PLANS FOR DEEP DRAFT OIL PORT ADVANCE AT CORPUS CHRISTI SITE

Port of Corpus Christi Authority (PCCA) commissioners have kept alive a plan to build a shore based, deep draft oil terminal at the mouth of Corpus Christi Bay in South Texas. Commissioners signaled their willingness to continue considering construction of the Safeharbor deepwater port by voting unanimously to seek Army Corps of Engineers permits and develop an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed project. The EIS is a vital permitting step.

Jan. 26, 1993

5 min read

Port of Corpus Christi Authority (PCCA) commissioners have kept alive a plan to build a shore based, deep draft oil terminal at the mouth of Corpus Christi Bay in South Texas.

Commissioners signaled their willingness to continue considering construction of the Safeharbor deepwater port by voting unanimously to seek Army Corps of Engineers permits and develop an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed project. The EIS is a vital permitting step.

Safeharbor proponents said they circulated about mid-1992 a request for an EIS proposal on the project. But the decision to begin work on the EIS was deferred to await a survey of interest among Texas refiners who possibly could use the port.

Of 11 refining companies surveyed, eight expressed interest in using the 80 ft deep channel that would be dredged in part of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel (CCSC) to allow most of the world's deepdraft tankers to reach Safeharbor's berthing basin and docks on Harbor Island. The channel's current operating depth is 45 ft.

At least four of the eight refiners who responded favorably to last year's inquiries, including an undisclosed Houston area refiner, agreed to join PCCA in sharing the cost of preparing an EIS. So far, refiners have pledged about $200,000 to the preparation. EIS scoping is expected to cost about $700,000. About $3 million and 2 years will be needed to complete the full EIS process.

Port commissioners retained a consulting team headed by Lockwood, Andrews & Newman (LAN), Houston, to seek permits and coordinate the scoping phase of the EIS development process before a public hearing on Safeharbor later this year. LAN's team is to identify issues that must be considered, set baseline environmental variables, and develop and examine alternatives.

Team membership includes Moffat & Nichol, Raleigh, N.C.; EA Engineering, Science & Technology, Hunt Valley, Md.; Fugro-McClelland, Houston; Southwest Econometrics, Austin; Hartman Associates, Seattle; Coastal Environments, Baton Rouge, La.; and Russell-Veteto Engineering, Govind & Associates, and Corpus Christi State University's environmental research group, all of Corpus Christi.

PROPOSAL'S FEASIBILITY

PCCA more than 2 years ago began investigating the environmental, safety, and economic feasibility of deepening part of the CCSC and building a shore based deepwater oil port in Corpus Christi Bay (OGJ, Mar. 25, 1991, p. 34).

Port officials launched Safeharbor's planning process when talk began about restricting lightering operations by oil tankers in the Gulf of Mexico. Those restrictions have not been enacted.

Jim Shiner, Safeharbor project manager, said preliminary studies show the deepdraft port could operate economically with throughput of 750,000 b/d of oil. Half that volume could be accumulated from tankers lightering cargoes in the Gulf of Mexico for delivery to Corpus Christi area refineries. The rest would have to come from shipments bound for other Texas refineries.

In addition, Safeharbor would reduce tanker traffic across Corpus Christi Bay.

With a depth of 80 ft, Safeharbor would have an operating depth of 74 ft. That would allow it to accommodate all oil tankers rated to 300,000 dwt, 80% rated from 300,000 to 350,000 dwt, and 50% rated at more than 350,000 dwt. The port also would be able to handle double hulled tankers being added to the world fleet.

CCSC would have to be deepened a distance of about 10 miles to reach the gulfs 80 ft depth contour.

Preliminary estimates show Safeharbor dredging and marine facilities would cost about $320 million. Associated pipelines could add as much as $400 million to the cost, depending on which refineries outside the Corpus Christi area must be connected to the terminal.

REFINING VIABILITY

PCCA commissioners said the Safeharbor project would protect long term viability of coastal Texas refineries, as well as help the port achieve its objectives.

"Twenty-five years from now, in the absence of a deepwater facility on the Texas Coast, we'll be doomed," PCCA Commissioner Richard Bowers said. "I don't mean just Corpus Christi. I'm talking about the whole coast. Texas will not have the oil processing and refining industry to the extent it does now."

Bowers said PCCA's oil related revenues provide significant support for all the port's activities. PCCA should move forward with the proposal to protect income received from its primary customers, he said.

PCCA Commissioner Eddie Galvan agreed: "No other project is more significant or important to the long term objectives of this port than Safeharbor."

PCCA commissioners said the Safeharbor project will move forward only if regulatory approval is granted and adequate user demand is demonstrated. Because PCCA lacks the money to build the port alone, commissioners expect to finance Safeharbor's construction with revenue bonds backed by user fees and with project users ultimately responsible to bondholders.

With 2 years to complete the EIS process and construction lasting about another 2 years, Safeharbor could begin operating by 1997-98, PCCA estimates.