Several issues have bogged down the conference committee seeking to merge the House and Senate oil spill liability bills.
One is whether the federal government should require double hulls for tankers. The House bill would mandate them. The Senate bill calls only for a study, but senators on the committee now want a requirement. And the Bush administration now supports a mandate (OGJ, May 21, Newsletter).
So there is general agreement. Conferees are expected to work on the details this week.
HOUSE BILL REQUIREMENTS
The latest House measure would require all tankers 40 or more years old to be retrofitted with double hulls or scrapped. Vessels 30 years old in 2000 and 25 years old in 2005 would have to be double hulled. After 2005, any vessel reaching 25 years must get them. But tankers using deepwater ports, such as Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, would not be required to have double hulls until 2015.
The issue still is controversial, as a House science and technology subcommittee found out at a recent hearing.
The oil industry opposes double hulls because they add 15% to the cost of building tankers. They are expensive to retrofit and can explode if gases get trapped between the hulls.
Amoco Transport Co. Pres. Edwin Roland, testifying for the American Petroleum Institute, argued the federal government should not require double hulls if it means barring the use of new "leak resistant" tanker designs.
But Bob Walker, Conoco Inc. supply and transportation vice-president, said his company thinks double hulls are the way to go.
Roland said international statistics show the average number of tanker spills greater than 5,000 bbl has declined from an average 23/year in the 1970s to eight/year in the 1980s.
He observed a federal decision on double hulls may precede a National Academy of Sciences study on the issue, due later this year.
He also pointed out that API is sponsoring a forum this week in Washington, D.C., to showcase oil pollution prevention ideas ranging from double hull designs to spill control methods.
For instance, Roland said, Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries will disclose a tanker blueprint billed as "superior to double hull design in all aspects." It calls for wide ballast side tanks and center cargo tanks fitted with a horizontal deck midway in the tank.
Roland said, "Such a design may reduce pollution from high and low energy impacts from collision and grounding incidents and limit hydrostatic losses from the centerline cargo tanks.
What's more, he said, the concept may reduce operational and salvage problems that can be posed by conventional double hull vessels. For example, it would allow easy access for tank inspections.
CONOCO'S DECISION
Walker said Conoco decided to build double hulled tankers because most tanker accidents, perhaps 80-90% involve collisions. In those cases, Conoco believes double hulls would offer a greater margin of safety.
"There is public concern about tanker safety, and we feel that concern is legitimate and must be considered," Walker said.
"Our decision on double hulls is a backup. Our focus is not on cleaning up or even minimizing oil spills. It is on preventing oil spills and on the avoidance of situations that cause spills."
Copyright 1990 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.