fleet of fully segregated ballast tank-
ers and no release of HC to the atmosphere from tank
cleaning (purging) operations. The latter figure represents
-------
Problems
• r '• T*
emissions that could occur if ballasting and tank cleaning
occurred while in port and along the coast near port.
An additional source of hydrocarbon emissions in-
volves the large capacity crude oil storage tank facilities
that would be needed at a port terminal. Estimates made
for the SOHIO project of yearly hydrocarbon emissions
from these facilities indicate that approximately 365
tons per year may enter the atmosphere.
Analyses of the relationship between emissions and
their effects on air quality have, to date, been inconclu-
sive. Most of the analyses have involved "worst-case"
situations for the evaluation of the potential for hourly
and daily air pollution standards violations. Estimates of
between 1-15 parts per hundred million (pphm) maximum
increase in hourly SOX concentrations; 4-22 pphm maxi-
mum increase in hourly NOX concentrations; and 1-8
pphm maximum increase in oxidant concentrations due
to hydrocarbon and NOX emissions have been reported
in the analysis of the SOHIO project. The range in results
is due to varying model assumptions with respect to
meteorological conditions and emission rates.
There are several measures tnat can be taken to sig-
nificantly reduce adverse impacts upon air quality in or
near port locations. These include:
• Minimum of 35 percent Ballast Capacity—While
the majority of the world's tankers do not have
segregated ballast, both the Inter-Governmental
Maritime Consultive Organization (IMCO) and
U.S. Ports and Waterways Act of 1972 require
new vessels of 70 thousand dwt or more to have
fully segregated (35 percent) ballast facilities. It is
expected that many of the large Alaskan trade
tankers will have this capability.
• Inerting Systems—The use of flue gas from
tankers' stacks to provide an inert (oxygen-poor)
atmosphere in the cargo tanks can eliminate the
need to vent hydrocarbon vapors in port.
• Flue Gas Scrubber—It may be possible to scrub all
flue gas emissions while in port to reduce SOX
emissions. Currently, inerted tankers use once
through scrubbers to reduce the potential of corro-
sion in the cargo tanks due to SOX. However, only
15 percent of the stack gas is currently diverted
for this purpose.
• Vapor Recovery Systems—To avoid vapor loss in
storage tanks and possibly in tanker loading and
offloading operations, hydrocarbon vapor recovery
systems may be feasible.
• Low Sulfur Fuel—The sulfur content of shipboard
fuel used to power the ship while underway near
port or while in port offloading could be kept to a
low level through the use of special "in port" fuel
storage facilities. Some of the Alaskan trade
tankers will use this mechanism to reduce sulfur
oxide emissions.
• Purging In/Or Near Port—Since purging cargo
tanks would be the single largest source of hydro-
carbon emissions in port, legislation to prohibit
such operations, except under emergency condi-
tions, could be enacted. However, methods of en-
forcement such as onboard monitoring would be
necessary and the legal authority for enforcement
would have to be identified.
The legal authority for controlling air emissions in
port and once a tanker is underway has become an im-
portant issue. The placing of constraints on allowable
operations while in port may be difficult due to the
common carrier status of a port facility (e.g., tankers
unable to meet the constraint requirements could not
use the facility). After getting underway, the tanker cap-
tain, Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agency,
and/or the local or state agency may each have varying
authority over operations. Current statutes are not ex-
plicit as to where legal responsibility for underway
tanker air emissions lies and no explicit limiting regula-
tions exist. In California, this lack of explicit legal au-
thority has been a key factor in the evaluation of the
proposed SOHIO project in the Port of Long Beach.
-------
Environmental
Water Issues
Many sources of pollutants may impair water quality
as a result of the construction and operation of pipe-
lines, marine terminals, and associated tanker move-
ments. Such sources include downstream sedimentation
from construction at stream crossings, oil spills from
pipeline breakage or leakage, the discharge of water used
for hydrostatic testing, the flushing of ballast tanks, dis-
charges of bilge water and sewage, and turbidity during
dredging of harbor sediments. Many of these sources can
be easily abated or controlled.
Recent data on West Coast tanker spills indicate the
following:
• There is high variability in the amount of oil
spilled from year to year. Catastrophic spills tend
to distort trend data.
• Tankers account for 20 percent of the spills and
34 percent of the amount of oil spilled. Marine
terminals account for 9 percent of the spills, but
only 1 percent of the volume.
• Other sources of spills include pipelines, storage
facilities, nontanker vessels, and miscellaneous
transportation modes such as tank trucks and rail-
road tank cars.
• As much as 70 percent of oil spill incidents are
attributable to personnel errors.
• There does not appear to be a relationship be-
tween tanker age or size and the frequency of spill
incidents.
• Many spills are associated with the tanker-terminal
interface and indicate that in-port terminals gener-
ally represent higher risk areas for oil spills (how-
ever, these areas may provide for efficient contain-
ment of spilled oil).
All of the tankers which will transport the North
Slope crude to U.S. ports will be subject to the regula-
tions of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly
known as the Jones Act. This act requires that such
coastal movement between domestic ports be carried out
by U.S. built and owned tankers operated by U.S. mas-
ters and crews under the U.S. flag. Currently, these ves-
sels are subject to Coast Guard regulations which re-
quire tankers larger than 70 thousand dwt to have
segregated ballast which serves as protection for the
cargo, two slop tanks (for retention of tank washings, oil
residues, and dirty ballast residues), and an oily residue
tank for the containment of oil leakage and sludge. The
Coast Guard plans to extend such standards to U.S.
vessels in foreign trade as well as foreign vessels entering
U.S. waters. Recently, the Coast Guard has proposed
additional regulations to control oil emitted during its
transfer among vessels and transfer facilities. These
measures are intended to reduce substantially the amount
of oil released to the ocean by U.S. seagoing tank vessels
as well as foreign tankers in U.S. waters. Since existing
requirements apply to Jones Act tankers and therefore
to tankers carrying North Slope crude to U.S. ports, the
entire fleet of tankers carrying North Slope oil is expected
to possess fully segregated ballast by 1980. Also by 1980
approximately 50 percent are expected to have collision
avoidance radar systems and about 35 percent to have
double bottoms or hulls to reduce the potential risk of
cargo tank ruptures from grounding or minor collisions.
Waterfall, Lush Surroundings, Alaska
-
-------
Land Issues
Land issues center on the use of the coastal zone for
the construction of marine terminals and support facili-
ties. Induced development as a result of such projects
may require large areas of the coastal zone, and agri-
cultural and urban areas for refineries and petrochemical
industries. The construction of west-to-east pipelines
across national forests and desert areas poses a threat to
the environment. The deterioration of natural areas and
decreased productivity of agricultural lands will need to
be mitigated.
Immediate Issues
The search for a system to carry the North Slope
crude to market has been in effect since an Alaskan
pipeline was first proposed in 1969. By 1972 the follow-
ing major alternatives were being evaluated:
1. New pipelines from the U.S. West Coast to mar-
kets east of the Rockies.
2. Selling Alaskan oil to Japan in return for increased
imports on the East Coast of the United States.
3. A new pipeline in Central America for transporting
Alaskan oil to East Coast markets.
4. Transporting the oil through the Panama Canal to
Gulf Coast ports.
5. Shipping oil around Cape Horn to East Coast mar-
kets.
Today these and other routes such as that of the
Trans-Mountain and Trans-Provincial pipelines which
generally follow the original route of the Trans-Canadian
Pipeline (an overland alternative to the trans-Alaska
pipeline), are envisioned not only to serve Eastern U.S.
markets but also to provide a source of crude to the
Northern Tier States.
The solutions, in the form of proposed transportation
routes, must relate to one or both of these problems:
• To dissipate the expected West Coast crude ex-
cess—hopefully by movement to demand areas east
of the Rocky mountains.
• To supply the Northern Tier States which are con-
fronted by a curtailment in oil imports from Can-
ada by 1982.
In the face of these problems, the Federal Govern-
ment must respond in a manner consistent with the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act to assure equitable allocation
of North Slope crude oil:
Section 410. The Congress declares that the crude
oil on the North Slope of Alaska is an important
part of the Nation's oil resources, and that the
benefits of such crude oil should be equitably
shared, directly or indirectly, by all regions of the
country. The President shall use any authority he
may have to insure an equitable allocation of avail-
able North Slope and other crude oil resources and
petroleum products among all regions and all of
the several States.
-------
The environmental impact statement process will be
used by Federal agencies to improve decisions affecting
the environment and provides a useful tool to incorpo-
rate public opinion, as well as that of diverse agencies,
into the decision-making process. Currently this process
is being applied to two proposed alternatives for the
movement of North Slope crude. An environmental
impact statement has been prepared by the Bureau of
Land Management (Department of the Interior) for the
SOHIO proposal, and a draft environmental impact
statement is being prepared by the Department of the
Interior for the Northern Tier Pipeline proposal.
In the future, changes in the sources of crude sup-
plied on the West Coast are inevitable. Should an opti-
mistic rate of Northern Alaskan crude production be
realized, the West Coast may be subjected to a substan-
tially greater excess of crude supply over demand. In-
creased production, above current expectation, for the
Bering Sea, the Aleutian Island chain, the Gulf of
Alaska, and the West Coast outer continental shelf could
further aggravate a surplus situation. Estimates of re-
coverable Alaskan oil range from 12 billion to over 76
billion barrels.
The problem which emerges is how to handle the
potential surplus. As many as 7,500 miles of pipeline
solely within Alaska may be required. Future Alaskan
production may necessitate a new overland pipeline pas-
sing through Canada and a number of west-to-east U.S.
pipelines. Thus, the potential for a large Alaskan and
West Coast crude production to be realized within the
next decade may require the development of a highly
flexible and integrated crude oil distribution system.
Information IMeeds
In meeting the challenge of assuring environmental
compatibility in the face of developing Alaskan and off-
shore western oil reserves, new questions need to be
addressed:
• How will air quality impacts be forecasted for new
oil terminals to be located in remote areas where
air quality data are not adequate? Baseline data
may need to be collected.
• What are appropriate assumptions relating to vessel
traffic, emissions, and meteorological conditions
when modelling air quality impacts associated with
oil tankers?
• What is the state-of-art and potential for use of
vapor recovery systems, automated monitoring
systems, and exhaust scrubbers when applied to oil
tankers?
• Is a vessel traffic control system warranted for the
West Coast? Would such a system be efficient?
Would it be cost effective?
• How do strict pollution control measures imposed
on the proposed SOHIO project create a disincen-
tive to companies proposing similar energy
projects?
Port of Valdez, Alaska
10
-------
FOR FURTHER READING
Joint Hearing on the Potential Problems Associated with the Delivery of Crude Oil from
Alaska's North Slope. Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and Commerce.
United States Senate, Washington, B.C. 1976.
This is the record of a Senate hearing convened on September 26, 1976 to examine
problems in markets. Statements were given by representatives of the Department of the
Interior, Department of Commerce, Federal Energy Administration, and various senators.
A copy may be obtained from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
20402.
Environmental Impact Statement. Crude Oil Transportation System: Valdez, Alaska to
Midland, Texas, Department of Interior. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.
1977.
This is an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared for the SOHIO proposal. A
limited number of single copies of the draft are available and may be obtained by writing
to: Public Affairs Office, Bureau of Land Management, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento,
California 95825.
Review of Environmental Issues of the Transportation of Alaskan North Slope Crude Oil
EPA-600/7-77-046. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Energy, Minerals, and
Industry, Washington, D.C. May 1977.
This report contains substantive information from which these proceeding highlights
have been taken. The report may be obtained by writing to the Office of Energy, Minerals,
and Industry, RD-681, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460.
An Analysis of the Alternatives Available for the Transportation and Disposition of Alaskan
North Slope Crude. Federal Energy Administration, Washington, D.C. 1976.
This report was prepared for the Federal Energy Administration for the Energy Re-
sources Council and examines supply and demand issues, evaluates transportation alter-
natives, considers environmental problems, and analyzes potential markets for North
Slope crude. A limited number of copies are available and may be obtained by writing
to: Office of Energy Resource Development, Federal Energy Administration, Washing-
ton, D.C. 20461.
Mitigating and Offsetting Emissions from West-East Oil Movement. Nehring, Richard.
WN-9719-CEQ. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California. 1977.
This document identifies policy options for reducing adverse impacts on air quality
associated with the transportation of Alaskan oil eastward through a West Coast port.
The study was undertaken under contract with the Council on Environmental Quality
on the basis of an interagency agreement between it and the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. To obtain a copy, write: Council on Environmental Quality, 722 Jackson
Place, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006.
Draft Environmental Impact Report: SOHIO West Coast to Mid-Continent Pipeline Project.
Port of Long Beach and the California Public Utilities Commission., Long Beach, Cali-
fornia. 1976.
This is a draft environmental impact report, similar to an EIS, prepared by the Port of
Long Beach and the California Public Utilities Commission in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act. A limited number of copies are available and may
be obtained by writing: The Port of Long Beach, P.O. Box 570, Long Beach, California
90801.
11
------- |