Introduction
The nationwide pipeline system in the USA has been constructed to transport the natural gas, oil, and refined petroleum products. This constitutes about 71% of the refined products and oils are being transported with about 100% natural gas of the consumption in the USA. The three sectors that are involved in the transportation of these energy products are; operators of the gas transmission pipelines, operators of hazardous liquids in the pipeline and the distributors of gas utilities. An approximate of 299,000 miles and 171,000 miles are offshore gas transmission and liquid onshore pipelines respectively. This operates in the USA daily. The distribution network consists of the main network that supplies the much smaller network called the service lines that delivers the products to the consumers. The main concentration of this network is the urban and the suburbs where the consumption is commercial, industrial, residential and institutional (Cooke, 2007)
Risks Associated with the Pipeline
The hazards from the transmission pipelines may occur due to the unintentional release of the product being transported through the lines. These impacts the surrounding environments, population, property, injuries and damage to property. When oil products are ignited, the explosions cause losses to wildlife, contamination of water among other distractions. The same will have an effect on the business, infrastructure, gas supplies, etc. The pipeline forms a variety of products that includes; anhydrous ammonia, natural gas liquids, petroleum products, carbon dioxide and many other products. Therefore, the risks associated with this fluid vary depending on the product being transported and the surrounding environment.
Releasing of products such as crude oil and gasoline have a long-term and short-term impacts since they will spread over the land surface, waterways, valleys and into water bodies. This results in water contamination, hence deaths from health hazards and fire explosions (Basar, Kose, & Guneroglu, 2006).
History of Incidences of Oil spillage In the USA
Kill Van Kull, New York
The incident occurred on 19th January 1981 with 1786 barrels of fuel oil involved. It occurred when the tank vessel Concho got grounded in the northeastern end of the Staten Island. This resulted in the bottom side part of the port suffering a huge damage.
Mitigation and Counter Measures.
A boom was brought into place after the incident to help in recovering the oil around the vessel. At a later date, the skimmers were also employed to absorb oil in the offshore part of the scene. This was facilitated by offloading and diving operations. However, the icy conditions of the place could not allow the containment, lighting and recovery operations (Katz, 1985)
Port Angeles Harbor, Washington
The incident occurred on 18th September 1985 with the subject of the accident being crude oil. It occurred when the ARCO tank vessel anchorage ran aground while anchoring in the port. Type 3 oil in 5690 barrels of oil was involved in the incident. The oil leakage was as a result of the two holes in the vessel.
Mitigation and Counter Measures
A 4500 feet containment boom was brought in place for cleaning up of the affected area. Several other vessels were also used to contain the leaked oil around the vessel. Moreover, since the oil leakage was extensive enough, an extra contractor was brought in to help in the situation. Skimmers were used in recovering oil in the offshore and these had to be equipped with radars due the weather situation at that moment (Migliaccio & Tranfaglia, 2004)
Savannah River, Garden City, Georgia
The spill occurred on April 12th, 1986 in a location named above and with a total of 11900 barrels leaked. On that occasion, the occurrence was reported to the Coast Guard and Marine Safety Office in Georgia. The cause of the incident was established to be a malfunctioning of the valve that caused the leakage.
Mitigation and Counter Measures
The shoreline was cleaned up by washing with a lot of water under pressure and hand scrubbing of the oiled surfaces. However, the dispersion used was not taken into account because the environment situation was too sensitive at that moment. The occurrence happened during the season of winter and the grass was dormant and a little harm could happen if the grass were left intact. Also, the density of grass could force the oil into the inner layers of soil. Areas that had the largest concentrations of oil spillage were removed using the boom. A boom barrier was established across the middle of the river to prevent the water from getting contaminated. The cleanup continued up to 13th March 1987 when it was completed.
Port Alucroix, Virgin Islands
The incident happened on 20th September 1989 with the product in transit being heavy crude oil in 10000 barrels. The accident occurred when the wind of over 140 miles per hour invaded the place. This caused a distraction of five oil storage tanks and some parts of the power station on the island. An approximation of 1,000 barrels of heavy crude oil spilt to the waters of the Limetree Bay.
Mitigation and counter actions
An immediate action of deploying employees of the station was done to contain a huge volume of oil in the harbor. The safety department also provided extra booms to assist in keeping the oil in the northern part of the island. An alternative cleanup measure was also used. This involves the use of oil-sane absorbent which enables the oil recovery in clamshell buckets. The buckets were then used to lift the oil over to the onshore sump that was temporarily situated.
Huntington Beach, California
The incident occurred on 7th February 1990 with 9458 barrels of crude oil involved. The American trader single-hull tank vessel got grounded on one of the anchors while nearing the offshore mooring of the Golden West Refining Company. This resulted from the puncturing of two holes in one of the vessels releasing 9458 barrels to the water near the Huntington Beach in California.
Mitigation and countermeasures
There was booming of the wetlands in the national wildlife refuge, mouth of River Santa Ana that was completed on February 8th the same year. The double harbor booms were used on the occasion across the mouth of this river to help retrieve the lost oil. Some small skimmers were also used to recover the oil that had gone beyond the outer barrier. The sorbent booms were used in recovering the oil between two hard booms and beyond the outer barrier. Some earthen berms were also constructed to stop the oil from entering the sensitive wetlands (Leveille, 1991)
Near buoy 58 in Galveston Bay in Texas
The incident occurred on 28th July 1990 when the Greek tank vessel Shinoussa made an accidental collision with another tank called barges Apex 3417 and Apex 3417 in Houston Ship Channel. The barrel release after collisions were 17000 of vacuum oil and the catalytic feedstock.
Mitigation and Countermeasures
A containment boom was deployed at the scene on the following day in the leakage barges to keep the oil on the site. Booms were also placed across the entrance of Dickson Bayou and intake of water cooling water for Houston Lighting and Bacliff plant. Skimmers were also used in areas of larger oil concentrations within the boom and near the barge (Weisbrod, 1991)
Conclusion
Most of the USA oil incidences occurred before 1990. The incidences were mainly as a result of either over speeding, poor harbour design or collisions. The impact of these incidences is the huge loss of oil and damage to property. Fatalities were also common during such situations. It is also evident that most locations of the accident occurrence were in the harbor leading to the loss of oil to the offshore. The common methods used in the recovery spilt oil were mainly booming and use of skimmers. However, with the invention of new technologies, there has been a significant reduction of oil incidences after 1991. This is also attributed the adoption of these approaches when handling oil. These include; better harbor designs, safety equipment, highly resistance vessels, skilled personnel, etc. The only incidences that can be witnessed nowadays is the leakage of gases which is also part of oil products (Talley, 2000)
References
, R. (1991). Case Histories of Major Oil Spills in the Kills: Governmental Response. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, 1991(1), 730-730. http://dx.doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-1991-1-730
Leveille, T. P. (1991). The Mega Borg Fire and Oil Spill: A Case Study. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, 1991(1), 273-278. doi:10.7901/2169-3358-1991-1-273
Cooke, D. F. (1991). National Spatial Data Infrastructure for IVHS in the USA. SAE Technical Paper Series. doi:10.4271/912750
Olonilua, O., & Ibitayo, O. (2014). An In-Depth Analysis of the Houston-Galveston Area Council Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K). Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 5(3), 316-341. doi:10.1002/rhc3.12061
Migliaccio, M., & Tranfaglia, M. (2004). Oil spill observation by SAR: A review. 2004 USA-Baltic Internation Symposium. doi:10.1109/baltic.2004.7296831
Katz, W. B. (1985). Fillpipe spillage protection for underground tanks in the USA. Oil and Petrochemical Pollution, 2(2), 119-123. doi:10.1016/s0143-7127(85)90448-x
Basar, E., Kose, E., & Guneroglu, A. (2006). Finding risky areas for oil spillage after tanker accidents at Istanbul strait. International Journal of Environment and Pollution IJEP, 27(4), 388. doi:10.1504/ijep.2006.010580
Talley, W. K. (2000). Oil Spillage and Damage Costs: U.S. Inland Waterway Tank Barge Accidents. Marit Econ Logist International Journal of Maritime Economics, 2(3), 217-234. doi:10.1057/ijme.2000.18
Gordon, R. P., Flin, R. H., Mearns, K., & Fleming, M. T. (1996). Assessing the Human Factors Causes of Accidents in the Offshore Oil Industry. SPE Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Conference. doi:10.2118/35970-ms
Schoenbaum, T. J. (2012). Liability for Damages in Oil Spill Accidents: Evaluating the USA and International Law Regimes in the Light of Deepwater Horizon. Journal of Environmental Law, 24(3), 395-416. doi:10.1093/jel/eqs006
