Category Archives: ocean pollution

fossil fuels, gulf of mexico clean-up, marine pollution, ocean pollution, offshore oil

Rigzone: Black Elk Incident Reminder of Dangers from Hazardous Vapors

Leave a comment

Black Elk Energy is the lead proponent of the Rigs-to-Reefs program….. Richard Charter

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/129120/Black_Elk_Incident_Reminder_of_Dangers_from_Hazardous_Vapors

by Karen Boman|
Rigzone Staff|
Wednesday, September 18, 2013

The November 2012 explosion at a Black Elk Energy-operated platform – which resulted from welders welding onto a pipe leading to a wet oil tank – serves as a reminder of the importance of educating workers on the dangers fire or explosions sparked by hazardous vapors, an offshore safety official told Rigzone.

A third party investigation found that the explosion and fire that occurred resulted from contractors failing to follow standard safety practices. Black Elk last month published the results of the investigation into the explosion and fire that killed three workers at the platform at West Delta Block 32 in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.

The wet oil tank and pipework would have contained hydrocarbon gases that could have easily been ignited by an ignition temperature as the weld heat generated inside the pipe, said Tony Scott, general manager for the OCS Group, in an interview with Rigzone.
“If the workers knew more about the dangers around them the fatalities may well have been avoided,” said Scott.

To address part of this potentially fatal shortfall in training, the OCS Group now offers a Complex Mechanical course for mechanical workers. However, Scott believes that satisfactory Zone awareness training should be offered to all rig personnel throughout the industry.

A hazardous area is considered to be an area where an explosive atmosphere is or may be expected to be present. Thirty-five percent of rigs and drillships offshore will have this area broken down into zones or divisions. Zone Zero, potentially the most hazardous of the three risk areas mentioned, is where an explosive gas/vapor is present continuously for long periods. Zone Zero is not typically found on a rig, but in refineries and chemical plants; a Zone Zero can be found inside a tank where a gap exists at the top and vapor is trapped.

Zone 1 is where an explosive gas/vapor is likely during normal operation; with Zone 1, gas will be present but it is diluted by air. Zone 2, the least potentially hazardous of the three risk areas mentioned – is where an explosive gas/vapor is unlikely to occur in normal operation. If an explosive gas/vapor does occur in Zone 2, it is likely to do so infrequently and existing for short periods. Zone 2 accounts for approximately 28 percent of the total hazardous area of the rig.

Sources of accident ignition include welding, burning and static, which can occur even through nylon clothes. Welding activity could generate an ignition that could be considered an ignition temperature, or when material ignites without an external source of ignition such as a spark. This type of ignition could cause the gas/vapor inside a pipe to explode if someone was welding on the pipe.

“People erroneously assume that a spark is needed to cause ignition but this is not the case,” Scott noted. “When a spark causes ignition, this is called the Flash Point and is different to an ignition temperature. A Flash Point is where the minimum temperature at which a substance gives out sufficient vapor to form an explosive atmosphere is reached. A spark from an aluminum ladder on a rusty beam could generate a Flash Point and cause a gas or vapor to explode.”

The problem with hazardous areas is that offshore workers can be unaware that they are entering a potentially explosive area. Electricians and electronic technicians are likely to have received training to gain a full understanding of the hazardous area zones and their importance where electrical equipment is concerned. However, the rig safety preparatory courses offered to many other groups of rig workers, including welders, mechanics, scaffolders, and riggers, don’t give workers adequate in-depth knowledge of the rig zones and their potential for explosive gases and vapors.

The courses available for offshore workers are good but lightweight on hazardous vapors, an area that Scott feels has been almost neglected in training.
“You almost need separate, half day training session to talk on the dangers of vapors,” Scott commented.

While workers are trained to find muster stations in case of a fire, workers with backgrounds outside of electrical/instrumentation jobs are not given enough training in recognizing the dangers of hazardous vapors, Scott noted. The lack of understanding surrounding hazardous areas presents an issue for both offshore and onshore oil and gas facilities.

For example, a rigger going into a hazardous area on and offshore rig and breaking a junction box while trying to use the box as a foothold. These workers need to be warned on the dangers of a spark.

Scott said it wasn’t clear whether the pipe that blew up on the Black Elk platform was in a zoned area. If it was located in a zoned area, it would likely have had a hot work permit and controls to guard against sparks.

“All it takes is for a spark or hot surface to explode,” said Scott. “People don’t and should understand these hazards.”

Better training and better systems for conveying the dangers of hazardous vapors are definitely needed to fill the knowledge gap. While regulations in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico have tightened since the Macondo incident, in Scott’s opinion, the oil and gas industry is not doing enough to alert workers to the dangers of hazardous vapors, beyond the training and electrical and mechanical inspections. The failure of the Deepwater Horizon rig’s blowout preventer was the root but not the cause of the Macondo incident. Instead, the rig blew because gas that was floating around the rig found a spark or a hot surface.

Besides training, another option could be for rigs to clearly inform workers when they are entering a hazardous area which has zones or divisions that could be explosive, such as the signs used in European Union rigs under the Potentially Explosive Atmospheres Directive (ATEX). The directive, which came out in 2003, established what equipment and work environment is allowed in an explosive atmosphere in order to protect employees from explosion risk.

“I would love to go onto a rig and know that I’m going into a hazardous area,” Scott commented, noting that the times he’s been on offshore rigs, he’s found out about a rig’s hazardous areas by accident.

OCS has done one course for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and will conduct another course for BSEE on ignition sources and hazardous areas.

The company has recommended to the Coast Guard a collection of information needed to demonstrate that certain specific requirements have been undertaken with U.S. Gulf and international requirements. The document proposed would contain electrical equipment in hazardous locations documents contain data on previous inspections and maintenance of electrical equipment. The document also would contain Hazardous Area Equipment Register (HAER), supplied by a third party, including Remedial Actions, an Emergency Shut Down register, also supplied by a third party.
The document in the form proposed by OCS also would include:
* A register of Hazardous Areas qualified staff certified by the American Petroleum Institute, International Association of Drilling Contractors, or CompEx
* Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit or Vessel Hazardous Area classification drawings
* Record of Special X conditions for any equipment marked accordingly with certificates of reference
* Notified incident records within the Hazardous Areas and any potential gas/vapor catastrophes outside of Hazardous Areas
* Details of Fire, First Aid and Rescue Services
* Emergency Shut Down register, supplied by a third party

The dossier would be held on the rig or vessel and be easily accessible by the Coast Guard when they visit. The company that operates the rig or vessel or a third party would maintain the data, which would be introduced into the companies’ quality system. The data could be compiled on certified table so the Coast Guard could check against any of the items on the Hazardous Area Equipment Register.

Under the current Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) 2 requirements, a third party audit of offshore rigs and vessels. The SEMS II final rule enhances the original SEMS rule, or Workplace Safety Rule, issued in October 2010.

SEMS II was passed to provide greater protection by supplementing operators’ SEMS programs with employee training, empowering field level personnel with safety management decisions and strengthening auditing procedures by requiring third parties to conduct auditing activities. The U.S. Coast Guard’s role with SEMS II is to act as police, following up with visits to rigs and vessels to ensure that third party audits have been conducted.

“As a company that performs Ex inspections, in our experience, we know that sometimes Remedial Action’s aren’t closed out,” OCS said in an Aug. 22 letter to the Coast Guard.

In June of this year, the Coast Guard proposed to amend the electrical engineering regulations for electrical installations in hazardous areas that would expand the list of acceptable national and international explosion protection standards. The IEC System for Certification to Standards relating the equipment for use in Explosive Atmospheres also would be added as an acceptable independent third-party certification system for testing and certifying electrical equipment.

The proposed regulations would apply to foreign and U.S. mobile offshore drilling units, floating facilities and vessels that engaged in activities on the Outer Continental Shelf for the first time after the regulations’ effective date. They would also allow owners and operators of U.S. tank vessels to choose the compliance regime in existing regulations on the proposed regulations.

When the ATEX Directive came out in Europe in 2003, complaints arose that equipment had to be classed as in service to be used. What started to happen was that equipment that would be used in non-risk areas could be certified by the company. The self-certification was good for mechanical people. But the ATEX self-certification process slipped out of Europe into the United States, Scott noted. This led to confusion on the Coast Guard’s behalf that companies would self-certify equipment for Zone 2 work, not only mechanical but electrical equipment as well.

Karen Boman has more than 10 years of experience covering the upstream oil and gas sector. Email Karen at kboman@rigzone.com.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

BP Spill, gulf of mexico clean-up, Gulf restoration, marine pollution, natural resource management, ocean pollution, offshore oil, oil pollution

Maritime Executive: NOAA Releases Millions of Chemical Analyses from Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Leave a comment

http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/NOAA-Releases-Millions-of-Chemical-Analyses-from-Deepwater-Horizon-Oil-Spill-2013-09-12/

September 12, 2013

Includes data on underwater hydrocarbon plume, dispersants
BY MAREX

NOAA announced the release of a comprehensive, quality-controlled dataset that gives ready access to millions of chemical analyses and other data on the massive Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The dataset, collected to support oil removal activities and assess the presence of dispersants, wraps up a three year process that began with the gathering of water samples and measurements by ships in the Gulf of Mexico during and after the oil release in 2010.

NOAA was one of the principal agencies responding to the Macondo well explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, and is the official ocean data archivist for the federal government. While earlier versions of the data were made available during and shortly after the response, it took three years for NOAA employees and contractors to painstakingly catalog each piece of data into this final form.

This Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill dataset, including more than two million chemical analyses of sediment, tissue, water, and oil, as well as toxicity testing results and related documentation, is available to the public online at: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/deepwaterhorizon/specialcollections.html.

A companion dataset, including ocean temperature and salinity data, currents, preliminary chemical results and other properties collected and made available during the response can be found at: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/deepwaterhorizon/insitu.html.

The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill response involved the collection of an enormous dataset. The underwater plume of hydrocarbon — a chemical compound that consists only of the elements carbon and hydrogen — was a unique feature of the spill, resulting from a combination of high-pressure discharge from the well near the seafloor and the underwater application of chemical dispersant to break up the oil.

“The size and scope of this project — the sheer number of ships and platforms collecting data, and the broad range of data types — was a real challenge. In the end, it was a great example of what can be accomplished when you bring together the expertise across NOAA, making this quality-controlled information easily available to the general public for the first time,” said Margarita Gregg, Ph. D., director of the National Oceanographic Data Center, which is part of NOAA’s Satellite and Information Service.

The effort to detect and track the plume was given to the Deepwater Horizon Response Subsurface Monitoring Unit (SMU), led by NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration, and included responders from many federal and state agencies and British Petroleum (BP). Between May and November 2010, the SMU coordinated data collection from 24 ships on 129 cruises.

The SMU data archived at NOAA’s National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) is already being used by researchers at NOAA and in academia for a range of studies, including models of oil plume movement and investigations of subsurface oxygen anomalies. In addition to NODC, other parts of the NOAA archive system such as NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center and the NOAA Central Library contain important holdings. Recently, the library’s Deepwater Horizon Centralized Repository won recognition from the Department of Justice “as one of the best successes in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) world last year.”
By law, these data will remain available through NOAA’s archive systems for at least 75 years. Additional data from the Deepwater Horizon/Macondo spill can be found at the NOAA oil spill archive website: http://www.noaa.gov/deepwaterhorizon/ and data collected in the on-going Natural Resource Damages Assessment can be found at: http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

BP Spill, energy policy, fossil fuels, gulf of mexico clean-up, Gulf restoration, marine pollution, national ocean politics, natural resource management, ocean pollution, offshore oil, oil pollution

The Lens Opinion, Times-Picayune: Royalty-screwed: Big Oil likes to confuse severance taxes with cleanup costs

Leave a comment

Royalty-screwed: Big Oil likes to confuse severance taxes with cleanup costs

The Lens
Nola.com

OPINION By Mark Moseley, Opinion writer September 10, 2013 5:00pm

In August, Sen. Mary Landrieu argued that Louisiana deserves a greater share of oil royalty payments, maybe even rates equal to those received by mineral-rich states in the interior, such as Wyoming. With the additional proceeds from offshore production, Landrieu argues, the state can fund its urgent coastal restoration needs:

“Failure is no option. I don’t know if anybody knows where any other money is, but I don’t. If we do not get this [royalty] money, we cannot secure this coast and build the levees we need.”
In fact, Landrieu was well aware of another possible source of money. BP is about to be on the hook for a massive fines related to the 2010 oil spill, and Louisiana will use its share of those billions to jumpstart restoration projects.

Also, the Southeast Louisiana Flood Authority-East’s coastal erosion lawsuit against 97 oil, gas and pipeline companies had been announced in July and – importantly- Landrieu signalled tentative support when she said, “I think we should seek justice everywhere we can find it.”

In 2006, Landrieu successfully shepherded legislation that, beginning in 2017, will increase Louisiana’s royalties from our vast offshore assets. Unfortunately, a $500 million cap prevented the act from being the coast’s saving grace. Landrieu wants to rectify that by removing the cap.

State coastal czar Garret Graves identified increased royalties as a prong in the state’s strategically sequenced tripartite coastal strategy. (It’s a complicated affair.) The other two prongs include BP oil spill money (natch), and “battling with the Army Corps of Engineers over its management of the Mississippi River.” It’s apparently a delicately balanced little stratagem, and Graves is hopping mad at the flood authority lawsuit because it has disturbed the Jindal administration’s priority sequence of coastal restoration funding mechanisms.

One thing is clear, though: The Jindal administration, the oil and gas lobby, and presumably the majority of the state Legislature are not thrilled by the flood authority’s lawsuit. They would prefer that the state’s $50 billion Master Plan to restore the coast be funded through an increased share of oil and gas royalties.

The royalty issue takes on increased importance in light of BP’s recent transformation from “contrite to combative.” Perhaps alarmed by increased potential expenses related to the oil spill, the once-apologetic oil giant has gone from vowing to “make things right” to basically mounting a PR campaign to say it is being victimized by fraudulent Louisianans. Thus it seems that BP will not be paying additional fines or judgements, without first exhausting all of its legal options. And that will likely mean years of delay.

So the royalty option assumes more importance. And this suits the oil and gas companies fine. Restoring the coast with oil and gas royalties gives the illusion that oil giants are paying to fix the coast that they helped to disappear (by slicing it apart with pipelines and navigation channels).
However, they’re not paying anything more than than they used to. Increasing royalties for Louisiana come out of the federal government’s share, not Big Oil’s coffers. It’s additional money for the state, and less for the federal budget.

Flood authority vice chairman John Barry explained in his masterful Lens op-ed:
The industry wants it [the coast] fixed, but they want taxpayers to pay for the damage they did, either in taxes or flood insurance rates. If we succeed in getting a bigger share of offshore revenue, we’re getting it from the federal treasury. From taxpayers in Rhode Island and Oregon – and in Louisiana. The industry won’t be paying a penny more.

This gets to the heart of the royalty dilemma. The rhetoric surrounding the argument Landrieu makes for increased royalties for Louisiana – “we deserve our fair share” and “we need this money to fix our coast” – subtly conflates two different issues.

Royalties, or more accurately, severance taxes, are compensation for the right to extract non-renewable mineral wealth. It’s for removing mineral assets, like oil, that can only be exploited once. Royalties are not a repair cost for extraction, or compensation for environmental impact.

Everyone who touts increased royalties as the smart play toward funding the coastal reconstruction Master Plan is misleading you. They are trying to link royalties and coastal restoration in the public’s mind, as a solution to the problem.

Don’t be misled. Louisiana’s fair share of the mineral wealth is one issue. If we should get a larger percentage of revenues – the same share interior states receive – that would be wonderful.

However, oil and gas companies’ responsibility for our coastal mega-problem is a separate issue. We would deserve increased royalties even if the coast was healthy and flourishing like it was a hundred years ago. As Barry says, Big Oil should pay more to fix the coast that they helped break. If the state acquires more royalty funds and directs them to restore the coast, instead of other urgent needs, that’s still a tremendous sacrifice.

Granted, the odds are long against the lawsuit being successful. Even if it were, oil and gas companies, like BP, will probably use every legal and political device at their disposal to avoid paying judgments promptly. So, increased royalties might become one of Louisiana’s last best politically feasible solutions to fund coastal restoration.

But don’t be fooled, if that’s how it plays out. Taxpayer’s will be paying for the destruction of our coast by the world’s richest corporate sector. Big Oil had a chance to step up, and instead they let the “little people” -as a BP exec once called us- take the hit.

I call that getting royalty-screwed.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

energy policy, fossil fuels, national ocean politics, natural resource management, ocean pollution

Greenpeace: Greenpeace activists invade Shell refinery

Leave a comment

Christian Wenande
August 28, 2013 – 09:38
The action is a protest against Shell spearheading the search for oil in the vulnerable Arctic region
Around 40 Greenpeace activists, some dressed as polar bears, forced entrance to the Shell oil refinery in Fredericia this morning (Photo: Greenpeace)

Shell’s oil refinery in the Jutland city of Fredericia was invaded by about 40 Greenpeace activists dressed up like polar bears early this morning.

The activists forced entry to the Dutch oil giant’s refinery just after 6am and a group of them immediately began climbing up one of the refinery’s large silos , where they hung a banner featuring an image of the well-known yellow and red Shell logo juxtaposed with a polar bear’s face.

“We are here to reveal Shell’s true face. The company is leading the hunt for oil in the Arctic, despite having shown us that they are completely unable to protect the vulnerable environment and unique nature in Greenland and the rest of the region,” Helene Hansen, a 28-year-old activist, told Ekstra Bladet tabloid.

Part of a global campaign
The activist group in Fredericia includes Danes as well as individuals from Sweden, Norway, Finland, Italy, Germany and Latvia.

The police showed up at around 6:30am but as of two hours later no arrests had made.
The Fredericia action is the latest Greenpeace stunt aimed at taking on Shell’s hunt for arctic oil. In July, six activists climbed western Europe’s tallest building near Shell’s headquarters in London to display a ‘Save the Arctic’ banner, and last Sunday a 20-metre banner was unveiled during the Formula 1 Grand Prix in Belgium.

The Arctic: another Nigeria?
Shell is currently preparing a number of seismic examinations in protected sea areas in Baffin Bay, the body of water between Greenland and Canada. Whale experts have warned that the noisy seismic tests could threaten the population of whales in the area. In June, Denmark’s Arctic oil spill preparedness was found woefully inadequate by experts.

“Shell has already a displayed horrendous breach of security in Alaska, they’ve polluted the entire Niger Delta and now they’re getting ready for Russia and Greenland. The plans should be stopped so Greenland doesn’t become the next Nigeria,” Niels Fuglsang, a spokesperson for the Danish Arctic campaign in Greenpeace, told Ekstra Bladet.
Greenpeace is hoping that politicians in Greenland and Denmark step up and prohibit Shell’s tests before they commence over the next few months.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

fossil fuels, ocean pollution, offshore oil, oil pollution

Houston Business Journal: Black Elk plans to resume drilling at Gulf of Mexico explosion site soon

Leave a comment

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/blog/drilling-down/2013/08/black-elk-plans-to-resume-gulf-of.html

Aug 28, 2013, 11:46am CDT

Deon Daugherty, Reporter-

Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations LLC hopes to bring its West Delta 32 oil platform back into production as early as next week, company executives said Wednesday during a conference call with investors.

The platform was the site of an explosion in November that resulted in the death of three contract workers in the Gulf of Mexico, 17 miles off the coast of Louisiana.

Art Garza, chief technical officer at Houston-based Black Elk, said he expects a final walk-through with federal regulators this week and that the Bureau of Safety Environmental Enforcement officials will permit the platform to return to service. Garza said that by next week, production could be up to 300 barrels of oil per day. In the following weeks, the company anticipates getting production closer to the 650 barrel per day mark.

Last week, a report commissioned by Black Elk said it was actions taken by poorly trained subcontract workers hired by a contractor, in violation of a construction contract, that led to the deadly explosion.

The platform’s return to work comes at a crucial time for the company. Black Elk reported first quarter revenue was down $22 million compared to the first quarter of 2012, and revenue for the first six months of 2013 was down $55 million compared to the same period a year earlier.

Bruce Koch, Black Elk’s CFO, said production was down from last year’s 15,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to about 10,000 barrels in the second quarter 2013. The company is moving toward producing closer to 13,000 per day or more by the end of the third quarter.

Garza said bringing West Delta back online will help to mitigate the declines. The company also expects to benefit from a $50 million capital program signed in March with Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund LP, as well as its $50 million sale of four noncore Gulf of Mexico properties to Renaissance Offshore LLC in Houston.

What’s more, the company is reducing its general and administrative staff by 25 jobs in August – a savings of about $4.5 million, Koch said. That leaves about 120 people left at the company.

Deon Daugherty covers energy and law for the Houston Business Journal..

Special thanks to Richard Charter