HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-06-19; City Council; Info; Staff Recommendation and Draft OC Task Force-
S;ua Dic&{o
ASS 0 c LY i'T 0 N (IF
G 0 W;I< s 3 I ES'1-S
Suite 524 Security Pacific Plaza
1200 Third Avenue
San @kcgo, California92101 (619) 236-5300 ,.
July 15, 1983
TO: OCS Task Force Members
FROM: Jack Koerper, SANDAG Staff
SUBJECT: Staff Recommendation and Draft OCS Task Force Report
htroduction -
The proposed Southern California Lease Offering, February 1984, or Lease Sale
No. 80, is scheduled for early next year. The Task Force has held five meetings to
disctsso several issues associated with offshore petroleum development: Also, the
Task Force has met with the Western Oil and Gas Association (WOGA) exploration
committee and toured Platform Grace in the Santa Barbara Channel.
The geographic area covered by the lease sale is outlined in Figure 1. Figure 2
depicts the industry interest in the nearshore tracts. The number in each tract
represents the number of companies interested in that particulax tract.
Previous Southern California lease sdes (Nos. 48, 68 and 73) have excluded the
area 3 to 25 miles offshore San Diego.
The purpose of the Task Force is to update the Board's OCS position which was
developed five years ago for Lease Sale No. 48. Staff evaluated the information
contained in the DEIS, analyzed the information presented to the Task Force, and
reviewed other pertinent documents and reports relevant to the Board's position
and tke issues io form its recornmendation and prepare the. draft OCS Task Force
report. Staff believes that is was the responsibility of the proponents to present
convincing and generally recognized information or data to change or modify the
Board's previous position. Based on that analysis, it is
RECOMMENDED
that. the OCS Task Force recommend to the San Diego Association of Govern-
ments Board of Directors that it reaffirm its policy of opposing petroleum
development in the nearshore area (3 to 25 miles).
Discussion
The following is the rationale for the staff recommendation regarding the issues
discussed by the Task Force. The format of this report is to provide a issue
* statement that summarizes the Board's existing position, describe what
information has beqn presented to the Task Force to address these issues, and
develop a conclusionary statement as to whether or 'not a recommendation should
be offered to the Board to amend its position. The last section of the report
. describes the energy savings as a result of the development and conservation of
local energy supplies. .
I. 5
-.
Issue Statement
The Department of the interior in 1979 in its Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Lease Sale No. 48 stated: "Tracts totally situated in water depths
greater than 400 meters cannot at present be developed using conventional
technology." Twenty-two (22) of the 26 tracts offered in Lease Sale No. 48 had
water depths greater than 400 meters. The production of those tracts would have
required the use of experimental technology in a frontier area which increases the
risk of an accident.
Discussion
Representatives of the oil industry have stated that conventional petroleum
roducing techology cannot be used in water depths greater than 400 meters P 1,200 feet) because of costs. The cost of constructing a conventional petroleum
producing platform in deep water becomes prohibitive. In order to reduce the
costs and safely produce the resource, the industry is in the process of developing
new technologies to address this issue. At the present time, two platforms
utilizing the experimental technology are being constructed and will be used in the
Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea. The DEIS for Lease Sale No. 80 does not
discuss this issue.
Conclusion
Although some progress ha?,been made by the industry to address this pyoblepif;,
is apparent that the new1 kecfinofdgy is not yet operational and that1 '&iffin in
water depths greater than 400 meters has significant risks associated with it. It is
recommended that the Board's concern should not be changed.
-63 -it /
_. - -. Oil and Gas Resource Estimates
Issue Statement
The resource estimates for the 26 tracts offered in Lease Sale No. 48 were 30
million barrels of oil and 45 billion cubic feet of gas. When computed against the
1980 national consumption figures, these resource estimates represent only 42
hours of oil and 17 hours of gas. These estimates are not significant, and the risks associated with the develcgment of this miniscule resource axe substantial to the
San Diego region.
.
Discussion a. .
The resource estimates contained in the DES for Lease Sale No. 80 for the -
nearshore area off the San Diego coast apparently are less than those estimated
for Lease Sale No. 48. The estimates calculated from the DEIS are 20 million
barrels of oil .and less than 45 billion cubic feet of gas.
c I
, , -.
A-
,*
One method in which a costlbenefit analysis can be prepared is to compare the
costs of producing the petroleum resource to the benefit or the amount of
resource. Duricg Lease Sale No. 48 in 1979, it was concluded that the estimates
were insignificant to justify the production risks.
Conclusion 1. \
The risks to San Diego if an accident should occur using experimental technology is very significant given th$%%&krck estimates. Therefore, the Board's concern
.should not be changed.
fWJ 26 .
Military Operations
Issue Statement *f
San Diego is the Navy's principal West Cost port; it supports more than 120 ships
of the Pacific Fleet. The San Diego offshore area is the principal training area
for the Navy and Marine Corps. The ship transit lanes to and from San Diego Bay
traverse the nearshore area. Petroleum development in the nearshore area would
encroach upon the military training areas and would jeopardize the safe transit of
the military ships as they arrive and depart San Diego Bay. The introduction of
offshore structures would compromise the Navy's ability to carry out its mission
and would not be in the best interest of the nation. .
-Discussion
The Navy observers to the Task Force, on June 3, 1983, provided the following
information regarding the military training areas off the San Diego Coast. (Refer
to Figure 3.) These training areas provide support to half of the Pacific Fleet (120
ships and approximately 500 planes) hom-e-ported in San Diego and Long Beach. .
Also, these are the only training areas for the specific fleet activities on the West
Coast; the closest existing alternative training areas are located near Hawaii.
1.
' 2.
3.
4.
5.
Simulated Low Level Bombing and Rocket Firing Training Range. This range is used six hours a day, 104 days per year. The range is used in conjunction
with the amphibious assault training area at Camp Pendleton.
.
Amphibious Operations Area. This training area located off Camp Pendleton
is used four hours a day, 260 days per year. This training area is used by the
Navy and Marine Corps to maintain their readiness capability.
Encinitas Naval Electronic Testing Area. This training area .is used by
surface ships and submarines to test and calibrate the ships' navigation
systems. The area is used six hours a day, 260 days per year.
Point Loma Warfare Range. This training area is used by surface ships to test
and calibrate the ships' warfare systems. This area is used 24 hours a day,
120 days per year.
Fleet Anchorages and Amphibious Assault Training Areas. These areas
located offshore the Silver Strand, the entrance to San Diego Bay, and Point
Loma are used.24 hours a day, 260 days per year.. The amphibious assault
training is used in conjunction with the area of Camp Pendleton and the oper-
ations of the Amphibious Base located in the City of Coronado.
3
6. Submarine Training Area. This area is used 24 hours a day, 260 days per year.
7- - Submarine Transit Lanes. These lanes are used 24 hours a day, 360 days per
year.
The Navy's general concerns regarding OCS development are:
1. Exploration ships and drilling platforms are hazards to navigation which
affect training exercises and electronic testing, because they force the ships
to maneuver outside their training parameters.
2. Drilling noises significantly affect the underwater electronic testing systems.
Relocation of the training areas would increase the transit time for the ships
and reduce the training time. The training areas are conveniently located
between the Long Beach and San Diego Harbors. The onshore support systems
have been established over the years and a relocation of the areas would be a
significant impact to the readiness capability of the fleet. -
Lease Sale No. 48 Position. The tracts shown on the composite map (Figure 3)
reflect those tracts the Navy recommended for deletion during Lease Sale No. 48. Because the use of the training areas have increased since 1979, the impact to
the fleet would be greater if these or other tracts within the training area were
offered in Lease Sale No. 80.
-
The DEIS states: "Impacts to military operations as a result of the proposed lease
offering are expected to be high (significant alterations to military opertaions
would be required). This is the result of the tremendous activity levels of both the
military and oil industry overlapping as a result of the Proposal." (p. 2-36.)
. Conclusion
The conflict between military operations and offshore oil and gas development is
significant and may not be reconciled without affecting military readiness. The
DEIS recommends two stipulations that would allow shared use of the offshore
military training areas. The stipulations would force the military to compromise
its training activities and readiness for a very small resource. If OCS develop-
ment is permitted to occur hi the nearshore area, that development could be used
as a reason to relocate ships presently home-ported in San Diego, Such a reloca-
tion would have a significant adverse impact to the region's economy. The Board's concern should not be modified.
Air -- Quality
Issue Statement
The Board of Directors has adopted the 1982 State Implementation Plan to meet
the national air quality standards as mandated by Congress. The implementation
of the plan by the local governments and the business community will enable this
region to meet the 1987 fedeTal ozone standards for loc2lly generated emissions.
The introduction of petroleum development and its associated hydrocarbon
emissions off the San Diego coast will preclude San Diego from attaining the
San Diego would have no control over the development,
jyd the adverse emissions would exacerbate the emission transit problem from the
. congressional standard.
os Angeles Au Basin,
4
Discussion
Attachment 1 describes the types and amounts of air pollutants that are emitted
. from exploratory and production drilling activities. The DEIS states that the air .
quality impacts would be "low to moderate" (p. 2-34). The Department of the
Interior air quality analysis is based upon a generic study for the entire California
coast. The Offshore and Coastal Dispersion Model is being developed by the
Department of the Interior to assess the effects of offshore emissions from point
sources on air quality of coastal regions. This model is expected to be released
this fall, and was not used in the Lease Sale No. 80 EIS analysis. The Air .
Resources Board report entitled "Air Quality Aspects of the Development of
Offshore Oil and Gas Activities" (February 1982) concludes that air quality
emissions from OCS activities have a significant onshore impact. The County Air
Pollution Control District has not made a determination as to what the impacts
would be to the region if petroleum development should occur as proposed.
Conclusion
The effects on air quality from potential petroleum activities associated with the
Lease Sale were estimated through computer simulated models. Site specific
information was not used in the DEIS arialysis, and will not be available until
development actually takes place. San Diego is a non-attainment area for ozone
and the emissions associated with one exploratory drilling operation are equivalent
to 5,000 1982 passenger cars traveling 50 miles per day for one year. The DEXS
did not address the specific air quality impacts to the San Diego region. The
Board's concern regarding air quality should not be modified.
Regional Economic Impacts
Issue Statement .
8 The regional economic strategy has been to emphasize the recreational and tourist
sectors of the economy and to selectively diversify the industrial base. The San
Deigo region has significant environmental assets and an essential part of the
economic strategy is the enhancement of those assets while promoting economic
development. The implications and potential consequences of nearshore oil and
gas development 'are inconsistent with the regional economic strategy.
Discussion
The DEIS concludes on page 2-35 the following:
"The expected impacts to recreation, tourism, sportfishing and visual resources as a result of the proposal are very low. Localized low
impacts are expected to recr?ation, tourism, and sportfishing as a
result of offshore platforms and onshore .facilities. Localized moder-
ate impacts to visual r-&ources may occur if a platform is placed off the area from Pt. Conception to Montecito, off San Miguel or Anacapa
Islands, off Palos Verdes, off the Lagunas, off La Jolla, off Sunset
Cliffs or off Avalon. Overall the impacts for-the proposal are very
. low."
The primary source for the evaluation of recreational activity and allied resources
for the DEE is a report entitled "Inventory and Evaluation of California Coastal
5 .. .
Recreation and Aesthetic Resources" prepared by the Granville Corporation and
published in 1981. At its February 5, 1982 meeting, the SANDAG Board trans-
mitted the following comment to the Secretary of the Interior regarding this
report:
"The 'Inventory and Evaluation .of California Coastal Recreation and
Aesthetic Resources' prepared by the Department of Interior under-
estimates the economic values of the San Diego resources, and the
methodology is incomplete because it evaluated only active recreation
participation and not the passive value of resources. Because of these
deficiencies, the Department of Interior should not rely solely on the
conclusions of the report to determine whether or not OCS onshore and
offshore facilities are compatible in the San Diego region. Prior to
any decision to lease offshore San Diego, the Department should con-
sult with the local government and fully consider the local value
placed on these resources."
The DEIS, on page 2-50, estimates a recreational dollar value of over $122 million
in 1980. Information updated from a report prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc.
entitled "Tourism in San Diego: Its Economic, Fiscal, and Environmental Impacts"
(May 1974) indicates that 1982 recreational dollars associated with saltwater
bathing, boating and fishing is approximately $323 million.
Conclusion
-
The DEIS understates and underestimates the impacts of petroleum development
to the recreation and tourism industry. The Board's concern should not be modified.
Marine Mammals and Seabirds
Issue Statement
One of the unique coastal resources in the San Diego region is the marine
mammals and seabirds. The marine environment and its inhabitants are fragile
and easily affected by man-induced activities. Several sectors of San Diego's
recreation and tourist industry are related to the marine environment. The
impacts and consequences of petroleum development in the marine environment to
the mammals and seabirds is unknown.
_.. ~ .. Discussion
Information presented to the Task Force reveals that scientific research related
to marine animals and seabirds and the long-term effects of petroleum develop-
ment is inconclusive and more research is required. In its draft Environmental
Studies Plan for Fiscal Year 1985, the Department of the Interior lists several studies related to this subject that will not be completed prior to 1985 and still
other research efforts that won't be completed until 1987 or later.
-I__
Conclusion . --
Because scientific research is not yet completed regarding marine mammals and - seabirds, the Board should continue to support research into the effects of
petroleurn development to the marine environment.
.6
Local Energy Supplies and Cons'ervation
The'performance of the region between 1980 and 1982 in development of local
energy supplies (including conservation and alternative enerw projects) is:
,, c
Electricity.
KwH per year saved, the equivalent of 908,000 bbls. of oil.
Per capita consumption has decreased. 7%, resulting in 550 million
Natural Gas. Per capital consumption has decreased 9%, resulting in savings of 51
million therms per year, the equivalent of 930,000 bbls. of oil.
. .'
Motor Vehicle Fuel. Per capita consumption has decreased 9%, resulting in
savings of 89 million gzllons per year, the equivalent of 2,020,000 bbls. of oil.
Total Annual Savings. Eight percent (8%) energy savings for all fuels, or 3.9
million bbls. of oil per year. Over a ten-year period, the minimum life of
conservation and alternative energy equipment, the savings would be 39 million
bbls. of oil.
This 8% decrease in consumption has occurred in the .face of a 5% increase lover
90,000 people) in the region's population during the 1980-1982 piriod. The Gross
Regional Product estimated by the San Diego Economic Research Bureau did not
change significantly in these two years. The decrease in consumption reflects the
response of energy consumers to energy price increases in the 1970's which have
continued into the 80's. Real natural gas prices (subtracting the effects of general
inflation) increased 33% between 1980 and 1892. Real electricity .prices increased 25%. While statewide travel per capita
increased in response to lower gasoline prices, consumers continued to purchase
more fuel-efficient new cars which resulted in a net reduction in gasoline
consump tion.
This reduction in per capita and actual energy consumption in the region is part of
a long-term trend identified by SANDAG. The Regional Energy Plan Update was
adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors in 1982. The Plan sets forth a
strategy by which the region can increase energy supply reliability, reduce the
rate of energy cost increases, and strengthen the local economy by developing
locd energy supplies. These local energy supplies include: (1) conservation and
energy efficient equipment in homes, businesses, industries and public institutions
and power production through renewa$le resources such as solar, wind, hydro; and
(2) efficient production techniques and new fuel sources, such as cogeneration and
solid waste.
Real gasoline prices decreased 14%.
These technologies can decrease this region's need for conventional fuels. The
Regional Energy Plan. Update forecasts potential 1990 annual electricity savings
of 17%, natural gas savings s?f 40% and vehicle fuel savings of 43% due to the use
of more efficient and renewable energy technologies. The 8% decrease in regional
consumption in the 1980-82 period reflects major local investments in these
technologies, which will reduce the need to purchase non-local energy supplies in
the future. .
.
8
San Diego. ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
9'
FIGURE 2
San Diego ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS MILITARY OPERATING AREAS
PT. LOMA UNDERWATER ELECTRONIC
H LEASE SALE NO. 48 TRACT DELETIONS
pJ to MEASUREMENT RANGE . .. ~ *
30 25 10 ' 15 10 J
F l-
MILLS
. 10
ATTACHMENT 1
AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT
OF OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS RESOURCES
,, %
- The air quality impacts of offshore oil and gas development is a great concern to
the local elected officials and residents of the San Diego region. The following
excerpt is from a State of California Air Resources Board report and it describes
the type and amount of major air pollutants emitted from exploratory and produc-
tion drilling activities.
TYPES AND AMOUNT OF AIR POLLUTANTS1'
The major air pollutants emitted from exploratory drilling activities are: (a)
oxides of nitrogen (NOx), (b) volatile organic compounds (VOCs or hydrocarbons),
(c) particulate matter (PM or TSP), (d) oxides 'of sulfur (SOX), and (e) carbon
monoxide (CO).
. These pollutants are released by:
. 1. The diesel engines onboard drillships (these engines supply power for well
drilling and drillship movements),
Flaring of gas (if discovered).
2. Support vessel engines, and
3.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF DRILLING EMISSIONS FROM ONE DRSLLSHIP~
NOx - vocs PM - sox - co -
' Emissions in pounds/hour 73 9 3.4 4 12
Emissions in pounds/day 1,752 21 6 82 96 28 8
80 10 4 4 13
319 40 15 17 .52 3 Emissions in tons/welI
Emissions in tons/year
Source: Hooks, McCloskey and Associates (1981).
Source: Air Quality Aspects of the Development of Offshore Oil and Gas
Activities, State of California Air Resoucces Board, pp. 45-59, February 25, 1982.
Average emissions for drilling and testing a well assuming drilling requires 68
days per well and testing requires 23 days per well.
Assumes 4 wells per year and 91 days to drill and test each well.
.. .
The following is a brief discussion of the types And amount of air pollutants
emitted from the above sources. Re'ferences will'be made to Table 1. Table 1
lists the five regulated pollutants emitted from Exxon's drilling activities and the
emission rate for each pollutant. . 1. Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) '
Oxides of nitrogen are emitted'from the large diesel engines used to generate
power onboard the drillship. Most of the NOx is emitted as NO (nitric oxide),
wliich is formed by the high temperature reaction between the nitrogen and
oxygen in the combustion air. In the presence of sunlight oxides of nitrogen
and VOCs are the primary pollutants necessary for the formation of oxidant
(ozone).
2.
As seen in Table 1, drillships emit large amounts of NOx. A drillship will
produce an average of 73 pounds of NOx per hour during drilling. The total
NOx emitted from a drillship during the drilling of one well (approximately 90
days) is estimated to be about 80 tons. During certain phases of the drilling
operation such as combined drilling and drillship positianing, the NOx
emission rate can be twice this value. Based on maximum energy usage
during the drillin& cycle, the NOx emission rate may be as great as 150
pounds per hour.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
VOCx from drilling operations generally result from incomplete fuel
combustion, evaporative emissions, and fugitive emissions from fuel storage
equipment, pumps, and flanges. As indicated previously, VOCs and NOx in
the presence of sunlight, are primary pollutants in the formation of oxidant
(ozone). As shown in Table 1, the average VOC emissions during drilling are
estimated to be 9 pounds per hour or 10 tons per well.
3. Particulate Matter (PM)
Particulate matter, which is emitted from the diesel engines on board a
drillship, results from the incomplete fuel combustion and fuel contaminants.
The average PM emissions during drilling are estimated to be 3.4 pounds per
hour or 4 tons per well.
4. Oxides of Sulfur (SOX)
In diesel engines, sulfur is a fuel contaminant which is oxidized (combusted)
to form mainly sulfur dioxide (SOz). The average estimated SOX emissions
during drilling are 4 pounds per hour and 4 tons per well based on a fuel sulfur
content of 0.2%. "
5. Carbon Monoxide (CO)
c . CO is a product of incomplete fuel combustion. The average estimated CO
emissions during drilling are 12 pounds per hour and 13 tons per well.
.
The emissions presented above are for a single drillship and do not include
emissions from support vessels, drillship movement, or the flaring of high sulfur
content natural gas.
Support vessels are used to transport crew and materials to and from the drillship.
Support vessels usually consist of crew and supply boats and helicopters. The
amount of pollutants emitted by these vessels is dependent on the distance the
drillship is from shore and the number of trips which are required. Table 2
presents an estimate of emissions from support vessels assuming a round trip
distance of 120 miles for the crew and supply boats and 50 miles for helicopters.
TABLE 2
SUPPORT VESSEL EMXSSIONS FOR THE DRILLING OF ONE WELL
co - sox - PM - NOx VOCs a- -
Emissions in tons per well 10 2 1 1 4
Source: Hooks, McCloskey and Associates (1981). I
Emissions from drillship movement are dependent on the type of drillship and the
distance that the drillship must.trave1. Table 3 p esents Chevron estimates of the
emissions associated witk a drillship relocation requiring 18 hours.
TABLE 3
DRLLSHIP RELOCATION EMISSIONS
co - sox - PM - NOx 'VOCs --
Emissions (tons per relocation4) 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
Source: Chevron USA, Inc. (1981).
Flaring of natural gas may emit substantial amounts of SO2 if the sulfur content
of the gas is high. For example, if 1.5 million cubic feet of natural gas containing 1% hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is flared, SO2 emissions would exceed one ton.
However, it is difficult to predict SO2 emissions from flaring due to uncertainties
about the quantity of natural gas which will be flared and the sulfur content of
that gas.
Exploration drilling emissions can be compared to other emission sources such as
emissions from motor vehicles and to emissions from an OCS production platform such as Chevron's Platform Grace (now operating on the OCS for oil and gas
production).
* Assumes 18 hours per relocation.
Table 4 is a comparison of the number of 1982 passenger carsI each traveling 50
miles per day, which would generate the same amourit of oxides of nitrogen (NOx),
volatile organic conpounds (VOCs), and carbon monoxide (CO) as a single drilling
operation for one year. Since passenger cars emit very little PM or SO29 an
analysis for these pollutants is not included.
I. c
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF OCS EXPLORATORY EMISSIONS
WITH PASSENGER CAR EMISSIONS
co - - NOx vocs
One drilling ope ation produces
in tons per year
Number of 1982 passenger cars
equivalent to one drilling operation 23,000 5,000 370
3 1.9 . 40 52 5
The drilling operation chosen for this comparison is one which has recently
received all approvals, and should be typical of most such operations. Emissions
for the drilling operation are based on information supplied by Exxon and Chevron.
PRODUCTION PLATFORMS
If substantial reserves of oil or gas are delineated by exploratory drilling, a fixed
production platform is usually established. Offshore platforms are large metal
structures which are placed in water 50 to 1,000 feet deep and are attached to the
ocean floor by rigid steel legs. For shallow waters, artificial islands have
sometimes been used instead of platforms.
A "typical" 6 platform has the following types of equipment:
1.
2. Drilling,
3. Gasprocessing, '
4. Oil processing, and
5. Water treatment.
Power generating and fuel storage,
Power generating equipment is needed to supply ele'ctric power for drilling, pro-
cessing, and pumping. Power is usually supplied by gas turbines, while emergency
power is supplied by diesel engines. Some platforms use supplied electrical power
supplied from onshore generating equipment through underwater electrical cables.
-.
From Table 1. . .'
discussion is very general.
It is difficult to characterize a "typical" offshore platform, therefore, this
Well drilling equipment used on a platform is identical to that used on a drillship.
Platforms are designed so that 20 to 90 wells may be drilled either by directional
or angular drilling. This allows a single platform to drill a network of wells
extending over several thousand acres.
Gas processing equipment on R platform usually consists of gas compressors and
dehydrators. Gas compressors are used to raise the gas pressure from a few
atmospheres pressure to 20 or more atmospheres. If a platform does not pipe the
gas to shore, the gas is usually compressed and reinjected into the field to
maintain the natural reservoir pressure and thereby maximize oil production. In
addition, a portion of the gas is generally used as fuel for the gas turbines and
other combustion equipment used to generate electricity and process heat,
respectively. When production is initiated, the gas cannot be reinjected or pro- cessed. In such event, the gas will be flared.
Gas dehydrators are used to remove water from the gas. Most dehydrators use
tri-ethylene glycol as a dehydrating agent. Gas containing water vapor is passed
through a desorber where it comes in direct contact with glycol, which absorbs the
water from the gas. The glycol is then sent to a reboiler where the water is
removed, and the glycol is then returned to the desorber.
If significant quantities of hydrogen sulfide (HzS) are present in the gas, the HZS
can be removed by treatment at the platform prior to use as fuel or being sent onshore.
Oil processing equipment used on a platform includes separators, heaters,
treaters, and pumps. Separators are used to separate the gas, oil and water
fractions of the well fluid. Separators remove about 75% of the water from the
oil.. The remaining 25% is emulsified in the oil, and heater treaters or chemical-
electric units are needed. to break up the oil/w'ater emulsion, prior to transporting
the oil by either pipeline or tanker.
Pumps are used to raise the oil (actually a mixture of gas, oil and water) from the
field, and to pump it onshore or into an oil tanker.
Water treating equipment includes oil/water separators and froth flotation units.
This equipment is desinged to recapture any residual hydrocarbons in the water.
After treatment, the water is often reinjected into the field to maintain reservoir
pressure.
. TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF AIR POLLUTANTS -
The major air pollutants emitted from offshore platforms are NOx, VOCs, PM, so2 and CO. The major source of NOx, PM and CO is combustion emissions from
power generating equipment. If high sulfur content gas is discovered, flaring this
gas can be a major source of SOz. VOCs are emitted from the glycol regenerator,
heater treaters, water treatment equipment, pump seals, and various precess and
storage vents, All five of the above-listed pollutants are emitted from fugitive
sources or as a result of incomplete combustion (e.g., flaring).
Table 6 summarizes the estimated total emissions of air pollutants from OCS
As seen in Table 6, the ' platforms currently operating off the California coast.
..
.-
predominant pollutant emitted from offshore platforms in the Santa Barbara
Channel is NOx (466 tons per year). .For comparison, the total annual NQx
emissions for 1876 from stationary and mobile sources (excluding OCS emission) in
San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties were 75,000 tons per year.
Even though the magnitude of the emission estimates presented in Table 6 is quite
large, these estimates do not include emissions from support vessels, which
collectively are substantial. Yearly emissions from crew and work boats serving
Union's platforms A, B and C have been estimated to be 14 tons of NOx, 3 tons of
CO, 1 ton each of SO2 and PM, and 0.5 tons of reactive VOCs.
TABLE 6
Platform
A (Union) B (Union)
C (Union)
Henry (Sun) Hillhouse (sun19
' Houchin (Phillip
Hogm (Phillips)
' Hondo (Exxon) OS&T (Exxon)
Habitat
Grace (Chevron
Gilda (Chevron) Gina (Union) l3
San Pedro Bay
OCS PLATFORM EMISSIONS
r - Emjssions (tons per year)7 co - sox - PM - NOx VOCsO CI
9.1 0.1 0.7 0.04 3.4 8.9 . 0.1 0.6 0.02 3.4
0.32 0.02 0.03 0.02 .0.07
58.7 2.2 4.3 1.9 17.9
-
31.3
114.0
36.0 166
0.5
41.1
363
-
8.4
13.9
2.3 6
0.5
0.4
a49
-
1.8
0.2
2.5
11
0.2
1.3
18
- -
0.4 21.5
82.1 20.8
2.6 7.8
60 -
2.4 0.5
44.2 9.4
37 -
' TOTAL: 829 118 41 23 1 85
Does not include support vessels or tanker emissions.
Reactive YOCs.
Power supplied by Henry.
lo Power cable from shore.
'1 Onshore mitigation supplied.
l2 Assumes no drilling activities. l3 Total VOCs, reactive not available.
Source: Chamber Consultants and Planners, DEIR for Texaco Platform Habitat;
Dames and Moore, EIR for Union Platforms Gina and Gilda; Permit
Conditions for Chevron's Carpinteria Facility (Platform Grace); Permit
Conditions for Shell Beta Project; Dames and Moore, EIR far Exxon's
Hondo Field (as revised by Memorandum of Agreement.