Some Deem Double-Hull Tankers Worth the Cost

February 29, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (5)

Let's look at the backward economics of environmental protection in the oil industry.

Here's how a company with fewer resources is more likely to invest in an extra safeguard than a company with more resources than any other in the world.

Tesoro, the second-largest refining company in the western United States, made $566 million in profit last year. Point of comparison: That's 1.4 percent of the profit pulled in last year by Exxon Mobil, $40.6 billion.

As we reported here, Exxon still uses a less expensive, single-hulled tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound despite its experience with the Valdez disaster. But Tesoro uses double-hulled vessels for all three of its full-time U.S. tanker charters.

"When you operate in some of the most environmentally sensitive areas like we do—Hawaii, Alaska, San Francisco, Los Angeles—if you don't make that one of your absolute top priorities, you are risking the company," says Lynn Westfall, Tesoro's senior vice president and chief economist. "One Valdez incident would bring our entire company down. We couldn't stand that kind of a loss."

Obviously, Exxon was big enough to withstand the $3.5 billion it has paid in cleanup costs and fines for the worst oil spill ever in U.S. waters.

It turns out that Tesoro has some real-life experience with the value of a double hull. In February 2006, the Tesoro-chartered double-hulled tanker Seabulk Pride, carrying 5 million gallons of petroleum products, ran aground in Cook Inlet, Alaska, after it was hit by an ice floe. Although the company reported 80 gallons of oil did spill when it pulled away from the port, no oil escaped from the crack in its outer hull. Accounts of the incident are here and here.

Tags:
Exxon Mobil,
oil,
environment

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I pointed out the phase-in of the law in the previous day's posting, which is embedded as a link above, but if it would be helpful, here it is as well:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/beyond-the-barrel/2008/2/28/exxon-still-sails-single-hulled-in-alaska.html

Marianne Lavelle of DC 11:59AM March 04, 2008

It would have been better journalism to point out to your readers the phase in law than let them assume Exxon Mobil was negligent, and others think they are scofflaws.

J Frailey of CO 4:38PM March 01, 2008

Companies have until 2015 to convert to double-hull tankers, according to the U.S. Coast Guard:

http://www.uscg.mil/d13/publicaffairs/news/oil_pollution_act_of_1990.htm

A description of how the law is phased in based on vessel age, gross tonnage and hull configuration, is in this April 2000 General Accounting Office report:

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/11000/11300/11351/d0080.pdf

Marianne Lavelle of DC 11:27AM March 01, 2008

Beyond the Barrel

Marianne Lavelle, senior writer, seeks out the path to an energy future that doesn’t wreck the planet or put you in the poorhouse.

advertisement

advertisement