Plan for 5-Mile Ship Corridor Near Oil Tracts Is Withdrawn

Under pressure from the U.S. Minerals Management Service, the Coast Guard has withdrawn a suggestion to create a five-mile-wide ocean corridor to allow growing numbers of ships to pass safely through oil and gas fields off the California coast earmarked for development.

The MMS, the Interior Department agency that leases offshore oil and gas tracts in federal waters, objected that a five-mile-wide corridor would preclude the construction of drilling platforms in potentially rich oil and gas fields and cost the government billions of dollars in lost lease sales.

Instead, the plan calls for narrower shipping lanes that could be located much closer to new offshore oil rigs.

The Coast Guard’s proposal, however, is raising new concerns about the increased risks of a catastrophic collision between ships plying the heavily traveled lanes between San Francisco and Los Angeles and growing numbers of offshore oil rigs planned off the Central and Southern California coast.

The proposal comes at a time of heightened concern about ship safety in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez disaster. The oil tanker strayed 1.5 miles out of the traffic lanes in Alaska’s Prince William Sound when it ran aground, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil.

“The Coast Guard originally considered establishing a five-mile-wide shipping safety fairway along the coast of California. . . . This was not acceptable to the MMS because a large number of offshore tracts would be totally precluded from oil exploration and development,” the Coast Guard said in publishing its proposed alternative in the Federal Register.

Under the alternative, the MMS has estimated that there would be little or no loss in lease sale revenues to the federal government since oil rigs can be built immediately adjacent to the shipping lanes and tap oil and gas reserves by slant drilling techniques.

An alternative published in the April 27 Federal Register could result in a ship threading a course between two oil rigs in order to save time and fuel.

Instead of a five-mile-wide platform-free shipping lane, the alternative plan calls for two one-mile-wide shipping “fairways” separated by a two-mile-wide zone. Northbound ships would use one fairway and southbound ships the other. But oil rigs could be built in the two-mile-wide area separating the two fairways, as well as on the other side of each fairway.

One Coast Guard officer warned that there could be a collision if a ship charting a course between the rigs lost control for some reason.

‘Increasing the Risk’

“We’re just concerned if there is a steering casualty the vessel has nowhere to go. . . . You’re increasing the risk of collision somewhat. What that number is no one knows,” said one Coast Guard officer, who asked to remain anonymous.

Official Coast Guard statements, however, insisted that its alternative would allow for oil and gas development and not compromise vessel safety.

“You don’t need a five-mile-wide area out there to ensure vessel safety,” said Margie G. Hegy, the Coast Guard’s Washington-based project manager in the office of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services. Hegy, who inherited the project from a previous manager, called suggestions for a five-mile-wide fairway “overkill.”

But critics, including the staff of the California Coastal Commission and fishermen, remained unconvinced.

Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Assns., called the developments disturbing.

“The major concern is they’re (the Coast Guard) essentially setting up so we have oil rigs between the north and south lanes. This is an accident waiting to happen. It’s just asking for more trouble. I think the Coast Guard’s initial proposal of a five-mile-wide fairway made far more sense and they shouldn’t have been pressured by the MMS,” Grader said in a telephone interview.

Similar views were voiced by staff members of the California Coastal Commission. Suzanne Rogalin, energy analyst with the commission, said, “We are concerned with the safety of this proposal. . . .”

Hegy confirmed that the Army Corps of Engineers has the final word on whether an oil or gas platform can be built next to any fairway designated by the Coast Guard. She said any proposal to erect two or more platforms in an area would be closely examined by the Coast Guard, which has authority to offer input to the Army, but no authority to block construction.

Thousands of ships each year now use the coastal shipping lanes between San Francisco and Los Angeles. However, except for designated traffic separation lanes between Los Angeles-Long Beach and Santa Barbara, and near San Francisco, no separation lanes are officially established.

But even without official designation, the routes are free of offshore oil platforms. The Coast Guard proposal would keep platforms out of the commonly used traffic lanes by designating them as fairways.

Hegy said members of the public have until July 25 to offer comments, which the Coast Guard will consider before making the proposal final.