Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE)

The evidence to date indicates that the leak was detected by visual observation of the oil slick. There are some reports that the slick and associated smell were evident on Friday night (10/1). The pipeline operator Amplify issued a statement advising that they first observed an oil sheen on Saturday morning (10/2), which is when the response was initiated. Nothing in Amplify’s statement suggests that a drop in pipeline pressure or a reduction in the flow rate at the onshore terminal was observed.

So, what do the regulations require with regard to leak detection? It depends whether the pipeline is regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT) or the Department of the Interior (DOI/BSEE). This is how DOI authority is delineated:

DOI pipelines include:
(1) Producer-operated pipelines extending upstream (generally seaward) from each point on the OCS at which operating responsibility transfers from a producing operator to a transporting operator;
(2) Producer-operated pipelines extending upstream (generally seaward) of the last valve (including associated safety equipment) on the last production facility on the OCS that do not connect to a transporter-operated pipeline on the OCS before crossing into State waters;
(3) Producer-operated pipelines connecting production facilities on the OCS;
(4) Transporter-operated pipelines that DOI and DOT have agreed are to be regulated as DOI pipelines; and
(5) All OCS pipelines not subject to regulation under 49 CFR parts 192 and 195.

Unless provision (4) applies, the Elly to shore pipeline is either a producer or transporter-operated pipeline (depending on how the Amplify’s San Pedro Bay Pipeline Co. is classified) that falls under DOT jurisdiction. DOT leak detection requirements (49 CFR 195.134) are new as of 10/1/2019 and do not take effect until 10/1/2024. Unless DOI or similar leak detection requirements are being applied (by agreement, condition of approval, or some other administrative means), there are no such requirements for this pipeline.

Assuming the protection specified below for DOI pipelines is being required, why wasn’t the leak detected and production shut-in. This will be determined during the investigation, but the most probable explanation is that the pressure sensor was set too low, perhaps because the pipeline’s operating range is broad. With regard to a volumetric comparison system (250.1004 (5)), I don’t get the sense that such a capability was in place. If it was, the operator should be able to provide a good estimate of the amount of oil that was spilled (i.e. Elly output – onshore input – any oil recovered from the line after the leak was detected).

§ 250.1004 Safety equipment requirements for DOI pipelines.

(3) Departing pipelines receiving production from production facilities shall be protected by high- and low-pressure sensors (PSHL) to directly or indirectly shut in all production facilities. The PSHL shall be set not to exceed 15 percent above and below the normal operating pressure range. However, high pilots shall not be set above the pipeline’s MAOP.

(5) The Regional Supervisor may require that oil pipelines be equipped with a metering system to provide a continuous volumetric comparison between the input to the line at the structure(s) and the deliveries onshore. The system shall include an alarm system and shall be of adequate sensitivity to detect variations between input and discharge volumes. In lieu of the foregoing, a system capable of detecting leaks in the pipeline may be substituted with the approval of the Regional Supervisor.

One would hope that this major spill will lead to an independent review of the regulatory regime for offshore pipelines. Consideration should be given to designating a single regulator that is responsible and accountable for offshore pipeline safety (a joint authority approach might also merit consideration) and developing a single set of clear and consistent regulations.