The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About176-043NOV. ?.~00~ ?:I?RM H0.768 P.5/8 Monthly I,n,le.~.r V;~Mnee j AN :;6,42 8ep .200~ . 8873320287D0 ANNA PI.ATFORM 11/7/0Z Date Hm on ~O'l~t., InlY-ted TBG Preae e.GsG,,cGG PreSs ~'-",.a~'~"Csg Prom!.. ~mmenm 91112002 ~ 5 ' O ~ 305 0~12002 0 ..... ~ 0 0 308 W~12-G~'2 ....... ~4 ~O 559 600 6/~2002 24 958 '~27 ~0 W5~002 24- N0 8~ ......... 893 W~-12002 24 250 9~9 8~3 ~2 ' 91712002 "' 0 0 0 0 2~ 9/012Q02 0 "~ O ' O 265 9~- ' '~ 0 0 0 290 ........ 911012002 .... 0 O 0 0 " 6111/~02 o 0"' 0 '0 300 911~2, 0 0 ..... "0 0 300 911312002 0 ' O 0 0 300 "' 911412002 a' 0 D .... 0 302 911~2'0b-2 ....... 0 o "0 o ~O ~/~ o 'b ,- o 'o 011712~2 24 ~ 205 ~ ~3 313 97~2002 " 24 667 .... 755 755 300 911~12002 ,24 16~ 2075 ..... ~75 331 9/20/~P~ 24 1650 '~142 2142 317 ...... ~2~002 .... ~ 1aa7" 21~ 2~8e 31~ W2~002 2~, 16~ =14 ' =14 ..... ~2317q07 24 t 6~0 ~40 2~0 310 ~[~ ~'~ ~ 24 16i0 ~5 23~ 6~002 24 1765 2290 23~ .... 6t~Tf~nn~ 2~' 17~ "2316 2315 300 , - 9127/~ 24 ~ 2~ ' ~30 "6128/~0~ --24 '" 1751 --23~5 ~45" 300 ,, .... ~", 6130/2002 2~ 1686 23'~ "' 23~ SCANNED Memorandum To.' Re: State of Alaska Cancelled or Expired Permit Action EXAMPLE: Point McIntyre P2-36AXX API# 029-22801-95 Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 31, This memo will remain at the front of the subject well file. Our adopted conventions for assigning APl numbers, permit numbers and well names did not specifically address expired or cancelled permits. This omission has caused some inconsistencies in the treatment of these kinds of applications for permit to ddll. Operators have asked us to adopt formal procedures for this class of permit application in order to prevent future database disparities. If a permit expires or is cancelled by an operator, the permit number of the subject permit will remain unchanged. The APl number and in some instances the well name reflect the number of preexisting reddlls and or multilaterais in a well. In order to prevent confusing a cancelled or expired permit with an active well or multilateral these case sensitive well identifiers will be changed for expired and cancelled applications for permits to drill. The APl number for this cancelled or expired permit is modified so the eleven and twelfth digits is 95. The well name for a cancelled or expired permit is modified with an appended xx. These procedures are an addendum to the APl numbering methods described in AOGCC staff memorandum "Multi-lateral (weilbore segment) Ddlling Permit Procedures, revised December 29, 1995. AOGCC database has been changed to reflect these changes to this permit. Statistical Technician April 16, 1976 Re: Tern 'A' No. 1 Phillips Petroleum Company State Permit No. 76-43 N. E. Porter Senior Petroleum Engineer Phillips Petroleum Company P. O. Drawer 66 Kenai, Alaska 99611 Dear Sir: Enclosed is the approved aPPlication for permit to drill the above referenced well at a location in Section 26, Township lON, Range llW, S.M. Well samples, core chips and a mud lOg are required. A directional survey is not required. Pollution of any waters of the State is prohibited by AS 46, Chapter 03, Article 7 and the regulations prolmulgated thereunder (Title 18, Alaska Administrative Code, Chapter 70) and by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. Prior to commencing operations you may be contacted by a representative of the Depart~ment of Environmental Conservation. Pursuant to AS 38.40, Local Hire Under State Leases, the Alaska Department of Labor is being notified of the issuance of this perm. it to drill. To aid us in scheduling field work, we would appreciate your notifying this office within 48 hours after the well is spudded. We would also like to be notified so that a representative of the Division may be present to witness testing of blowout preventer equipment before surface casing shoe is drilled. N. E. Porter 2- April 16, 1976 In the event of suspension or abandonment please give this office adequate advance notification so that we may have a witness present. Very truly yours, O. K. Gilbreth, Jr. Chairman Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee Enclosure cc: Depar~nt of Fish and Game, Habitat Section w/o encl. Department of Environmental Conservation w/o encl. Depar~nt of Labor, Supervisor, Labor Law Compliance Division w/o encl. 'April 6, 1976 Phillips Petroleum Company P. O. Drawer 66 Kenai, Alaska 99611 ADL 59350 & 59351 - LO 75-11 Oil Spill Contingency Plan Cb_h~ita 'A' No. 1 - Cook Inlet ADL 33217 - LO 75-125 9.~..,.g~~g.e~.~. Plan JAY $. HA,W~WOAtD, The plans of operations for the above referenced wells are approved wi'~h the understand~ tl~t the Cook Inlet Oil Spill Cooperative will col~uct sea trials of their oil spill contingency c_~ui~,ent dur~%g the 1976 ~ season at a site ar~t ti~m to be approved by t/~e Departme~]ts of ~avirorm~ntal Conservation, Fish and Game, and ~'Lural Resources and sub- ject to the further stipulation tt.~t the De~t of Fish and Gcu~e (I-~%bitat Coordinator) will be notified i~mediately upon the occurrence of an oil spill. Pedro Denton Chiaf, ~Lnerals Sec-~ion DIVISION OP OIL AND GA3 "1776-A TRIBUTE FROM OUR STATE TO OUR NA TION-1978" STATE of ALASKA DEP^RTI-~]~T OF ~(ATURAL RESOURCES Division of Oil and Gas TO: ~-- Pedro Denton · Chief, Minerals Section FROM: .. .]. O. K. Gilbreth, Director DATE February 24, 1976 SUBJECT: · Oil Spill Contingency Plans for Phillips' Chinitna A ~1 (LO/75-111) and Tern A #1 (L0/75-125) In response-to your memo of February .20, 1976 ~we have revim.~ed subject Contingency Plans (enclosed).and recommend their approval. 'We agree with your suggestion to accept their proposal for a "den~nstration of onboard equi p,,~n: and condition the approval on a.qreement of the Coop to demonstrate its equipment to. State agencies.during the 1976 sm~er season sea trials .... OKG,L~S ..bjm Attaci~aents 0'2-001 B , STATE of ALAS~ x,'*- JO: Dept. bf ~viro~tal' Conservation ~ Kyle Cherry, Regional Envir~tal ~gineer Dept. of Fish a~J G~n~ DATF : Bruce Barrett, Projects Review Coordinator SUBJECT: File: 3.14 Division of Oil and Gas Oil Spill Contingency . '-- ~-.1 OoK. Gilbreth, Director LO/#75-1~ and L0/~75-125 · r:. c.:-r;~. , Chief, Minerals sectidh ~ .... Enclosed a.re Phillips Petroleum Company's oil spill contingency 'plans for two wells in Cook Inlet, in response to our letter of 'Nov~ 25, 1975. Please note that they have agreed to a demonstration along the lines we discussed in our January 27th meeting on page 3 of their sukmitted letter. Rather than specify conditions for a test, I think it better to accept their ~_p_~_posal for a d~o~ation of onboard equi~_nt because i't seems. to meet the objectives we discussed. The coop equiD~ent is another; problem since the operae~r does not l~ve control over it. I suggest %~ condition our..approva! wi~ the following: "This spill contingency Plan is approved with the understanding that the Coop ,~11 conduct sea trials of their equi~_nt during the 1976 ~ season ~nd representatives of the Departments of Enviror~ental Conservation, Fish and Game and Natural Resources v~'l.1 be given an opport~~ to witness the trials." Of c~urse, we ~Duld appreciate any other ~ts you may have on plans. ~'~ only received three copies of the plans and two copies of the training material. · ~ ' ' ...... s.' - ~ ' One copy of the training ma ~ng sent to Fish and Game and the other copy is being kept in our files. If anyone ~Duld like to review the training material, let me know, but it ~ould seem the demonstrations will be the best measure of the adequacy of their training program. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY P. O. Drawer~ 66 -Kenai, Alaska 99611 File: P-HJS-52-7~ .... FeSruarY 17, 71976 Mr. Pedro Denton Alaska Division of ~ands 323 E. Fourth Avenu~-~' Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Re: ADL 59350 & 59351 - LO 75-111 Plan of Operations SRS Prospect (Tern 'A'~No.~__~.)~ Cook Inlet Alaska ~ and ADL 33217 - LO 75-125 Plan of Operations Chinitna 'A' No. 1 Cook Inlet, Alaska '~-~-~'~--~- ..... Dear Mr. Denton: ,^~.~,i .... '~'" Our comments on each of the points contained in your letter of November 25, 1975 concerning our operations permi~applicationS for the subject leases follow: A revised oil spill contingency plan for each lease is attached which includes: 1. Detailed plans for disposal of oil~and oily wastes recovered ~ during Spill cleanup operations. 2. A detailed list of the containment and cleanup ~quipment and materials onboard the Fe~ris and available from the Cook Inlet Oil Spill Cooperative. A discussion on the usefulness of this equipment is attached to this letter. 3o A predictive document which describes the effects of various wind, wave and tidal current conditions on the distribution of oil spills. 4. Complete plans for mobilizing the Ferris' and the Coop's containment and cleanup equipment. 5. Notification of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation immediately following the U.S. Coast Guard contact. A copy of ADEC's letter concerning this is attached. 6° Notification of the Alaska Division of Oil & Gas under certain cir- cumstances. Page 2- 7. Immediately taking independent action to contain and cleanup credible oil spills utilizing the equipment onboard the Ferris. The plan re- ~'quires mobilization of Coop equipment and activation of the Phillips Oil Spill Committee ,~h.ea!.~ the spill magnitude exceeds the capability of the equipment onboard the Ferris without being directed to do so by governmental authority. 8. A training program to develop a fast, efficient onboard response capability to credible spill volumes~, The plan also provides for some training with the Coop equipment. The USCG severely r~stricts the employment of sinking and dispersing agents in spill situations. The attached copy of Annex X which comes from the USCG's Alaska Contingency Plan sets forth these restrictions. Therefore, we do not plan to utilize these respective agents. We included them in our list of materials however, in the event their use was required by the Federal and State authorities° Annex X states that collecting agents are generally, acceptable and they are included in our material list because they may be applicable in certain spill situations. However, by law, the judgement to use them must be made by the Federal or State on, scene coordinator. Toxicity data on "Oil Herder" is attached. Our spill material inventory onboard the Ferris is premised upon credible spill volumes. The AlaskaDivision of Oil & Gas has prepared a memorandum on the oil spill history in Cook Inlet, a copy of which is attached. This report indicates the volume of the averag~ spill attributable to drilling and producing operations during the last five years was 2.74 bbls. During this same period, over 50 offshore wells were drilled. (Division of Oil & Gas Annual Reports)° Another compilation by Union Oil Company (copy attached) indicates that during 1974, ~80% of the spills were one bbl or ~ess. The largest spill was ten bbls. During 1974,17 offshore wells were ~illed. These statistics are the foundation for our onboard material re- quirements. The Aqua Fence boom will contain a ten barrel spill of 15 mils thickness and 250 feet diameter. The Komara Miniskimmer can skim ten barrels of oil in ten minutes. The Kepner Sea Container has the capacity to hold 60 barrels of skim fluid° Sorbent stock pickup capacity is four times the maximum~historical volumee A fast, efficient response to a credible spill will have to be developed by conducting drills with the onboard personnel and equipment. We will not know how quickly we can respond until these drills are held. Our aim is to be on the spill in 15 minutes or less. If Coop assistance is required, we estimate it will take i2 - 14 hours before the containment and skimming equipment can be on site. As we stated at our meeting on January 27, 1976, we are willing to cnnduct a demonstration to show the effectiveness of the onboard containment and cleanup equipment provided: Page 3- 1. Said demonstration can be put on at a mutually agreeable time following ~the initiation of drilling activity at our Chinitna 'A' No. 1 location. 2. Our ADL permit will nnt be suspended or revoked regardless of the outcome of said demonstration and 3. Further demonstrations of the onboard containment and cleanup equip- ment will not be required provided said demonstration is effective. We cannot make a un~lateral commitment to demonstrate Coop equipment. The Coop is not amenable to our use of their equipment for demonstration purposes. However, the Coop has stated it is planning on conducting sea trials of their equipment this summer. As an alternative, would your attendance of these sea trials satisfy your request for our demon- stration of Coop equipment? We would appreciate expeditous consideration of the data submitted herewith and respectfully request your approval of our plans of operation for the subject leases. Very trul~you~ Area Superintendent HJS/NEP/eh attachments in triplicate cc: J. P. Denny w/att. USEFULNESS OF OIL SPILL CONTAINMENT & CLEANUP EQUIPMENT The following discussion of the subject equipment is limited to the equipment onboard the Ferris or available from the Coop. i~ ~,erris Equipment Having the Boston Whaler boat on the Ferris to deploy the onboard contain- ment and cleanup equipment will enable us'to respond rapidly to credible spills under the sea conditions where the Aqua Fence boom is effective. Being a shallow draf~ (2') boat, with a wide beam (7'), it can operate in nearshore areas as ~ell as in deeper water. In the towing mode, it can operate for up to seVen hours without refueling, which is adequate time for the pickup of credible spill volumes contained within the boom. The Aqua Fence containment boom has a 2' draft and a 2' freeboard. The sea state under which the boom can effectively contain oil is normally directly related to these criteria. The boom has reserve bouyancy to ride much higher waves, but wind and current effects reduce the containment capability to wave heights comparable to the draft dimension when deployed such that the current relative to the boom is about 1.3 knots. The Komara Mini Skimmer can~effectively skim in waves up to 2 feet° Its shallow draft of 7.5 inches permits it to be utilized where other skimmers cannot operate. It is readily deployable because of its light weight and small size° Yet it is capable of pickup rates of 10 - 50 GPM depending on the type of oil. ~ The Kepner "Sea Container" provides flo~6~ng storage for skimmed fluids picked up by skimmers. It is able to withstand heavy sea conditions. Fully loaded, it will have a draft of only three feet. It can be towed to & from the site at high speed so rapid cleanup can be effected. T~e various sizes and shapes of synthetic organic sorbent onhand facilitate use under different spill circumstances. However, they all share the common characteristics of absorbing large amounts of oil and being fast and easy to deploy and retrieve. Sorbent-..sweeps are recommended~for any size rainbow sheens or other thin slicks on relatively calm water. Sorbent booms can be used to contain small spills and pick up larger spills of light oils. in 1 to 2 foot seas. They can also be deployed along the shoreline where contact is ~ imminent. Sorbent rolls can also be used along the shoreline to prevent contact. They can be used as sweeps on calm water or for picking up oil inside a contain- ment device. Sorbent pads are useful in picking up oil within a containment' boom. They can be useful for picking up oil along rocky shorelines and other irregular places. If approved for usage, the chemical collecting (containing) agent, Oil Herder, is useful in reducing the areal extent of a spill so it can be cleaned up more quickly. Tests have indicated it is effective in 4-6 foot seas. It can be used to retard oil adsorption on beach sands so a much greater per- centage of the oil can be picked up by sorbent materials. COOP EQUIPMENT The Vikoma boom has a draft of 17 inches and a freeboard of 30 inches. The comments made earlier apply to this boom too. In heavy seas, it would have to drift wit~.t~e~spill. Skimming is most efficient in calm water. As the water gets rougher, skimming efficiency drops rapidly thereby increasing the amount of time required to clean up a spill. This applies to all skimmers regardless of their physical dimensions. The Mark II skimmer is no exception to this rule. Its usefulness in seas in excess of 3 feet is minimal. It must be utilized in water depths greater than the draft of the boat that moves it. This limits its usefulness to water depths greater than 15 - 20 feet, depending on'-~the boat and her skipper. is an oil spill control agent for use on inland waterw, ays and the. open seas. Immediately upon application, Oil Herder spreads to form an ex- tremely thin t~Y~i;:'on the water's surface that not only Contains the oil spill, but can actually cause the sli~:k to contract in area to facilitate recovery or destruction of the oil. Advantages of Shell Oil Herder Most environmentalists and othe~ experts agree that spill control devices and/or cl~mical clean-up agents should possess certain features in terms of speed and ease of application, effectiveness under various weather conditions, effect upon the sur- rounding environment and aid in removal or de- struction of the spill. It is in these areas that Shell's Oil Herder offers some noteworthy advantages....,~. · Oil Herder can be quickly and easily applied · Only two gallons of Oil Herder per linear rr~ile of slick perimeter are required under favorable weather conditions Oil Herder has successfully contained and reduced the size of oil spills under weather conditions con- sidered marginal for mechanical containment devices Oil Herder is biodegradable as well as non-toxic to marine life and water fowl such as ducks when u~ed at recommended application rates Of particular importance, Oil Herder does not ex- tend contamination by dispersing oil into the water or by sinking it. but rather confines the spill on the s'ur[ace and prevents spreading ~o e~id removal Oil Herder can be stored in sealed containers for long periods of time without loss of effectiveness. ac}(gro d and Government Regulations Shell Oil Herder resulted from an intensive oil spill research program launched in 1967 by Shell Pipe Line Corporation at their Research and Develop- ment Laboratory in Houston, Texas. This research effort was initially aimed a~ the ~esting and evalua- tion of mechanical equipment for the containment and removal of oil spills. But in the course of their work, Shell researchers discovered, tested and suc- cessfully applied Oil Herder. A growing public awareness of potential pollution of the environment has prompted legislation at all levels of government which has resulted in a series of laws and regulations to (leal with potential and existent pollution hazards. Because of a series of offshore disasters, much of this public attention has been centered on the oil industry. To meet this and other threats to water quality the Congress enacted on April 3, 1970, Public Law 91-224 titled, "Water Quality Improve- ment Act of 1970". In response to directives con- tained in this law, President Nixon, through his Council on Environmental Quality, put into effect "The National Contingency Plan For Control of Pollution of The Nation's Coasts and Waterways By Oil and Other Hazardous Materials". This plan is generally referred to as "The National Contingen- cy Plan". The basic responsibility for both reporting and cleaning up spills of oil which threaten to damage the _eny~ironment belongs with the polluter, in which case f~deral action is normally reserved to observa- tion, monitoring progress and providing advice and counsel as deemed necessary. Where this responsi- bility cannot be assigned or a~ssumed, The National PlAn is put into action. The plan provides efficient and prompt procedures to minimize damage from oil discharges, including their con[ainment and removal. The plan assigns duties and responsibilities and has' a multitude of other features, including a schedule identifying dispersants and other chemi- cals which may be used in carrying out the plan. The plan details only where dispersants may be used, in what quantities and under what conditions. The plan further promotes the coordination and direction of federal, state and local response sys- tems and encourages the developmen~ of local government and private capabilities to handle pol- lut;ion spills. The Environment, al Ih'otecl:ion Agency (EPA) is assigned responsibility for administering, developing and revising The National I"lan as required. Coordination and direction of federal pollution control efforts at the scene of a spill are accomp- lished through an "On-Scene Coordinator". The LI.S. Coast Guard ~furnishes O-SC's for the high seas, coastal and contiguous waters, coastal and Great Lakes ports and harbors. The EPA will fur- nish or provide for O-SC's on inland navigable wa- ters and their tributaries. '"The National Plan further e, .~blishes procedures for regional plans and emergency task forces for operation in designated areas. Annex X of The National Plan provides a "Schedule of Dispersants and Other Chemicals To Treat Oil Spills". Among the definitions of sub- stances applicable to oil spills is that of "Collecting Agents", de,~cribed as follows; "Chemicals or other agents that can gel, sorb, congeal, herd~.,~gtr..,.ap, fix or ~nake the oil mass more rigid, or viscous in order to facilitate surface removal". Collecting Agents, contrasted to Sinking Agents and Dispersants are considered to be generally ceptable providing they do not in themselves, or in combination with the oil, increase the pollution hazard. No standard test procedures .~9r determining the hazards of the Collecting Agen~ t~ype materials have been made public. However, it* is assumed that procedures will be established for the evaluation of Collecting Agents and, together with application rate recommendations, will eventually be incorpo- rated into Annex X of The National Plan. Official Classifications/Approvals On September 17, 1971, the Oil and Hazardous Materials Division of the EPA advised Shell that they were in agreement with the classification of Shell Oil Herder as "a Surface Collecting Agent" in accordance with Annex X of The Nati6nal Plan. Because the treatment of each spill has to con- sider all of the factors involved, the Ese of Oil Herder is acceptable to the EPA if the On-Scene Coordinator's judgement after considering these factors is that a collecting agent will perform saris- factorily in conjunction with recovery equipment and techniques. 0il Herder can then be applied at a rate of two gallons per linear mile of spill perimeter. It can be reapplied, if needed, every six hours, subject to a maximum of three applications in any 24-hour period..] The State of California has adopted a "State Contingency Plan" which closely parallels The Na- tional Plan, including the definition of "oil spill treating agents". California has estabtished'a pro- cedure for the licensing of such materials so that any questions regarding their basic suitability may be determined prior to an emergency that may require their use. Shell Oil Herder was licensed on September 27, 1971, as "a Collecting Agent" by the State of California's Water Resources Board. The State of Florida has passed some very strict laws governing oil polluters' responsibilities, but has not established procedures for approving or licensing oil spill treatment materials. Like Florida, other states are currently occupied with developing basic contingency plans and the eventual need for sanctioning treatment materials prior to their actual need has not yet come under active consideration. However, Shell's Oil Herder has had conditional approvals from various states for use in connection with the treatment of specific spill problems. ~ rently, al~hough specific approv- ing legislation does not exist, an increasing num- ber of states, including Louisiana, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Texas, have indicate& favorable attitudes towards the use of Collecting A~,;ents such as Shell Oil Herder. Further, the Canadian Environmental Protection Service has tentatively granted permission for the stockpiling and use of Oil Herder as a surface col- lecting agent when applied in accordance with directions outlined by Shell. For major spills, ex- tensive use of Oil Herder should only be wit}i the consent and under the supervision of local or fed- eral.,regulatory officials. In addition, the MinistrT of Environment (Ontario) has agreed to the classi- fication of Oil Herder as a surface collecting agent, and will consider the inclusion of this type of agent in their Guidelines covering oil spills control and removal. Physical Properties Oil Herder Shell's Oil Herder is a water-insoluble, surface active agent that competes with oil for the water surface. It is definitely not a dispersant or a de- tergent and w/Il not emulsify the oil to which it is applied. It works completely on the surface of the water. Oil Herder has a spreading force on water that is greater than the spreading force of oil. Research has shown that, i}~e spreadin/4 force of a surface collecting agent should be at least 40 dynes/cra to be effective in overcoming the tenden- cy of oil to spread. In addition, the agent should be applicable over a wide range of water tempera- lures. Oil Herder meets these requirements. Spe- cifically, Oil tlerder'~ properties are... Specific gravity at 77°F (25°C);. ................. 0.86 Density, lb./gal, at 77°F (25°C) ............. 7.2 Flash point, T.O.C.,°F ........................ 172 Pour point,°F .................................. 36' Viscosity, cs at 77°F:(25°C) ....................... 8 Spreading pressure (dynes/cra) ............ 42 Oil Herder contains no organic halides, heavy metals or other chemicals known to be ham~ful to process equipment or refinery catalysts. Oil Herder will work on any petroleum or vege- table oil that has not been modified by chemical treatment or by the inclusion ol~ add'it, ives and as successfully even at low air temperatures (below its pour point of 36°F) if kept warm to avoid solidify- lng. It has been successfully applied as low as 25°F when the contents of the application units were kept continuously agitated. However, Oil Herder does have some limitations. It will not collect a ~vaxy oil that has congealed and i~ will not work effectively on oil-in-wa(:er emulsions nor on detergent-contaminated water. ' Eco o ical Effects of Herder Any time a chemical agent is added to fresh or sea water for oil spill control there is justifiable con- cern regarding the possible 'aftereffects such an agent might have upon that environment. This concern is no less important to Shell Oil.Company. Toxicity Tests Once Oil Herder's effectiveness in controlling oil spills was ascertained, the chemical was submitted to the Texas A&M University Marine Biology Laboratory in Galveston, Texas, and The Pacific Environmental Laboratory in San Francisco, Cal- ifornia, for toxicity testing. The results of these tests (see Tables I and II) have indicated that Oil Herder will not adversely affect fish, shrimp, crabs or oysters even when ap- plied at ten times the recommended rate. In addi- tion, Shell also conducted additional tests within its own research facilities. When White Pekin ducks were exposed to Oil Herder by floating five hours on water covered with 10,000 times the recommended application rate of the chemical, they showed no ill effects. The acute oral LD 50 for Mal- lard hens appears to be greater than 2,000 mg/kg. Further, two species of fish--Zebra Danio (Bra- chydanio ririo) and Gourami (Thichogaster tri- chQap.,tj~rus)~were exposed to concentrations up to 100D' ppm. After 96 hours exposure plus 28 days post-exposure observation only one Gourami mor- tality was observed out of 60 fish tested. B odegradabitity Tests Tests have shown that Oil Herder has extremely low biochemical oxygen demands (BOD) at con- centrations which will result if used as recommend- ed. Oil Herder is effective in containing oil spills as a film one molecule thick. One pint will cover 30 acres of water with a monomolecular film. If we assume a ten-f, old higher dosage (one pint applied to three acres), the concentration of Oil Herder in the top layer of water (assumed to be one foot deep) will be ~ ppm. As shown by tests on the biodegradability ot[ Oil Herder, even at this high dose, the resulting concentraHon will have a BOD of less than three percent of ~he oxygen nor- mally dissolved in sea water. Biodegradability tests were conducted on Oil Herder by the Edna Wood Laboratories of Houston, Texas. The results of these tests are outlined in Table III. TABLE I Survival of Test Species After Seven Days Exposure To Natural Sea Water (28% Salinity, 20°C) Conducted at Texas A&M University Marine Laboratory, Galveston, Texas, by Dr. S. M. Ray ~ Si!¥er~ides Exposed to beryllina) (b) Control Oil Herder, 50 ppm(a) 36° APl Louisiana Crude, 100 ppm 100 ppm of 36° APl Louisiana crude plus 10 ppm Oil Herder 24/25 10/10 7/10 7/10 Juvenile Brown Oyslers Shrimp (Crassostrea (Penaeus Virginica) (c) aztecus) (d) 25/25 25/25 10/10 10/10 10/t0 10/10 lO/10 8/10 Post larval Shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) (e) 8/10 4/10 3/10 7/10 Blue Crab (Callinectes sepidus) (f) 13/15 6/6 6/6 6/6 (a) The maximum expected concent"~*tion of Oil Herder, calculated for uniform mixing of',the top 12 inches of water directly under a spray nozzle and immediately after application (before spreading) is esHmated to be no more than 5 ppm. (b) Five fish 35 to 85 tnm long per 4 liter test container, aerated continuously. (c) Five oysters 45 to 85 mm long per 3 liter container, aerated continuously. (d) Five shrimp, each individual held in a small fiberglass screen cage per 4 liter container, aerated continuously. (e) One 2t-day old shrimp per 50 m[ container, no aera- tion. Test results after 60 hours appear to be affected by starvation of the test animals. (f) One crab 70 to 125 mm from tip to tit) across carapace per 4 1Her contaim~r, aerate(1 continuously. Remarks on toxicity of Shell's Oil Herder: 1. With the exception of tim tesLs on tho Brown Shrimp, these data give no indication of acute toxicity to crude oil or Oil Herder at the concentrations and conditions em- ployed in these studies. 2. From the limited available data, it is difficult t. judge whether the poor survival of the Brown Shrimp was due to the test materials, the test conditions, or perhaps to some combination of these factors. From data shown here, it appears toxicity does not necessarily increase with in- creasing concentrations of the test materials. TABLE la TL50* Vatues For Expgsure To Oil Herder and No. 2 Fuel Oil Tests run by Pacific Environmental Laboratory, San Francisco, California Fathead ,.., .¢,~ Brine Shrim~ Mummichog Minnow (48 hrs.) (96 hrs.) (96 hfs.) Control (Dodecyl Sodium Sulfate), ppm Oil Herder, ppm No. 2 Fuel Oil, ppm Ten parts 1'~o. 2 Fuel Oil plus one part Oil Herder, ppm *Toxicity limil, concentration for survival of 50% of sample. 2.3 2.5 25.0 29.0 1.4 ;>1000 ~. 1000 ~ 1000 2.5 ~1000 285 24O TABLE Tests For Biodegradability 0¢ Oil Herder Performed by the Edna Wood Laboratory, Houston, Texas Pliution, mg/I (pprn) Biochemical Oxygen Demand, mg/I 5-day, 20~C (seeded) 7-day 14-day 21 -day 1.4 1.6 31 11 13 15 26 Chemtcal Oxygen Demand, mg/l AgzSO4 + HgSO4 Method *Extrapolated data. 125 1.1xI0" 139 1.2x10~ 177 1.5x10~ 182 1.6xt0¢ 263 2.3x10'~ Remarks on biodegradability of' Shell's Oil F[erder 1. Each sample Wrts ~nixed with ¢leionizorl xvaler lo pro- duce the dilutions shown. The Oil tlerder dilutions re- quired mixing in a blenth~r to suspend water-insoluble material. The test methods used for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BED) ant1 Chemit:al Oxygen Demand are Water and VCas~cwa ter," American I)ttl)lh: ] t't~al t]~ Asso- ciation, llth Ed., 1960, I)P. 188. 318-324, 399-402. 2. In general, at thc fwo h'sscr con('.ntralion:; tester1 (1 and 1" mg/I ), this material is lower in oxygen ct}tlStlm- lng compounds llmn effluent from secondary s(,wage treatment plants, Oil llerder is biodegradalfie as evi- denced by the inch,nsc in BeD value with time. At the higher concentration (I00 rog/l) this matt, rial is biodcgrad~t}flt,.wi/}~ the 21-dray BeD of lhe ()il lh,rder still lower than the BeD of average raw domt~slic sewage. A~NEX X 2000 SCHEDULE OF DISPERSANTS AND OTHER CHEMICALS TO TREAT OIL SPILLS 2001 General 2001.1 This schedule shall apply to the navigable waters of 'the United States and adjoining shorelines, and the waters of the contiguous zone as defined in Article 24 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. 2001.2 This schedule applies to the regulation of any chemical as hereinafter defined that is applied to an oil spill. 2001.3 This schedule advocates development and utilization of mechanical and other control methods that will result in removal of oil from the en- vironment with subsequent proper disposal. 2001.4 Relationship of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with other Federal agencies and State agencies in implementing this schedule: In those States with more stringent laws, regulations or written policies for regulation of chemical use, such State laws, regulations or written policies shall govern. THis schedule will apply to those States that have not adopted such laws, regulations or written policies. 2002 Definitions Substances applied to an oil spill are defined as follows' 2002.1 Collecting agents - includes chemicals or other agents that can jell, sorb, congeal, herd, entrap, fix, or make the oil mass more rigid or-viscous in order to facilitate surface removal of oil.' 2002.2 Sinking agents - are those c~hemical or other agents than can ~hysically sink oil below the water surface. 2002.3 Dispersing agents - are those chemical agents or compounds which emulsify, disperse or solubilize oil ~nto the wai~er column or act to further the surface spreading of oil slick.<; in order to Fac'ilitate dis- persal of the oil into the water column. 2003 Collecting Agents - Collecting agents are considered to be gener- a--l=ly acceptabl'e ~roviding that these materials do not in themselves, or in combination with the oil, increase the pollution hazard. 2004 Sinking Agents - Sinkip. g agents may be used only in marine waters exceeding' }00 meters in depth where currents are not predominantly on- shore, and only if other control methods are judged by EPA to be inad- equate or not feasible. 2005 '' Authorities Con'trolling Use of Dispe~sants 2005.1 Regional response team activated' Dispersants may b'e used in any place'at any time~ ancl in quantities designated by the OSC when their use wi 11 · 2005.1-1 In the judgement of the OSC, '~revent or substantially reduce hazard to human life or limb or substantial hazard of fire to property. ~,. 2005.1-2 In the judgement of EPA, in consultation with appropriate State agencies, prevent or reduce substantial hazard to a major segment of the population(s) of vulnerable species of waterfowl. 2005.1-3 In the judgement of EPA, in consultation with appropriate, State agencies, result in the least overall environmental damage, or interference with designated uses. 2005 2 Regional r~sponse team not activated' Provisions of Section 2005~1-1 Shall a~'~l~'~ ~The use Of dfspersants in any other situation shall be subject to this schfJ;dule except in states where State laws, regulations, or written poliqies are in effect that govern the prohibition use, quantity, or type of di~persant. In such states, the State laws, regulations or written policies shall be followed during the dteanup operations. 2006 Interim Restrictions on Use of Disp~rsants for Pollution Control ,. ul~poses 2006.1 Except as noted in 2005.1, dispersants shall not be used: .~006.1-1 On any distillate fuel o~l. 2006.1-2 2006.1 - 3 On any spill of oil less than 200 barrel.s in quantity. On any shoreline. 2006.1-4 In any waters less than 1~0 feet deep. 2006.1-5 In any waters containing major populations, or breeding or passage areas for species, of fish or marine life which may be damaged or rendered commercially less marketable by exposure to dispersant or dispersed oil. 2006.1-6 In any waters ~here winds and/or currents are of such. velocity and direction that dispersed oil mixtures would likely, in the judgement of EPA, be carried to shore areas within 24 hours. 2006.1-7 In any waters where such use may affect surface wa'ter supplies. 2007 Dispersant Use. Dispersants may be used in accordance with ~-~aule if other control methods are judged to be inadequate or infeasible, and if: 2007.1 Information has been provided'to EPA, in sufficient time prior ~;o its use for re¥iew by EPA, on its t6xicity, effectiveness and oxygen demand determined by t~e~standard procedures published by EPA. (Prior to publication b~ EPA of standard procedures, no dispersant shall be applied, except as noted in Section 2005.1-1 in quantities exceeding 5 ppm in the upper three feet of the water column during any 24-hour period. This amount is equivalent to 5 gallons per acre per 24 hours). · 2007.2 Applied during any 24-hour period in quantities not exceeding the 96 hour TL50~,of the most sens. itive species tested as calculated in the top foot of~he water column The maximum volume of chemical per- mitted in gallons per acre per 24 hours, shall be calculated by multi- plying the 96 hour TL50 value of the most sensitive species tested, in ppm, by.O.33; except that in no case, except as noted in Section 2005.1-1, will the daily application rate of chemical exceed 540 gallons per acre or one-fifth of the total volume spilled, whichever quantity is smaller. 2007.3 2007.3-1 is sold. 2007.3-2 20b~7.3-3 2007.3-4 2007.3- 5 Dispersant containers are labeled with the following information' Name, brand or trademark, if any, under which the chemical Name and address of the manufacturer, importer, or vendor. F1 ash point. Freezing or pour point. Viscosity. 2007.3-6 Recommend application procedure(s), concefftration(s), and conditions for use as regards wa~ter salinity, water temperature, and types and ages of oils. 2007.3-7 Date of production and shelf life. 2007.4 Information to be supplied to EPA on the' 2007.4-1 Chemical name and percentage of each component. 2007.4-2 Concentrations.of potentially hazardous trace materials, including, but not n~cessarily being limited to' lead, chromium, zinc, arsenic, mercury, nickel, copper, or chlorinated hydrocarbons. 2007.4-3 Description of analytical n~ethods used 'in determining chemical characteristics outlined in 2007.4-1,2 above. 2007.4-4 Methods for~, ~.a,.iyzing the chemical in fresh and salt water are provided to '~P~ or reasons why such analytical methods cannot be provided. 2007.4-5 For purposes of research and development, EPA may authorize use of dispersants in specified amounts and locations under controlled conditions irrespectiv6 of the provisions of this schedule. .. NOTE: '~ In addition to those agents defined and described in Section 2002 above, the following materials which are not. a part of this Schedule, with cautions on their use, should be considered' 1. Biological agents - those bacteria and enzymes isolated, grown and produced for the specific purpose of encouraging or speeding biodegradation to mitigate the effects of a spill. Biological agents shall be used to treat spills only when such use is approved by the appropriate State and local public health and. water po~lution control officials. 2. Burning acjentsl- are those materials which, through physical or chemical means, improve the combustibility of the materials to which they are applied. Burning agents'may be used and are acceptable so l ong_a~s, they do not'in themselves, or in combination with the material to which they are applied~ increase the pollution hazard, and their use is approved by appropriate Federal, State and local fire preventiom officials. I lAY $. HAMMOND, Cov~rnor ! / - / / I POYgtt 0-- J~t~/£AIJ 99~01 Mr. H. J. Steiner ?~ Phillips PetroIeum CSh~pany P. O. Drawer 66 Kenai, Alaska 99611 Dear Mr. Steiner: In response to your December 12, 1975 letter we have no problem with the first governmental contact being made to the U. S. Coast Guard (U$CG) in the event of an oil spill within their' jurisdie'£ion. However, it will be the responsibility of the person in charge of facilities from which there is a spill to assure that the Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) is notified~mmea' -'ia~e~,~ ~,, after the spill occurs. Immediate notification to ADEC after initial contact with the USCG would be acceptable. It is true that the on scene coordinator (OSC) for directing oil spill clean-up ~ .~ Uou. G or the Environ- operations in navigable waters has b~-en either the ' e.- mental Protection _4.~ency (EPA). This Dep~t~tment intends to develop a statewide contingency. , plan winch'' ~ will be coordinated with the ~l~n~ o~ ~he ~SCO ~d ~A. ~h~ eompmtea ~1~ wi!I e~t~mh~m ~ooedu~es , AD,_:.~ or TJSC~) iS to be the OSC to for determining which agency (EPA ~o .. direct spill clean-up and disposal in specific instances. Until tho State eo~tinge~ey plan is compxetea this Department intends *o be the OSC in a~ropriate instances not within tho jurisdiction of tho USCG. In the waters of Cook Inlet, where the USCG has jurisdiction, we would concur that they should be the primary notifieatign agency. I hope this helps to clarify y'our concerns and er~abJ, es you to respond properly to the Division of Lands ~, m. rcque,..~ P!ease let me k~ow if there is further infof marion needed. Sincerely, ,,,:, :,,,:. ........ --- ,,~Jnat. han W. Scribnm' Director Division of Water Programs Alaska Division of Lands M o RAN D DEPARTMEi~T OF NATURAL RESudRCES DiviSion of Oil and Gas TO: Guy R. Nartin Commissioner ~aOM. Hoyl e H~. Hami 1 ton ~~/~ Acting u~ rector state c Alaska- DATE: FILE NO: TELEPHONE NO": SUBJECT: December 4, 1975 Oil Spills in Cook Inlet Attach'ed is a table showing oil spill volumes and incidence of spills in the Cook Inlet that you requested by memo in August, 1975. Sorry 'for the del ay but we were holding this re, port until we could get the oil spill data from the State Department of Environmental Conservation to cross check with the informa- tion obtained from EPA and 'the Coast Guard. After numerous requests to the DEC and promises to get this data to us, we have yet to receive it and have given up on them. However, the data obtained from the EPA and Coast Guard are believed to be complete. The spills are broken dorm into three categories: (1) oil industry related; (2) non-oil industry related and; (3) unknown sources. This is the first .time to my knowledge that a breakdown such as this has been reported. You will note there are no volumes reported with the unknown sources spills because these represent such small volumes, described as "small oil sheen sighted" and "small glob of oil found on beach", etc..~ : The non-oil industry related spills are those that would have occurred even if there were no oil industry activity in the Inlet, e.g. a fuel oil spill from a tanker bringing fuel oil to Anchorage for domestic use. ~ The above categories were selected to indicatF.-4yhe extent that the oil industry has contributed to the spills in the Cook Inlet. lhe results of this work shows that the public has been misled in this respect by other publications. In June, 1976, the Alaska District Corps of ~ngineers published a study on the Arctic ..~oast titled, "The Alaskan Arctic Coast, A Background Study of Available Knowledge". This report was prepared for the Corps of Engineers by the Arctic InStitute of North America. Page 453 of this report is attached as Exhibit NO. 1. The total hydrocarbon input, in the Cook Inlet is stated to be 9,500 to 17,500 barrels per year. They indicate this data was taken from reports by Glaesar and Kinney. Attached as Exhibit No. 2 is the applicable portion of the report by Kinney. You will note that this report was written in 1970 and uses oil spill data for the four years 1966 through 1969, which were four of the years w$$~h the largest reported spills (see our attached table). It is interesting to note the small volume of spillage attributed to the oil industry during the last 5 years, namely a total of 145 barrels. It has been the practice in the past for persons making E.I.S. or environmental assessment studies to take data from one area and use for extrapolating in other areas of interest. If the total oil spills recorded in the Inlet are taken as oil industry related, this distorted picture could be compounded by trying to apply this data to other areas being evaluated for potential impact of oil industry activity. · HHH:bJm attachments .... "' .... .-- "' YEAR 19~..9 1962 VOLUME- BBLS OIL IHDUSTRY OIL SPILLS I,q C,?OK INLET ~'~'~'~'""~ VOLUHE - BBLS INCIDENTS OTHER SOURCES' no data 3O · IJNKNOWN SOURCE I,UC I DENTS I ~!C I [lENTS 1 0 1964 1965 160 no data 1 fl 1966 4,855 .. 1,824 28 3O 47 10,000 2 13 1 26 1968 1,070 49 389 17 lg 1969 918 21 6,243 lO 12 ' 1970 1971 1,~39 72 23~; 3,984 12~ 1,794 9 31 6 15 1972 19 8' 1973 24 6 32 7" 1 ~.. 29 8 1 1974 19 25 268 7, t975' ll 2 ~ 18 lO,Oll 223 22,817 73 * Through 8-21-75 '. Overall Average Size of Spill' Oil Industry - + . .... ~_4.qL .... Bb]s -~;:!- ~ Other Source - _{ 3,126 Bb!~ [51'?.5' 3 124. Arc'rage Size of Spill Last Five Years- Total Volume Spilled LaSt Five'Years. Oil Industry - + 2.74 ghls /' ._ Other Source - + r.~..gl I.';!~l s 0 i 1 I nd u s try Other Source 145 flhls 2 14l '"~'! Note' Quantities under Unknown Source Incidents cannot t~e ~!eLet'r:i~r:d d~tn l:r, t. he manner in which they were reported; e.a. "Pil "Oily Ducks", etc. Prepared by Alaska· Division of Oil & Gas Data sources E.P.A. and Coast Guard ./ ?,7>, (. ~? ./.,' ,~ I~EV, 9--30~67 STALE el AEASKA SUBMIT IN Ti~ ;ATE -(Other insti-~l~}'i ~/ffi reverse s,~ ~ :"-i OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMITTEE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DRILL, DEEPEN, OR PLU_,G BACK TYPE ()F WORK DRILL ~ DEEPEN ~ D. TYPE OF WELL OIL ~ w,..,.°~'~ ~*J o,~,~ Wilde at zo~,:~INGI'~ ~ WEI, L 2. NAME OF Ot'EI~ATOR Phillips Petroleum Company 3. ADDIiESS CYF OPEI12XT¢)R P. 0. Drawer 66- Kenai~ Alaska 99611 4. L.,O('ATION OF WELL A, ..... 'fa~e60' FSL & 1980' At proposed prod. zone Same PLUG BACK ZONE FEL Sec. 26 - T10N- R 11 W, SM 13. /)I%TANCI!; IN MILI'iN AND I)IRF(?T!ON F:OM NEAHEST T(>',VN OR POST OFFICE* 10.7 miles S of Tyonek API # 50-1 33-20289 6. LP-akSE D~IGNA.TION AN'ID SEi~IAL NO. AVL 59551 7,IF I1NrDI AN, ALLOTTEE OR ~BE N~E UNIT~ FARM OR LEASE Tern ' A' WELL NO. 1 10. FI~LD AND ~OOL, O~ Wildc at 11. SEC., T., R.. M., (BO~O~ HOL~ OBJECTIVB) See Item 14. BOND INFOI'~MATIOIXI: Statewide General Ins. Co. of America ~/~89180 TYPE Surety and,'or No. 15. DISTANCE EHOM I'[{OPOSI':D* ]16. NO. OF ACRES IN LEASE LOCATI()N TO (Ai:-;o to nearest (h'i~h unit, if any) la DISTANCE FI/OM PH()Pt)SED I,OCATION'* 19. PHOPOSED DEPTH 7500' T£) NNAI'IIEST \VEl,I, Df/II,LING. COMPI,ETED. el{ APPLIEI) FOIl, FT. 71,67' to D&A Well A~no~t 17. NO. ACRES ASSIGNED TO THiS WELL 6ao 20. ROTARY OR CABLE TOOLS ROt ary 21. EI.EVA'I?IONS (Show whether DF, IVi'. CN, elc. ~ 22. APPROX. DATE \VOPxK 'WILL STARF* RK]3 150' above MLLW Spring- 1976 23. 3o" i 3o" ';I~ 196 ' lOO,_+ ~6,,-' I~o" I ~- ~ ~5o' L%,, [ 1~ ~/s,, ~ ' -~2.::.5 ~ ] 7oo' z~,, i ¢ ~/s" ! ~o a ~6aK ~ooo, al:p, I 7" ~ a6 ~ ~3'. ~ I~oo' P:~OPOSED CASING AND CEMENTING PROGRAM QUANTITY OF CEMEN'[ Drive pipe- none Circula.t__e. ,t,o su,r, face 500',, bas,, k in,t,o 19 ~ 525 sx 670 sx 775 sx 725 sx See Attached IN ABOVE SPA.LYE DESCRIBE PROPOS1VD PllOGHA~M: If proposal is to deepen or plug back. give data on present productive zx)ne and proposed new productiwz zone. If propo.~d is to drill or deepen directl, onally, give pertinent data o~z subsurface locations and measured and true vertical depths. _ Give blowout preventer progr£',m. 24. I hereby certify fha! thc rcgoing is True and Correct T~TL~ Sr. Petroleum .F~gr ..... (This space fox' State office use) CONDITIONS OF APP2qOVAL, IF ANY: [SAMPLES AND COHE CItlPS REQUI~ ~ ~QU~RE~rTS: ~ ~ES ~ NO 50-133-20289 . 76-43 ~ov~~_ April 16, 1976 ~See In.ructions On Revere Side April 16, 1976 ~A DL 5q34cl 2,2 AIDL 5q,352. 2.6¸ AO a.. ~5 Tql,4 24. 5q350 5Cl351 NOV ]. 4 i975 I)IVISiON. OF {)iL I DRILLING PROGRAM FOR PHILLIPS TE~N '~' No. 1 1. Move in and position jack-up drill barge and drill 7500' non-directionsl well using fresh water mud. Copy of mud program attached. 2. Drive 30" conductor pipe. Nipple up to drill surface hole. 3. Drill and ream 26" hole to 250' with 9.0 - 9.5 fresh water mud, set and cement 20" surface pipe back to mudline. Nipple up 13 5/8" - 5000 psi double gate BOP and Hydril. See attached schematic for 3000 psi wp BOP arrangement. The contractors BOP e~uipment is 5000# wp, but only 3000 psi equipment is needed for well conditions. 5. Drill and ream 17 1/2 hole to 700' with 9.0 - 9.5 PPg FW mud, set and cement 13 5/8" intermediate casing back to near mudline casing hanger. 6. Drill 12 1/~" hole to 3000' with 9.5 - 10.5 ppg FW mud, log, set and cement 9 5/8" intermediate casing. 7. Drill 8 1/2" hole to 7500' with 10.5 ppg FW mud, log, and if promising, set and cement 7" production casing. Run CBL correlation log. Perf and test zones of interest. 8. Set cement plugs above all hydrocarbon bearing intervals open to the wellbore and in the interval from 10 to 50' below mudline. 9. Back out retrievable portion of 7", 9 5/8", ~nd 13 3/8" mudline casing hangers and place abandonment cap in top of 13 3/8". Cut off 20" & 30" 10' below mudline, retrieve same, and abandon well. - NOV 1. 4 1975 DIVISION OF 01/.," FILL--UP CONNECTION KILL LINE 7 / E M EP. GE NCY KILL LINE BLIND RAMS DOUBLE PREVENTER OPTION BLIND RAMS PiPE RAMS IOR l~iB~'~ MAY BE SUBSTITUTED SER. 900 HYDRIL ltGKtl SER. 900 RAM--TYPE BOP 3Il SER. 900 VALVE SER. 900 DRILLING SPOOL 3TM SER. 900 X 2I! SER. 900 STEEL TEE 2Il SER. 900 VALVE 2i~ MUD PRESSURE GALKOE 3Il SERo 900 X 2TM SER. 900 STEEL CROSS 2II SER, 900 ADJo CHOKE HYDRAULIC CHOKE, 2500 PSI WP OR BETTER 3~ SER. 900 CHECK VALVE PIPE RA MS CHOKE OPTION ~':A~i NOTES ' 1. 3000 PSi WP OR BETTER CLAMP ~l~ U B S MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR FLANGES 2o 3 , CHOKE OPTION I ! I i I ~ ~,~.~=~ ~:~. ~ ...... ONE ADJUSTABLE CHOKE MAY BE REPLACED ~¥!TH A POSITIVE CHOKE VALVES MAY BE EITHER HAND OR POWER OPERATED BUT~ tF POWER OPERATED~ THE VALVES FLANGED TO THE !3OP RUN MUST BE CAPABLE OF ~EiNG OPENED ANE CLOSED MANUALLY OR CLOSE 0,"4 POWER FAILURE AND BE CAPABLE OF BEING OPENED MANUALLY ........... OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY I 3000 PSI 'VVORK~N,G PRESSURE BLOWOUT PREVENTER HOOK-UP c£R]Z$ 9 .... FLA~':c~--S "-~ BETTER) · ~ . - .~ ~; ~ . ,..~ ~. ~.. REV ~/?'3 FIGURE NO. 6 Union Oil Company,~f California August 29, 1975 ~ TO: Eugene F. Griffin FROM' dohn D. Nnundsen Subject' Oil S~]lls to Cook Inlet in 1973 and 1974 Attached are the data sheets pertaining to oil spills ending up in the Cook Inlet for the years of 1973 and t974. The designations for ships and platforms' should be self explanatory. The facility designation includes refineries, tank farms, docks, etc. Onshore transportation would include tanker truck or train spills into drainage sources. The unknown source was not accounted for in the total volume because of the originabion and volume ambiguity. The USAF plane that jettisoned' its fuel tanks was also eliminated because the investigation was stifli..ed. The 1973 total volume of the four sources of c~rigin is over by .2 of a barrel and the 1974 total volume is under .by .1 of a barrel because of a rounding off er~'O$ in conversions. All oil spill volumes are compliments of the U. S. Coast Guard and were verified 'through liason files of ADEC and EPA: The tonnage for material transfer and petroleum transfer are the compliments of the U. S. Corps of Engineers. All volumes and sources are accurate to the best of available government informa- tion. · JDA'nc OPE RATIL'~', ~S MA;,~&GL~ ~NC.4-tO ~AO f~ OlSI klCI PETROLEUM PRODUCTS TRANSFER AND REPORTED SPILLAGE TO COOK INLET, ALASKA Origin 1973 Data Total Cook Inlet Material Transfer Total Cook Inlet Petroleum Transfer Total Reported Oil Spilis to Cook Inlet . Ship Spills Platform Spills Facility Spills Onshore Transportation Not Accounted for in Above Unknown Source U.S.A.F. Plane. Accident" .. 1 974 Data Total Cook Inlet Material Transfer Total Cook Inlet Petroleum Transfer Total Reported Oil Spills to Cook Inlet Ship Spills PI atform Spi 11 s Facility Spills Onshore Trans. ~ .... ation Tonnage 25,380,000 II ,864,000 ':"i 25,290,000 tl ,662,000 Volume i n Barrel s 88,980,000.0 354.0 26.9 6-,: 2~' 320.0 l.l 50.0 180 87,465,000.0 319.0 269.7 20.9 3.2 25.1 46.0 .00039 .00003 ".0000006 .00035 . O000~O13 46.0 .00036 .0003 .00002 ;' .0000036 .00002 BREAKDOWN OF OIL SPILLS .... ~,.~:'~ ' ' 'Onshore USAF Ships Platforms Facilities. Transport Unknown Plane .. 1973 In Gallons 30 15.0 1 42 2,100 750 420 .25 8,820 5 400 3.0 4,620 30.0 210.0 I 1.0 · 2 5 2O0 5 ._Tot, al ....... i,, !..:.1.33. .. 251~i..25 '13L,_4__41 ......... _47 ...... '~',100' 756 1974 In Gallons 5,000 10.0 4 3 ~?~ 420 30.0 4 2 5,800 420.0: '~'"',-'¥' ...... 126 50 10 ~ 3.0 1,000 42 .50 30 io.o 15 126.0. -.,.~ 10 15.0 42.0 15.0 126.0 2.0 J 25.0 io~al ~ 11,32, i 88020 ' '134 ! '1,055 ~ ....... ~ .......... , ........ ~_ ............ J ~ _.=..I..___~.= ~ ...... ,,__~, Credits' Oil Spill Data- U.S. Coast Guard Material Transfer Data - U.S. Corps of Engineers CONTRO~ .... , '.:,.: "4AG :?g NOTE: SEE ..... / _. _' ::rE', ERSE SiDE FOR [IAP, it iT'i: C! .k[.!S,';: SUGGESTED MUD PROPERTIES: Mud Type:. DESCO-CMC-LOW SOLIDS Depth Weight 700'-2500 ' 9.0- I 0 Viscosity Fluid Loss 35-60 sec. Below 20cc 2500'-7500' t O.5#/Gal. 40-50 sec. 18cc or less Treat m e nt/R e ma rks TREATMENT/REMARKS TREAT OUT CEMENT WITH BICARBONATE OF SODA. REDUCE SOLIDS AND VISCOSITY WI'TH WATER. DRILL BELOW 13 3/8" CASING WITH LOW SOLIDS NON-DISPERSED GEL-BENEX MUD. ADD SODA ASH TO KEEP pH TO 9.5 - t0.0 AND FILTRATE CALCIUM FREE. ADD BENEX-GEL AS NEEDED FOR VISCOSITY AND FLUID LOSS CONTROL. DRILL OUT 9 5/8" CASING; TREAT CEMENT OUT USING BICARBONATE OF SODA. REDUCE GELS WITH DESCO, REDUCE FLUID LOSS BELOW 18cc USING C.M.C. CONTROL MUD THROUGH OUT 8 I/2" HOLE INTERVAL AS DISPERSED GEL-DESCO SYSTEM. RAISE MUD WEIGHT TO IO.5#/GAL. AT 2500'± WITH MAGCOBAR. USE D-SILTERS AS NECESSARY TO CONTROL INERT SOLIDS. CONSIDER USE OF SOLTEX OR RESINEX TO CONTROL ANY SHALE PROBLEMS. DRILL TO T.D. AT 7500'° RUN AND CEMENT 7" CASING. TEST WELL USING MUD WEIGHT AND CONTROL AS NEEDED. NOTE: SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR LIABILITY CLAUSE DOUBLE PREVENTER OPTION BLIND RAMS FILL--UP CONNECTION PiPE RAMS KILL LINE 7 / BLIND RAMS IOR ITbll MAY BE SUBSTITUTED I I -~ I f I I I CHOKE OPTION NOTES ' 1. 2. 3 o SER. 900 HYDRIL ~GKTM SER. 900 RAM--TYPE BOP 3TM SER. 900 VALVE SER. 900 DRILLING SPOOL 3TM SERo 900 X 2TM SEt~. 900 STEEL TEE 2TI SER. 900 VALVE 2TM MUD PRESSURE GAU~E 311 SER. 900 X 2TM SER. 900 STEEL CROSS 2TM SER, 900 ADJ. CHOKE HYDRAULIC CHOKE~ 2500 PSI WP OR BETTER 3TM SER. 900 CHECK VALVE 3000 PSI WP OR BETTER CLAMP HUBS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR FLANGES ONE ADJUSTABLE CHOKE MAY BE REPLACED WITH A POSITIVE CHOKE VALVES MAY BE EITHER HAND OR POWER OPERATED BUT, IF POWER OPERATED~ THE VALVES FLANGED TO THE BOP RUN MUST BE CAPABLE OF BEING OPENED AND CLOSED MANUALLY OR CLOSE ON POWER FAILURE AND BE CAPABLE OF BEING OPENED MANUALLY ........... OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY 3000 PSI WORKING PRESSURE BLOWOUT PREVENTER hOOK--UP {SERIE$ 900 FLANGES OR BETTER} REV 6/ '73 FIGURE NO. 6 SUGGESTED MUD PROPERTIES: Mud Type. DF:SCO-C[x4C-LOW {}()Lll)S ............ Depth Weight /00'-2500 ' 9. O- I0 Viscosity Fluid Loss 35-60 sec, Be low 20cc Treat m e nt/Re ma rks 2POOV-TPO()' 10,5#/Gal, 40-50 sec, i8cc or less TREATN1ENT/RE:ARKS -Ft:EA~' OUT CEMENT W ITF: B CARBONATE OF SODA, REDUCE SOL ID.g AND V IgCO:;iIY DRILL BELOW i3 3/8" CAS NG WITH LOW SOLIDS NON-DIoF'LI:,,~L:I (-)I{1..-,_Nt.!X MLJiJ. ADD SODA ASH i-O KEEP pH TO 9.5 - I0.0 AND FILTRATE_ CALCIU: FREE. AS NEEDED FOR VISCOSITY AND FLU D LOSS CONTROL. DRILL OU-F 9 5/8~ CASING; TREAT CEIViENT OUT USING BICARBONAT[_i OF ~}OI)A. GELS WITH DESCO, REDUCE FLUID LOSS BELOW 18cc USING C.Pl.C. CONI'ROL OUT 8 I/2" HOLE INTERVAL AS DISPERSED GEL-DESCO SYSTE:. RAtbt: I~IUi) '~EIr;lll 1-0 IO.5#/GAL. AT 2500~± wITH I~fiAGCOBAR. USE D-SILTERS AS NECESSAItY TO CON-II~(_)I. INERT SOLIDS CONS DER USE O: SOLTEX OR RES1NEX TO CONTROl_ ANY ,~,IA~_., DRI _L TO T.D. AT 7500~ RUN AND CE:ENT 7" CAS I NO. TEST ~,'/t_'L.L L/3 I P,lCZ, 14',.Jl,~ Wt..I GItF AND CONTROL AS NEEDED, ? NOTE: SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR LIABII_ITY CLAUSE COMPANY. PHILLIPS PETROLEUq LOCATION. 10N, !!'4, Sec. ............. 2d~ nni!NTV,,,,, s-r/',TF: (.':','K !iqi! J SUGGESTED CASING PROGRAF/I: 50~' conductor- drive i3n.~ i-~clow rntld l ino. 20" - 250' - in 24-26~' hc;le. 15 ~5/8~ - 700' - in 1'7~' h~-~lc. 7" - 7500~ - in 8 i/2" ~ole. SUGGESTED MUD PROPERTI~'~--,,~...,. Depth Weight ',Tisco~.~!tv 0-700~ 9 - I0 6(?'-8f) sec. ~41X GEL_ 5r_~qx_X-SPUD i-'LID TO CONTROL INERT SOLIDS .,:xND R.~{L:JCZ ~N,C. - NO CONTROL NOTE: SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR LIABiI._ITY CI A ~SF7 CHECK LIST FOR NEW WELL PERMITS = ._ · Company /~/A;~ Lease & Well No. ~/~n'~'" ~/ Yes No Remarks~~ ' ' Is the permit fee attached ................ - ..... ~Z. ~.. ~::~]V ~~ ~,.,..,W~,,~ ~.~.,~::~:: ~&~'~Si~9 . ,q Is well to be located in a defined pool ............. ~ 3. Is a registered survey plat attached . ~.. ts well located proper distance from property line ......... A/~.~ S. Is well located proper distance from other wells ......... 5. Is sufficient undedicated acreage available in this pool ...... 7. Is well to be deviated ....................... ,~-.,~, "Is operator the only affected party ............ ,~.~C 9. Can permit be approved before ten-day wait ............. , ........ ~.~ O. Does operator have a bond in force ............. ~w$ 1. Is a conservation order needed ................. 2. Is administrative approval needed 3. Is-conductor string provided ................ Is enough cement used to circulate on conductor and surface .... 5' Will cement tie in surface and intermediate or production strings ........... ~ ~Will cement cover all known productive horizons 7. Will surface casing protect fresh water zones ......... ~. Will all casing give adequate safety in collapse, tension & burst 9. Does BOPE have sufficient pressure ratina ...... ~Z .~ ..... Approval Recommended' Geoloqy Engineering- TRM HWK l~c~_~< OKG HHH JAL LCS JCM Revised 1/15/75