The June 8 Mega Borg lightering accident in the Gulf of Mexico reminded oil and shipping companies, government officials, and the public how urgently the U.S. needs a comprehensive tanker safety law. The challenge for everyone is to base the law on the shipping industry's technological realities and not on the oil spill hysteria attending recent mishaps.
What the mishaps show is new strain on shipping operations in the U.S. That strain represents a fitting target for legislation. Yet shipping's complex problems attract simplistic official remedies, such as current congressional proposals for double bottoms on all tankers and unlimited spill liability. Like most simplistic prescriptions, these would have perverse consequences.
DOUBLE-HULL HAZARDS
The shipping industry doesn't categorically reject two-skin tanker designs. Twin hulls probably would reduce spillage in some types of accidents. But they present new hazards. After a breach, twin-hulled vessels can become more likely than their single-hulled counterparts to sink. Furthermore, some new two-side designs show more promise than the basic double bottoms favored by Congress. Industry must convince lawmakers that it resists inflexible twin-hull mandates for reasons having to do with technology, not just economics. The fact is that some ships would be less safe with two hulls than with one.
Industry also must nudge Congress off high center on spill liability. Since the Exxon Valdez disaster last year, political pressure has been high not just to preassign spill responsibilities but also to threaten maximum punishments. Under unlimited liability, a tanker in the U.S. would place all of its owner's assets in jeopardy. Big shippers already are reducing their operations in U.S. waters for fear an accident would turn into an eternal cash drain.
They'll be replaced by small operators with less to lose in a liability case-and less expertise, equipment, and technology. Furthermore, proposed liability excesses threaten the Petroleum Industry Response Organization spill containment and cleanup network, an urgently needed program Congress should be hurrying into service.
By overindulging in the politics of hull design and spill liability, Congress gives short shrift to more-important elements of tanker safety. The main problem is not how many hulls ships have or who pays when there's a spill. The main problem is the shipping industry's unacceptable performance under the dual pressures of company cost-cutting and workload growth in the U.S. Accident preparation is important; accident prevention is more so.
FOCUS ON PREVENTION
The government, oil companies, and shipping concerns should seek ways to improve communications and tighten procedures for tankers operating near shore. They should review navigation systems and make whatever improvements they find in order. They should raise training and performance standards for crews; if necessary, they should inspect more frequently for procedural lapses and substance abuse. In addition, Congress and the Bush administration should determine whether new deepwater terminals are feasible and, if so, how to expedite their construction. And they should quit undermining tanker safety with laws and policies that discourage domestic production of oil, gas, and other energy.
Oil import growth has stretched bulk shipping and port operation in the U.S. to their limits. Legislation can help or hurt, depending on approach. Does Congress want simply to "make the polluter pay"? Or does it want to make tanker operations safer? The difference will be measurable in terms of future volumes of oil afloat in U.S. waters.
Copyright 1990 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
