Calcasieu River Users Want Answers as LNG Facility Nears Completion

Published Aug 30, 2007 12:01 AM by The Maritime Executive

“As a regulator, I operate an environment where I don’t have to consider the bottom line. That makes things a lot easier for me.” According to a reporting service transcription of the June meeting of the Calcasieu River Harbor Safety Committee (CRHSC), these were the exact words of LCDR W.R. (Buddy) Reams III, Commanding Officer, United States Coast Guard, Marine Safety Unit Lake Charles, during a discussion of whether tugs would be required for traffic passing the rapidly developing Sempra LNG terminal on Lake Charles’ Calcasieu River. The discussion also dealt with the question of who would be paying for these assist or escort tugs, if required. The issue of tugs, safety and money sparked lively discussions at the June CRHSC meeting.

Reams’ comments regarding money could well be true, but it is doubtful that his superiors inside the beltway will be happy that they were spoken at a public meeting, especially in the choppy wake of the messy Deepwater debacle. With as much as $100 million of the taxpayer’s money (potentially) down the drain in a failed attempt to lengthen a series of patrol boats, it is also a fact that the Coast Guard will have to consider the bottom line, and very closely in the years to come. Congress has made this point crystal clear in recent months. Back in Lake Charles, it is also becoming apparent that commencement of operations at the Sempra Cameron LNG terminal will impact someone’s bottom line, especially when it comes to considering who will pay for tug escorts which will almost certainly be a part of the terminal’s safety regime. Channel users want to know whose bottom line that entails.

MarEx has obtained the transcript of the June meeting where, among other things, the U.S. Coast Guard’s Buddy Reams told attendees that (a.) there would be no mandated or regulated navigation area with regard to the Sempra LNG Terminal, (b.) the Coast Guard does not consider the Sempra facility to be of any greater risk than any other facility on the ship channel and (c.) that Cameron LNG is going have at least three tug boats available to enhance shipping safety and mitigate allision risks. MarEx attempts to confirm that these tug boats will in fact be a part of the safety equation once the terminal commences operations have been unsuccessful.

Almost $300,000 in local funds have been expended to study the potential risks that might be inherent in the design of Sempra’s unique, almost one-of-a-kind “V-shaped” berths. Nevertheless, in June, channel users were still in the dark as to how any risks might be mitigated. John Gott, Plant Manager of ConocoPhillips, representing the refinery operators on the river, was even more to the point: “I was expecting to see something a little more specific around the speed and maximum wind and the specific conditions at these facilities. That’s what this committee was looking for. And I’m not just picking on Sempra…I would have expected by this point that we would have had -- based on all the study work, the Oceanic (report)…that we would have been able to say with some degree of confidence, you know, the prudent passing speed to be limited to X knots with no travel beyond a certain wind speed.” In response, the Lake Charles Pilots devised a “Good Practices” document, since revised at least once, which addresses many of the channel users concerns. Those guidelines included specific measures associated with navigation in and around the Sempra facility:

• LNG ships are restricted to sustained winds of no more than approximately 20 knots, however this figure may vary with the size and type of the LNG ship; membrane versus spherical tank and tug availability.
• One or more tugs shall be secured to loaded ships with a mean fresh-water draft of 34 feet or more while passing the Cameron LNG Terminal, both inbound and outbound, when an LNG ship is berthed, primarily to control speed, but also to improve the chances of avoiding an allision in the event of an engine or steering failure.
• One or more tugs may be required to be secured to ships with a mean fresh-water draft of less than 34 feet or more while passing the Cameron LNG Terminal, both inbound and outbound at the discretion of the on-scene pilot.
• Cameron LNG has agreed to furnish a stand-by ASD tug to shadow all piloted vessels passing its terminal and to make this stand-by tug available to assist the passing vessel to avoid or mitigate an allision.
• The pilots shall control the speed of the passing vessel while passing the Cameron LNG Terminal, when an LNG ship is berthed, to reduce the effects of water displacement to acceptable levels through the use of assist tugs. The number and type of tugs will vary depending upon the availability of tugs and the maneuvering speeds, characteristics and load condition of the passing vessel.
• LNG carriers built prior to January 1, 1983 shall have at least one tractor-style tug tethered at all times when transiting the Calcasieu Ship Channel between the Cameron Jetties and any LNG berth.

The pilots’ new “standards of care” come much closer to defining the safety parameters to be used for passing vessels at Sempra’s Cameron Terminal than anything seen in the past, but questions still remain unanswered. The Coast Guard’s position is that the terminal will have three tug boats available to enhance shipping safety and yet, the pilot’s guidelines call for only one, possibly more (depending on availability). The pilot’s guidelines also contend that Cameron LNG has committed to furnishing one standby ASD tug, not three. MarEx inquiries to confirm the accuracy of either number were not answered in time for this edition of the MarEx e-newsletter. Beyond this, CITGO’s “Minority Report,” which is based on its own simulations performed at the same facility, showed that the use of three tug boats for passing traffic at the terminal did not prevent a casualty. Nevertheless, Tommy Stone, Chairman of the CRHSC, told attendees at the June meeting, “There’s no action going to be taken by the board on this (CITGO’s data). It’s for information.”

As highlighted in our series of articles published last year, the operators of the Savannah-based Southern LNG Terminal made changes to its docking arrangements after it determined that a new configuration was safer for berthed vessels and passing traffic. The safer, recessed berthing facilities reportedly cost El Paso as much as $35 million. Along the way, however, and because of the safer, recessed berthing facilities, the need for tractor escort tugs has gone away, as well as the millions of dollars in expenditures associated with them. From El Paso’s standpoint, the elimination of the escort tug requirements was important, because they were paying for every bit of it - and not because they wanted to. Captain “Laks” Lakshman, Vice President of Commercial Operations for Colonial Marine in Savannah told MarEx last summer that “local industry simply refused to pay for mandated escort tugs.”

The Coast Guard’s Buddy Reams admitted during the June meeting that, “I haven’t done exhaustive research -- but if the current practices had been applied during the simulation studies that have been run exhaustively, probably most, if not all, of the casualty scenarios would likely have been negated.” Not everyone agreed with this assessment. The statement in itself is less than definitive and clearly did not allay fears by channel users at the meeting that enough had been done to address and mitigate risk on the ship channel, especially as safety related to the Sempra LNG Terminal. But any hope of Coast Guard involvement in the safety process on the Calcasieu River had already been put to rest when earlier, Reams asserted, “It’s inappropriate to micromanage safe navigation and good seamanship, particularly in restricted waterways.”

One channel user, who asked that his name not be used, later asked, “If not in a restricted waterway nearby a terminal handling dangerous cargo, then where?” In Buzzards Bay, that’s where. Interestingly, and as MarEx goes online with this edition of its regular e-newsletter, the Coast Guard is in the final stages of what could easily be construed as “micro-managing” safe navigation in the waters of Massachusetts. It has revised the regulations governing the Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) in First Coast Guard District waters, effective November 28, to require that certain tank vessels and tug/barge combinations transiting Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, be accompanied by escort tugs and pilots operating under a properly endorsed federal pilot’s license. They have further established a Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS) for Buzzards Bay, and will now require mandatory participation in the VMRS by vessels subject to the Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge VHF Radiotelephone regulations, including tug/barge combinations. The stated purpose of this rule, according to the Code of Federal Regulations, is to reduce the likelihood of an incident that might result in a collision, allision, or grounding and the aftermath discharge or release of oil or hazardous material into the navigable waters of the United States. What remains unclear here is why one area requires the implementation of an RNA and the other does not.

Moving into the fourth quarter of 2007, it is almost a foregone conclusion that the Sempra Cameron LNG facility is coming and, someday, will be operational in the Calcasieu River. What this means for the bottom line of the estimated 1,000 deep-draft vessels that already use this critical waterway is uncertain. The Lake Charles Pilots have shown themselves to be active partners in the preparations to ensure that safety remains a high priority for all users. Their safety performance on this waterway is a good one and there is absolutely no reason to believe that this will not continue to be the case. Well in advance of the inaugural LNG delivery to Sempra’s Cameron facility, however, the question(s) of how many tugs will be required to mitigate anticipated risks and just as importantly, who will pay for these measures, remains unanswered.

The Coast Guard’s official position in the port of Lake Charles is clear. Buddy Reams says, “There is no, nor is there intended to be, any effort to create a regulated navigation area mandating tug usage, vessel speed, manning, etc.” That position leaves many uneasy on the ship channel. With the regulation of safety thoroughly washed from the hands of the Coast Guard -- at least in this case -- channel users are left only to wonder who will be in charge of deciding who pays for whatever safety measures are deemed adequate. The answer to that question is no clearer now then it was the day Sempra broke ground for the terminal after receiving regulatory approval to do so. - MarEx

Joseph Keefe is the Managing editor of The Maritime Executive. He can be reached with comments, questions and input at [email protected].