Tag Archives: Spill

Canada Seek to contain Oil Spill

Authorities are building a new containment boom to fight an oil spill in a major western Canadian river, officials said on Saturday, after the spill breached a previous barrier and threatened the drinking water of several communities along the coast.


The city of North Battleford, which draws its drinking water in part from the North Saskatchewan River, shut its supply intake on Friday and switched to using ground water, provincial officials said in a telephone conference with reporters.


Some 1,572 barrels of heavy oil and diluent leaked from Husky Energy Inc’s Saskatchewan Gathering System pipeline on Thursday, flowing into the river.


The Calgary-based company has shut the line, stopping the leak, and has been working to contain the spill. It has said it has alternatives ways to move oil and expects “minimal impact.”


Husky spokesman Mel Duvall said in a statement the cleanup at the source is “nearing completion.”


“A thorough investigation will take place in due course,” he said. “There have been no reported impacts to wildlife or aquatic life.”


It is not immediately clear what caused the spill, which the province says first appeared some 600 meters (0.3 miles) from the river.


Water levels rose on Friday, pushing debris into the booms upstream from North Battleford, a city of 14,000, and the oil continued to moved downward.


The province of Saskatchewan has started building a new boom near the community of Maymont, about 50 km (31 miles) downstream from North Battleford, though it is not sure when the oil spill will reach it, Wes Kotyk, executive director of environment protection with the province of Saskatchewan, told reporters.


He said the federal environment agency is working on a “trajectory model” to determine the exact size and rate of movement of the oil plume.


Sam Ferris, a provincial water agency official, said authorities are working on plans to deal with water security for communities farther along the river, including Prince Albert, a city with 35,000 people.


Bert West, an official in charge of petroleum and natural gas, said it is too early to talk about cleanup costs or how the incident could potentially affect the economy.


“We haven’t have a spill like this, so we’re not sure,” he said. “As far as costs go, we’re not worried about that at this point.”


(Reporting by Ethan Lou in Toronto; editing by Diane Craft, Bernard Orr)

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed
View full post on Maritime News – Maritime & Shipbuilding News

Canadian Authorities seek to contain oil spill moving down river

Authorities are building a new containment boom to fight an oil spill in a major western Canadian river, officials said on Saturday, after the spill breached a previous barrier and threatened the drinking water of several communities along the coast.


The city of North Battleford, which draws its drinking water in part from the North Saskatchewan River, shut its supply intake on Friday and switched to using ground water, provincial officials said in a telephone conference with reporters.


Some 1,572 barrels of heavy oil and diluent leaked from Husky Energy Inc’s Saskatchewan Gathering System pipeline on Thursday, flowing into the river.


The Calgary-based company has shut the line, stopping the leak, and has been working to contain the spill. It has said it has alternatives ways to move oil and expects “minimal impact.”


Husky spokesman Mel Duvall said in a statement the cleanup at the source is “nearing completion.”


“A thorough investigation will take place in due course,” he said. “There have been no reported impacts to wildlife or aquatic life.”


It is not immediately clear what caused the spill, which the province says first appeared some 600 meters (0.3 miles) from the river.


Water levels rose on Friday, pushing debris into the booms upstream from North Battleford, a city of 14,000, and the oil continued to moved downward.


The province of Saskatchewan has started building a new boom near the community of Maymont, about 50 km (31 miles) downstream from North Battleford, though it is not sure when the oil spill will reach it, Wes Kotyk, executive director of environment protection with the province of Saskatchewan, told reporters.


He said the federal environment agency is working on a “trajectory model” to determine the exact size and rate of movement of the oil plume.


Sam Ferris, a provincial water agency official, said authorities are working on plans to deal with water security for communities farther along the river, including Prince Albert, a city with 35,000 people.


Bert West, an official in charge of petroleum and natural gas, said it is too early to talk about cleanup costs or how the incident could potentially affect the economy.


“We haven’t have a spill like this, so we’re not sure,” he said. “As far as costs go, we’re not worried about that at this point.”


(Reporting by Ethan Lou in Toronto; editing by Diane Craft, Bernard Orr)

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed
View full post on Maritime News – Maritime & Shipbuilding News

Oil Spill Response: Responder Immunity Analyzed

On February 16, 2016, Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of the various commercial oil spill response companies involved in the federal government’s response to the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.  The responders had been sued by numerous individuals claiming that they incurred damages, including personal injury and/or medical monitoring claims for exposure or other injury resulting from the post-explosion and spill clean-up efforts.  Plaintiffs fell into five categories: (1) crew involved in the Vessels of Opportunity (VoO) program; (2) workers involved in decontaminating vessels; (3) other marine personnel not involved in the VoO program; (4) clean-up workers and beach personnel involved in onshore clean-up efforts; and (5) residents who lived and worked in close proximity to coastal waters who alleged exposure to oil and/or dispersants.  The plaintiffs asserted negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, nuisance, and battery on the part of the responders.  In addition to compensatory damages, they sought punitive damages and declaratory relief; Florida plaintiffs also sought medical monitoring awards, as allowed by state law.

Following extensive discovery, the clean-up responder defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiffs were given one more chance to provide some specificity to their broad claims of misconduct by the clean-up responders but were unable or unwilling to do so.  At that point, the court could have simply dismissed the case on the ground that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact.  The court noted, though, that the clean-up responders had gathered substantial evidence that their clean-up activities were at the direction of the federal government involving an oil spill of national significance.  Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to admission of that evidence, but the court overruled the objections.  



The court found that, in accordance with the Clean Water Act, the President had delegated full authority to control the oil spill response to the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC), including the actions undertaken by private parties.  In accordance with the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), and the National Contingency Plan, the effective and immediate removal of a discharge and the efficient, coordinated, and effective action to minimize the damage from the discharge are best achieved if the President, acting through the FOSC, directs all levels of response – federal, state, and private – so as to eliminate the confusion that impeded past responses by establishing a clear chain of command and responsibility.  This spill response regime imposes a duty on private entities such as defendant clean-up responders to obey the FOSC’s direction during the response effort.  The evidence clearly showed that the FOSC, after consulting with numerous parties and considering the advantages and disadvantages of the various actions, specifically ordered the various actions, including use of chemical dispersants, involved in plaintiffs’ complaints.




















Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed
View full post on Maritime News – Maritime & Shipbuilding News

Transocean Defeats Shareholder Appeal over Gulf Spill

Transocean Ltd on Thursday won the dismissal of an appeal by shareholders accusing the owner of the doomed Deepwater Horizon drilling rig of deceiving them about its safety practices prior to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.


The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said the lead plaintiff waited two months too long to sue over alleged misstatements in an Oct. 2, 2007, proxy statement for the offshore drilling company’s merger with GlobalSantaFe Corp.


Shares of Transocean rose 3 percent after the decision was issued.


Geoffrey Johnson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, declined to comment. Transocean and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.


Former GlobalSantaFe shareholders, who received Transocean shares in the merger, said the proxy statement contained false and misleading statements about the company’s compliance with environmental laws.


Led by the DeKalb County Pension Fund in Decatur, Georgia, the shareholders sought to hold the Swiss company liable for their losses after the April 20, 2010, explosion of the Deepwater Horizon and blowout of BP Plc’s Macondo well.


The disaster caused Transocean shares to lose more than half their value within seven weeks.


Writing for the appeals court, however, Circuit Judge José Cabranes said the Georgia fund did not join the case until Dec. 3, 2010, missing the three-year deadline to sue over the proxy statement.


He said it did not matter that the lawsuit was originally filed before the deadline, but by another shareholder that was later dismissed from the case because it lacked standing.


The plaintiff “through minimal diligence” could have saved its case by getting involved sooner and offered no justification for its lateness, Cabranes wrote.


The Georgia fund had argued that the three-year clock began to tick when the Deepwater Horizon exploded, bring Transocean’s prior misstatements to light.


Thursday’s decision upheld a March 2014 dismissal of the lawsuit by U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield in Manhattan.


Transocean agreed in January 2013 to pay $1.4 billion in civil and criminal fines and penalties to settle U.S. government claims over the spill.


BP has incurred $55.5 billion of costs for the spill. It faces its own U.S. shareholder lawsuit in Houston federal court.


In early afternoon trading, Transocean’s American depositary receipts were up 3 percent at $11.56. Its shares in Switzerland were up 3 percent at 11.11 Swiss francs.


The case is DeKalb County Pension Fund v. Transocean Ltd et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 14-0894.


Reporting by Jonathan Stempel

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed
View full post on Maritime News – Maritime & Shipbuilding News

Mississippi River Reopened After Fuel Spill

The Mississippi River is reopened near Granite City, Illinois, after clean-up operations at Lock and Dam 27 were completed, Friday.


An auxiliary lock was opened at the Lock and Dam 27 site for commerce to continue.


The towing vessel Gregory David was transiting the lock and dam, and was damaged, rupturing a tank with approximately 20,000 gallons of fuel aboard. The spill was reportedly contained within the lock.


The cause of the incident is under investigation.

 

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed
View full post on Maritime News – Maritime & Shipbuilding News