fbpx
Donate Newsletters

Collection: The Risk of Northwest Oil Spills

An Oil Pipeline Expansion in Washington?

by

There’s much ado about expansion plans for Canada’s Trans Mountain Pipeline, and with good reason: exporting tar sands oil through the Salish Sea poses huge spill risks to the region. Now there’s reason to think that Washington may see a giant pipeline expansion of its own. Kinder Morgan, an energy goliath with a checkered past, … Read more

The Tar-Sands Threat to Northwest Waters

by

Every week another barge or tanker traverses the narrow straits through the San Juan Islands north of Seattle, bearing a cargo of tar-sands crude or other heavy oils from Canada, headed for refineries in Washington and California. But the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project approved in late 2016 by the government of Canadian … Read more

“The Spill Response Is Totally Inadequate”

by

Just after midnight on October 13, 2016, the tug Nathan E. Stewart and its 287-foot oil barge ran aground on British Columbia’s central coast, spilling about 27,000 gallons of diesel and 1,300 gallons of oily lubricants. The inadequate response to the spill’s aftermath confirmed the fears many in BC and Washington have about the two … Read more

The High Costs of a Grays Harbor Oil Spill, Part 2

by

Grays Harbor has seen an oil spill before—one that took over sixteen years to clean up. Although Grays Harbor is still unprepared to address the waste, wildlife impacts, and financial costs of an oil spill, three large oil terminals have been proposed for the bay. Sightline recently summarized a pair of reports on the economic … Read more

Washington Is (Still) Unprepared for a Grays Harbor Oil Spill

by

The 1988 Nestucca oil spill fouled 110 miles of Washington’s shoreline and 280 miles of the west coast of Vancouver Island. Yet because the spill happened just a few months before Exxon Valdez—an environmental disaster that released forty times more oil than Nestucca and remained the worst oil spill in American history until Deepwater Horizon … Read more

The Impacts of a Grays Harbor Oil Spill, in 13 Slides

by

Three large oil terminals proposed for Grays Harbor could undermine the region’s economy and local culture. That’s the takeaway from two recent economic analyses: first, a study on coastal recreation in Washington from the Surfrider Foundation and marine technology firm Point 97; then, Economic Impacts of Crude Oil Transportation on the Quinault Indian Nation and the Local Economy, published by economic consulting firm Resource Dimensions.

These reports help clarify the real threat that oil transport poses to Grays Harbor. But since most people don’t have the time to thumb through such detailed findings, Sightline commissioned the following graphics to sum up the key points.

Over forty percent of Washington residents travel to the coast each year; their top recreational activities are beachgoing, scenic enjoyment, wildlife viewing, photography, and hiking/biking.

Original Sightline Institute graphic, available under our free use policy. Data Source: Surfrider Foundation.
Original Sightline Institute graphic, available under our free use policy. Data Source: Surfrider Foundation.

Coastal visitors spend an estimated $481 million dollars per year on recreation and tourism trips. An oil spill in the bay could do tremendous harm to businesses that are dependent on tourism dollars.

Read more

Washington State Has Forgotten Its Own BP Oil Spill

by
100406-G-XXXXA-002-Louisiana oil spill
Oil Spill by US Coast Guard (license)

It was just a few days before Christmas 1988 when an oil barge accident near the entrance of Grays Harbor unleashed one of the most damaging spills in Northwest history. It was quickly eclipsed by the grounding of the Exxon Valdez just three months later, and today the story of the Nestucca is largely forgotten.

As it turns out, some of the same conditions that led to the Nestucca’s tremendous impact are still with us today. Sightline is studying the accident—and its aftermath—to understand what might happen if the oil industry succeeds in building the three new shipping terminals it has planned for Grays Harbor. In this installment, we tell the story of what happened.

On December 21, 1988, workers at BP’s Cherry Point refinery loaded the tank barge Nestucca with 2.8 million gallons of No. 6 fuel oil. Also known as Bunker C oil and “black tar crude,” No. 6 fuel oil is dark, viscous, and sticky. It literally comes from the bottom of the barrel of refined petroleum, and it resembles tar or asphalt. Plans called for the steel tug Ocean Service to tow the 300-foot Nestucca to Aberdeen (located inside Grays Harbor) to unload some cargo before continuing on to Portland.

Both vessels were operated by Sause Brothers, a BP North America Petroleum contractor based in Coos Bay, Oregon. Sause put five men onboard the Ocean Service tug. Both the captain and chief engineer held maritime licenses from the US Coast Guard, yet federal safety laws required at least half the other crew members hold an “able seaman” certification—none of them met this standard.

Around 11:15 pm on December 22, the ocean swells at Grays Harbor were moderate, and there was little wind. In preparation to cross the bar into the harbor, the crew tightened the towing wire that connected the Nestucca to the Ocean Service. As the captain turned the tug to prepare for entry, the tow wire suddenly snapped. The Nestucca began to drift toward the shore.

Read more

The Oil Spill That Could Happen Here, Part 2

by
EPAoilspillcreek6
ExxonMobil diluted bitumen spill in Mayflower, Arkansas by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency used under CC BY-SA 3.0

Since Washington state lawmakers convened in Olympia this January and took up legislation on oil transport, the nation has seen at least one major pipeline spill when an Exxon pipe leaked 40,000 gallons of crude into the Yellowstone River. It was the second time in just a few years that the pipeline had ruptured: it spilled 63,000 gallons into the river in 2011, for which regulators fined the oil giant $1 million.

The latest incident was a timely reminder of just how common—and just how serious—oil pipeline spills are. In fact, in the last five years, there have been two other serious oil pipeline spills that did meaningful damage to the environment and local communities. Those stories are warnings for communities near existing pipelines, many of which are slated for expansion.

Read more

The Oil Spill That Could Happen Here, Part 1

by

Spills are an unfortunate reality of moving oil on or near water. Try as we might to avoid them, the record shows that they happen in rivers, along coastlines, and in bays and harbors. They happen in remote areas and in the middle of cities. They happen in fog, in storms, and sometimes during fair weather. They happen around the world and they happen in Northwest waters. (Plus, near-misses and almost-spills happen with frightening regularity too.)

In the next few years, the Northwest will decide whether or not to green-light staggering increases in crude oil facilities. These plans would mean more tankers in the Salish Sea serving an expanded tar sands pipeline in British Columbia, along with oil train-to-vessel sites everywhere from the Columbia River to Grays Harbor to Puget Sound. If these projects go ahead, the best analytical assessment of regional spill risk demonstrates that more oil on the water is a near-certainty for region’s future.

Whether we will minimize that risk—by saying no to crude oil expansion—or multiply it—by agreeing to the industry’s plans—remains to be seen. To better understand that risk, it is helpful to examine oil spills in places similar to the Northwest. These are places with established spill response programs, experience with tanker ship traffic, and serious Coast Guards.

These are the stories of the the danger ahead.

Read more

Grays Harbor Ship Traffic: The Impact of Oil Plans

by

Of all the places in the Northwest that would be affected by a ramp-up in oil transport, none stands to be as profoundly transformed as Grays Harbor. A trio of proposed crude-by-rail-to-vessel schemes at the Port would result in staggering increases in oil-bearing vessels moving in and out of the bay.

Based on figures in the the Washington Department of Ecology’s “Vessel Transit and Entry Counts” database, it is possible to contrast the average volume of ship and barge traffic over the last decade to the number of vessel trips that would be induced by planned oil sites on Grays Harbor. The most direct comparison—the number of current to potential future tank vessel—reveals that the three sites could multiply laden oil tankers and barges by 44 times.

Original Sightline Institute graphic, available under our free use policy.
Original Sightline Institute graphic, available under our free use policy.

Read more

+ More