Plan to Build Deep-Water Ports For Tankers Is Weighed

The Bush Administration, responding to an outpouring of public concern about a rash of oil spills, is weighing a plan that would bar all oil tankers from U.S. ports and require them instead to unload their cargo at specially constructed platforms several miles offshore, Administration officials said Wednesday.

Under the proposal, the oil then would be transferred to the mainland via undersea pipelines--a transit method far less likely to cause major spills than conventional delivery by tanker.

The deep-water port plan, backed by Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan Jr., would force an extensive reconfiguration of a transportation system that now delivers nearly half of the oil consumed by the nation each year.

It essentially would establish a five-mile-wide tanker-free zone around the entire U.S. coastline, compelling docking facilities to be transplanted far offshore and creating a vast new network of pipelines to carry nearly 3 billion gallons of oil a year.

Concerns for Costs

Only one such offshore oil port is currently in use--in Louisiana--and plans to replicate it have stalled in the past over concerns about the construction and operating cost.

Interior Department officials seized upon the idea last week after the House Appropriations Committee, reacting to the tanker spills, urged Congress to adopt a one-year moratorium on new offshore oil drilling operations. The officials said that they hoped the plan would deflect criticism from offshore drilling, which has played no role in the recent spills, to the tankers that have been responsible.

“This is an expensive proposition,” admitted an aide to Lujan, “but we need to weigh it against the enormous costs incurred every time a tanker is involved in an accident.”

Attributing recent oil spills to “tankers getting too close to shore,” Lujan hinted at the outlines of his proposed solution during a weekend appearance on CNN’s “Newsmaker Sunday.”

Consults With White House

In providing additional details Wednesday, department officials said that Lujan had consulted with the White House about the proposal and ordered a high-level Interior Department task force to determine its feasibility.

The aides said that Lujan hoped to unveil the plan formally during an address later this month before a Western Governors Assn. meeting in Long Beach, a port that serves as a major terminal for oil tanker traffic and would be heavily affected by the plan.

The proposal marks the most comprehensive Administration attempt to date to answer concerns generated by a recent flurry of major oil spills that polluted the water and stained the coastline in Alaska, Rhode Island, Delaware and Texas.

All four of the recent spills were directly linked to oil tankers, with three occurring after a tanker had strayed out of a marked channel and run aground. The Administration has sought to focus critical attention on the ships rather than on its more controversial offshore drilling program.

Oil analysts expressed surprise when told of the scope of the Interior plan. “This would mark a major deviation from current practice,” said Richard Golob, publisher of Golob’s Oil Pollution Bulletin and an authority on the subject.

Representatives of the oil industry, expressing cautious support for the plan, said that it leaves many questions unanswered.

“Another offshore oil port might make sense in some cases,” said Sean Connaugton, an analyst for the American Petroleum Institute. “But we need to take a look at all the variables.”

Environmentalists, on the other hand, suggested that the plan might be an overreaction designed to distract attention from battles over offshore drilling.

“It seems to me that there are many less expensive, less drastic measures that could be taken to protect sensitive areas,” said Lisa Speer, a senior economist for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service estimates tankers to be four times more likely to cause a major oil spill than pipelines.

Similarly, a survey by the National Academy of Sciences found that 48% of the oil found in the world’s waterways had come from tankers. Much of the rest had leaked naturally from underwater wells, and only 2% had come from pipelines.

While the new Interior Department plan would not eliminate tankers from the oil transportation network, it would restrict them to deep waters far offshore, where hazards are fewer and the consequences of a mishap less serious than closer to land.

Such a restriction, however, almost certainly would make oil transportation more expensive. Constructing deep-water ports carries significant costs, as does pumping oil through pipelines over five miles of seabed.

The only existing deep-water tanker-to-pipeline facility, the 10-year-old Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, has suffered financially as a result. As nearby refineries buy up cheaper oil shipped directly ashore, officials of the under-used offshore facility have sought favored treatment from Congress to keep the port in operation.

Of the tankers affected by the Interior plan, most would be those carrying oil from Alaska’s North Slope or from abroad. Because tankers deliver oil from only about 10% of offshore drilling platforms, relatively few offshore operations would be affected.

Nevertheless, Interior officials made clear that they hope their plan would relieve some of the opposition to the department’s offshore drilling plans.

“Clearly, we would like to show that our much-maligned offshore drilling program is successful and safe,” said Steve Goldstein, the Interior Department spokesman.