A 14-year-long oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could become one of the worst in U.S. history

Tampa Bay Times / Darryl Fears / October 22

 

NEW ORLEANS — An oil spill that has been quietly leaking millions of barrels into the Gulf of Mexico has gone unplugged for so long that it now verges on becoming one of the worst offshore disasters in U.S. history.

Between 300 and 700 barrels of oil per day have been spewing from a site 12 miles off the Louisiana coast since 2004, when an oil-production platform owned by Taylor Energy sank in a mudslide triggered by Hurricane Ivan. Many of the wells have not been capped, and federal officials estimate that the spill could continue through this century. With no fix in sight, the Taylor offshore spill is threatening to overtake BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster as the largest ever.

As oil continues to spoil the Gulf, the Trump administration is proposing the largest expansion of leases for the oil and gas industry, with the potential to open nearly the entire outer continental shelf to offshore drilling. That includes the Atlantic coast, where drilling hasn’t happened in more than a century and where hurricanes hit with double the regularity of the Gulf.

Expansion plans come despite fears that the offshore oil industry is poorly regulated and that the planet needs to decrease fossil fuels to combat climate change, as well as the knowledge that 14 years after Ivan took down Taylor’s platform, the broken wells are releasing so much oil that researchers needed respirators to study the damage.

“I don’t think people know that we have this ocean in the United States that’s filled with industry,” said Scott Eustis, an ecologist for the Gulf Restoration Network, as his six-seat plane circled the spill site on a flyover last summer. On the horizon, a forest of oil platforms rose up from the Gulf’s waters, and all that is left of the doomed Taylor platform are rainbow-colored oil slicks that are often visible for miles. He cannot imagine similar development in the Atlantic, where the majority of coastal state governors, lawmakers, attorneys general and residents have aligned against the administration’s proposal.

The Taylor Energy spill is largely unknown outside Louisiana because of the company’s effort to keep it secret in the hopes of protecting its reputation and proprietary information about its operations, according to a lawsuit that eventually forced the company to reveal its cleanup plan. The spill was hidden for six years before environmental watchdog groups stumbled on oil slicks while monitoring the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster a few miles north of the Taylor site in 2010.

The Interior Department is fighting an effort by Taylor Energy to walk away from the disaster. The company sued Interior in federal court, seeking the return of about $450 million left in a trust it established with the government to fund its work to recover part of the wreckage and locate wells buried under 100 feet of muck.

Taylor Energy declined to comment. The company has argued that there’s no evidence to prove any of the wells are leaking. Last month, the Justice Department submitted an independent analysis showing that the spill was much larger than the one-to-55 barrels per day that the U.S. Coast Guard National Response Center (NRC) claimed, using data supplied by the oil company.

The author of the analysis, Oscar Garcia-Pineda, a geoscience consultant who specializes in remote sensing of oil spills, said there were several instances when the NRC reported low estimates on the same days he was finding heavy layers of oil in the field.

“There is abundant evidence that supports the fact that these reports from NRC are incorrect,” Garcia-Pineda wrote. Later he said: “My conclusion is that NRC reports are not reliable.”

In an era of climate change and warmer open waters, the storms are becoming more frequent and violent. Starting with Ivan in 2004, several hurricanes battered or destroyed more than 150 platforms in just four years.

On average, 330,000 gallons of crude are spilled each year in Louisiana from offshore platforms and onshore oil tanks, according to a state agency that monitors them.

The Gulf is one of the richest and most productive oil and gas regions in the world, expected to yield more than 600 million barrels this year alone, nearly 20 percent of the total U.S. oil production. Another 40 billion barrels rest underground, waiting to be recovered, government analysts say.

About 2,000 platforms stand in the waters off the Bayou State. Nearly 2,000 others are off the coasts of its neighbors, Texas and Mississippi. On top of that are nearly 50,000 miles of active and inactive pipelines carrying oil and minerals to the shore.

And the costs are high.

For every 1,000 wells in state and federal waters, there’s an average of 20 uncontrolled releases of oil – or blowouts – every year. A fire erupts offshore every three days, on average, and hundreds of workers are injured annually.

BP has paid or set aside $66 billion for fines, legal settlements and cleanup of the 168 million-gallon spill – a sum that the oil giant could, painfully, afford. But many companies with Gulf leases and drilling operations are small, financially at-risk and hard-pressed to pay for an accident approaching that scale.

One of them was Taylor Energy.

– – –

Taylor Energy was a giant in New Orleans.

Owned by Patrick Taylor, a magnate and philanthropist who launched an ambitious college scholarship program for low-income students, it was once the only individually owned company to explore for and produce oil in the Gulf of Mexico, according to his namesake foundation.

Taylor made what was arguably his most ambitious transaction in 1995, when he took over an oil-production platform once operated by BP. Standing in more than 450 feet of water, it was about 40 stories tall. Its legs were pile-driven into the muddy ocean floor and funnels were attached to 28 drilled oil wells.

At its peak, the oil company helped make Taylor and his wife, Phyllis, the richest couple in the Big Easy.

That investment was obliterated on Sept. 15, 2004, when Hurricane Ivan unleashed 145 mph winds and waves that topped 70 feet as it roared into the Gulf. Deep underwater, the Category 4 storm shook loose tons of mud and buckled the platform.

The avalanche sank the colossal structure and knocked it “170 meters down slope of its original location,” researcher Sarah Josephine Harrison wrote in a postmortem of the incident.

More than 620 barrels of crude oil stacked on its deck came tumbling down with it. The sleeves that conducted oil from its wells were mangled and ripped away. A mixture of steel and leaking oil was buried in 150 feet of mud.

Less than two months after the storm, Patrick F. Taylor died of a heart infection at 67, leaving a fortune for philanthropy and a massive cleanup bill.

Taylor Energy reported the spill to the Coast Guard, which monitored the site for more than half a decade without making the public fully aware of the mess it was seeing. Four years after the leak started, in July 2008, the Coast Guard informed the company that the spill had been deemed “a continuous, unsecured crude oil discharge” that posed “a significant threat to the environment,” according to a lawsuit between Taylor Energy and its insurer.

Taylor Energy made a deal with federal officials to establish a $666 million trust to stop the spill.

It would be a delicate, risky operation. Taylor and the contractors it hired were asked to somehow locate wells in a nearly impenetrable grave of mud and debris, then cap them. Failing that, it could create a device to contain the leak.

But they were forbidden from boring or drilling through the muck for fear that they would strike a pipe or well, risking the kind of catastrophe on the scale of the BP disaster a few miles south. That precaution slowed the pace of the salvage operation.

“We had no idea that any of that was going on,” said Marylee Orr, executive director of the Louisiana Environmental Action Network.

Taylor Energy spent a fortune to pluck the deck of the platform from the ocean and plug about a third of the wells. It built a kind of shield to keep the crude from rising.

But no matter what it did, the oil kept leaking.

– – –

In 2010, six years after the oil leak started, scientists studying the BP spill realized something was amiss with the oil slicks they were seeing.

“We were flying to monitor the BP disaster and we kept seeing these slicks, but they were nowhere near the BP spill,” said Cynthia Sarthou, executive director of the Gulf Restoration Network, which monitors the water from boats and planes.

Satellite images confirmed the oddity.

“It was there all the time, longer than the BP spill,” said John Amos, founder and president of Sky Truth, a nonprofit organization that tracks pollution.

Under the Oil Pollution Act, companies are obligated to report hazardous spills to the NRC, which maintains a database of chemical pollution.

No law compels the companies or the federal government to raise public awareness, but the Clean Water Act clearly calls for citizen involvement.

Environmentalists took Taylor Energy to court.

In their lawsuit, the conservationists called the agreement between Taylor Energy and the federal government a secret deal “that was inconsistent with national policy.”

That policy, they argued, was made clear in the Clean Water Act, which mandates “public participation in the . . . enforcement of any regulation.” Citizen participation, the act says, “shall be provided for, encouraged and assisted.”

Taylor Energy and the Coast Guard – which is part of a Unified Command of federal agencies that includes the Interior Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency – did not live up to the policy. In fact, the public wasn’t made aware of the spill even after a private firm tested fish in the area and submitted an assessment to Taylor Energy in 2009 that said “there is an acceptable risk to humans if fish from the . . . area are consumed.”

“Taylor has failed to provide the public with information regarding the pace and extent of the oil leaks and Taylor’s efforts to control the leaks,” the lawsuit said.

It would take another three years before the government revealed an even deeper truth. Taylor Energy had been playing down the severity of the spill. An Associated Press investigation in 2015 determined that it was about 20 times worse than the company had reported.

Taylor Energy had argued that the leak was two gallons per day; the Coast Guard finally said it was 84 gallons or more, and was almost certainly coming from any of 16 wells.

“There’s a fine for not reporting, but none for underreporting,” Amos said. “If it’s only three gallons a day, who cares, that’s a trivial problem.”

– – –

Nearly a decade after the oil platform went down, the government determined that the actual level of oil leaking into the Gulf was between one and 55 barrels per day. Now, the new estimate dwarfs that: up to 700 barrels per day. Each barrel contains 42 gallons.

Despite that finding, NOAA is still in the early stages of a resource assessment of marine life that could explain the impact of the Taylor Energy spill, and is more than three years behind a deadline to issue a biological determination of the BP spill’s impact on marine life.

In July, Earthjustice, a nonprofit legal organization that represents conservation groups, sued NOAA for failing to produce a timely study.

Like Eustis, Amos said Atlantic coast residents should be wary. But in that region, where beaches and tourism enrich nearly every state, distrust over offshore leasing and drilling is bipartisan.

Governors, state lawmakers and attorneys general lashed out at the administration’s proposal. New Jersey passed a law that forbids oil and infrastructure in state waters three miles from shore, crippling any effort to run pipelines from platforms to the shore. Other states passed similar laws.

In the Carolinas, where Hurricane Florence’s winds topped 150 mph and produced a monster 83-foot wave as it neared landfall, governors who represent both political parties implored Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to rethink the plan.

Meanwhile, in the Gulf, Taylor Energy was down to a single employee – its president, William Pecue.

At a 2016 public forum in Baton Rouge, Pecue made the case for allowing the company to walk away from its obligation to clean up the mess. Taylor Energy had been sold to a joint venture of South Korean companies in 2008, the same year it started the $666 million trust. A third of the money had been spent on cleanup, and only a third of the leaking wells had been fixed. But Pecue wanted to recover $450 million, arguing the spill could not be contained.

“I can affirmatively say that we do believe this was an act of God under the legal definition,” Pecue said. In other words, Taylor Energy had no control over the hurricane.

But Ivan was no freak storm.

It was one of more than 600 that have been tracked in the Gulf since records were kept in the mid-1800s, according to NOAA.

Fourteen years after the Taylor spill, and 10 years after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the federal government still doesn’t know the spills’ full impact on marine life. And there is no economic analysis showing the value of the oil flowing into the sea and potential royalties lost to taxpayers. Activists also want an analysis to determine if oil is ruining marshland and making its way to beaches.

“Even though oil did not reach a lot of these beaches [during the BP spill], the fact that the public heard about it, it killed the beach economy for quite some time,” Sarthou said. “You don’t want to go to a beach with tar balls or oil washing up.”

At the time, Sarthou was unaware that Garcia-Pineda was conducting a study in the Gulf that would show the spill was far worse than imagined – up to 10 times worse than what the federal government was reporting.

As the saga in the Gulf plays out, wary officials on the Atlantic coast are anxiously watching President Donald Trump’s proposal to offer federal offshore leases.

It would take at least a decade for Atlantic drilling to start. The industry would first want to conduct seismic testing to determine the amount of oil and gas in the ground. Depending on the results, companies would bid for the leases. Interior has yet to approve seismic testing, which some studies say harms marine life, including large mammals such as dolphins and whales.

Oil and gas representatives say energy development off that coast could provide South Carolina with $2.7 billion in annual economic growth, 35,000 jobs and potentially lower heating costs for residents struggling to pay their bills.

During a federal informational hearing in South Carolina to explain the Trump administration’s plan in February, Mark Harmon, the director of a state unit of the American Petroleum Institute, stressed that point. “Ultimately, it means the potential for jobs and reinvestment in the community,” he said.

Once the oil industry gains a foothold in a region, it’s game over, said Chris Eaton, an Earthjustice attorney.

“A major part of the economy starts to change” as jobs with pay approaching $100,000 transform a tourism market to oil. “If it gets going, that train isn’t going to stop,” he said. “Let’s talk about what’s happening in the Gulf before we move into the Atlantic.”

 

Tampa Bay Times / Darryl Fears / October 22

 

Línea Base Ambiental: Retos y Oportunidades para el Sector Hidrocarburos 

Los estudios de Línea Base Ambiental (LBA) son estudios de tipo técnico especializados que son requeridos por la Agencia de Seguridad, Energía y Ambiente(ASEA) de la Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) a los regulados del Sector Hidrocarburos para: determinar las condiciones ambientales en las que se encuentran los componentes ambientales de las áreas contractuales, así como la identificación y registro de daños preexistentes y daños ambientales.

La LBA es también un insumo importante para la elaboración de las Manifestaciones de Impacto Ambiental, a efecto de cumplir con lo dispuesto en el contrato celebrado entre la Comisión Nacional de Hidrocarburos (CNH) y los Regulados. Los objetivos principales para la realización de los estudios de LBA son:

  • Identificar y describir la infraestructura existente en el área contractual y su estado actual físico y operacional para identificar y evaluar los daños ambientales que hayan sido generados por esta, para el deslinde de responsabilidades.
  • Identificar y evaluar las condiciones ambientales en que se encuentran los ecosistemas y recursos naturales, existentes en el área contractual y zona de influencia, previo a la ejecución de las actividades del contrato.
  • Evaluar los daños y pasivos ambientales ocasionados por las actividades humanas o procesos naturales en la zona contractual y de influencia a efecto de deslindarse de las responsabilidades

En el artículo 27, párrafo séptimo de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, se establece que las actividades de exploración y extracción del petróleo y demás hidrocarburos se realizarán mediante asignaciones a empresas productivas del Estado o a través de contratos con éstas o con particulares, por lo que la presentación de la LBA ante la ASEA se traduce en una obligación para estas entidades.

Para orientar la elaboración de los estudios de LBA la autoridad a puesto a disposición de los regulados dos guias: a) “Guía para la elaboración y presentación de la Línea Base Ambiental previo al inicio de las actividades de Exploración y Extracción de Hidrocarburos en Áreas Terrestres” y b) la “Guía para la elaboración y presentación de la línea base ambiental previo al inicio de las actividades marinas de exploración y extracción de hidrocarburos en aguas someras”.

Es sumamente importante para los regulados que pretenden el aprovechamiento de zonas contractuales, el identificar, evaluar y detallar de manera precisa los daños ambientales preexistentes a través de los estudios de LBA, ya que solo podrán eximir su responsabilidad ambiental respecto a dichos daños, siempre y cuando hayan sido registrados manifestados en dichos estudios.

Considernado la relevancia que tienen los estudios de LBA para los regulados, en cuanto al deslinde de los pasivos ambientales y sociales preexistentes de las áreas contractuales, es fundamental que dimensionen la necesidad de que la elaboración de la LBA debe ser realizada por empresas o plataformas técnico-científicas de especialistas calificados y con capacidad demostrada para la realización de este tipo de estudios. El deslindarse de dichos pasivos a través de buenos estudios de LBA y no asumir ningun riesgo financiero, social, legal y ambiental, es uno se los mejores seguros para sostener la viabilidad de sus inversiones y no comprometer su reputación como empresa y regulado ante la eventualidad de que se generen contingencias ambientales.

Un buen estudio de LBA debe sustentar además, las bases para el diseño e implementación de los Sistemas de Manejo y Gestión Ambiental y Social (SMGAS) para la prevención, manejo, mitigación y monitoreo de impactos ambientales y sociales durante las fases de preparación, construcción, operación y mantenimiento de los proyectos o de las áreas contractuales que deberán ser establecidos en las manifestaciones de impacto ambiental, estudios del cambio de uso del suelo de terrenos forestales, evaluaciones de impacto social y estudios de riesgo ambiental que correspondan. El proceso de elaboración y evaluación de los estudios de LBA se presenta en la siguiente figura:

 

 

Con más de 20 años de experiencia, cobertura internacional y fuerte compromiso con la sustentabilidad, la innovación y la calidad de nuestros servicios en el sector hidrocarburos, energía, turismo, desarrollo urbano,  infraestructura, medio ambiente y minería; GPPA y nuestros socios estratégicos NRGI Brokers y Rodríguez Dávalos Abogados, asi como especialistas de diferentes institutos y centros de investigación, hemos conformado una plataforma técnico-cientifica de expertos nacionales e internacionales con la mayor capacidad en el país para ofrecer soluciones integrales y con valor agregado a los regulados del sector hidrocarburos, para resolver sus necesidades en materia de planeación, manejo, gestión ambiental y legal, desarrollo sostenible, fianzas y seguros de responsabilidad ambiental,  incluyendo la elaboración de estudios de LBA, Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, Evaluación de Impacto Social, entre otros productos y servicios.

 

Para mayor información y cualquier duda o necesidad derivada de la información presentada en el presente boletín, estamos a su disposición a través de:

Consultores en Gestión Política y Planificación Ambiental, S.C.

David Zárate Lomelí

Director General

Teléfono: (998) 6 88 08 75

E-mail: dzarate@gppa.com.mx

www.gppa.com.mx

Risks in the Hydrocarbons Sector

A risk, according to the Law of the National Agency for Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection of the Hydrocarbons Sector (ASEA), is the probability that an undesired event will occur, measured in terms of its consequences to personnel, to the population, to facilities and equipment and the environment. In short, a risk is the probability of an accident occurring.

In this regard, it is important to consider that “risk” is not synonym to “danger”, since the latter refers to the intrinsic conditions or characteristics of an object capable of causing harm, while the risk is the probability of that damage occurring. From the above it follows that there are situations and objects that are dangerous themselves and therefore have the potential to cause harm, that is, they represent a risk, which however can be controlled and minimized.

In terms of hydrocarbons, oil and gas are hazardous materials, given their explosive and flammable characteristics. Therefore, the activities in which they are involved represent a risk, hence they are legally defined as highly risky activities.

In addition to the intrinsic characteristics, the operations carried out throughout the hydrocarbon value chain are highly complex, since 1) they involve large-scale infrastructure: drilling platforms, ship-tanks, pipelines, storage terminals, others; 2) are carried out in conditions that may be extreme, for example, drilling an oil well in the sea or traveling long distances through a ship or a train; 3) Advanced technology and specialized personnel are required.

Derived from the above, it is necessary to take all the measures in risk management to avoid accidents from happening. However, although a risk can be prevented and controlled, it can not be eliminated completely, so in any case, it will be necessary to transfer it, with the aim of preventing a company from absorbing the total economic losses that a loss may represent and that they can translate into a significant patrimonial detriment.

A risk can be transferred to an insurance company, through an insurance contract in which the insurer is committed to the insured, who in return for a premium, will indemnify him in case he suffers a loss that causes losses economic, as long as the event corresponds to the insured object, conforms to the terms and conditions established in the policy and is not an exclusion.

In the SectorHydrocarbons Sector, there are specific insurances to cover the risks inherent to this activity, which have also been established as mandatory by the regulatory authority (ASEA), such as: 1) Well control; 2) Civil Liability and 3) Environmental Responsibility.

At NRGI Broker, we are experts in insurance for the Hydrocarbons Sector. Come to us.

 

La “Reforma Energética”de 2013 significó una apertura al sector privadoen esferas antes reservadas exclusivamente a órganos gubernamentales, tales como los sectores de infraestructura, hidrocarburos y energía; propiciando un modelo estratégico en el que los inversionistas pueden ser participantes en el desarrollo de proyectos de estos rubros como Empresas Productivas del Estado (EPE).

Estas EPE cuentan con personalidad jurídica y patrimonio propios, así como cierta autonomía que las empresas paraestatales y empresas públicas carecen; otorgando la posibilidad de abrir los sectores señalados con anterioridad a un panorama competitivo en el mercado mexicano. Con este nuevo paradigma, las prospectivas de los sectores eléctrico, de hidrocarburos y de energías renovables se amplían, como lo demuestran las siguientes cifras dentro de los documentos emitidos por la Secretaría de Energía (Prospectivas 2017-2031):

  • La producción estimada de aceite (miles de barriles diarios) aumenta de 1,964 a 3,252 al año 2031.
  • En el 2016, la capacidad instalada del Sistema Eléctrico Nacional se ubicó en 73,510 MW; pronosticando que para el 2031, esta cifra aumente hasta 113,269 MW.
  • En el 2016, existía un balance en el que la Energía Convencional comprendía un 71.2% y la Energía Limpia un 28.8% de la capacidad instalada por tipo de tecnología; previendo para el 2031 que la Energía Convencional ocupe un 50.4% y la Energía Limpia un 49.6%.
  • El incremento esperado de procesamiento de crudo es de 79.6% para el periodo 2017-2031.

Estos son ejemplos de las altas expectativas que se tienen del crecimiento en cuanto a producción, desarrollo y consumo de Energía e Hidrocarburos en poco más de una década. Con lo anterior en consideración, se debe prever que Empresas Productivas del Estado podrán realizar las siguientes actividades encaminadas a alcanzar estos Pronósticos:

  • Sector Hidrocarburos:Exploración superficial marítima y sísmica terrestre; Exploración y Extracción de hidrocarburos; Tratamiento y Refinación de Petróleo; Transporte de Hidrocarburos, Petrolíferos y Petroquímicos; Almacenamiento de Hidrocarburos, Petrolíferos y Petroquímicos; Distribución de Gas Natural y Petrolíferos; Compresión, licuefacción, descompresión y regasificación de Gas Natural; y Expendio al público de Gas Natural y Petrolíferos.
  • Sector Electricidad:Generación de Energía Eléctrica y Servicio público de transmisión y distribución de energía eléctrica.

 

En este tenor, es importante mencionar que la realización de todas estas actividades requerirán de la presentación de un estudio técnico denominado Evaluación de Impacto Social (EVIS), el cual contiene la identificación de las comunidades y pueblos ubicados en el área de influencia de un proyecto, así como la identificación, caracterización, predicción y valoración de las consecuencias a la población que podrían derivarse del mismo y las medidas de mitigación y planes de gestión social correspondientes.

En congruencia con lo establecido en la Ley de la Industria Eléctrica (LIE) y la Ley de Hidrocarburos, el 01 de junio de 2018, se publicó en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el Acuerdo por el que se emiten las Disposiciones Administrativas de Carácter General sobre la Evaluación de Impacto Social en el Sector Energético(el “Acuerdo”).

Dentro de este Acuerdo, se establece la metodología y criterios necesarios para la presentación del EVIS, un avance para la calidad de estos estudios por motivos de que la regulación y los lineamientos necesarios para la su elaboración eran escasos y no existían lineamientos definidos que pudieran usarse como base para las Empresas Productivas del Estado.

Finalmente, no se debe perder de vista la estrecha relación existente entre la Evaluación de Impacto Social y la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), en el entendido que la primera es un prerrequisito para la autorización de la EIA. Es requisito para los regulados contar en forma previa con las autorizaciones de ambos estudios para el desarrollo de los proyectos encaminados a los sectores de Energía e Hidrocarburos. En la siguiente figura se muestra el proceso de elaboración y evaluación de las EVIS.

Con más de 20 años de experiencia, cobertura internacional y fuerte compromiso con la sustentabilidad, la innovación y la calidad de nuestros servicios en el sector hidrocarburos, energía, turismo, desarrollo urbano,  infraestructura, medio ambiente y minería; hemos conformado un catálogo de productos y servicios con valor agregado que resuelva en forma sistémica las necesidades de nuestros clientes y grupos de interés, en materia de planeación, manejo, gestión ambiental y desarrollo sostenible, incluyendo la elaboración de EVIS y la EIA. Para ello, ponemos a su disposición la red más amplia y especializada de expertos a nivel nacional e internacional, ofreciendo una plataforma integral en la materia, trazando las alternativas y estrategias necesarias para el correcto desarrollo de Proyectos Sustentables en México, entre ellos.

Para mayor información y cualquier duda o necesidad derivada de la información presentada en el presente boletín, estamos a su disposición a través de:

 

Consultores en Gestión Política y Planificación Ambiental, S.C.

David Zárate Lomelí

Director General

Teléfono: (998) 6 88 08 75

E-mail: dzarate@gppa.com.mx

www.gppa.com.mx

 

 

Energy Insurance Broker, Agente de Seguros y de Fianzas, S.A.P.I. de C.V.

Graciela Álvarez Hoth

CEO NRGI Broker

Teléfono: (55) 9177 2100

E-mail: graciela.alvarez@nrgibroker.com

www.nrgibroker.com

 

Is Mexico Set To Boost Oil Output?

Oil Price / By The Dialogue / August 16

 

On July 27, Mexican president-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador said his government will earmark more than $9 billion for state-run energy companies next year and start working on a new oil refinery in southern Mexico. The moves seek to reduce reliance on fuel imports from the United States while boosting the country’s oil production, which has significantly fallen off in recent years. López Obrador did not say how he would fund his proposals, an omission that worries analysts concerned about Pemex’s already heavy debt burden. He also announced Octavio Romero Oropeza as the incoming head of Pemex. Will the promised investment help accelerate Pemex’s oil and gas production? What else is needed to boost output? How well prepared is Romero Oropeza to lead Pemex, and what should his priorities be? Four Mexican energy experts weighed in with their opinions on these developments.

George Baker, publisher of Mexico Energy Intelligence in Houston: The 116-page energy sector document that the Morena transition team issued on July 10 sports both good and bad ideas. First, among the good ideas, is advocating independent unions in the oil sector (the first time since 1935 that a political party has done this). Second is suspending until further review the so-called farm-outs of Pemex—the idea that civil servants (Pemex employees) and market-disciplined managers of oil companies can have a joint venture based on sharing risk and reward only makes sense on paper. Third is promoting the concept of intelligent cities, including low energy consumption, renewable energy and intelligent grids. A fourth good idea is expanding the grid of natural gas pipelines and the use of renewable energy sources and cogeneration. Among the bad ideas: first is reactivating the refinery project in Tula and analyzing the construction of another refinery in the Gulf of Mexico. Pemex refinery upgrades have gone badly for the past 20 years, notably in Cadereyta, Villahermosa and Tula. A new refinery could take three years just for design and another three for contracting and financing. López Obrador would likely leave office before the first shovelful of earth was turned for the new refinery. Second is the upgrade of the role of Pemex in the energy space. The Morena team proposes to eliminate the so-called ‘asymmetrical regulations’ that restrict Pemex to compete effectively—to aspire to ‘make Pemex great again’ as a state agency is to ignore global success stories of state oil companies with mixed-equity structures, market financing and professional management. Finally, a third bad idea is to overstate (and obfuscate) the potential for change via public policy: there is nothing that is actionable in statements such as ‘the necessary investments in Pemex should be made,’ or ‘efforts to increase exploration and production of natural gas should be made to favor the petrochemical industry,’ or ‘deepen and coordinate all efforts to eliminate the black market in petroleum products.’ Notably, one word that does not appear in the text is ‘corruption,’ an unexpected omission by a candidate that vowed to end corruption by example. Finally, former Pemex director general Adrián Lajous recently calculated the average tenure of a director general as two years and four months. Pemex, legally configured as an agency of the federal government, always has a dozen cooks in its kitchen of corporate governance. If a director general had the authority to order early retirement for 35,000 Pemex unionized workers, there would be opportunities for leadership.

David Shields, independent energy consultant based in Mexico City: In a previous comment for the Energy Advisor on June 15, I mentioned that President-elect López Obrador’s energy team has excellent, progressive plans in renewable energy. Sadly, the same does not apply to conventional energy. The naming of Octavio Romero and Manuel Bartlett to head state-run Pemex and the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) has been severely criticized because of their hardline political, ideological, non-technical, non-business nature. They may be okay for rooting out corruption, but they add to fears that recent energy reforms may be rolled back, even if they and López Obrador himself deny legal amendments will be made. Congress will ultimately decide on this, and the outlook there is bad. Reforms can be reversed in practice, anyway, just through day-to-day opposition. López Obrador says he will push oil output up sharply to 2.5 million barrels per day, but reserves and reservoirs are largely depleted, there are no new discoveries, and there is not enough money for a vast exploration effort. Foreign operators will need several years to develop their projects. His best bet for ramping up output quickly would be fracking, but he promises to prohibit that, thinking that environmental risks will be greater than the benefits. His refining plans are unrealistic, too. López Obrador´s native Tabasco State offers the wrong site and the wrong logistics for a large-scale refinery to be built in just three years. Such a project normally requires two years to study, plan and tender, then another five or six years to build. Even then, it can hardly be profitable if Mexico produces and processes only very heavy crude. Intentions to rescue Pemex and reduce reliance on energy imports are good, but the prospects are not.

 

Oil Price / By The Dialogue / August 16

 

¿Por qué contar con un broker de seguros especializado en energía?

Los seguros son instrumentos financieros de previsión que nos ayudan a reducir la incertidumbre económica sobre acontecimientos súbitos e imprevistos que puedan afectar el patrimonio de las empresas o de las personas. En sentido estricto, se trata de un contrato a través del cual una de las partes (la aseguradora) se compromete, a cambio de una prima, a indemnizar al asegurado en caso de que se lleve a cabo el evento amparado en la póliza.

 

Los seguros que se requieren en el sector energético son complejos, pues generalmente a través de ellos, se amparan grandes riesgos, como pueden ser operaciones de exploración y extracción de hidrocarburos en aguas profundas; transporte de petróleo por barco; tendido de ductos; construcción y operación de terminales de almacenamiento, etc.

 

Para asegurar estas actividades, es necesario conocer sus características, así como el tipo de riesgos a los que están expuestos, dado que: 1) son peligrosas por sus características de inflamabilidad y explosividad; 2) se les considera actividades altamente riesgosas; 3) es infraestructura de grandes dimensiones y con altos grados de inversión económica; 4) pueden encontrarse o recorrer zonas social y ambientalmente vulnerables y 5) están expuestas a las acciones u omisiones de contratistas, sub-contratistas y proveedores de servicio.

 

Derivado de lo anterior, para contar con la asesoría idónea  y contratar los seguros adecuados, es necesario contar con los servicios de un broker especializado en materia de energía.

 

Este tipo de brokerofrece asesoramiento profesional e imparcial para la contratación de los programas integrales de seguros, con las coberturas que pueden contratarse en México, pero también cuenta con la capacidad para colocar coberturas en el mercado internacional de reaseguro, cuando se trata de “grandes riesgos”.

 

Además, ofrece una variedad de soluciones innovadoras y puntuales que deben ajustarse a las necesidades particulares de cada negocio, dependiendo del perfil de la organización y de los riesgos a los que ésta se expone diariamente en sus operaciones.

 

El conocimiento de la industria petrolera y de los mercados de seguro y reaseguro, que este grupo de profesionales posee, les permite implementar y operar las mejores estrategias en la gestión de administración de riesgos, de conformidad con las necesidades de cada cliente para maximizar las oportunidades y limitar los riesgos.

 

México hace frente a un nuevo panorama con la Reforma Energética, que dará lugar a nuevos esquemas de contratación y participación en el sector de petróleo y energía.

 

En NRGI Broker, somos expertos en seguros para el sector energético. Acércate a nosotros, con gusto te atenderemos.

 

La importancia de contar con un seguro de responsabilidad civil

Diariamente estamos expuestos a sufrir daños y perjuicios por diversas causas, pero también estamos propensos a ocasionarlos a un tercero. La responsabilidad que surge a partir de causar daño a alguien más se denomina responsabilidad civil.

Uno de los principios fundamentales de la responsabilidad civil es que aquél que cause un daño a otro, debe repararlo, con la intención de regresar las cosas al estado que guardaban antes de que aconteciera el daño y, si ello no fuera posible a compensarlo.

La reparación y/o la compensación de los daños y perjuicios implican, por lo general, el pago de sumas económicas, que de no contar con ellas, el responsable puede ser sujeto de demandas legales.

La responsabilidad civil puede ser contractual y extracontractual. La primera es aquella que deriva del incumplimiento de un vínculo jurídico obligatorio (contrato) y la segunda, es cuando tal vínculo no existe, es decir, se trata del daño que se puede causar a cualquiera, aun sin conocerlo, simplemente por la acción u omisión que derivan en una lesión a un tercero.

La responsabilidad civil también puede ser subjetiva y objetiva. La responsabilidad civil subjetiva es aquella causada por la realización de una conducta ilícita. Por ejemplo, atropellar a alguien por conducir a exceso de velocidad, lo que quiere decir que el daño se produjo por infringir una norma. La responsabilidad civil objetiva es aquella que se presenta por la realización de un daño que no necesariamente deriva de un hecho ilícito, sino que se produjo porque la acción que lo causó es, por sí misma, riesgosa o peligrosa. Por ejemplo, manejar explosivos o productos inflamables.

De cualquier forma  que se produzca la responsabilidad, es un deber legal reparar los daños ocasionados.

Para estar en posibilidades de reparar los daños y perjuicios causados a terceros y a sus bienes es importante contar con un seguro de responsabilidad civil, el cual es el instrumento financiero que permitirá que el responsable cumpla con sus obligaciones, sin tener que afectar su patrimonio.

Los accidentes pueden suceder en cualquier momento y a cualquier persona; por ello, todos estamos expuestos a incurrir en responsabilidad civil.

El seguro de responsabilidad civil es un seguro para todos.

En NRGI Broker somos especialistas en seguros de responsabilidad civil. Acércate a nosotros, con gusto te atenderemos.

 

Seguros para las actividades de transporte, almacenamiento, distribución y expendio de hidrocarburos y petrolíferos; compresión, descompresión, licuefacción y regasificación de gas natural  

Las empresas que realicen actividades de Transporte, Almacenamiento, Distribución y Expendio de Hidrocarburos y Petrolíferos, así como Compresión, Descompresión, Licuefacción y Regasificación de Gas Natural deben contar con seguros, de acuerdo a las Disposiciones Administrativas de Carácter General en materia de Seguros para dichas actividades, publicadas en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 23 de julio de 2018 (DAGCS-TADE).

Con ello, la Agencia de Seguridad Industrial y Protección del Medio Ambiente del Sector Hidrocarburos (ASEA) cumple con la atribución que le fue otorgada en el artículo 6, fracción I, inciso c), de su Ley, en donde se establece “el requerimiento de garantías o cualquier otro instrumento financiero para que los Regulados cuenten con coberturas financieras contingentes frente a los daños o perjuicios que pudieran generar” en toda la cadena de valor de los hidrocarburos.

Requerir garantías financieras obedece al hecho de que el sector de los hidrocarburos es particularmente susceptible a experimentar accidentes, ya que el petróleo y el gas natural son considerados sustancias peligrosas, por su potencial para generar incendios, explosiones o contaminación por derrames.

Si bien es cierto que las empresas son cada vez más conscientes de la importancia de implementar programas de administración de riesgos, que les permitan identificar, analizar, controlar, transferir y monitorear los riesgos a los que están expuestas, hay eventos difíciles de predecir o que no pueden ser controlados, como son los desastres naturales o la negligencia y/o impericia de empleados o de terceros.

Es precisamente para esos riesgos que superan las medidas preventivas que el seguro se vuelve el instrumento financiero por excelencia para evitar pérdidas mayores que aquellas derivadas del siniestro, como pueden ser: afectación patrimonial; incumplimiento ante clientes y proveedores; paralización de las actividades y la quiebra.

Actualmente los seguros son reconocidos como una de las mejores prácticas internacionales en materia de seguridad industrial y protección ambiental en el sector hidrocarburos, para reparar los daños y absorber las pérdidas económicas que se puedan derivar de un siniestro.

La publicación de la regulación en materia de seguros de responsabilidad civil y responsabilidad ambiental para las actividades de Transporte, Almacenamiento, Distribución y Expendio de hidrocarburos y petrolíferos, así como Compresión, Descompresión, Licuefacción y Regasificación de Gas Natural establece montos mínimos de seguros para ciertas actividades como el transporte por auto-tanque, buque-tanque y carro-tanque. Para otras actividades cuyas características hacen difícil establecer un estándar, se solicita elaborar un estudio de pérdida máxima probable para determinar la suma asegurada.

Los seguros deberán registrarse ante la ASEA como requisito previo para obtener el permiso correspondiente de la Comisión Reguladora de Energía (CRE).

En NRGI Broker somos expertos en administración de riesgos y seguros y fuimos el consultor de la ASEA para la regulación en materia de seguros de responsabilidad civil y responsabilidad ambiental para Transporte, Almacenamiento, Distribución y Expendio de hidrocarburos y petrolíferos; Compresión, Descompresión, Licuefacción y Regasificación de Gas Natural, por lo que somos la mejor opción para asesorarte.

Acércate a nosotros, con gusto te atenderemos.

[1] Conocido como PML (Probable Maximum Loss), por sus siglas en inglés.

 

Interview with Graciela Álvarez, CEO of NRGI Broker

Mexico Oil & Gas Review / July 18

 

Company bio: NRGI Broker specializes in insurance and surety bonds for the Mexican energy sector. It develops custom-made solutions for companies operating in the energy sector, including vessel, construction and engineering and catastrophic risks.

 

Q: How has NRGI Broker created market opportunities to expand the reach of its services?

A: I am proud to say that we have played a great role in the implementation of the Energy Reform. We have been standing with our country since the beginning, we trusted the reform and now we have mastered how it works. We are a Mexican broker that  has a broad services portfolio and we have consolidated as the best one in the market We have also established “Voces de Energía”, a forum where experts discuss the reform’s environmental, social and fiscal regulations.

Q: How will NRGI Broker benefit its potential clients and partners going forward?

A: In the long term, we see the company as a consolidated reference in the fields of insurance and sureties for the oil and gas industry. We are savvy about the needs of the companies along the entire value chain in hydrocarbons and we are an established adviser for risk management and on financial regulations. We started strong in offshore, ever since activity began in that area, and now we are talking about moving into onshore. The trend is to set new partnerships for storage, pipelines, clean energies and alike. We are investing in putting our brand’s name out there and showcasing that we offer a full range of services few other companies offer.

Q: What are the Top 3 successes of the Energy Reform?

A: I have a vivid memory of observing the Energy Reform’s application when I was acting as an adviser for ASEA in 2014, which gave me the chance to understand how the reform was set in motion. The first success was the implementation itself, which was accomplished according to the same spectrum of norms, rules and opportunities. The second success was the establishment of strong and transparent organisms to guide the implementation that facilitated the cohabitation of all different players in a single environment, which has grown to represent 18 operators. The third is the 72 percent rate of successful allocation of everything that has been tendered in the licensing rounds, demonstrating the genuine interest that local and foreign companies have in Mexico.

Q: How have local and foreign companies adapted to the new regulations and what have been the major hurdles in this process?

A: Everything comes down to an understanding that we need a unified regulatory framework and this cannot be implemented without looking at international standards. The reform’s planning was based on the experiences of seven countries that underwent similar processes, so it is molded to global requirements. Those international players that recently entered the market are used to these types of regulations since they apply to other territories, while many Mexican companies have previously worked with foreign partners that use those standards. For most local companies, application was not an issue. On the contrary, companies operating in the hydrocarbons sector now have the certainty of working in an environment protected by a well-established regulatory framework.

Q: How has NRGI Broker contributed to changing the local mindset and raising awareness about the need for insurance?

A: We advised ASEA when it conducted a three-year study on the best practices and experiences of Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Norway, the UK and the US that could be applied to the Mexican case. We worked with it every step of the way to establish these rules, from offshore platforms to setting up gas stations, and we developed the administrative dispositions for insurance in the upstream, midstream and downstream sectors. Insurance is required if this industry is to function properly and this mandatory status made things easier for us in terms of application. We are certain about the need to transform the attitude toward insurance and to combine that with our experience, specialization and innovation to offer personalized solutions to our clients.

Q: How will PEMEX’s migration projects make the company more competitive and productive?

A: This is a great strategy for PEMEX to establish investment partnerships that are specialists in how fields work, the reserves included in those fields and the different options to exploit them. This is a long-term investment business that opens the door to new opportunities to turn PEMEX into a more competitive entity. It is a win-win situation. It is important to note that PEMEX gets to keep the land ownership for these migrations; they only allow investment from third parties. One of the company’s future strengths lies in its capitalization and the establishment of partnerships with technology-driven companies. By binding all the parties involved in these type of projects, the companies are forced to bring their A game and deliver on their promises because they would harm themselves if they fell short due to the interdependence ingrained in this framework.

Q: What direction would you like the next administration to follow related to the industry?

A: I hope the next administration understands the implication of keeping the Energy Reform afloat. The reform was meant to contribute to the country and it has been set in motion successfully. The next president should push for new partnerships to continue deepening the reform’s outreach. What is important to understand is that reversing this process would be harmful to the country and it would hurt many companies that have supported and invested in its application.

 

To read the 2018 edition click here.

 

Mexico Oil & Gas Review / July 18

 

 

The security policy in the hydrocarbons sector

The safety policy of the hydrocarbon sector focuses on two concepts that respond to the environment that may be impacted by the activities developed with hydrocarbons and their derivatives: industrial safety that refers to the external environment and the relationship of the installation with third parties and operational security, referred to the internal scope and related to the installation’s own processes.

In the ASEA Law, Industrial Safety is defined as the multidisciplinary area responsible for identifying, reducing, evaluating, preventing, mitigating, controlling and managing risks in the sector, with the aim of protecting people and the environment.

Operational safety, is understood as the multidisciplinary area that is responsible for the analysis, evaluation, prevention, mitigation, control of the associated risks of the process, which includes the design, construction, startup, operation, normal stoppages, emergency stoppages and maintenance.

As we can see, industrial safety is a broader concept that involves considering not only the installation but its environment, at least where their activities may have some impact, such as the surrounding population, which may suffer damage to their people and to their assets, or the pollution of the environment.

On the other hand, operational safety focuses on internal processes, which must also be procured, in order to avoid damage to the installation and personnel, as well as preventing an accident from reaching greater proportions and also affect industrial safety.

Risks are an inherent part of the activities of the hydrocarbon sector, therefore as part of its security policy, companies must make the decision between retaining and transferring risks. They will generally retain those that may have minor consequences and whose costs do not affect their assets. In the case of risks that can have serious consequences, it is better to transfer them through an insurance.

The insurances that companies in the hydrocarbon sector must contract to complement their industrial and operational safety policy are: 1) well control (exploration and extraction companies); 2) construction and assembly; 3) civil and environmental liability; 4) property damage; 5) electronic equipment; 6) machinery breakage; 7) Boilers and equipment subject to pressure, among others.

If the activities are carried out with vessels, the insurances to be contracted are: 1) hull and machinery, 2) protection and compensation and, if applicable, 3) the charterer’s civil liability.

Each one of these insurances will cover some aspect that will contribute to complement the policy of industrial and operational safety, with the aim of having safer facilities and reducing to the maximum the possibility of an economic detriment to the companies of the sector.

 

At NRGI Broker, we are experts in insurance for the hydrocarbon sector. Come to us, we will gladly assist you.