OCS Study

BOEM 2014-657

Onshore Oil and Gas Infrastructure

to Support Development in the 

Mid-Atlantic OCS Region

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region
OCS Study

BOEM 2014-657

Onshore Oil and Gas Infrastructure

to Support Development in the 

Mid-Atlantic OCS Region

Author

D.E. Dismukes

Prepared under BOEM Contract

M09PC00007

by

Acadian Consulting Group

5800 One Perkins Place Dr.

Building 5, Suite F

Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Published by

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

New Orleans, LA

July 2014
DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared under contract between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

(BOEM) and Acadian Consulting Group. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM, 

and it has been approved for publication. Approval does not necessarily signify that the contents 

reflect the views and policies of BOEM, nor does mention of trade names or commercial 

products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

REPORT AVAILABILITY

To download a PDF file of this Gulf of Mexico OCS Region report, go to the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program Information 

System website and search on OCS Study BOEM 2014-657.

This report can be viewed at select Federal Depository Libraries. It can also be obtained from 

the National Technical Information Service; the contact information is below.

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Rd.

Springfield, Virginia 22312

Phone: (703) 605-6000, 1(800)553-6847

Fax: (703) 605-6900

Website: http://www.ntis.gov/

CITATION

Dismukes, D. 2014. Onshore oil and gas infrastructure to support development in the MidAtlantic OCS Region. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEM 2014-657. 360 pp.

iii
ABSTRACT

This report examines the wide range of energy infrastructure assets that would be required if the 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the Mid-Atlantic region were opened to oil and gas 

production. The report does not explore any testable hypotheses or other complex research 

questions, but merely describes, examines, and outlines the nature of a variety of different, yet 

important, energy infrastructure assets and their current status within the Mid-Atlantic region. 

This report examines these infrastructure assets’ recent development trends and their outlook 

given ongoing and expected offshore oil and natural gas exploration and production (E&P)

activities.

This report examines 11 major energy infrastructure categories significant to development in the 

Mid-Atlantic OCS region, including: platform fabrication and shipyards; port facilities; support 

and heliport facilities; oil spill response; oil field waste disposal; pipelines, pipe-coating yards; 

natural gas processing and storage; liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities; refineries; and electric 

power infrastructure.

The report identifies and describes each type of onshore infrastructure that would potentially 

support OCS oil and gas projects in the Mid-Atlantic region. This includes an examination of 

the infrastructure, its unique features and how it is related to the oil and gas industry. Each type 

of infrastructure is inventoried and analyzed. A summary of the infrastructure type locations, 

operations, and capacities is provided. A list of existing facilities with descriptive statistics is 

provided in an accompanying project database. A discussion of potential infrastructure responses 

is included within each chapter, including a review of changes or additions to existing 

infrastructure to adapt to new development trends.

For purposes of this report, the Mid-Atlantic impact region is defined as the states along the East 

Coast of the U.S., from New Jersey, south to Georgia. The states included are: New Jersey, 

Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

iv
CONTENTS

ABSTRACT............................................................................................. iv

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................. ix

ABREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS................................... xv

SUMMARY............................................................................................... 1

1 PLATFORM FABRICATION AND SHIPYARDS.............................. 11

1.1 Description of the Industry and Services Provided...................................................... 11

1.1.1 Platform Fabrication ............................................................................................. 11

1.1.2 Shipyards............................................................................................................... 12

1.2 Typical Facility Characteristics.................................................................................... 13

1.2.1 Platform Fabrication ............................................................................................. 13

1.2.2 Shipyards............................................................................................................... 22

1.3 Geographic Distribution............................................................................................... 26

1.3.1 Platform Fabrication ............................................................................................. 26

1.3.2 Shipyards............................................................................................................... 26

1.4 Scope of Economic Contribution to Regional Economy ............................................. 31

1.5 Current Trends and Outlook: Industry ......................................................................... 37

1.5.1 Trends ................................................................................................................... 37

1.5.2 Outlook ................................................................................................................. 44

1.5.3 Regulatory Changes.............................................................................................. 45

1.6 Current Trends and Outlook: East Coast..................................................................... 47

1.6.1 Platform Fabrication ............................................................................................. 47

1.6.2 Shipyards............................................................................................................... 47

1.7 Factors Impacting East Coast Development ................................................................ 50

2 PORTS............................................................................................. 51

2.1 Description of the Industry and Services Provided...................................................... 51

2.2 Typical Facility Characteristics.................................................................................... 52

2.3 Geographic Distribution............................................................................................... 54

2.4 Scope of Economic Contribution to Regional Economy ............................................. 60

2.5 Current Trends and Outlook: Industry ......................................................................... 68

2.6 Current Trends and Outlook: East Coast...................................................................... 71

2.7 Factors Impacting East Coast Development ................................................................ 72

3 SUPPORT AND HELIPORT FACILITIES ........................................ 75

3.1 Description of the Industry and Services Provided...................................................... 75

3.2 Typical Facility Characteristics.................................................................................... 76

3.2.1 General Support Facilities..................................................................................... 76

3.2.2 Repair and Maintenance Yards............................................................................. 77

3.2.3 Supply Bases......................................................................................................... 77

3.2.4 Heliports................................................................................................................ 78

v
3.2.5 Crew Services ....................................................................................................... 79

3.2.6 Offshore Support Vessels ..................................................................................... 80

3.3 Geographic Distribution............................................................................................... 83

3.4 Scope of Economic Contribution to Regional Economy ............................................. 84

3.5 Current Trends and Outlook: Industry ......................................................................... 84

3.5.1 Trends ................................................................................................................... 84

3.5.2 Outlook ................................................................................................................. 85

3.5.3 Regulatory Changes.............................................................................................. 86

3.6 Current Trends and Outlook: East Coast...................................................................... 87

3.7 Factors Impacting East Coast Development ................................................................ 88

4 OIL SPILL RESPONSE.................................................................... 89

4.1 Description of the Industry and Services Provided...................................................... 89

4.2 Typical Facility Characteristics.................................................................................... 91

4.2.1 Oil Spill Response................................................................................................. 92

4.2.2 In Situ Burning...................................................................................................... 94

4.2.3 Bioremediation...................................................................................................... 97

4.3 Geographic Distribution............................................................................................... 98

4.4 Scope of Economic Contribution to Regional Economy ............................................. 100

4.5 Current Trends and Outlook: Industry ......................................................................... 105

4.5.1 Regulatory Changes.............................................................................................. 107

4.6 Current Trends and Outlook: East Coast...................................................................... 108

4.7 Factors Impacting East Coast Development ................................................................ 109

5 OIL FIELD WASTE DISPOSAL ..................................................... 111

5.1 Description of the Industry and Services Provided...................................................... 111

5.2 Typical Facility Characteristics.................................................................................... 112

5.2.1 Waste Minimization.............................................................................................. 112

5.2.2 Reuse / Recycle..................................................................................................... 114

5.2.3 Disposal................................................................................................................. 114

5.3 Geographic Distribution............................................................................................... 118

5.4 Scope of Economic Contribution to Regional Economy ............................................. 120

5.5 Current Trends and Outlook: Industry ......................................................................... 120

5.5.1 Regulatory Changes.............................................................................................. 121

5.6 Current Trends and Outlook: East Coast...................................................................... 124

5.7 Factors Impacting East Coast Development ................................................................ 126

6 PIPELINES..................................................................................... 127

6.1 Description of the Industry and Services Provided...................................................... 127

6.2 Typical Facility Characteristics.................................................................................... 130

6.2.1 Compressors and Compression Stations............................................................... 133

6.2.2 Pipeline Monitoring and Maintenance.................................................................. 133

6.3 Geographic Distribution............................................................................................... 135

6.3.1 U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline System ........................................................................ 135

6.3.2 Mid-Atlantic Region Natural Gas Transmission System...................................... 138

6.4 Scope of Economic Contribution to Regional Economy ............................................. 145

vi
6.5 Current Trends and Outlook: Industry ......................................................................... 153

6.6 Current Trends and Outlook: East Coast..................................................................... 157

6.7 Factors Impacting East Coast Development ................................................................ 158

7 PIPE COATING.............................................................................. 165

7.1 Description of the Industry and Services Provided...................................................... 165

7.2 Typical Facility Characteristics.................................................................................... 165

7.2.1 Coatings ................................................................................................................ 166

7.2.2 Cathodic Protection............................................................................................... 168

7.3 Geographic Distribution............................................................................................... 168

7.4 Scope of Economic Contribution to Regional Economy ............................................. 171

7.5 Current Trends and Outlook: Industry ......................................................................... 171

7.5.1 Regulatory Changes.............................................................................................. 172

7.6 Current Trends and Outlook: East Coast...................................................................... 174

7.7 Factors Impacting East Coast Development ................................................................ 174

8 NATURAL GAS PROCESSING AND STORAGE.......................... 175

8.1 Description of the Industry and Services Provided...................................................... 175

8.1.1 Natural Gas Processing......................................................................................... 175

8.1.2 Natural Gas Storage .............................................................................................. 177

8.2 Typical Facility Characteristics.................................................................................... 178

8.2.1 Natural Gas Processing......................................................................................... 178

8.2.2 Natural Gas Storage .............................................................................................. 183

8.3 Geographic Distribution............................................................................................... 187

8.3.1 Natural Gas Processing......................................................................................... 187

8.3.2 Natural Gas Storage .............................................................................................. 191

8.4 Scope of Economic Contribution to Regional Economy ............................................. 193

8.4.1 Natural Gas Processing......................................................................................... 194

8.4.2 Natural Gas Storage .............................................................................................. 202

8.5 Current Trends and Outlook: Industry ......................................................................... 213

8.5.1 Trends ................................................................................................................... 213

8.5.2 Outlook ................................................................................................................. 217

8.5.3 Regulatory Changes.............................................................................................. 218

8.6 Current Trends and Outlook: East Coast...................................................................... 221

8.7 Factors Impacting East Coast Development ................................................................ 222

9 LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS........................................................... 224

9.1 Description of the Industry and Services Provided...................................................... 224

9.2 Typical Facility Characteristics.................................................................................... 226

9.3 Geographic Distribution............................................................................................... 230

9.4 Scope of Economic Contribution to Regional Economy ............................................. 235

9.5 Current Trends and Outlook: Industry ......................................................................... 236

9.5.1 Trends ................................................................................................................... 236

9.6 Current Trends and Outlook: East Coast...................................................................... 240

9.7 Factors Impacting East Coast Development ................................................................ 241

vii
10 REFINERIES.................................................................................. 242

10.1 Description of the Industry and Services Provided .................................................. 242

10.2 Typical Facility Characteristics................................................................................ 243

10.3 Geographic Distribution ........................................................................................... 246

10.4 Scope of Economic Contribution to Regional Economy.......................................... 256

10.5 Current Trends and Outlook: Industry...................................................................... 265

10.5.1 Trends ................................................................................................................... 265

10.6 Current Trends and Outlook: East Coast.................................................................. 277

10.7 Factors Impacting East Coast Development............................................................. 282

11 ELECTRIC POWER ....................................................................... 283

11.1 Description of the Industry and Services Provided .................................................. 283

11.2 Typical Facility Characteristics................................................................................ 283

11.3 Geographic Distribution ........................................................................................... 288

11.3.1 Generation............................................................................................................. 288

11.3.2 Transmission......................................................................................................... 290

11.3.3 Distribution ........................................................................................................... 293

11.4 Scope of Economic Contribution to Regional Economy.......................................... 298

11.5 Current Trends and Outlook: Industry...................................................................... 304

11.5.1 Generation and Consumption ............................................................................... 304

11.5.2 Transmission......................................................................................................... 306

11.5.3 Regulatory Changes.............................................................................................. 308

11.6 Current Trends and Outlook: East Coast.................................................................. 310

11.7 Factors Impacting East Coast Development............................................................. 312

REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 317

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Gulf Island Fabrication, main yard............................................................................... 14

Figure 2. McDermott International, construction of the Maloob-C drilling platform................. 15

Figure 3. Drilling barge, Maersk Drilling.................................................................................... 16

Figure 4. Jackup rig, GSP Prometeu............................................................................................ 17

Figure 5. Submersible rig, Noble Joe Alford............................................................................... 17

Figure 6. Semisubmersible rig, West Eminence........................................................................... 18

Figure 7. Drill ship, Discoverer Deep Seas. ................................................................................ 19

Figure 8. Fixed, floating, and subsea production systems. .......................................................... 20

Figure 9. Location of Mid-Atlantic impact region shipyards. ..................................................... 28

Figure 10. Northrup Grumman, Newport News, Virginia........................................................... 29

Figure 11. Aker Philadelphia Shipyard........................................................................................ 30

Figure 12. Atlantic Marine Shipyard. .......................................................................................... 30

Figure 13. Chesapeake Shipbuilding, Salisbury, Maryland......................................................... 31

Figure 14. Mid-Atlantic impact region ship and boat building employment shares, 2011. ........ 32

Figure 15. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region ship and boat building employment, 2001-

2011............................................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 16. Mid-Atlantic impact region ship and boat building wage shares, 2011..................... 35

Figure 17. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region ship and boat building wages, 2001-2011..... 35

Figure 18. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region ship and boat building average annual wages, 

2001-2011. .................................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 19. Independence Hub...................................................................................................... 39

Figure 20. Commercial shipbuilding order history (through 2004)............................................. 43

Figure 21. Principle commodity groups carried by water, 2010.................................................. 52

Figure 22. OCS port facilities: three part logistics system. ........................................................ 53

Figure 23. Mid-Atlantic impact region ports. .............................................................................. 56

Figure 24. Mid-Atlantic impact region ports, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware. ........... 57

Figure 25. Mid-Atlantic impact region ports, Maryland and Virginia. ....................................... 58

Figure 26. Mid-Atlantic impact region ports, South Carolina and Georgia. ............................... 59

Figure 27. Mid-Atlantic impact region water transportation GDP shares, 2010......................... 61

Figure 28. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region water transportation GDP, 1997-2010. ......... 62

Figure 29. Mid-Atlantic impact region ports employment shares, 2011. .................................... 63

Figure 30. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region ports employment, 2001-2011....................... 64

Figure 31. Mid-Atlantic impact region ports wage shares, 2011................................................. 65

Figure 32. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region ports wages, 2001-2011................................. 66

Figure 33. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region ports average annual wages, 2001-2011. ...... 67

Figure 34.Total waterborne commerce of the U.S., 1991 - 2010. ................................................ 68

Figure 35. EC155 Helicopter. ...................................................................................................... 78

Figure 36. Accommodation barge with helipad........................................................................... 80

Figure 37. An example of a platform supply vessel. ................................................................... 81

Figure 38. Public heliports in Mid-Atlantic impact region states................................................ 83

Figure 39. In situ burning at a crude oil spill............................................................................... 95

Figure 40. Mid-Atlantic impact region remediation services employment shares, 2011. ......... 101

ix
Figure 41. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region remediation services employment, 2001-2011.

..................................................................................................................................................... 101

Figure 42. Regional Mid-Atlantic OCS total wage shares, 2010. ............................................. 102

Figure 43. Historic trends in Mid-Atlantic OCS region oil spill response wages. .................... 103

Figure 44. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region remediation services average annual wages, 

2001-2011. .................................................................................................................................. 105

Figure 45. Advanced drilling techniques................................................................................... 113

Figure 46. Natural gas industry components. ............................................................................ 127

Figure 47. U.S. natural gas pipeline network............................................................................. 128

Figure 48. U.S. shale gas and oil plays...................................................................................... 130

Figure 49. Composition of U.S. natural gas pipeline transportation network. .......................... 132

Figure 50. Major U.S. natural gas transportation corridors. ...................................................... 137

Figure 51. Estimated region-to-region natural gas pipeline capacity, MMcf per day. .............. 138

Figure 52. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas pipelines – Dominion Transmission, Inc. . 139

Figure 53. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas pipelines – Dominion Transmission, Inc. . 140

Figure 54. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas pipelines – Transco. .................................. 141

Figure 55. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas pipelines – Transco Zone 5, Virginia........ 142

Figure 56. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas pipelines – Transco Zone 6. ...................... 143

Figure 57. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas pipelines – Columbia Gas Transmission... 144

Figure 58. Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation GDP shares, 2010................... 146

Figure 59. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation GDP........................ 147

Figure 60. Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation employment shares, 2011. ...... 148

Figure 61. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation employment, 2001-

2011............................................................................................................................................. 149

Figure 62. Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation wage shares, 2011................... 150

Figure 63. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation wages, 2001-2011. . 151

Figure 64. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation average annual wages, 

2001-2011. .................................................................................................................................. 153

Figure 65. Natural gas pipeline capacity additions, Northeast and Southeast regions. ............. 156

Figure 66. Natural gas pipeline capacity additions, Northeast and Southeast regions. ............. 156

Figure 67. Mid-Atlantic coast interstate natural gas pipelines, location analysis...................... 162

Figure 68. Mid-Atlantic coast interstate natural gas pipelines, location analysis, Southeast focus.

..................................................................................................................................................... 163

Figure 69. Pipeline coating applied over the installation site. ................................................... 166

Figure 70. Mid-Atlantic impact region pipe coating facilities................................................... 169

Figure 71. Liberty Coating storage yard.................................................................................... 170

Figure 72. IPSCO Tubulars, Ambridge, Pennsylvania.............................................................. 170

Figure 73. Common components of natural gas. ....................................................................... 176

Figure 74. Natural gas processing.............................................................................................. 178

Figure 75. General natural gas processing schematic................................................................ 179

Figure 76. Enterprise natural gas processing plant. ................................................................... 182

Figure 77. Types of underground natural gas storage facilities................................................. 184

Figure 78. Salt dome used in underground storage.................................................................... 186

Figure 79. The solution mining process..................................................................................... 187

Figure 80. Concentrations of natural gas processing plants. ..................................................... 188

Figure 81. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas processing facilities................................... 190

x
Figure 82. Average annual processing flows and utilization rates for top 10 states and 

Pennsylvania. .............................................................................................................................. 191

Figure 83. Mid-Atlantic impact region oil and gas extraction GDP shares, 2010..................... 195

Figure 84. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region oil and gas extraction GDP.......................... 196

Figure 85. Regional oil and gas extraction employment shares, 2011. ..................................... 197

Figure 86. Historic trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region oil and gas extraction employment, 

2001-2011. .................................................................................................................................. 198

Figure 87. Mid-Atlantic impact oil and gas extraction wage shares, 2011................................ 200

Figure 88. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region oil and gas extraction wages, 2001-2011. ... 200

Figure 89. Trends in regional average oil and gas extraction wages. ........................................ 202

Figure 90. Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation GDP shares, 2010................... 204

Figure 91. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation GDP........................ 205

Figure 92. Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation employment shares, 2011. ...... 207

Figure 93. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation employment, 2001-

2011............................................................................................................................................. 208

Figure 94. Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation wage shares, 2011................... 209

Figure 95. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation wages, 2001-2011. . 210

Figure 96. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation average annual wages, 

2001-2011. .................................................................................................................................. 212

Figure 97. U.S. natural gas processing plants............................................................................ 213

Figure 98. Working gas in underground storage. ....................................................................... 214

Figure 99. FERC jurisdictional U.S. storage by type. ............................................................... 219

Figure 100. Non-jurisdictional U.S. storage by type. ................................................................ 219

Figure 101. Initial U.S. LNG terminals and original capacity................................................... 224

Figure 102. LNG Schematic – production to end-user.............................................................. 226

Figure 103. Receiving terminal – LNG gas flow....................................................................... 227

Figure 104. U.S. LNG facilities................................................................................................. 231

Figure 105. Current U.S. LNG import terminals....................................................................... 232

Figure 106. Cove Point LNG..................................................................................................... 233

Figure 107. Elba Island LNG..................................................................................................... 234

Figure 108. U.S. natural gas imports as a percent of total consumption, 1990-2011................ 236

Figure 109. LNG imports and natural gas price. ....................................................................... 237

Figure 110. Existing and proposed North American LNG terminals. ....................................... 238

Figure 111. U.S. natural gas production and reserves. .............................................................. 240

Figure 112. LNG imports and natural gas price. ....................................................................... 240

Figure 113. Products made from a barrel of crude oil (gallons)................................................ 242

Figure 114. Distillation process and yield schematic. ............................................................... 244

Figure 115. Number and capacity of U.S. refineries, as of January 1, 2011. ............................ 246

Figure 116. PADD 1 refineries. ................................................................................................. 247

Figure 117. Historic trends in average operable capacity (PADD 1 v. U.S.). ........................... 248

Figure 118. Average ownership shares...................................................................................... 249

Figure 119. Mid-Atlantic impact region refineries.................................................................... 251

Figure 120. Regional refinery GDP shares, 2009...................................................................... 257

Figure 121. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region refining GDP. ............................................ 258

Figure 122. Mid-Atlantic impact region refinery employment shares, 2011. ........................... 259

Figure 123. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region refinery employment, 2001-2011.............. 260

xi
Figure 124. Mid-Atlantic impact region refinery wage shares, 2011........................................ 261

Figure 125. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region refining wages, 2001-2011........................ 262

Figure 126. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region refinery average annual wages, 2001-2011.

..................................................................................................................................................... 264

Figure 127. Monthly crude oil spot prices................................................................................. 266

Figure 128. Monthly crude oil spot and retail gasoline prices................................................... 267

Figure 129. Gasoline prices and demand................................................................................... 268

Figure 130. Diesel prices and demand....................................................................................... 268

Figure 131. Quarterly change in GDP and unemployment........................................................ 269

Figure 132. EPA regulations, sulfur fuel specifications. ........................................................... 273

Figure 133. U.S. fuel ethanol industry plants and production capacity..................................... 275

Figure 134. U.S. fuel ethanol production................................................................................... 275

Figure 135. Colonial Pipeline system map. ............................................................................... 278

Figure 136. New York Harbor – U.S. Gulf Coast price differentials. ....................................... 279

Figure 137. PADD 1 gasoline stocks (total motor gasoline). .................................................... 280

Figure 138. PADD 1 distillate fuel oil stocks............................................................................ 280

Figure 139. PADD 1 imports of finished motor gasoline.......................................................... 281

Figure 140. Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution. .................................... 284

Figure 141. U.S. electric power industry net generation by fuel source, 2010.......................... 284

Figure 142. Electric transmission: high voltage transmission and low voltage distribution. .... 285

Figure 143. Electricity restructuring by state............................................................................. 286

Figure 144. Mid-Atlantic impact region electric generators by fuel type.................................. 288

Figure 145. Mid-Atlantic impact region share of electric generation capacity, 2011. .............. 289

Figure 146. Mid-Atlantic impact region share of electric generation capacity, 2011. .............. 290

Figure 147. Current NERC regions. .......................................................................................... 291

Figure 148. U.S. regional transmission organizations. .............................................................. 293

Figure 149. Mid-Atlantic impact region, customers and sales by utility type........................... 294

Figure 150. Mid-Atlantic impact region utility customers by state and type of utility. ............ 294

Figure 151. Mid-Atlantic impact region utility sales by state and type of utility...................... 295

Figure 152. Virginia Electric & Power Company (Dominion) service territory. ...................... 297

Figure 153. Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas service territories. .......... 297

Figure 154. Mid-Atlantic impact region electric power generation employment shares, 2011. 299

Figure 155. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region electric power generation employment, 2001-

2011............................................................................................................................................. 300

Figure 156. Mid-Atlantic impact region electric power generation wage shares, 2011. ........... 301

Figure 157. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region electric power generation wages, 2001-2011.

..................................................................................................................................................... 302

Figure 158. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region electric power generation average annual 

wages, 2001-2011. ...................................................................................................................... 303

Figure 159. U.S. electric power generation by fuel type. .......................................................... 304

Figure 160. Annual Energy Outlook, Capacity Additions by Fuel Type. ................................. 305

Figure 161. Electric power consumption by customer class...................................................... 306

Figure 162. Mid-Atlantic impact region electric generators by fuel type.................................. 313

Figure 163. PJM Interconnection............................................................................................... 314

Figure 164. PJM Interconnection key upgrade projects. ........................................................... 315

xii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Types of shipyard facilities in the U.S. (owned privately). ........................................... 24

Table 2. Positions used for ship construction and repair in the U.S. ........................................... 25

Table 3. Mid-Atlantic impact region shipyards. .......................................................................... 27

Table 4. Regional and national employment contribution, ship and boat building, 2011. .......... 32

Table 5. Regional and national wage contribution, ship and boat building, 2011....................... 34

Table 6. Regional and national average annual wage contribution, ship and boat building, 2011.

....................................................................................................................................................... 36

Table 7. Port cities in Mid-Atlantic impact region. ..................................................................... 55

Table 8. Regional and national GDP contribution, water transportation sector, 2010. ............... 61

Table 9. Regional and national employment contribution, ports, 2011....................................... 63

Table 10. Regional and national wage contribution, ports, 2011. ............................................... 65

Table 11. Regional and national average annual wage contribution, ports, 2011. ...................... 67

Table 12. Coast Guard COTP Zone 5 (Mid-Atlantic) OSRO Companies................................... 99

Table 13. Regional and national employment contribution, remediation services, 2011.......... 100

Table 14. Regional and national wages contribution, remediation services, 2011.................... 102

Table 15. Regional and national average annual wage contribution, remediation services, 2011.

..................................................................................................................................................... 104

Table 16. Summary of U.S. offshore requirements for drilling wastes. .................................... 115

Table 17. Waste management facilities in the Mid-Atlantic impact region (Pennsylvania). .... 119

Table 18. Federal laws governing waste materials and management activities. ....................... 122

Table 19. Examples of exempt and nonexempt exploration and production waste streams. .... 123

Table 20. Regional and national GDP contribution, pipeline transportation, 2010................... 145

Table 21. Regional and national employment contribution, pipeline transportation, 2011....... 148

Table 22. Regional and national wage contribution, pipeline transportation, 2011. ................. 150

Table 23. Regional and national average annual wage contribution, pipeline transportation, 

2011............................................................................................................................................. 152

Table 24. Recent natural gas pipeline additions and expansions............................................... 154

Table 25. Characteristics of underground storage. .................................................................... 184

Table 26. Natural gas processing plants in the U.S. as of January 1, 2011. .............................. 189

Table 27. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas storage fields, 2010..................................... 192

Table 28. Underground natural gas storage by region, 2010..................................................... 193

Table 29. Regional and national GDP contribution, oil and gas extraction, 2010. ................... 194

Table 30. Regional and national employment shares, oil and gas contribution (processing of 

natural gas included), 2011......................................................................................................... 197

Table 31. Regional and national wage contribution, oil and gas extraction (processing of natural 

gas included), 2011. .................................................................................................................... 199

Table 32. Regional and national average annual wage, oil and gas extraction (processing of 

natural gas included), 2011......................................................................................................... 201

Table 33. Regional and national GDP contribution, pipeline transportation, 2010................... 203

Table 34. Regional and national employment contribution, pipeline transportation, 2011....... 207

Table 35. Regional and national wage contribution, pipeline transportation, 2011. ................. 209

Table 36. Regional and national average annual wage contribution, pipeline transportation, 

2011............................................................................................................................................. 211

xiii
Table 37. Underground natural gas storage facilities certificated since 2010. .......................... 215

Table 38. History of average storage withdrawals and injections. ............................................ 216

Table 39. Upcoming major storage projects.............................................................................. 218

Table 40. Estimated number of employees by LNG facility. .................................................... 235

Table 41. Mid-Atlantic impact region refineries. ...................................................................... 250

Table 42. Imported refinery inputs, 2010. ................................................................................. 255

Table 43. Regional and national GDP contribution, refinery sector, 2010................................ 256

Table 44. Regional and national employment contribution, refinery sector, 2011.................... 259

Table 45. Regional and national wages contribution, refinery sector, 2011.............................. 261

Table 46. Regional and national average annual wage contribution, refineries, 2011. ............. 263

Table 47. Refinery announcements............................................................................................ 271

Table 48. Investor owned utilities in Mid-Atlantic impact region states................................... 296

Table 49. Regional and national employment contribution, electric power generation, 2011. . 298

Table 50. Regional and national wage contribution, electric power generation, 2011.............. 301

Table 51. Regional and national average annual wage contribution, electric power generation, 

2011............................................................................................................................................. 303

Table 52. Transmission line additions by assessment area........................................................ 307

Table 53. Unscrubbed bituminous coal-fired generation........................................................... 311

xiv
ABREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS

3LP three-layer polyolefin

AAM Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

ACE Army Corps of Engineers

ACJV Atlantic Coast Joint Venture

ADIOS Automated Data Inquiry from Oil Spills

AGA American Gas Association

AHSV anchor handling towing and supply vessel

AHTS anchor handling towing supply

API American Petroleum Institute

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

BCF billion cubic feet

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

CAA Clean Air Act

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule

CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule

CAVR Clean Air Visibility Rule

CDS construction differential subsidies

CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

CWA Clean Water Act

CWC concrete weight coating

DCP Dominion Cove Point

DfE Design for the Environment

DOE Department of Energy

DWMIS Drilling Waste Management Information System

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPAct Energy Policy Act

EPC engineer, procure and construct

EPIC engineer, procure, install and commission

EPP Enterprise Products Partners

ERD extended reach drilling

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FCC fluid catalytic cracking

FDG flu-gas desulfurizer

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FHA Federal Highway Administration

FPSO floating production, storage, and offloading

FPU floating production unit

FRCC Florida Reliability Coordinating Council

FRP facility response plan

FSRU floating storage and regasification unit

FTA free trade agreement

xv
GBS gravity-based structure

GDP gross domestic product

GIS geographic information systems

GOM Gulf of Mexico

HRT Hart Resource Technologies

IADC International Association of Drilling Contractors

ID internal diameter

IMO International Maritime Organization

INGAA Interstate Natural Gas Association of America

IPAA Independent Petroleum Association of America

ISO Independent System Operator

JITF Joint Industry Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Task Force

LDC local distribution company

LNG liquefied natural gas

LPG liquefied petroleum gas

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

MARAD U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

MBbls/d thousand barrels per day

Mm millimeter

MMBbls/d million barrels per day

MODU mobile offshore drilling units 

MOSCA Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agents

MRO Midwest Reliability Organization

MSB major shipbuilding base

MSRC Marine Spill Response Corporation

MSV mini-supply vessel

MTS Marine Transportation System

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NAPCA National Association of Pipe Coating Applicators

NASSCO North American Steel and Shipping Industry

NCP national contingency plan

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation

NGL natural gas liquids

NGTS NiSource Gas Transmission & Storage

NHS National Highway System

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOIA National Ocean Industries Association

Non-FTA non-free trade agreement

NORM naturally-occurring radioactive materials

NOx nitrogen oxides

NPC National Petroleum Council

NPCC Northeast Power Coordinating Council

xvi
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRDA Natural Resource Disaster Assessment

NRU Nitrogen Rejection Unit

NSF National Science Foundation

NSI National Shipbuilding Initiative

NYH New York Harbor

OBM oil-based mud

OCM oil content meter

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OLM online monitoring

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OSHA Occupational Safety Act

OSPRS Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Subcommittee

OSRO Oil Spill Response Organization

OSV offshore support vessel

OSW offshore wind

PADD Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts

PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon

PAL parking and lending

PE polyethylene

PHI Petroleum Helicopters Inc.

POTW publicly-owned treatment works

PP polypropylene

PSA pressure swing adsorption

PSC port state control

PSI pounds per square inch

PSIG pounds per square inch gauge

PSV platform supply vessel

QF qualified facility

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

REX Rockies Express Pipeline

RFC Reliability First Corporation

RFS Renewable Fuel Standard

ROW right-of-way

RTO Regional Transmissions Organizations

SAFETEA-L Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act

SBM synthetic-based mud

SCR steel catenary riser

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SEGCO Southern Electric Generating Company

SERC SERC Reliability Corporation

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure

SPP Southwest Power Pool

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

TEU twenty-foot equivalent unit

xvii
TGP Tennessee Gas Pipeline

TLP tension leg platform

TRE Texas Regional Entity

TRR technically recoverable resource

ULSD ultra low sulfur diesel

USCG United States Coast Guard

USOGA United States Oil and Gas Association

WBM water-based mud

WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council

xviii
SUMMARY

The purpose of this research has been to examine the wide range of energy infrastructure assets 

that would be required if the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the Mid-Atlantic region were 

opened to oil and gas production. The infrastructure categories examined include: platform 

fabrication and shipyards; port facilities; support and heliport facilities; oil spill response; oil 

field waste disposal; pipelines, pipe-coating yards; natural gas processing and storage; liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) facilities; refineries; and electric power infrastructure.

A number of issues and topics have been examined for each of these sectors, including:

1. A basic description of the industry and the types of services provided;

2. A review of each sector’s characteristics and an overview of the typical types of 

facilities;1

3. The geographical distribution of existing companies and locations within the MidAtlantic region;

4. The impact or scope of existing infrastructure to the regional economy;

5. Current trends and outlook for the industry as a whole, including changes in regulation 

and regulatory guidelines governing each industry sector; 

6. Current trends and outlook for the industry in the Mid-Atlantic region;

7. A discussion of factors that would impact development of each infrastructure type in the 

Mid-Atlantic region;

8. A list of resources and data sources for each type of infrastructure.

For purposes of this fact book, the Mid-Atlantic impact region is defined as the states along the 

East Coast of the U.S. from New Jersey, south to Georgia. The states included are: New Jersey, 

Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Fabrication Yards

Platform fabrication yards are defined as facilities where oil and gas drilling and production 

platforms are manufactured, assembled, or prepared for deployment to offshore locations. 

Production operations at fabrication yards include cutting and welding of steel components, 

construction of living quarters and other structures, and assembling platform components. 

1 This is not a regionally specific overview, but rather a review of the types of facilities that exist within the industry.

1

 
Traditionally, platform fabrication yards are located onshore, near inter-coastal waterways. 

However, there is a growing tendency to locate certain assembly operations directly offshore to 

minimize costs and maximize assembly flexibility. On-shore platform fabrication yards usually 

specialize in the production of a particular type of platform or component, such as living 

quarters, decks, or modules. This creates interdependence among different yards to complete an 

entire platform.

There are no platform fabrication yards located in the Mid-Atlantic region. Development of 

these facilities is likely to depend on the degree to which offshore energy production progresses. 

Under a limited or moderate development scenario, it is likely that platforms and associated 

structures would originate in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) region or international sites.

Shipyards and Shipbuilding

The shipbuilding and repair industry constructs, maintains, and repairs ships, barges and other 

large vessels, self-propelled or towed by other craft (i.e., barges). Most shipyards receive orders 

for offshore vessels through a competitive bidding process for individual projects or sets of 

individual projects. Each year, a small number of valuable orders are received by these 

shipbuilding yards that often take years to fill. Shipbuilding is a high-stakes industry represented 

by a high degree of competition between various different shipbuilders. It is uncommon for 

several yards to be engaged in various specialized aspects of very large projects.

There are eight shipyards in the Mid-Atlantic region, ranging from those that construct small 

vessels for coastal or inland use to those that focus on large oceangoing naval and commercial 

ships. Twenty facilities offer repair services. The repair facilities also vary in size, from those 

with only topside capability, to those that have dry-docking capability for small ships, boats and 

barges, and those that have dry-docking capability for large ocean-going vessels. The mediumsized shipyards located in Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina would be likely candidates for 

offering support capabilities to the Mid-Atlantic region.

Shipyards dedicated to medium-sized vessels would be likely candidates for offering support 

capabilities in this region. Most of the medium-sized yards are centrally located in Virginia, 

Maryland, and North Carolina. To the extent that new ships and the facilities to construct and 

service these vessels are needed, the central Mid-Atlantic region would represent a good 

opportunity for expansion. It is unlikely that any new facilities would be constructed in support 

of anticipated offshore lease activities. 

The shipbuilding industry is highly competitive and existing GOM yards may consider 

expanding existing operations to compete for these new markets. Existing yards along the GOM 

would have a number of important advantages over both Mid-Atlantic greenfield developments 

and expansions, including existing yards with adequate capacity; sizable skilled workforce; 

engineering and design experience; decades of construction experience across a range of offshore 

service vessels and crafts; relationships with input vendors; and relationships with service and 

production companies. 

2
Further, shipyard industry trends over the past decade have focused on mergers and 

consolidations not necessarily on expansions, even along the GOM. These mergers and 

acquisitions have arisen, in large part, to take advantage of the scale efficiencies of consolidated 

operations at larger, more strategic locations. Thus, the development of new Mid-Atlantic 

shipyards may be a challenge without an expansive regulatory development scenario with tight 

oil and gas market conditions over an extended period of time.

Port Facilities

Ports have a vital role in the support of the offshore E&P sector and in the maritime industry as a 

whole. Ports are the bases from which the vehicles that support offshore platforms (notably 

ships, barges, and helicopters) are based and maintained. Ports are also the delivery, transfer, 

and launching points for the necessary structures, equipment, supplies, crew and other important 

products to offshore installations. Offshore exploration and production operations depend 

heavily on a readily-available supply of these goods and services, making ports an invaluable 

centralized location for meeting offshore E&P logistical needs. 

The Mid-Atlantic region has good port coverage and it is unlikely that any new ports would be 

constructed to support offshore energy production. Port development would be influenced by: 

(1) the specific location where development is expected to occur; and (2) the degree to which 

offshore support activities compete, or are in conflict with, bulk container and cargo trade that is 

currently the focus of larger regional ports. There are a number of moderately-sized ports 

located in the Chesapeake Bay region that could serve as likely support bases for offshore oil and 

gas activities.

Many ports along the eastern seaboard, particularly the upper Mid-Atlantic region, are already 

highly developed and in locations that have expensive or limited expansion possibilities. 

Development at these ports will likely compete with alternative uses for waterfront and port 

surface space. Because of the cost and physical restrictions, smaller to medium sized ports may 

have a competitive edge to in the pursuit of oil and gas support activities. 

There are a number of moderately-sized ports located in the Chesapeake Bay region that could 

serve as likely support bases for offshore oil and gas activities. These central Mid-Atlantic ports 

are the closest to anticipated regional offshore development. 

Support and Heliport Facilities

Offshore oil and gas activities are supported by an extensive onshore supply and support logistics 

train. Support activities range from products and services, such as engine and turbine 

construction and repair, electric generators, chains, gears, tools, pumps, compressors, and a 

variety of other tools and equipment. Drilling muds, chemicals, lubricants, and other fluids are 

produced and transported from onshore support facilities. Many types of transportation vessels 

and helicopters are used to transport workers, equipment, and materials to and from offshore 

platforms. Typical facilities for this sector include: general support facilities; repair and 

maintenance yards; and supply bases, heliports and offshore service vessels.

3
Offshore support and transportation facilities depend on drilling and production activities, which,

in turn, are dependent upon oil and gas commodity prices. The cyclical nature of the oil and gas 

industry places competitive pressure on support and transportation facilities to be efficient, cost 

effective, flexible, responsive to tenant needs, and to diversify wherever possible. Often, the 

supply and transport side of the offshore industry is one of the first sectors to feel the sting of oil 

and gas industry downturns. During periods of contraction, discretionary supply, repair, storage, 

and maintenance activities are the first to be cut to reduce E&P company costs.

No support and transport facilities have been identified on the Mid-Atlantic coast (with the 

exception of heliports). Although general offshore support and transportation is tied directly to 

ports, our research does not suggest the development of private (company-owned) service 

facilities arising. Like ports, development in response to offshore activity will be influenced by 

the specific location of offshore activity. 

The capital cost of development of such types of facilities by an individual offshore operator 

may be too expensive for one company alone. Support facility development is likely to track 

port development. Factors weighing against private support base facilities include: 

a. Potential conflicts with recreation and residential development. 

b. Permitting challenges. 

c. Facility development costs. 

d. Offshore development scenario uncertainties. 

e. Lower cost commercial port opportunities. 

Oil Spill Response

The efficacy of any oil spill response team starts with its preparation, well before any accident or 

spill occurs. However, once a spill occurs, action must be taken quickly and well-organized so 

that the spill can be contained and controlled quickly. The planning ahead takes the form of a 

“contingency plan” which is a set of instructions outlining steps to take before, during, and after 

an emergency. These plans attempt to outline different spill scenarios and situations and the 

steps to follow. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identifies four major common 

elements of a contingency plan: (1) hazard identification; (2) vulnerability analysis; (3) risk 

assessment; and (4) response actions.

A number of oil spill response companies are located in the Mid-Atlantic region, including 

companies that respond to marine situations. The Mid-Atlantic region has a number of refineries 

that receive cargo from water-borne suppliers and spills from these cargoes and other industrial 

activities, are likely to be greater than those associated with OCS development. 

4
While oil spill response uses capital-related equipment, this is mostly a knowledge-based 

industry that is highly mobile and assets from other producing areas could be used if a 

catastrophic accident were to occur. It is unlikely that new oil spill response investments will be 

needed in the region. 

Waste Management Facilities

A number of different types of wastes are generated by offshore oil and gas E&P activities. 

Some wastes are common to most commercial-scale operations (e.g., disposal of garbage, 

sanitary waste [toilets] and domestic waste [sinks, showers]), while other wastes are unique to 

the oil and gas exploration and production industry (e.g., disposal of different types of drill 

fluids, cuttings, and produced water). While some wastes can be discharged onsite, many others 

must be transported to shore-based facilities for reclamation, storage and disposal, or transfer to 

longer-term storage sites. The most common methods of disposal of oil and gas E&P waste 

includes sea discharge; subsurface injection (salt cavern or other subsurface reservoir); and 

landfill disposal.

A small number of oil field waste disposal facilities are located in the Mid-Atlantic states; and 

most have been developed to support Appalachian drilling activities. Development in the MidAtlantic region will likely require expanded oilfield waste disposal capacity. The amount of 

capacity will be a direct function of the level of drilling and production activity anticipated in the 

Mid-Atlantic OCS because more drilling or production will result in expanded capacity 

requirements.

Pipelines

The movement of natural gas from producing regions to consumption regions requires an 

extensive and elaborate transportation system. In many instances, natural gas produced from a 

particular well travels long distances before it reaches the point of further processing or use. The 

transportation system for natural gas consists of a complex network of pipelines and supporting 

equipment, designed to quickly and efficiently transport these commodities from points of 

production, to points of further processing (i.e., gas processing, fractionation), storage, or 

consumption.

The interstate natural gas transportation system within the Mid-Atlantic region has been 

developed to facilitate the movement of natural gas from its primary producing area (GOM) to 

market areas along the East Coast. A large number of the existing interstate natural gas lines run 

along the Appalachian Mountain Range and then northwards to New York. Currently, no natural 

gas interstate pipelines run along the Mid-Atlantic coast. However, Columbia Gas has a segment 

that runs through Virginia to the coast and Transco has a segment that runs from mid-Virginia 

down close to the North Carolina coast. 

5
Future pipeline development in the Mid-Atlantic OCS is likely to be based on a series of line 

segment extensions from future coastal producing areas to the existing major trunk lines running 

along the Appalachian Mountain Range. The overall investment level needed to link this 

production will be a function of the ability of the asset to facilitate the movement of the expected 

volumes of natural gas in a safe and reliable manner, taking into account future commercial 

considerations and opportunities. 

The number of major trunklines and individual gathering systems will be determined by the 

scope and scale of Mid-Atlantic OCS production. The specific location and interconnection of 

these extensions to major trunklines will likely be a function of ultimate production location. 

Larger volumes produced in a concentrated geographic region are likely to see a fewer number 

of large trunk or gathering system configurations. Larger volumes produced over a broad 

geographic region will have a tendency to be smaller in capacity (diameter) but more numerous 

in terms of trunk or gathering segments.

Pipe-Coating Yards

Pipelines that transport oil and natural gas have exterior coatings to protect against corrosion and 

other types of physical damage. Pipes may also be treated with interior coatings to protect 

against corrosion from the fluids moving within the pipe or to improve flow rates. Offshore oil 

and natural gas pipes are often also coated with a layer of concrete to increase line weight to 

ensure it will stay on the seabed. 

Numerous threats to offshore pipeline integrity include third-party damage, geological activity,

and corrosion. The most common threat, external corrosion, is recognized as the main structural 

problem with buried pipelines, including those offshore. In fact, corrosion ranks second only to 

human error as the leading cause of pipeline failure.

The pipe coating business is highly dependent on the cyclical nature of oil and natural gas 

markets. Currently, all existing pipe coating facilities in the Mid-Atlantic states are in the 

Appalachian region. The degree to which these existing facilities would be used to support 

offshore OCS activities is undetermined. Under a limited or moderate development scenario, it 

is likely that coated pipe would come from existing facilities in the Appalachian region or the 

GOM region. At this point, it is unlikely that any new pipeline coating or fabricating facility will 

be developed along the Mid-Atlantic. It is probable that existing regional facilities will expand 

given the increases in regional shale and Marcellus production and new pipeline projects 

bringing gas from the Rockies into the Midwest-Appalachian area.

Natural Gas Processing Facilities

All natural gas is processed in some manner to remove unwanted water vapor, solids and other 

contaminants that would interfere with pipeline transportation or marketing of the gas. The total 

number of gas processing plants operating in the U.S. has been declining over the past several 

years as companies merge, exchange assets, and close older, less efficient plants.

6
There are eight natural gas processing plants in the Mid-Atlantic region, however they are all in 

western Pennsylvania and used to support Appalachian production. The need for gas processing 

along the Mid-Atlantic OCS will be a function of the degree to which wet or sour gas volumes, 

or both, are anticipated to be produced from offshore areas. Assuming gas processing is needed, 

many of the same factors influencing gas transportation will be important, including location, 

volumes and commercial factors (the ability to store, transport and market natural gas liquids 

processed from the gas stream will be important in determining facility configuration).

Natural Gas Storage Facilities

Gas storage serves three central roles: to meet seasonal demands for gas (base-load storage), to 

meet short-term peaks in demand (peaking storage), and to take advantage of changes in volatile 

natural gas prices between peak and non-peak usage periods (hedging and price arbitrage). The 

ability to store natural gas is essential to efficient natural gas market operation. Withdrawals 

from storage provide additional gas supply during seasonal and short-term gas demand peaks, 

help keep pipelines and distribution systems in physical balance, and play an important role in 

commodity trading and management. Generally, underground natural gas storage is filled during 

low use (off-peak) periods (April-October) and withdrawn during high use (peak) periods 

(winter). This results in a cyclical up and down pattern of gas storage volumes across any given 

year. 

A number of natural gas storage facilities have been identified in the Mid-Atlantic states. 

However, these facilities are associated with Appalachian production or intermediate storage 

requirements for New England LDCs. It is likely that gas storage will be developed along the 

Mid-Atlantic OCS to accommodate new production volumes. 

Four important factors to consider in the development of natural gas storage are (1) gas storage 

will likely be located near new areas of production; (2) the size will be a function of location and 

geological capabilities; (3) developers will need to determine the availability and cost 

effectiveness of reservoir, aquifer, or salt cavern storage; and (4) the type of cavern and size of 

the injection well will be driven by deliverability goals, location, and the number of proximate 

pipelines and potential storage customers. 

Reservoir-based storage would be the more likely type of facility needed to support Mid-Atlantic 

offshore production given its baseload nature. 

LNG Facilities

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is natural gas that has been converted to liquid form. This simple 

process allows natural gas to be transported from an area of abundance to an area of high 

demand where it can be stored as a liquid or converted back to natural gas and delivered to endusers. 

7
Large marine-based onshore LNG terminals have been proposed across different areas of the 

coastal U.S., and have received increased media and public attention in recent years. In 2011, 

there were five LNG import facilities located in the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf coast regions. Four 

of these facilities are original legacy assets that were developed during the energy crisis of the 

1970s and early 1980s. These four facilities are all onshore facilities that have been expanded in 

recent years and each have a peak sendout of one Bcf per day or more. 

There have also been a considerable number of announcements and applications for new 

regasification and export facilities throughout the coastal U.S. Nine facilities have requested 

authorization to export LNG. Two of the Mid-Atlantic facilities, Cove Point and Elba Island,

have requested this authorization. 

Refineries

A refinery is an organized arrangement of manufacturing units designed to produce physical and 

chemical changes to turn crude oil into final petroleum products. Refineries remove most of the 

non-hydrocarbon substances from crude oil and break down these remaining hydrocarbons into 

various components that are blended into useful refined products. Refineries vary in size, 

sophistication, and cost depending on their location, crude input types, and products 

manufactured. Crude oil is not a homogeneous raw material; it varies considerably in color, 

viscosity, sulfur content, and mineral content. Many of these qualitative variations are a function 

of the different fields or geographic areas from which crude is produced, and lead to significant 

differences in both input values and refining profitability. 

Of the 11 refineries located in the Mid-Atlantic region, two are currently idle. The remaining 

nine active refineries in the region are relatively large by East Coast standards. Six of these 

refineries have capacities in excess of 160,000 barrels per day. All have the ability to handle 

light, sweet and certain grades of heavier, sour crude oil. Most produce a wide range of refined

products from the high to low end of the barrel. Furthermore, most, if not all, of these facilities 

get their crude oil input supplies from imports and not from other producing basins in the U.S. 

None of these refineries are currently connected to a major interstate crude oil pipeline and 

obtain most of their supplies by tankers. 

Existing refinery capacity would likely be used to process Mid-Atlantic OCS crude oil. It is 

highly unlikely, given expected overall market conditions over the next several years, that any 

East Coast refinery would expand its current capacity without some exceptional type of 

guarantee. It would be nearly impossible to site a new greenfield refinery along the Mid-Atlantic 

OCS and this potential scenario should be eliminated from consideration. 

8
Electric Power Infrastructure

Electricity is vital to life in the U.S. and is used for lighting, appliances, and electronic uses and 

for heating and cooling. Electricity is also indispensable to factories, commercial 

establishments, and most recreational facilities. More than 2,930 electric utilities in the U.S. are 

responsible for delivering an adequate and reliable source of electricity at a reasonable cost to all 

consumers within their respective service territories.

Electric power systems are based on a collection of generation, transmission, distribution and 

communication facilities that are physically connected and operated as a single unit under one 

control. Power plants (generation) can be grouped into the types of fuel or energy source they 

use to produce electricity. These include fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, or a refined oil product), 

nuclear energy, and renewable energy sources such as water (hydroelectric power), biomass, 

waste-to-energy, geothermal, wind, and solar energy, and other emerging alternative fuels. 

Power generation in the Mid-Atlantic is heavily dependent on natural gas as a fuel source. Thus, 

the price and availability of natural gas can have important implications for power generation 

supply and price.

According to the EIA, over the next 25 years total electricity sales are projected to increase 

significantly, including sales in the U.S. and Mid-Atlantic region. The largest increase will be 

seen in the residential and commercial sectors; industrial demand is projected to decrease. 

9
1 PLATFORM FABRICATION AND SHIPYARDS

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY AND SERVICES PROVIDED

1.1.1 Platform Fabrication

In the early years of drilling, oil men tried many different techniques to extract oil from the 

swamplands of Louisiana. The most successful methods relied on using floating vessels or 

barges with drilling equipment over swamps, marshes, or open water. Even though these

technologies were functional, they were crude and were limited to a small drilling area over 

water and marshes. Also, these technologies were operational only when and where the water 

was calm, shallow, and protected from wind exposure. Over time, technology continued to 

advance and eventually mobile drilling rigs were developed. 

The world’s first submersible oil platform was created in 1933. This prototype was named 

Giliasso and used barges to carry an equipment platform and a derrick or rig. Giliasso was 

towed and then sunk off the shore of Louisiana at a pre-determined location for use as a fixed 

foundation for the platform above water (Wilds et al. 1996). The development of the Giliasso 

ended the task of assembling and dismantling units for every well (Davis 2002). However, new 

problems arose in determining how to provide support for crews and to receive supplies needed 

for drilling.

Giliasso’s success helped spawn a number of other technological advances related to 

modification of floating structures near-shore for exploration and production activities and 

logistical support. Initially, drilling crews lived in piling-supported camps which were suspended 

over the marsh. There was a lack of above-ground storage, and drilling mud had to be hauled 35 

miles (56 kilometers) to the drilling site (Davis 2002). To solve the storage problem, rig workers 

used three old grounded oil tankers and connected them to an old steel schooner, which was used 

as a loading dock (Davis 2002). Eventually, a pipeline was constructed which ended the need for 

vessels to transport the oil onshore.

Since 1942, more than 6,900 platforms have been installed in the GOM (USDOI, BOEM 2012a). 

Currently, there are about 2,900 active platforms, most of which are in water depths of less than 

200 meters (USDOI, BOEM 2012b). Platform fabrication, since its beginning, has been a 

principal contributor to technological advancements in the offshore oil and gas industry. Today 

platform fabrication facilities span regional and international areas, especially in the GOM from 

Texas to Alabama. 

There are approximately 5,924 active leases in the GOM; 54 percent are in water depths greater 

than 1,000 meters, or “deepwater” (USDOI, BOEM 2012b). A push for deeper water drilling in 

the GOM since the mid-1990s has forced the platform fabrication industry’s advancement to 

meet the new challenges presented by being farther from land. Most obviously, rigs and wells

have become significantly larger. Having a larger drilling structure also means that the 

fabrication yards, docks, and assembly facilities must adapt and increase in size.

11
This size shift has spawned a modular-based approach of fabrication. In the GOM, for example, 

each yard specializes in producing a specific component or type of platform and teams up with 

other yards to produce the other required parts. Even very large yards contract out for certain 

aspects of their platform projects. For example, a yard may focus on producing living quarters, 

decks, modules, or storage facilities. The modular based approach has created independence 

among different yards, and yet still produces coherent and complete platforms (USDOI, MMS 

2005).

1.1.2 Shipyards

Shipyards are another vital aspect of the offshore oil and gas industry because they are 

responsible for building ships, barges, and other large vessels. Some of these vessels are selfpropelled, but others are towed by other craft. Marine vessels are quite likely the most important 

means of transporting equipment and personnel from onshore bases and ports to offshore drilling 

and production platforms. Shipyards build vessels for use in the oil and gas industry and also 

fulfill orders for other industries such as towing and tugboat companies, petrochemical 

companies, commercial shipping companies, commercial fishing companies, passenger and 

cruise companies, ferry companies, and the federal government (Colton 2012).

The federal government is the largest customer of the shipbuilding industry, because of the high 

demand for naval and marine craft. These ships range from large navy combatant construction 

(i.e., aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates, guided missile cruisers, etc.) to noncombatant tankers,

patrol ships, and smaller experimental craft used for ocean and marine life observation (USEPA 

1997). Besides the U.S. Navy, a number of other government agencies place orders for ships 

such as the Military Sealift Command, the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the 

Maritime Administration (USEPA 1997). The primary focus of shipyards in the Mid-Atlantic

region is meeting the federal government demand. 

The development of the U.S. shipbuilding industry was driven by military needs. For example, 

in 1932 there were eight shipyards: Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine; Bethlehem's Fore River 

Plant, Quincy, Massachusetts; Bethlehem's Union Iron Works, San Francisco, California; 

Electric Boat Co., New London, Connecticut; Federal Shipbuilding, Kearny, New Jersey; New 

York Ship, Camden, New Jersey; Newport News Shipbuilding, Newport News, Virginia; and 

United Drydocks, Staten Island, New York. These eight shipyards employed 19,000 and focused 

primarily on naval shipbuilding (GlobalSecurity.org 2012). 

The Maritime Administration was created in 1936 by the Merchant Marine Act, and worked to 

change the U.S. shipbuilding industry. The Maritime Commission began an extensive ship 

construction program towards the end of the 1930s, which intensified with the U.S. involvement 

in World War II (Lane 2001). Due to the expansion of the shipbuilding industry, when the war 

ended there were nine different federally-owned and operated shipyards and over 130 privatelyowned shipyards (GlobalSecurity.org 2012).

12
After WWII ended, there was a corresponding decrease in the need for naval craft. However, the 

government believed that private shipyards were too essential to U.S. military and economic 

strength to let them go out of business. By 1961, up to 70 percent of naval construction funding 

went to private yards (GlobalSecurity.org 2012). Navy yards primarily performed maintenance 

and repair functions. Since the 1960s, the shipbuilding industry has evolved into a group of 

small to medium-sized shipyards that build vessels for foreign, inland, and coastal waterway use. 

The increase in offshore exploration and production activity has helped to expand market 

demand and the number of customers for shipyards to serve (Austin et al. 2008). 

1.2 TYPICAL FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

1.2.1 Platform Fabrication

Platforms are constructed onshore at a fabrication yard and then towed to an offshore location for 

installation and sea-fastening (SEC 2011a). Fabrication yards perform a variety of functions 

including cutting and welding of steel components, construction of living quarters and other 

structures, and assembling platform components (Gulf Island Fabrication 2011). These facilities

often span areas of several hundred acres because they need space for large construction projects 

and equipment. For instance, yards must have on hand an inventory of necessary items used in 

platform fabrication: metal pipes and beams, cranes, welding equipment, lifts, rolling mills, and 

sandblasting machinery. Since platform jackets are so large, vast space is also required for 

proper assembly. 

Figure 1 is a picture of Gulf Island Fabrication’s main yard in Houma, Louisiana. This is one of 

three yards and covers 140 acres and 2,800 linear feet (853 meters) of water frontage (Gulf 

Island 2012).

13
Figure 1. Gulf Island Fabrication, main yard. Source: Gulf Island 2012.

The pictures in Figure 2 emphasize the enormous size and magnitude of these fabrication yards 

and projects. These pictures are of McDermott International’s engineering and construction of a 

two-level deck and jacket for the Maloob-C drilling platform on behalf of Mexican state-owned 

petroleum company, PEMEX (McDermott 2012). McDermott started construction of this 

platform in February 2008 and completed it in August 2009. The project included fabrication of 

the 2,535-ton deck (two levels) and the 3,527-ton jacket. The project also included factory 

testing, onshore pre-commissioning, and operational testing, load out, and sea fastening 

(Offshore 2009). This portion of the project was performed at the company’s facility in 

Altamira, Mexico. More than 3,300 tons of piles were fabricated at the company’s Morgan City, 

Louisiana facility (Offshore 2009).

14
Figure 2. McDermott International, construction of the Maloob-C drilling platform.

Source: McDermott International 2012.

Rather than using an assembly line approach, the platform fabrication industry is proficient at 

specialization. Fabrication yards work on only a few projects at a time because each requires 

individualization depending on the exact type of platform, platform characteristics, and the 

characteristics of the area where it will eventually be located. Often, customers split projects 

among fabricators, contracting with different companies for different parts of the platform (Gulf 

Island Fabrication 2011). For example, some yards produce jackets, and others specifically 

fabricate decks, living quarters, or piles (SEC 2011a). 

Besides the individualized focus of each of these fabrication yards, many do share some of the 

following characteristics (SEC 2006):

• steel stockyards and cutting shops to supply and shape steel for fabrication;

• shops to assemble components as they are completed: deck sections, jackets, 

modules, and tanks;

• paint and sandblasting shops; 

• dry docks for repairs and construction, generally of small vessels; 

• piers used for work on transportation equipment and platform components that 

are mobile; and

• shops specializing in pipe construction and welding.

15
Fabrication yards use a number of materials and supplies, but the most often used are steel plates, 

standard steel shapes, fuel oil, gasoline, coatings, welding gases, and paints (SEC 2006). 

1.2.1.1 Exploratory Rigs

A number of advancements have been made since Giliasso was first sunk off the shore of 

Louisiana. During the exploration phase, mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) are typically 

used to drill and explore for oil and gas. If the drilling site turns out to be successful, then a 

more permanent production platform can be moved in. Five types of offshore rigs are primarily 

used to drill wildcat or exploratory wells. 

Drilling barges are mostly used in inland, shallow waters. A barge or large floating platform 

with drilling equipment is towed by tugboat to a drilling site. It is held in place with anchors, 

and are really only suitable for shallow, calm waters. The drilling barge shown in Figure 3 is 

used by Maersk Drilling on Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela. This rig can operate in waters up to 

120 feet (37 meters) and has a rated drilling depth of 20,000 feet (6,096 meters) (Maersk Drilling 

2012).

Figure 3. Drilling barge, Maersk Drilling.

Source: Maersk Drilling 2012.

Jack up rigs are the most common type of drilling structure used. Typically, the rig is towed to 

its drilling location, and three or four legs are lowered to the seabed. The lowering of the legs 

allows the working platform to stay above the surface of the water. Jackups are usually used in 

water depths of up to 400 feet (122 meters) of water, (although there are some specialized rigs 

that can operate in water depths of 550 to 600 feet (168 to 183 meters) (Diamond Offshore 2012; 

and World Oil 2012). The jack up rig shown in Figure 4 is the GSP Prometeu, and is rated to 

operate at water depths of up to 300 feet (91 meters) and drilling depths of 20,000 feet (6,096 

meters) (Grup Servicii Petroliere 2012).

16
Figure 4. Jackup rig, GSP Prometeu

Source: Grup Servicii Petroliere 2012

Submersible rigs are floating vessels that are supported primarily on large pontoon-like 

structures that are submerged below the water surface. Once the rig is positioned over the drill 

site, the air is let out of the pontoons, and the rig is lowered to the sea floor. Because the rig 

must actually sit on the seafloor, submersibles only operate in shallow waters (Schlumberger 

2012; and NaturalGas.org 2012a). The Noble Joe Alford submersible (Figure 5) is rated to water 

depths of 70 feet (21 meters), and can drill up to 25,000 feet (7,620 meters) (Noble Corp 2012).

Figure 5. Submersible rig, Noble Joe Alford.

Source: Noble Corp 2012.

17
Semisubmersibles do not rest on the sea floor like submersibles or jack ups. The working deck 

of the rig is mounted on top of giant pontoons and hollow columns, or stilts. The pontoons are 

flooded with seawater and submerged. Because most of the unit is underwater, it becomes a 

more stable unit for drilling (stabilized by the weight of the hull) and can be used in deep and 

rough waters (Diamond Offshore 2012). To maintain their position, semisubmersibles use an 

eight- or 12-point anchoring system. Or, in deeper waters, dynamic positioning and GPS signals 

are used by computer-controlled motor-driven propellers (Diamond Offshore 2012). The West 

Eminence semi-submersible drilling rig, shown in Figure 6, is a state of the art, deepwater 

drilling unit that was built in 2009 and contracted to Petrobras. It has a water depth capacity of 

almost 10,000 feet (3,048 meters) (MarineLog 2009b).

Figure 6. Semisubmersible rig, West Eminence. Source: Marine Log 2009b.

Drill ships are seagoing vessels, or ships, that are outfitted with drilling equipment on the top, a 

derrick in the middle and an opening called a “moon pool” through which to drill 

(NaturalGas.org 2012a). Drill ships can drill in water depths of 12,000 feet (3,658 meters) and 

are useful for drilling exploratory wells as they can move from location to location quickly 

(Diamond Offshore 2012). Like semisubmersibles, drill ships either use multiple anchors or 

dynamic positioning (or a combination of both) to maintain position at the drill site 

(Schlumberger 2012). The Discoverer Deep Seas drill ship was built in 2001, can operate in 

water depths up to 10,000 feet (3,048 meters), can drill to 35,000 feet (10,668 meters), and 

withstand winds of up to 80 to 100 knots (Transocean 2012).

18
Figure 7. Drill ship, Discoverer Deep Seas. Source: Transocean 2012.

1.2.1.2 Production Platforms

Once oil or gas is found, an exploratory drilling rig is replaced with, or converted to, a 

production platform. Platforms can vary in size and type depending on the size of the production 

field, the water depth and the distance offshore. As offshore drilling became possible in deeper 

waters, drilling rigs increased in size and complexity. Figure 8 illustrates the various types of 

production platforms, both fixed and floating or subsea systems.

19
Figure 8. Fixed, floating, and subsea production systems. Source: Richardson et al. 2008.

Fixed Platform: A fixed platform has a tubular steel jacket and deck which provide a foundation 

for its surface facility. Piles are grounded in the seafloor and extend to water level, securing the 

jacket. The jacket supports the deck and surface facilities including machinery for drilling, 

production, other equipment, and living facilities for the crew. These types of platforms are 

generally not utilized in waters deeper than 2,000 feet (610 meters) because of the expense. 

Fixed platforms are the most commonly used platform type in shallow waters. 

Compliant Tower: A compliant tower is similar in basic structure to a fixed platform, but is 

much more flexible. Instead of a jacket, a compliant tower has a narrow, more pliable tower in 

its horizontal position. This flexibility allows this platform structure to better withstand harsh 

lateral wind or water forces. These are generally used in water depths between 1,000 and 2,000 

feet (305 and 610 meters) (API 2009). 

20
Tension and Mini-tension Leg Platforms (TLP): Tension and mini-tension leg platforms use 

buoy systems to allow the platform to be partially submerged, similar to that used in semisubmersibles. These platforms are ship-based structures which are towed and then vertically 

moored to its specified location. The buoys are used to maintain tension in the mooring system, 

and wellheads can actually be placed on the deck of the TLP, unlike ships and semisubmersibles. 

Semisubmersible platform: Semisubmersible platforms have pontoons, columns, and a deck. 

Pontoons and columns are buoyant so that the platform is partially, or “semi” submerged. The 

deck, as usual, contains crew living quarters and storage space. This type of platform can be 

used in a large range of water depths. 

SPAR Platform: A SPAR is a floating platform, with buoyancy chambers at the top, a flooded 

structure in the midsection and a stabilizing keel at the bottom, underneath the water. There are

three main variations: classic; truss; and cell. Living quarters and production equipment are 

fitted at the top of the structure. SPARs are more recent developments in offshore production, 

conceptually designed for deepwater production in waters up to 10,000 feet (3,048 meters) deep. 

Floating Production Unit: A floating production unit (FPU) is a variation of a semi-submersible. 

It is a self-propelled unit which is kept stationary by wire ropes and chains or by dynamic 

positioning (API 2009). Though FPU’s can be used for processing from subsea facilities, they 

are not used for storage. Instead, after using some gas to fuel the vessel, remaining oil and gas 

are transported to pipelines via export risers. Generally FPU’s are used in water depths up to 

7,500 feet (2,286 meters) (Richardson et al. 2008).

Subsea System: Subsea production systems are wells situated on the seabed, rather than the 

surface. Subsea systems can be a single subsea well producing to a nearby platform, FPU, or 

TLP, or multiple wells that produce through a pipeline system to a production facility (API 

2009). Subsea systems can be defined in terms of two categories of equipment: surface and 

seafloor. Surface equipment on a host platform may be very far from the wells themselves, but 

is vital for operations as it is the control system and production machinery. The seafloor portion 

consists of the wells, manifolds, control umbilicals, pumping or processing equipment or both, 

and flowlines. Subsea systems are used in deep water, usually 7,000 feet (2,134 meters) or more. 

They do not have drilling capability and only extract and transport (NaturalGas.org 2012a).

Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading (FPSO) System: FPSOs are large tanker vessels 

similar to FPUs, but these vessels contain equipment to collect and store oil produced from 

numerous sub-sea wells. A FPSO processes and stores production and periodically offloads the 

stored production to a smaller shuttle tanker (API 2009). FPSOs were originally developed for 

use in the North Sea, because of their usefulness in areas with limited or no pipeline 

infrastructure. Petrobras America, Inc. began production on the first FPSO production in the 

GOM in February 2012. BW Pioneer has the capacity to process 80,000 barrels of oil per day 

and 500 thousand cubic meters of gas per day (Rigzone 2012a). 

21
1.2.2 Shipyards

Shipyards are often classified depending on the type of operation: shipbuilding or ship repairing; 

and the type of ship: commercial or military. Shipyards are also classified into four basic 

categories depending on capability: (1) major shipyards engaged in the construction and repair of 

ships; (2) major ship-repair and dry-dock facilities; (3) smaller shipyards that service inland 

waterways and coastal commerce; and (4) topside-repair facilities (USC, OTA 1995).

The U.S. major shipbuilding base (MSB) is defined as privately owned yards that have at least 

one shipbuilding position capable of accommodating vessels 122 meters or more in length (USC, 

OTA 1995). These facilities usually also serve as major repair facilities with dry-docking 

capability. There are several hundred medium- and small-sized, or second-tier shipyards that 

primarily support the inland waterway and coastal commerce business. These yards build and 

repair tugboats, ferries, fishing vessels, barges, small government-owned vessels and oil drilling 

equipment (USDOC, ITA 1994). The larger second-tier shipyards can handle steel and 

aluminum vessels up to 183 meters in length (USDOC, ITA 1994). These are the yards that also 

construct and service offshore service vessels, or “OSVs”. This is a broad term used to describe 

the vessels used to support the offshore oil and gas industry. Specifically, these OSVs transport 

materials, equipment and personnel necessary for daily operation on the offshore drilling rig.

Shipbuilding activities in the U.S. can vary considerably depending on the primary market a 

particular shipyard serves (EPA 1997). 

Commercial Ships

The U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry comprises about 600 mid-tier and smaller shipyards. 

These yards tend to build small to medium sized ships less than 650 feet (198 meters) in length 

(ICAF 2009). Commercial needs for ships are very diverse and can be classified into categories 

based on their use: dry cargo ships; bulk carriers; tankers; passenger ships; fishing vessels; 

industrial vessels; etc. Dry cargo ships can be further dived into break bulk ships, container, and 

roll-on and roll-off types. Although most vessels built in these yards are built for specific 

commercial orders, some yards do serve as subcontractors to larger yards. 

The commercial market is very competitive even internationally, unlike the military market. It is

vital for firms to construct cost-competitive commercial ships and to repair them efficiently. 

U.S. commercial shipbuilders face steep competition from shipbuilders in Asia who offer lower 

prices and are more efficient (ICAF 2009). 

Offshore Supply Vessels

OSVs are boats that serve exploratory and developmental drilling rigs and production facilities 

through offshore and subsea construction support, installation, and decommissioning activities. 

OSVs are unique from other vessels in that they have great cargo-carrying flexibility and 

capacity for things such as deck cargo (pipe, equipment, or drummed material), liquid mud, 

potable and drinking water, diesel fuel, dry bulk cement, and personnel. Vessels designed for 

use in very deepwater also may have additional cargo capacity, larger deck space, and dynamic 

positioning (anchorless station-keeping capability) for safety (SEC 2011b). 

22
Seven major types of OSVs are: tugs, marine platform supply vessels (PSV), anchor handling 

towing and supply vessels (AHSV), fast support vessels (FSV), lift boats, mini-supply vessels 

(MSV) and floating, production, storage and offloading vessels (FPSO). 

Every OSV type is designed and constructed specifically for its intended use and activity. Each 

has a different length, horsepower, and cargo capabilities. PSVs, for example, can range from 65 

to 350 feet (20 to 107 meters) in length and are primarily used for the transportation of supplies 

and personnel to and from platforms. A PSV is equipped with tanks for transporting drilling 

mud, diesel fuel, water and chemicals used for drilling. It can also transport produced water,

drilling muds, wellbore treatment chemicals, and fuels that must be returned to shore for proper 

disposal (Maritime-Connector 2012). Anchor handling or tug supply vessels (AHTS) are ships 

with both anchor towing and supply carrying capabilities. These vessels are capable of towing 

and mooring deepwater rigs (Edison Chouest 2012). 

Military Ships

Orders for military ships have been the main driver in the shipbuilding industry for a long time, 

mainly because government policies set agency budgets and ship demand, as opposed to the 

commercial market. There are two main types of military ships: combatant ships and ships used

for commercial purposes. The U.S. Navy orders the majority of combatant ships, which include 

submarines, aircraft carriers, and auxiliaries. Most of the noncombatant ships purchased by the 

government are purchased by the Maritime Administration’s National Defense Reserve Fleet and 

the Navy’s Military Sealift Command. The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) also 

purchase noncombatant ships from shipyards in the U.S. Non-combatant ships can include cargo 

ships, transport ships, crane ships, patrol ships, roll on-roll off ships, tankers, and ice breakers 

(USEPA 1997). 

Major shipyards and repair facilities have the ability to dry dock and can repair vessels of 122 

meters (about 400 feet [122 meters]). These facilities must also have a waterway channel that is 

large enough to accommodate large vessels (at least 12 feet (3.7 meters) in depth) (USDOT 

MARAD 2004). Smaller shipyards construct and repair vessels under 400 feet (122 meters) that 

can include: patrol boats (both military and non-military); casino boats; water taxis; tugboats; 

towboats; fire and rescue ships; ferries; and offshore crew and supply boats. Many second-tier 

shipyards are capable of making topside repairs to ships over 400 feet (122 meters) in length. 

More specific distinctions between the capabilities of different shipyard types are listed in Table 

1.

23
Table 1. Types of shipyard facilities in the U.S. (owned privately).

Type of 

Shipyard Number Description

Major Shipyard Facilities

Active 

Shipbuilding 

Yard

9

Privately owned U.S. shipyards that are open, having at least one 

shipbuilding position capable of accommodating a vessel 122 meters 

(400 feet) in length or greater. In addition, these shipyards must own or 

have in place a long-term lease (1 year or more) on the facility in which 

they intend to accomplish the shipbuilding work, there must be no 

dimensional obstructions in the waterway leading to open water (i.e., 

locks, bridges), and the water depth in the channel to the facility must be 

a minimum of 3.7 meters.

Other Shipyard 

with Building 

Positions

15

Privately owned shipyards that are open with at least one building 

position capable of accommodating a vessel 122 meters in length or 

greater, and that have not constructed a naval ship or major oceangoing 

merchant vessel in the past two years.

Repair Yard 

with Drydock 

Facilities

27

Facilities with at least one drydocking facility that can accommodate 

vessels 122 meters in length or greater, with water depth in the channel 

to the shipyard of at least 3.7 meters. These facilities may also be 

capable of constructing a vessel less than 122 meters in length overall.

Topside Repair 

Yards 34

Facilities with sufficient berth or pier space for topside repair of ships 122 

meters in length or greater, provided that water depth in the channel to 

the facility itself is at least 3.7 meters. These facilities may also have 

drydocks or construction capability for vessels less than 122 meters in 

length. Services rendered by these firms vary from a simple repair job to 

a major topside overhaul, particularly when the work on oceangoing ships 

can be accomplished without taking the ships out of the water.

Medium and Small Shipyard Facilities

Boatbuilding 

and Repair 50 Capable of building or repairing maritime vessels less than 122 meters (400 feet) in length.

Vessel Repair 37

Facilities that only provide repair services, either repair with drydocking or 

topside repair, to maritime vessels less than 122 meters (400 feet). These 

companies must have their own waterfront facilities.

Fabricators and

Manufacturers 

of Maritime 

Vessels

63 Companies that build small commercial crafts less than 76 meters (250 

feet).

Barge Building 

and Repair 43 Companies that build or repair barges.

Recreational 

Crafts 28 Yards that build and repair recreational crafts such as yachts.

Shipyards with 

No Available 

Information

22 Facilities known to be shipyards, but with no other available information at 

this time.

Source: USDOT MARAD 2004.

24
Shipyards may also be classified based on the type of dock being used. There are two ways for 

ships to be docked: wet-docks or dry-docks (USDOT MARAD 2004). A wet-dock, also called a 

berth, is an in-water slip where a ship can dock and tie up. In a dry dock, a ship is lifted out of 

the water and has its entire hull exposed (USEPA 1997). Dry docks are used for repairs and 

maintenance, such as removal of marine growth, cleaning, painting, and significant repairs that

would be impossible if the ship was even partially submerged. It is possible however, to perform 

less serious repairs while a ship is still in the water. The classification of docks is described in

Table 2.

Table 2. Positions used for ship construction and repair in the U.S.

Dock Type Number Definition

Shipways 24 Only used for building and releasing ships.

Graving docks 32

Artificial rectangular bays used to float ships in when full of water, then 

the water is pumped out of the bay into adjacent waters so that the boat 

can be repaired while out of the water. May also be used for ship 

construction.

Floating 

drydocks 44

Land-secured floating vessels which can be submerged and then lifted to 

repair ships above water level. Ballast tanks are filled with water to 

submerge the drydock, then the ship can be brought in on the water,

followed by pumping out the ballast tanks to raise the dock and the ship 

above the water surface. These are rarely used for ship construction.

Marine railways 2

Used in repairing smaller ships, but also can retrieve and launch vessels. 

Consists of a rail-car platform, railroad tracks, and an inclined platform 

that extends in to water deep enough to dock vessels. The rail-car 

platform and ship are pulled ashore by a motor and pulley system located 

at the marine railway.

Land Levels 24 Land based repair and construction facilities, often with track-based 

cranes to maneuver the ships as needed.

Total 126

Source: USDOT, MARAD 2004; and General Dynamics 2012. 

Shipyards must accommodate the flow of materials and the ease of assembly. Like platform 

fabrication yards, growth and expansion of the facility is piecemeal and dependent upon 

technology and the availability of land and water access. There are no “typical” examples of 

shipyards, though there are characteristics that are common to most facilities: 

• dry-docks;

• shipbuilding, piers, and berthing positions;

• electrical, pipe cutting and machining, assembly, painting and sanding 

workshops;

• areas for carpenter, sheet metal and construction work;

25
• warehouses and storage (primarily for steel);

• service and fueling stations; and

• offices.

1.3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

1.3.1 Platform Fabrication

Platform fabrication yards must have access to a navigable channel that is large enough to 

accommodate the towing of bulky and long structures like offshore drilling and production 

platforms. Thus, platform fabrication yards are located either directly on the coast, or inland, 

along large channels such as the Intracoastal Waterway. Some waterway locations can actually 

limit the size and scope of various projects that can be developed at a particular location. For 

instance, the dimensions of the Houma Navigation Canal prevent the transport of most jackets 

designed for water depths exceeding 800 feet (244 meters) (SEC 2011a). However, the Gulf 

Intercoastal Waterway and the 45-foot depth of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel provide 

unrestricted access to the GOM and allow for any size structure that is in use today (SEC 2011a). 

There are no platform fabrication facilities located in the Mid-Atlantic impact region. 

1.3.2 Shipyards

Eight boat building shipyards were identified in the Mid-Atlantic impact region. Most handle 

smaller coastal ships, boats, and barges. There are 20 repair yards, a number of which can 

handle large oceangoing vessels and most have dry-docking capability.

26
Table 3. Mid-Atlantic impact region shipyards.

Shipyard Type / Yard City State

Builders - Large Oceangoing, Naval and Commercial Ships1

1 NGSB Newport News Operations Newport News VA

Builders - Mid-sized Oceangoing Commercial Ships, Rigs or Barges2

2 Aker Philadelphia Philadelphia PA

Builders - Small Ships, Boats and Barges for Coastal or 

Inland Use3

3 Yank Marine Tuckahoe NJ

4 Chesapeake Shipbuilding Salisbury MD

5 Custom Steel Boats Merritt NC

6 Metal Trades Inc. Hollywood SC

Builders - Aluminum Boats4

7 Susquehanna Santee Willow Street PA

Builders - Yachts5

8 Hatteras Yachts New Bern NC

Repair - Large Ships, Capable of Dry-Docking an Oceangoing Vessel6

9 Bayonne Drydock Bayonne NJ

10 Atlantic Marine Philadelphia Philadelphia PA

11 BAE Systems Norfolk SR Norfolk VA

12 Metro Machine of VA Norfolk VA

13 NGSB Newport News Operations Newport News VA

14 Detyens Shipyards N. Charleston SC

Repair - Small Ships, Boats and Barges with Dry-Docking Capability

15 Union Dry Dock & Repair Hoboken NJ

16 General Ship Repair Corp. Baltimore MD

17 Yacht Maintenance Cambridge MD

18 Colonna's Shipyard Norfolk VA

19 Davis Boat Works, Inc. Newport News VA

20 Earl Industries Portsmouth VA

21 Lyon Shipyard Norfolk VA

22 TEC-Skanska, Inc. Virginia Beach VA

23 Metal Trades Inc. Hollywood SC

24 Stevens Marine Services Yonges Island SC

25 Thunderbolt Marine Thunderbolt GA

Repair - Topside Capability Only

26 Marine Hydraulics Norfolk VA

27 Tecnico Chesapeake VA

28 Savannah Marine Services Savannah GA

Notes: 1,2These yards are fully equipped with in-house design capabilities; 3

These yards have limited facilities and 

capabilities; 4

Aluminum boats for commercial and governmental use; 5Yachts, i.e., custom-designed and built yachts 

that are at least 100 ft (30 m) in length; 6

Large ships, i.e., one capable of dry-docking an oceangoing vessel of at 

least Panamax beam (106 ft (32 m)).

Source: USDOT, MARAD 2004. 

27
Figure 9. Location of Mid-Atlantic impact region shipyards. Source: Author’s construct using USDOT, MARAD 2004. 

Two firms dominate the U.S. shipbuilding industry: General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls (a 

sister company to Northrop Grumman) (Colton 2012). These two firms operate the “big six” 

shipyards and focus almost exclusively on military and government contracts. General 

Dynamics owns three of the big six, two of which are on the East Coast and one is on the West

Coast. General Dynamics’ Electric Boat is in Connecticut, contracts with the U.S. Navy, and has 

been the world’s leading submarine builder since 1899 (General Dynamics 2012). General 

Dynamics’ other East Coast subsidiary, Bath Iron Works is located in Bath, Maine and was 

historically a merchant shipbuilder. Since 1982, Bath Iron Works has specialized in cruiser and 

destroyer construction for the U.S. Navy. The third yard, North American Steel and Shipping 

Industry (NASSCO), is in San Diego, California.

Huntington Ingalls operates Newport News Shipbuilding (Virginia), Ingalls Shipbuilding 

(Mississippi), and Avondale Shipyards (Louisiana) (Huntington Ingalls 2012). Huntington 

Ingalls was created in 2008 as a spinoff company of Northrup Grumman. Newport News repairs 

merchant vessels, and the two in the GOM work exclusively for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast 

Guard (Colton 2012). 

28
Of the big six, only NASSCO accepts commercial contracts; the others process only military 

orders. The majority of commercial shipbuilding along the East and West Coasts is handled by a 

little over 100 active smaller shipyards (Colton 2012).

The largest facility in the Mid-Atlantic impact region, the Newport News facility focuses mainly 

on designing, building, overhauling and repairing ships for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast 

Guard. This facility is (Huntington Ingalls 2013):

• the sole supplier of U.S. Navy aircraft carriers the world’s largest warships; 

• one of two builders constructing the Virginia-class nuclear powered submarines;

• home of the Western Hemisphere’s largest dry dock and crane.

• exclusive provider of refueling services for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

• largest non-governmental provider of fleet maintenance services to the Navy

(Huntington Ingalls 2013).

The Newport News facility is located on over 550 acres with two miles (three kilometers) of 

waterfront. There are approximately 19,000 employees, making it the largest industrial employer 

in Virginia. 

Figure 10. Northrup Grumman, Newport News, Virginia.

Source: Huntington Ingalls 2013.

The Aker Philadelphia shipyard has a workforce of 1,200 consisting of its own employees and 

subcontractors. The company has delivered 12 large ocean-going commercial vessels since 

powering up in 2003 and is currently building two more to be used in the Jones Act Market. The 

shipyard has a Goliath Crane with a maximum lift capability of 660 tons; specialized vehicles to 

transport grand blocks weighing more than 600 tons; and numerous other high-capacity and 

automated cranes (Aker Philadelphia 2012). This yard employs a highly automated process with 

a specific focus on steel production, resulting in an annual steel fabrication capacity of 25,000 

tons per year (Aker Philadelphia 2012). (See Figure 11.)

29
Figure 11. Aker Philadelphia Shipyard. Source: MarineLog 2009a.

Atlantic Marine is another Philadelphia-located shipyard. Located on 450 acres in the 

Philadelphia Navy Yard, the site has a graving dock that can accommodate vessels up to 984 feet 

(300 meters) in length and 114 feet (35 meters) in breadth. Its repair facility offers a dry dock, 

topside repair berth, rail service, and cranes with 50 ton lifting capacity.

Figure 12. Atlantic Marine Shipyard.

Source: Wikimedia Commons 2012.

Chesapeake Shipbuilding in Salisbury, Maryland builds commercial ships up to 375 feet in 

length. This yard specializes in the design and construction of passenger vessels, tugboats and 

ferry boats. It is located on 13 acres on the Wicomico River and its facilities include:

• 2,000 feet (610 meters) of deepwater bulkhead;

• two construction basins;

• three level construction and side launch systems; 

30
• a ground transfer system; and 

• various hull fabrication buildings and shops (Chesapeake Shipbuilding 2012).

In the past year, Chesapeake has added two new hull fabrication buildings for the ability to 

construct complete tugs in a controlled environment. The buildings are outfitted with automatic 

welding equipment, a compressed air system, and a rail system that allows vessels to be moved 

to the launch ways (Chesapeake Shipbuilding 2012).

Figure 13. Chesapeake Shipbuilding, Salisbury, Maryland.

Source: Chesapeake Shipbuilding 2012.

1.4 SCOPE OF ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION TO REGIONAL ECONOMY

Table 4 shows that each state’s total ship and boat building employment contributions are 

relatively small in comparison to the total employment in each of the impact region’s states. 

None of the states in the Mid-Atlantic impact region have ship and boat building employment 

totals that are over seven-tenths of one percent of the overall statewide employment totals. 

Ship and boat building employment in Virginia, by far, makes up the most of the total regional 

ship and boat building employment (see Figure 14). Likewise, Virginia has the highest 

employment contributions to total U.S. ship and boat building employment. In fact, Virginia 

accounts for almost 20 percent of total U.S. ship and boat building employment and the region 

accounts for just under 25 percent of total U.S. ship and boat building employment.

31
Table 4. Regional and national employment contribution, ship and boat building, 2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Georgia do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 14. Mid-Atlantic impact region ship and boat building employment shares, 2011. Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Georgia do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Ship and Ship and Boat

Boat Building Building Employment

Employment as a as a Percent of Total U.S.

Ship and Total Percent of Total Ship and Boat Building

Boat Building State State Employment Employment

New Jersey 1,012 3,156,538 0.03% 0.82%

Delaware n.a. 342,585 n.a. n.a.

Maryland 481 1,991,055 0.02% 0.39%

Pennsylvania 973 4,825,064 0.02% 0.79%

Virginia 24,486 2,889,435 0.85% 19.95%

North Carolina 1,387 3,158,293 0.04% 1.13%

South Carolina 2,113 1,450,840 0.15% 1.72%

Georgia n.a. 3,135,735 n.a. n.a.

Total Region 30,452 20,949,545 0.15% 24.81%

U.S. 122,718 108,184,795 0.11% 100.00%

Number of Jobs

----------------- (%) -----------------

New Jersey, 3%

Maryland, 2%

Pennsylvania, 3%

Virginia, 80%

North Carolina, 5%

South Carolina, 7%

32
From 2001 through 2011, ship and boat building employment in the Mid-Atlantic region 

increased at an average annual rate of 0.3 percent. In Virginia, ship and boat building 

employment increased steadily, at an average annual rate of 1.7 percent. In the other states,

however, employment in this sector fluctuated. Ship and boat building employment was on the 

rise between 2002 and 2005, increasing by an annual average of 3.7 percent. In 2006 the 

increase began to taper off and in 2008 regional ship and boat building employment decreased by 

3.8 percent. It fell again by 10.5 percent in 2009. In 2010 and 2011 however, employment 

numbers were back up, increasing by 0.5 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively. The largest 

decreases in 2008 and 2009 were in Maryland and North Carolina (29.7 percent in Maryland 

[2009]; and 58.9 percent decline in North Carolina [2009]). 

Figure 15. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region ship and boat building employment, 

2001-2011. Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Georgia do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Regional wage contributions, shown in Table 5, follow trends similar to employment levels 

discussed earlier; the regional totals are dominated by the states with the largest shares of ship 

and boat building employment. Regional shares of total wages paid by ship and boat building 

facilities are shown in Figure 16.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

New Jersey Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia North Carolina South Carolina

Number of Jobs

33
Table 5. Regional and national wage contribution, ship and boat building, 2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Georgia do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Ship and Ship and Boat

Boat Building Building Wages as a

Wages as a Percent of Total U.S.

Ship and Total Percent of Total Ship and Boat

Boat Building State State Wages Building Wages

New Jersey $ 46.6 $ 179,559 0.03% 0.67%

Delaware n.a. $ 17,313 n.a. n.a.

Maryland $ 22.9 $ 100,787 0.02% 0.33%

Pennsylvania $ 53.3 $ 225,147 0.02% 0.76%

Virginia $ 1,553.7 $ 145,225 1.07% 22.27%

North Carolina $ 59.7 $ 132,436 0.05% 0.86%

South Carolina $ 92.2 $ 54,746 0.17% 1.32%

Georgia n.a. $ 142,928 n.a. n.a.

Total Region $ 1,828.4 $ 998,140 0.18% 26.21%

U.S. $ 6,976.0 $ 5,172,844 0.13% 100.00%

Wages

---------- (million $) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

34
Figure 16. Mid-Atlantic impact region ship and boat building wage shares, 2011. Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Georgia do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 17. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region ship and boat building wages, 2001-2011. Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Georgia do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

New Jersey, 3%

Maryland, 1%

Pennsylvania, 3%

Virginia, 85%

North Carolina, 3%

South Carolina, 5%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

New Jersey Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia North Carolina South Carolina

Wages (million $)

35
Table 6 provides a comparison of the average annual wages paid to employees in the ship and 

boat building sectors of the Mid-Atlantic impact area. Except in New Jersey and Maryland, 

annual wages for ship and boat building employees are higher than the average state wage. 

However, when compared to the average wage for ship and boat builders in the U.S., only 

Virginia ship and boat building employees exceed the national average while all other states in 

the Mid-Atlantic impact area are below the national average wage for ship and boat building. 

Table 6. Regional and national average annual wage contribution, ship and boat building, 

2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Georgia do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Trends in average annual wages for regional ship and boat building employees are shown in

Figure 18. The trends show that average annual wage has been increasing at an average annual 

rate of 3.3 percent, with the greatest increases in 2007 (5.5 percent) and 2008 (5.1 percent). In 

2008, Maryland and Virginia showed the largest increases in average annual ship and boat 

building wages, with increases of 15.0 percent and 9.3 percent, respectively.

Ship and Boat Ship and Boat

Building Average Building Average

Annual Wage as a Annual Wage as a

Ship and Total Percent of Total Percent of Total U.S.

Boat Building State Average Annual Wage Average Annual Wage

New Jersey $ 46,030 $ 56,885 80.9% 81.0%

Delaware n.a. $ 50,535 n.a. n.a.

Maryland $ 47,564 $ 50,620 94.0% 83.7%

Pennsylvania $ 54,810 $ 46,662 117.5% 96.4%

Virginia $ 63,454 $ 50,261 126.2% 111.6%

North Carolina $ 43,062 $ 41,933 102.7% 75.8%

South Carolina $ 43,627 $ 37,734 115.6% 76.7%

Georgia n.a. $ 45,580 n.a. n.a.

Total Region $ 49,758 $ 47,526 104.7% 87.5%

U.S. $ 56,845 $ 47,815 118.9% 100.0%

---------- ($) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

Average Annual Wage

36
Figure 18. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region ship and boat building average annual 

wages, 2001-2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Georgia do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

1.5 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: INDUSTRY

1.5.1 Trends

1.5.1.1 Platform Fabrication

The cyclical nature of the oil and gas industry strongly influences how the platform fabrication 

industry operates. As with other support industries, when oil prices are high, business is 

generally good; when oil prices are low, business opportunities are limited and fabrication yards 

may need to scale back or diversify into other marine-related activities. During industry 

downturns, many fabrication yards diversify, or expand operations into other areas so that they 

can use existing equipment and retain their skilled workforce. The yards may engage in 

maintenance or renovations of drilling rigs, fabrication of barges and other marine vessels, drydocking, or equipment surveying. Though these projects are significantly smaller in scale, they 

allow the platform fabrication firms to survive the cyclical nature of their business and maintain 

functionality until the “good times” return.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

New Jersey Maryland Pennsylvania

Virginia North Carolina South Carolina

Average Annual Wage ($)

37
Construction activities for platform fabrication have evolved to support the increasing 

importance of deepwater activities in the GOM. For instance, the Independence Hub2 (Figure 

19) is a semisubmersible production facility responsible for setting a number of installation and 

operation records. At the time, it was the world’s deepest platform located in 8,000 feet (2,438 

meters) of water and setting the record for deepest subsea completion, steel catenary riser (SCR) 

installation, and export pipeline. The Independence Hub spans one of the largest geographic 

areas in the GOM, and covers 142 blocks or 1,800 square miles (4,662 square kilometers) in 

Mississippi Canyon block 921. A 12-line mooring system is connected to twelve suction piles 

and holds the platform in place (Paganie 2007a). The Independence Hub taps 16 wells in 10 

discovery fields using 10 to 45 mile-long (16 to 72 kilometers) umbilical lines (Murdock 2009). 

And touch screens located on the deck and control room of the central processing platform 

control the valves of the subsea infrastructure (Paganie 2007a). 

The hub’s hull was fabricated in Singapore and the hull and mooring systems were designed, 

constructed, and transported to the staging site from Ingleside, Texas (by Atlantia Offshore of 

Houston) (Paganie 2007b). Heerema Marine Contractors transported the hull and mooring 

systems from Singapore, Alliance Engineering of Houston designed the topsides, and Kiewit 

Offshore Services of Ingleside, Texas fabricated and installed those topsides (Kammerzell 2005; 

and Tubb 2005). Allseas USA was awarded the contract to install the flowlines and gas export 

pipeline (Tubb 2005). FMC Technologies supplied subsea trees, manifolds, valves, and 

connector hubs (Paganie 2007b). 

2

The Independence Hub is the result of a combined effort. Six companies worked together to facilitate the 

development of a number of ultra-deepwater natural gas and condensate discoveries in the Eastern GOM. The hub

is an affiliate of Enterprise and the Atwater Valley Producers Group, which includes Anadarko, Dominion, KerrMcGee, Spinnaker, and Devon Energy (Offshore-Technology 2009a).

38

 
Figure 19. Independence Hub.

Source: Murdock 2009.

More recently, Shell broke the water depth record for subsea production with its Perdido 

Development in the Tobago Field, 200 miles (322 kilometers) southwest of Houston in the GOM

(Rigzone 2011). The well is at a water depth of 9,627 feet (2,934 meters). The platform is 

moored in 8,000 feet (2,438 meters) of water and is jointly owned by Shell (33.34 percent), BP 

(33.33 percent) and Chevron (33.33 percent) (Rigzone 2011). From this platform, the Great 

White, Tobago, and Silvertip oil and gas fields are accessed through subsea wells up to seven 

miles (11 kilometers) away. This project records a number of firsts including (Rigzone 2011): 

1. Deepest water depth record for an offshore oil drilling and production 

platform;

2. First water injection in 8,000 feet (2,438 meters) of water in the GOM (Great 

White GB001) helps push oil through the reservoir, from the injector wells to 

the production wells;

3. First commercial production from the Lower Tertiary geological formation, 

which many see as the next big opportunity in deep water;

4. Deployment of an innovative subsea separation and boosting system that 

compensates for the low-pressure reservoir and about 2,000 psi of 

backpressure from the wells. The system includes five specially designed 

1,500-horsepower electric pumps embedded in the seafloor to boost 

production to the surface;

5. First spar with direct vertical access wells and production hardware on the 

seafloor at a depth of more than 8,000 feet (2,438 meters);

39
6. Perdido weighs 50,000-tons and sits in water six times deeper than the height 

of the Empire State Building; and

7. The entire Perdido project has achieved 13 million man-hours without a losttime injury, testifying to the effectiveness of the safety regimes put in place by 

the construction and operating teams.

The development of platform technology and efficient design has been critical in the move to 

deepwater. Besides the typical civil and marine architecture developments, these advancements 

also include improved systems and software innovations. One major development was the 

movement to unoccupied platforms by using remote power systems. For example, the MTPower TM is supplied by Northern Power System’s Inc. and uses a fully-integrated fossil-fuel 

based micro turbine in a continuous run mode as its primary source of power generation (PR 

Newswire 2005a). Other remote technologies exist as well, the most recent for subsea hot 

tapping, “Subsea 1200 RC Tapping Machine” (World Oil 2012b). Another innovative software 

is called Online Monitoring (OLM), and is a cost-effective way to monitor the safety of jacket 

structures. Not only can OLM detect member severance, but it is accurate and can provide 

guidance on the specific location of the problem (Offshore-Technology 2007). This is being 

used in the North Sea, West Africa, Malaysia, and the GOM.

The platform fabrication industry is intensely competitive because it is a global market. The 

majority of GOM facilities compete with yards domestically, and also with those located in 

South Korea, countries in the North Sea, and Italy. To effectively compete with international 

companies (many of whom receive aid from their own governments), many companies seek aid 

from state and federal sources. The goal of this aid is to improve facilities to enhance their 

competitiveness regionally. For instance, Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc., in Houma, Louisiana, 

received $2.3 million dollars of state funding to assist in its $29.3 million plan for expansion to 

develop a new operating division for barge building on the Houma Navigational Channel in 

Terrebonne Parish. Press releases claimed this expansion would bring 200 new jobs to Houma 

and would secure a commitment for Gulf Island to keep its headquarters in Louisiana (Perilloux 

2008). Gulf Island headquarters remain in Houma in 2012 (SEC 2011a).

Technological developments that have increased the feasibility of drilling at deeper and deeper 

depths, along with global competition, increase the difficulties faced by fabrication yards and the 

industry as a whole. Deepwater development is impacting the industry in two main ways: 

industry consolidation and closer integration. First, companies are finding it optimal to purchase 

other, smaller companies and form larger corporations. For example, Gulf Island Fabrication 

purchased Gulf Marine Fabricators of Texas in 2006 along with their facilities, machinery, and 

equipment (SEC 2006a). Gulf Island explained that the acquisition would allow them to perform 

dockside integration, to construct 1,300 foot conventional jackets and tendons needed for 

floating platforms, increase rolled goods capabilities, and would provide 45 feet (14 meters) of 

water depth access. Even more important, Gulf Island would be able to fabricate and assemble 

all components of deepwater construction projects, which it could not have done previously 

because of limitations of the physicality of its Houma yard. The additional facility also increased 

Gulf Island’s dockside lifting capacity to 4,000 tons (SEC 2006a). Similar examples can be seen 

in nearly all of the larger platform fabrication companies.

40
The second impact of enhanced deepwater development is closer integration of the industry. 

This results from alliances, relationships stemming from special projects, and joint ventures. 

Gulf Marine was owned by Technip-Coflexip before being acquired by Gulf Island. As a result 

of this acquisition, however, these two companies entered into a cooperative agreement in which 

the companies agreed to work together on “mutually agreed upon engineer, procure and 

construct (EPC) projects and engineer, procure, install and commission (EPIC) projects requiring 

fabrication work in the Gulf Coast region” (SEC 2006). According to this agreement, Gulf 

Island has the right of first refusal for fabrication work in connection with specific bids that 

Technip may submit. 

The number of employees at a platform fabrication yard varies from fewer than one hundred up 

to several thousand depending upon the size of the fabrication yard. Also, because the work is 

project-oriented and seasonal, companies often use temporary, contract workers during busy 

times. Employment trends are cyclical and seasonal, as is the case with most oil and gas related 

industries. Similarly, employment relies heavily upon large orders and fluctuations of client 

needs (SEC 2011a). A typical workforce of a platform fabrication company can vary throughout 

the year with increases and decreases in contract labor dependent upon backlog and the specific 

orders underway.

Skilled personnel are necessary for a fabrication yard to remain productive and profitable, though 

during periods of high activity the supply of these workers can be quite limited. Specifically, 

yards must be able to attract and retain talented construction workers, welders, fitters, and 

equipment operators (SEC 2011b). Because the majority of construction occurs outdoors, there 

are significantly fewer labor hours during the winter months. Note however, that some work 

does continue year-round in covered areas of yards (SEC 2011a). To deal with this seasonality, 

some firms in other industries may choose to lay off workers; however, because skilled 

personnel are so vital in the fabrication industry, firms use other tactics. For example, Gulf 

Island Fabrication chooses to reduce the number of hours worked per day based on the hours of 

sunlight, by all employees instead of letting employees go. Interestingly, in recent years the 

impact of seasonality has been decreasing due to increased investment in machinery and covered 

areas for fabrication use (SEC 2011a).

41
1.5.1.2 Shipyards

The U.S. shipbuilding industry was at its peak by the mid-1970s; it supplied all military orders 

and also controlled a significant portion of the international commercial market. Unfortunately, 

the years following were bleak. There was a widespread perception that maritime policies were 

being ignored due to lack of enforcement and a lack of funding for subsidies established by the 

Merchant Marine Act of 1936. In the 1980s, the number of shipbuilding and repair yards in the 

U.S. and orders for new construction decreased drastically. First tier shipyards experienced most

of the decline in their commercial construction as numbers fell from an average of 1,000 gross 

tons (approximately 77 ships) per year in the mid-1970s to just eight ships through the late 1980s 

and early 1990s. The 1980s decline was slightly offset by an increase in military orders, but with 

the end of the Cold War and a contracting commercial demand, by the 1990s the U.S. industry 

saw a smaller military market share and an insignificant commercial market share. As 

mentioned, this severe impact was most visible in first-tier shipyards, but second-tier and ship 

repairing companies also suffered in recent years, but not as drastically. The U.S. offshore 

industry collapse following 1986 damaged the shipbuilding industry along with all other even 

remotely related sectors (all supporting industries such as repair yards, local crafts and trades 

professionals who worked on a contract basis were also impacted) (USEPA 1997).

A number of factors contributed to the U.S. shipbuilding and repair industry’s fall from the 

commercial shipbuilding market. First, a worldwide shipbuilding boom in the 1970 created a 

capacity bubble of surplus tonnage and other countries were offering subsidies to their own 

domestic shipbuilding and repair entities making it difficult for U.S. companies to compete 

effectively. Instead, foreign shipyards gained a competitive advantage and were able to attain 

shipbuilding work previously held by U.S. companies. The U.S. Federal government did take 

temporary action by implementing policies to reduce the “Construction Differential Subsidies” 

(CDS) in 1980, by providing allowances to reduce the difference between foreign and domestic 

shipbuilding costs. More than 40 percent of the U.S. shipbuilding industry was eligible for these 

monetary allowances; however, the program was cancelled in 1981 (USEPA 1997).

The U.S. government and the shipbuilding industry have taken steps to revitalize the industry 

and transform the market to be more internationally competitive. In 1994, the Maritime 

Administration established the National Maritime Resource and Education Center to explicitly 

increase competitiveness of the market (USDOT, MARAD 2012). 

Figure 20 depicts historical trends in new ship orders from the 1970s to the mid-2000s. The 

rapid deterioration in domestic shipbuilding activity is readily recognizable on this chart. 

Though activity increased somewhat in 2000 to 2002, new shipbuilding activity is still a fraction 

of the level of effort observed in the late 1970s. One major stimulus for the increase in 

shipbuilding activity has been the increase in deepwater oil and gas activity (USDOT, MARAD 

1999). The graph shows an increase in shipbuilding orders that corresponds with the passage of 

the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act of 1995.

42
Figure 20. Commercial shipbuilding order history (through 2004).

Source: USDOT, MARAD 2004.

The decline of commercial shipbuilding demand in the 1980s negatively impacted the industry’s 

ability to attract and retain skilled labor. A survey conducted by the U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (2001) considered the operating and labor 

conditions in U.S. shipyards and found the lack of skilled labor has reduced shipyard profits, 

negatively altered construction costs, and resulted in significant schedule delays for projects at a 

majority of shipyards. More recent studies have found that these issues are still prevalent (ICAF

2008; ICAF 2011). For example, from 1996 to 2006 the number of private shipyard workers 

decreased from 98,000 to 47,000, a 49 percent decrease (USDOT, MARAD 1996 and USDOT, 

MARAD 2006a).

Turnover rates at shipyards are high, relative to other manufacturing industries. The work can be 

strenuous and is almost entirely outdoors where workers are exposed to uncomfortable 

environmental conditions, especially during the summers of coastal high heat and humidity. 

This exacerbates the problem of finding skilled labor in today’s market, and has compelled many 

shipyards to contract out work they historically did in their own yard (USDOC, BIS 2001). 

In an attempt to diversify and endure downturns in the industry, shipbuilders and platform 

fabricators have expanded into supply and support activities for the oil and gas industries and 

other related industries. Some general attributes related to successful diversification are general 

large geographic areas for work and storage; various unskilled and skilled labor (i.e., electricians, 

pipefitters, welders); access to supportive infrastructure (i.e., roads, waterways, ports, 

communications). Now shipbuilders and fabricators can engage in dry-docking, inspections, 

maintenance, and surveys of stacked rigs and equipment. Employees can also work on 

production systems, and, despite its low dollar per task, it is a more stable employment than 

traditional fabrication work and helps keep important yards economically viable during 

downturns.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002

Number of Orders

43
The OSV market has become much more global in recent years, and its stability is reliant upon 

the number of rigs (especially in deepwater areas, which is where the bulk of new developments 

are). As of January 1, 2012, 64 floating rigs and 78 high-spec jack-up rigs were under 

construction or on order. Because each drilling rig working on deepwater projects generally 

requires more than one OSV for service, it is likely the demand for OSVs will remain strong in 

the near future (SEC 2011b).

1.5.2 Outlook

Much has changed in the offshore drilling industry since the first subsea wellhead was installed 

in 1961. Drilling activity is expected to increase by about 4 percent in the U.S. in 2012 (Petzet

2012). And, forecasts estimate that exploration and production spending will grow double digits 

each year from 2013 to 2015 (Keppel Offshore and Marine 2011). 

Exploration in deeper water, particularly in the GOM, is a strong motivator for the platform 

fabrication industry’s decisions on development and expansion. Gulf Island is one clear example

because its motivation for the Gulf Marine acquisition was its ability to construct larger 

structures for use in deepwater exploration (SEC 2006a). Similarly, Keppel Offshore and 

Marine (2011) cites deepwater development and expected increases in oil and gas drilling 

expenditures as reasons for their expected growth and increasing profits in the future.

Platform fabrication and shipyards supporting the oil and gas industry face very similar 

challenges, as do other sectors that support offshore activities. These challenges include cost 

pressures, labor shortages, and the engineering and economic challenges created as new 

technologies are developed and exploration extends to deeper waters. 

The shipbuilding sector has faced issues due to overbuilding, which has caused rates to decrease. 

However, there is an expectation of increased repair demand for the aging OSV fleet, which 

could mean improvement for the sector (Keppell Offshore and Marine 2011). Similarly, 

customer requirements and expectations about safety, along with regulatory concerns are driving 

OSV demand for innovative improvements to operational efficiency and safety. However, the 

sector is still dependent on military contracts, and is not adequately competitive internationally. 

To improve competitiveness, the industry needs to continue to invest in worker training, 

efficiency, research and development, and efficiency improvements. 

Like other offshore support industries and other heavy construction and manufacturing sectors, 

workforce development is a major concern. A lack of skilled labor can hamper efficiency and

profits. Companies in this situation may face financial pressures of lower profits, impacted 

construction costs, and delayed or untimely completion of projects. In an attempt to compensate 

for such shortages, yards may employ contract workers, especially during busy times. This 

problem is expected to compound with the retirement of the existing workforce, especially for 

shipyards, because workers require many years of experience and take ample time to replace 

adequately (ICAF 2008). Over one third of shipyard workers are over the age of 50 and the 

average age of a worker is 45 (ICAF 2008).

44
The U.S. shipbuilding industry has also had a concern with a lack of necessary capital. Title XI 

of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 began a program to provide financial capital support and 

debt-underwriting. The program was entitled, the “National Shipbuilding Initiative” (NSI) and 

provided an assurance of payment by the federal government. Specifically, the NSI guarantees 

full payment to the lender of the unpaid principal and interest in the event of default by the vessel 

owners or general shipyard facility. 

In January 2009 a $267 million loan guarantee was approved to construct five articulated tug and 

barge units. Also, there are nine pending applications for the construction of 53 barges, five

tugs, three articulated tug or barge units, two shuttle tankers, six platform supply vessels and 

seven drill rigs (Transportation Institute 2012). Title XI has funded over 75 projects, including

passenger vessels, supply vessels, tugs and shipyard modernization projects (USDOT, MARAD 

2006b). In 2007 the American Shipbuilding Association’s president boasted that Title XI helps 

American shipyards to retain their skilled employees, expand the fleet of U.S. built commercial 

ships available to the Department of Defense in time of war, and provide the highest construction 

standards in the world (MarineLink 2007). 

1.5.3 Regulatory Changes

A number of regulations impact the platform fabrication and shipbuilding industries in regard to 

environmental regulation and vessel or labor standards. These regulations can be found in 

MARAD’s Compilation of Maritime Laws and BOEM’s 2012 infrastructure report (Eastern 

Research Group 2010). Relevant environmental regulations include the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Subtitle C with regard to dumping waste), 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, and the Clean 

Water Act. There are also a number of non-environmental regulations. The Jones Act and the 

Byrnes-Tollefson Amendment have had significant impacts on the U.S. shipbuilding industry. 

Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (The Jones Act): Requires that any vessel sailing between U.S. 

ports must be owned and operated by U.S. citizens and sail under the U.S. flag. This Act was 

designed to ensure that the U.S. shipbuilding industry was protected and would continue to 

flourish (Goure 2011). Vessels must fit into one of three categories: be U.S. built and flagged; 

be reconstructed in the U.S. and U.S. flagged; or be foreign-built but forfeited under violation of 

U.S. law and now U.S. flagged (USDOT, MARAD 2011).

Byrnes-Tollefson Amendment: This requires that vessels and major components of the hull or 

superstructure for the U.S. armed forces be built in U.S. shipyards. There are two exceptions to 

this amendment: 1) presidential waiver for national security interests and 2) exception for 

inflatable boats or rigid inflatable boats, or both (10 U.S.C. §7309).

45
Other, more recent regulatory changes include the following.

 

National Defense Authorization Act of 2006: This granted MARAD the authority to make 

grants, under the Small Business Act, to shipyards that were classified as a “small business 

concern” and had fewer than 600 employees. The funds were originally appropriated to 

MARAD in the amount of $25 million for each of the fiscal years 2006 to 2010 (Public Law 

109-163 Sec. 3506). Yearly updates of this Act have continued the program, which is referred to 

as the Assistance to Small Shipyard Grant Program.

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008: This Act provided additional grant money ($10 

million in total) to small shipyards (those covered in NDAA), which improved infrastructure 

development and thereby impacted the quality of domestic ship production (H.R. 2764 – 559, 

110th Congress of the United States of America).

46
1.6 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: EAST COAST

1.6.1 Platform Fabrication 

Because there is currently no drilling off the Atlantic Coast, there are no platform fabrication 

facilities located on the East Coast of the U.S. If and when these facilities are developed 

depends strongly on the degree of progression in the production process in this area. Under a 

limited or moderate development scenario, most likely the GOM or international sources would 

be the main producer of these materials and equipment, rather than the development of 

production facilities in the Mid-Atlantic OCS area. Development of production facilities in the 

Mid-Atlantic OCS is increasingly less likely as the production technologies become more 

complex and require a greater and greater upfront capital investment (particularly the investment 

of space).

The capital costs of a platform fabrication facility are considerable and likely to be too large to 

support only limited offshore activities in the Mid-Atlantic OCS. For instance, Gulf Island 

Fabrication’s main fabrication yard in Houma, Louisiana is situated on 140 acres and has 2,800 

linear feet (853 meters) of water frontage (SEC 2011a). This is a hefty commitment to surface 

development and is only the initial necessary commitment. There also must be other supporting 

equipment and site investments for a platform fabrication yard to function effectively and 

efficiently. Developments of this kind would require a significant offshore drilling market in the 

Mid-Atlantic OCS. A more reasonable expectation would be a more limited offshore 

development scenario. Under such an expectation, it is most likely that 1) the GOM region 

would continue to fabricate platforms and other structures and export them to necessary locations 

(or even international construction); 2) the Mid-Atlantic OCS would be supported by a system of 

FPSOs; or 3) a combination of 1) and 2). 

Perhaps with a long-term commitment to offshore oil and gas exploration in the Mid-Atlantic 

OCS, new platform fabrication facilities may begin to operate in this region. It would likely take 

at least moderate offshore development to support such a facility in the area. As we increase the 

scale and scope of the development scenarios, the potential profit for project investors increases. 

This is vital for development, because investors will undertake the large upfront costs only if 

they believe there will be a long period of use and potential earnings. 

1.6.2 Shipyards

There are 28 shipyards identified in the Mid-Atlantic impact region. These facilities range in 

size from those that construct or repair small vessels for coastal or inland use, to those that focus 

on large oceangoing naval and commercial ships. A limited number of the facilities are used for 

new construction; the majority are for repairing existing vessels. Repair facilities, like the yards 

themselves, vary in size and capabilities: some have only topside capabilities and others have 

dry-docking options for smaller ships, boats, barges, and then some facilities have dry-docking 

capability for large ocean vessels. There are medium-sized shipyards in Virginia, Maryland, and 

North Carolina, and these would be the most likely to offer support for expansion of the oil and 

gas industry to the Mid-Atlantic OCS.

47
If drilling were to begin in the Mid-Atlantic OCS region, it is most likely that medium-sized 

vessel construction and repair shipyards would best serve the industry. The majority of mediumsized shipyards in this area are in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York. Massachusetts and 

Maine also have a good number of yards (Colton 2012). Because these yards already exist, it is 

unlikely that any new facilities would be constructed to support oil and gas activity, but existing 

yards may expand to meet demand. 

New shipyards in the Mid-Atlantic area would still compete with other shipyards in all coastal 

regions of the U.S., especially in the GOM. The three most likely scenarios for supplying the 

Mid-Atlantic OCS with OSVs, tugs, barges, and other support craft are summarized in the 

following sections.

1.6.2.1 Scenario 1: Greenfield Development 

One or several shipyard facilities could be developed along the Mid-Atlantic coast, which will be 

dedicated to the construction of various offshore vessels to support oil and gas activities. This 

scenario could only occur with development of a several hundred-acre tract of land along 

navigable water. There is a large upfront capital requirement, which includes new construction 

pads, electricity, lighting, roads, terminals, slips, bulkheads, construction shelters, maintenance 

buildings, storage buildings, transportation and construction equipment, and much more. 

Because this would be a significant capital investment, this scenario is unlikely unless there is a 

well-defined and expansive Mid-Atlantic oil and gas industry development plan. An extensive 

development would be necessary in order for shipyard developers to gain an adequate assurance 

of profitability upon their investment.

1.6.2.2 Scenario 2: Expansion within the Mid-Atlantic OCS

Existing shipyards along the Mid-Atlantic coast may expand to take on the additional demand 

resulting from drilling and other oil and gas activities in the area. Currently, the majority of 

facilities in the area specialize in construction or repair of craft similar to what is used for oil and 

gas activities. This scenario requires incremental investments, rather than the large upfront 

investment required with the construction of a new yard. Therefore, this scenario would require 

less strong assurance of the future drilling activity in the area for yards to take action. The actual 

unfolding of this scenario is uncertain; it depends on the existing configurations of shipyards in 

the area, and their financial and business interests regarding expansion. For many of these 

facilities, a moderate oil and gas development scenario would likely be enough motivation to 

take on the new business prospects and investments to expand onsite facilities. Many existing 

facilities are already equipped to serve in a repair capacity for oil and gas industry support 

vessels, even in a limited oil and gas development scenario.

48
1.6.2.3 Scenario 3: GOM Construction

No new shipyard development will take place; instead, the new demand in the Mid-Atlantic 

region will be met by existing producing areas along the GOM. It could also happen that during 

early phases of Mid-Atlantic OCS development, craft from the GOM are diverted for use in the 

Mid-Atlantic, and no new craft are built at all. Depending on the state of the industry when MidAtlantic OCS development takes place, if industry conditions are tight with high use of existing 

vessels and high commodity prices, diversion of existing craft will be much less likely.

This scenario is likely to occur because existing facilities in the GOM will have cost-effective 

opportunities for expansion and to create geographic diversity to their vessel construction 

operations and businesses. The shipbuilding industry is extremely competitive. The GOM firms 

may want to expand to increase their competitive edge and would have advantages, such as they 

already possess yards with adequate capacity, skilled workforce, experience in engineering and

design, relationships with input vendors and with service and production companies.

This is even more likely given the recent history of mergers and consolidations of firms along the 

GOM. Firms are trying to take advantage of the scale efficiencies and larger, more strategic 

locations. The development of new firms in the Mid-Atlantic OCS may be challenging in the 

absence of expansive regulation with tight oil and gas market conditions for an extended period 

of time.

49
1.7 FACTORS IMPACTING EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT

Both shipbuilding and platform fabrication for the oil and gas industry depend on the industry 

itself, which is impacted by the following (among others) (SEC 2011a):

a. Local and international political and economic conditions and policies,

b. customer capital spending budget changes,

c. unavailability of exploratory or drilling rigs, or both,

d. oil and natural gas prices and expectations about future prices and volatility,

e. worldwide demand for oil and gas,

f. availability and rate of discovery of new oil and natural gas reserves in offshore areas,

g. cost of offshore exploration for, production of, and transportation of oil and natural 

gas,

h. environmental and other regulations concerning oil and gas producers and their 

service providers.

Both the shipbuilding and platform fabrication industries must be resilient to the inevitable 

downturns in demand as demand in the oil and gas industry decreases. Also, firms are extremely 

competitive and this increases the difficulty of new firms entering the market, or creating a new 

supporting structure in the Mid-Atlantic impact region.

The oil and gas industry supports offshore development in the Mid-Atlantic OCS, but as of yet 

there are no major platform fabrication companies suggesting any future investments in the 

region. This is a result of governmental policies regarding drilling, but for a company to 

undertake such an investment there must also be:

a. The availability of a suitable location with water access and (preferably) multi-modal 

transportation;

b. A skilled workforce with trade experience;

c. Favorable local siting conditions; and

d. Favorable local business conditions.

The extent of offshore alternative energy development may influence the siting of a new 

platform fabrication yard. Offshore wind (OSW) energy is going to have a particularly strong 

role. There are currently at least seven states across the eastern seaboard actively promoting 

OSW development, and it is uncertain exactly what influence this will have on development of 

the oil and gas industry in the area. The two technologies can be complimentary; one company, 

Keppel Offshore and Marine, engages in support activities for oil and gas, from platform 

fabrication to shipbuilding and repair, but in recent years is also investing in research and 

development of OSW technologies (Keppel 2011). There is the potential for OSW activity 

coupled with policy support to actually increase business support for a platform fabrication 

facility; however, this is speculative.

The most significant factor for platform fabrication yard development and shipyard expansion 

along the Mid-Atlantic OCS is a long-term commitment to oil and gas development for the area.

50
2 PORTS

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY AND SERVICES PROVIDED

Ports have a vital role in the support of the offshore oil and gas exploration and production sector 

and the maritime industry as a whole. The vehicles that support offshore platforms (notably 

ships and helicopters) are based, kept, and maintained at the ports. Ports are also the delivery, 

transfer, and launching points for the necessary structures, equipment, supplies, crew, and other 

elements important to offshore installations. Offshore exploration and production operations 

depend heavily on these goods and services, and thus ports are critical to the entire industry. 

Large traditional ports that support various degrees of offshore activity do not generally focus 

exclusively on offshore oil and gas exploration and production. Examples of this are the Port of 

Houston and the Port of New Orleans located near the GOM. These traditional ports focus most 

of their attention on supporting large-scale conventional port bulk operations, such as handling a 

variety of cargo, including bulk or loose cargo; break bulk cargo in packages, such as bundles, 

crates, barrels and pallets; liquid bulk cargo like petroleum; dry bulk such as grain; and general 

cargo in steel boxes called containers (AAPA 2012). 

Leading commodities shipped for domestic and foreign trade through U.S. ports include (AAPA 

2012): 

• Crude petroleum and petroleum products (such as gasoline, aviation fuel, natural gas).

• Chemicals and related products (such as fertilizer).

• Bituminous, metallurgical, and steam coal.

• Food and farm products, including wheat and wheat flour, corn, soybeans, rice and 

cotton.

• Forest products (such as lumber and wood chips).

• Iron and steel.

• Soil, sand, gravel, rock, stone.

• Automobiles, automobile parts and machinery.

• Clothing, shoes, electronics, toys.

51
Figure 21 shows the makeup of principal commodity groups carried by water in 2010. As can be 

seen, most of U.S. waterborne commerce (about 44 percent) is attributed to petroleum and 

petroleum products (USACE 2011). As will be discussed in subsequent sections, many ports in 

the Mid-Atlantic region already have the capabilities to deal with petroleum products that are 

being imported from other countries. 

Figure 21. Principle commodity groups carried by water, 2010. Source: USACE 2010.

2.2 TYPICAL FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

Ports vary considerably by size, specialty, and defining characteristics. In general, however, 

there are two major types of port facilities: 1) deep-draft seaports; and 2) inland river and intracoastal waterways port facilities. Deep-draft seaports are ports that accommodate mostly ocean 

going vessels and are most likely to serve and supply offshore drilling platforms. Deep-draft 

seaports are also more likely to be publicly owned and operated. Inland ports or terminals are 

located on rivers or intra-coastal waterways, and are mostly privately owned. These shallow 

water ports are generally less than 14 feet (4 meters) in depth (USDOT, MARAD 1999). They 

are less concentrated geographically than deepwater facilities and provide almost limitless access 

points to the waterways. These inland terminals are abundant in the Mid-Atlantic region,

especially in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.

Despite their differences, all ports typically have similar logistical systems (major shipping ports 

included) that can be divided into three principal components (Jayawardana and Hochstein

2004). Because the OCS has not been developed in the Mid-Atlantic region, Figure 22 shows a 

schematic diagram of a typical OCS port’s logistic systems in the GOM.

Petroleum and related products, 44%

Coal, 13%

Crude materials, 13%

Food and farm products, 13%

Chemicals and related products, 8%

All manufacturing equipment, 5%

Primary manufactured goods, 4%

Other, 0.5%

52
1. The inland transport component: almost all ports must transport supplies, equipment 

and personnel from land-based locations to the port for transfer. As a result, all ports will 

typically have access by highway, road, rail, air, or inland barge to their port facility; 

many ports may have more than one inland transportation system.

2. The physical port component: a port’s physical and fixed infrastructure varies 

considerably depending on its size and specialty. The physical port system includes 

docks, berths, buildings, storage facilities, transfer machines, such as cranes and lifts, 

fabrication capabilities. It also includes channels and their depths, turning basins, and 

additional amenities and utilities, such as electricity, water treatment capabilities, and 

roads.

3. The offshore component: the actions and operations of the vessels based from a 

particular port. Depending on the port, offshore operations may vary considerably; 

therefore, ports with similar port structural capabilities may have dissimilar offshore 

components.

Figure 22. OCS port facilities: three part logistics system.

Source: Author’s reconstruction based on work published in Jayawardanaand Hochstein 2004.

A port’s inland and physical infrastructure components are responsible, to a large extent, for the 

type of offshore operations that are based out of a particular port. Of course, other factors are 

important as well, such as geography, risk and security, and proximity to supply considerations. 

The best supply bases typically have more than one of the following important attributes:

Highway / Road

Rail

Air

Inland Barge

OCS Port Facilities

Common Operations:

Loading

Unloading

Crane lifting

Heavy machinery use

Storage

Transfer

Fueling

Anchor Handling

Platform 

supply Crew/personnel

transport

Towing

Drilling supply

Structure lifting

and installation

Structure transport

Dedicated

OCS Ports Major Ports

INLAND

TRANSPORT

PORT 

INFRASTRCUTRE

OFFSHOREOPERATIONS

53
1. Strong and reliable transportation systems;

2. Adequate depth and width of navigation channels;

3. Adequate port infrastructure facilities;

4. Existing petroleum industry support infrastructure;

5. Location central to OCS deepwater activities;

6. Adequate worker population within commuting distance; and

7. Insightful strong leadership.

Deep and wide navigation channels are also particularly important for the offshore support 

industry ports, especially as a new generation of larger boats is built to service deepwater 

installations. 

2.3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

There are more than 100 port cities located in states along the Mid-Atlantic coast. Table 7 has a 

complete list of all port cities located in these states. 

54
Table 7. Port cities in Mid-Atlantic impact region.

City State City State City State

New Castle DE Nags Head NC Philadelphia PA

Wilmington DE New Bern NC Eddystone PA

Indian River DE Ocracoke NC Chester PA

Lewes DE Oriental NC Marcus Hook PA

Delaware City DE Sneads Ferry NC Penn Manor PA

Brunswick GA Southport/Bald Head NC Pittsburgh PA

Savannah GA Island NC Charleston SC

Crescent GA Surf City/Topsail Beach NC Beaufort/Port Royal SC

Saint Mary's GA Swan Quarter NC Burton SC

Saint Simon's Island GA Swansboro NC Edisto Beach SC

Thunderbolt GA Varnamtown NC Georgetown SC

Tybee Island GA Vendermere/Mesic NC Green Pond SC

Valona GA Wanchese NC Hilton Head Island SC

Garden City GA Wrightsville Beach NC Isle of Palms SC

Baltimore MD Charleston NC Little River SC

Cambridge MD Camden NJ McClellanville SC

Ocean City MD Paulsboro NJ Mt. Pleasant SC

Annapolis MD Trenton NJ Murrells Inlet SC

Cambridge MD Atlantic City NJ North Charleston SC

Morehead NC Avalon NJ Port Royal SC

Wilmington NC Barnegat Light/Long NJ Saint Helena Island SC

Atlantic NC Beach NJ Seabrook Island SC

Atlantic Beach NC Belford/Middletown NJ Wadmalaws Island SC

Aurora NC Belmar NJ Hampton Roads VA

Avon NC Brielle NJ Hopewell VA

Bath NC Cape May NJ Richmond VA

Bayboro NC Cape May Court House NJ Carrolton VA

Beaufort NC Highlands NJ Cheriton VA

Belhaven NC Point Pleasant NJ Chincoteague VA

Carolina Beach NC Port Norris NJ Newport News VA

Columbia NC Sea Isle City NJ Poquoson VA

Elizabeth City NC Toms River NJ Seaford VA

Engelhard NC Waretown NJ Virginia Beach VA

Harker's Island NC Wildwood NJ Wachapreague VA

Hatteras NC Elizabeth NJ Piney Point VA

Kill Devil Hills NC Jersey City NJ Norfolk VA

Lowland NC Port Newark NJ Portsmouth VA

Manteo NC New York NY/NJ

Source: USACE 2010.

55
The next section of this report focuses on 35 of the ports located between Newark (Elizabeth), 

New Jersey and Brunswick, Georgia. Some 26 of these terminals are considered major, while 

the remaining nine are considered minor or simply covered piers. The median low water depth 

at dock for all major Mid-Atlantic coast ports is 40 feet (12 meters), certainly large enough to 

support not only major service vessels, but also offshore platform fabrication, should activity 

levels in the region reach critical mass.

Figure 23. Mid-Atlantic impact region ports.

The largest active port along the upper Mid-Atlantic OCS region defined earlier is Port Newark, 

New Jersey. This port comprises a total of 2,230 acres of space and 41,000 linear feet (12,497 

meters) of berthing for ships. Though large, this port is primarily associated with cargo and 

international trade. Oil and gas activities may be of limited interest to these areas and, from a 

geographic perspective, may be too far from initial areas of offshore development along the 

Virginia coast.

56
Figure 24. Mid-Atlantic impact region ports, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware.

The Port of Philadelphia is also a significant and large facility in the upper Mid-Atlantic OCS 

region. It spans a combined total of some 689 acres in various locations. However, like Port 

Newark, the Port of Pennsylvania may be too preoccupied with supporting cargo and military 

needs (Port of Philadelphia 2012). The Port of Wilmington, in Delaware, is relatively sizeable at 

308 acres (Port of Wilmington 2012). In comparison, Port Fourchon on the GOM is 1,700 acres

(Port Fourchon 2012).

No. Name City State Acreage 

1 APM Terminal Elizabeth NJ 350

2 Global Marine Terminal Jersey City NJ 98

3 Maher Terminal Elizabeth NJ 445

4 Port Newark / Elizabeth Port Newark NJ 2,230

5 Port Newark Container Terminal Port Newark NJ 180

6 South Jersey Port Corp -- Beckett Street Terminal Camden NJ 125

7 South Jersey Port Corp -- Broadway Terminal Camden NJ 180

8 Port of Philadelphia - Packer Avenue Marine Terminal Philadelphia PA 112

9 Port of Philadelphia - Pier 84 Philadelphia PA 14

10 Port of Philadelphia - Piers 38 & 40 Philadelphia PA 12

11 Port of Philadelphia - Piers 78 & 80 Philadelphia PA 44

12 Port of Philadelphia - Piers 96 & 98 Annex Philadelphia PA 55

13 Port of Philadelphia - Tioga Marine Terminal Philadelphia PA 116

14 Penn Terminals Eddystone PA 80

15 Port of Delaware City Delaware City DE

16 Port of Wilmington Wilmington DE 308

57
The central portion of the Mid-Atlantic OCS region has a number of suitable ports that may be

candidate sites to support future offshore oil and gas activities. These ports have been 

highlighted in 

Figure 25.

Figure 25. Mid-Atlantic impact region ports, Maryland and Virginia.

A potential high-profile candidate site is the Norfolk International Terminal that is part of the 

Port of Virginia system. The Norfolk port is centrally located and has over 648 acres of 

property. Though considerably smaller than many of the upper Mid-Atlantic ports, Norfolk is 

still one of the largest in its area and is also dedicated at the current time primarily to cargo 

traffic. It is impossible to know exactly which existing ports, if any, will be used for OCS 

expansion, but this particular port has as good as a chance as any. 

Smaller facilities in Virginia include the Newport News and Portsmouth terminals that span 

surface spaces of between 140 acres and 219 acres, respectively. These ports currently support 

break bulk, container storage, and roll-on/roll-off cargo, and may be suitable locations to support 

offshore oil and gas activities.

No. Name City State Acreage 

1 Port of Baltimore Baltimore MD

2 Port Annapolis Annapolis MD

3 Port of Cambridge Cambridge MD

4 Port of Piney Point Piney Point VA

5 Port of Richmond Richmond VA 121

6 Port of Virginia -- Newport News Marine Terminal Newport News VA 140

7 Port of Virginia -- Norfolk International Terminals Norfolk VA 648

8 Port of Virginia -- Portsmouth Marine Terminal Portsmouth VA 219

58
Another area of candidate port sites is the lower Mid-Atlantic region. This primarily includes the 

ports located in the Carolinas and in Georgia. These ports have been highlighted in

Figure 26.

Figure 26. Mid-Atlantic impact region ports, South Carolina and Georgia.

Candidate sites in South Carolina and Georgia are similar to those in the central portion of the 

Mid-Atlantic region. However, their distances from offshore Virginia, where initial federal OCS 

activities are expected to begin, are much greater than those of Portsmouth, Newport News, or 

Norfolk. The ports in Georgia, for instance, are farther than those located in Pennsylvania and 

New Jersey. However, unlike those areas, South Carolina, and, to a lesser degree, Georgia, have 

discussed opening state waters to some form of offshore oil and gas activities.

Major shipping ports, such as the Port of Newark, Port of Philadelphia, and Port of Wilmington,

engage in bulk shipping, among other principal operations. Millions of tons of cargo flow 

through these ports annually. 

No. Name City State Acreage 

1 Port of Morehead Morehead NC

2 Port of Wilmington Wilmington NC

3 Port of Charleston -- Columbus Street Terminal Charleston SC

4 Port of Charleston -- North Charleston Terminal North Charleston SC

5 Port of Charleston -- Union Pier Terminal Charleston SC

6 Port of Charleston -- Veterans Terminal Charleston SC 110

7 Port of Charleston -- Wando Welch Terminal Mt. Pleasant SC

8 Port of Savannah --Garden City Terminal Garden City GA 1,200

9 Port of Savannah --Ocean Terminal Savannah GA 200

10 Port of Brunswick -- Colonel's Island Terminal Brunswick GA 1,700

11 Port of Brunswick -- Marine Point Terminal Brunswick GA 72

12 Port of Brunswick -- Mayor's Point Terminal Brunswick GA 22

59
The extensive network of supply ports includes a wide variety of shore-side operations from 

intermodal transfer to manufacturing. Their distinguishing features show great variation in size, 

ownership, and functional characteristics. Supply base functions can be provided by either 

private or public port facilities. Private ports operate as dedicated terminals to support the 

operation of an individual company, or possibly a consortium of a few companies. Private ports 

often integrate fabrication and offshore transport activities. Public ports charge fees and lease 

space to individual business ventures and can be thought of as water-based industrial or 

manufacturing parks that create economics benefits throughout a local region. The public ports 

have a dual role by functioning as offshore supply points and as industrial or economic 

development districts. 

Public ports are usually established by state and local governments to develop, manage and 

promote the flow of waterborne commerce in the area. Ports can also be developed by private 

companies. A port authority, which can be a state or local government, private agency, or firm, 

is the governing body that oversees the ports operations. In addition to maritime functions, a 

port authority may have jurisdiction over other types of transportation terminals such as airports, 

bridges, tunnels, rail systems, shipyards, and marinas.

2.4 SCOPE OF ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION TO REGIONAL ECONOMY

The water transportation sector for the impact area is relatively small in comparison to each 

state’s overall gross domestic product (GDP) and the economic contribution made by the water 

transportation sector overall to the U.S. GDP. North Carolina has the highest percentage ports of 

GSP contribution at 0.19 percent, with Virginia in second at just 0.14 percent. In the region as a 

whole, water transportation contributes less than one tenth of one percent towards the total GDP. 

Though these impacts are quite small, the water transportation sector accounts for only 0.2 

percent of the total GDP for the entire United States, and is therefore relatively larger in the MidAtlantic region than in the U.S. as an aggregate. 

60
Table 8. Regional and national GDP contribution, water transportation sector, 2010.

Source: USDOC, BEA 2012.

Figure 27 highlights the relative share of each Mid-Atlantic state’s water transportation GDP 

shares relative to the regional water transportation total. Virginia makes up the majority, with 30

percent of the total regional water transportation GDP, and New Jersey follows with 27 percent. 

Figure 27. Mid-Atlantic impact region water transportation GDP shares, 2010. Source: USDOC, BEA 2012.

Water Water

Transportation Transportation

GDP as a GDP as a Percent

Water Total Percent of Total of U.S. Water 

Transportation State State GDP Transportation GDP

New Jersey $ 520 $ 480,446 0.11% 3.5%

Delaware $ 4 $ 64,010 0.01% 0.0%

Maryland $ 280 $ 293,349 0.10% 1.9%

Pennsylvania $ 136 $ 558,918 0.02% 0.9%

Virginia $ 587 $ 419,365 0.14% 4.0%

North Carolina $ 280 $ 424,562 0.07% 1.9%

South Carolina $ 56 $ 160,374 0.03% 0.4%

Georgia $ 64 $ 403,230 0.02% 0.4%

Total Region $ 1,927 $ 2,804,254 0.07% 13.1%

U.S. $ 14,670 $ 14,416,601 0.10% 100.0%

GDP

(millions of current $) ----------------- (%) -----------------

New Jersey, 27%

Delaware, 0.2%

Maryland, 15%

Pennsylvania, 7%

Virginia, 30%

North Carolina, 15%

South Carolina, 3%

Georgia, 3%

61
Figure 28 compares the trends in water transportation GDP for each Mid-Atlantic impact state

since the mid-1990s. Water transportation GDP has a relatively constant value until 2004, when

an increasing trend begins. Virginia’s growth accounts for much of this increase, growing at an 

average annual rate of 13 percent from 2004 through 2010. 

Figure 28. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region water transportation GDP, 1997-2010. Note: Delaware’s water transportation GDP is large enough to be reported, but it is too small to be visible on this 

graph.

Source: USDOC, BEA 2012.

Because there is no specific NAICS code for ports, the remaining discussion in this section

defines a port as the sum of the following NAICS categories:

3

• 48831: Port and Harbor Operations

• 488320: Marine Cargo Handling

• 713930: Marinas

• 488330: Navigational Services to Shipping

Total ports employment contributions are relatively small in comparison to the total employment 

in each of the impact region’s states. Like GSP, none of the states in the Mid-Atlantic impact 

region have ports employment totals that are over one percent of the overall statewide 

3 The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) was developed under the direction and guidance of 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the standard for use by Federal statistical agencies in classifying 

business establishments for the collection, tabulation, presentation, and analysis of statistical data describing the 

U.S. economy. Use of the standard provides uniformity and comparability in the presentation of these statistical 

data. NAICS is based on a production-oriented concept, meaning that it groups establishments into industries 

according to similarity in the processes used to produce goods or services. NAICS replaced the Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) system in 1997.

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

New Jersey Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania

Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Water Transportation GDP (billion $)

62

 
employment totals. On a regional basis, Maryland has the highest share of total ports 

employment. Notice though that while the ports employment makes up a relatively small portion 

of total employment, the port employment in these states makes up 19 percent of total port 

employment in the U.S.

Table 9. Regional and national employment contribution, ports, 2011.

Note: Port employment is defined as the sum of the following NAICS categories: 48831, 488320, 713930, 488330.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 29. Mid-Atlantic impact region ports employment shares, 2011. Note: Port employment is defined as the sum of the following NAICS categories: 48831, 488320, 713930, 488330.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Ports

Ports Employment as a

Employment as a Percent of

Total Percent of Total Total U.S. Ports

Ports State State Employment Employment

New Jersey 5,348 3,156,538 0.17% 4.80%

Delaware 534 342,585 0.16% 0.48%

Maryland 3,894 1,991,055 0.20% 3.49%

Pennsylvania 1,719 4,825,064 0.04% 1.54%

Virginia 2,009 2,889,435 0.07% 1.80%

North Carolina 629 3,158,293 0.02% 0.56%

South Carolina 2,565 1,450,840 0.18% 2.30%

Georgia 4,699 3,135,735 0.15% 4.22%

Total Region 21,396 20,949,545 0.10% 19.20%

U.S. 111,438 108,184,795 0.10% 100.00%

Number of Jobs

----------------- (%) -----------------

New Jersey, 25%

Delaware, 2%

Maryland, 18%

Pennsylvania, 8%

Virginia, 9%

North Carolina, 3%

South Carolina, 12%

Georgia, 22%

63
Employment in Mid-Atlantic impact region ports has been falling since 2004. Before 2004, the 

region had between 22,700 and 25,000 ports jobs. From 2004 to 2006, port employment fell 

until 2009 when it leveled off at just under 20,000 jobs. In 2010 and 2011, port jobs increased 

1.3 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively. Increases in South Carolina and Georgia made up for 

the majority of this increase. 

Figure 30. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region ports employment, 2001-2011. Note: Port employment is defined as the sum of the following NAICS categories: 48831, 488320, 713930, 488330.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Regional wage contributions, provided in Table 3, corroborate the employment levels discussed 

above. Regional shares of total wages paid by Mid-Atlantic coast ports are provided in Figure 

31. New Jersey makes up 45 percent of total ports wages, yet accounts for 25 percent of total 

regional port employment. 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

New Jersey Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania

Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Number of Jobs

64
Table 10. Regional and national wage contribution, ports, 2011.

Note: Port employment is defined as the sum of the following NAICS categories: 48831, 488320, 713930, 488330.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 31. Mid-Atlantic impact region ports wage shares, 2011. Note: Port employment is defined as the sum of the following NAICS categories: 48831, 488320, 713930, 488330.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Ports

Ports Wages as a

Wages as a Percent of Total

Total Percent of Total U.S. Ports

Ports State State Wages Wages

New Jersey $ 492.0 $ 179,559 0.27% 7.98%

Delaware $ 22.6 $ 17,313 0.13% 0.37%

Maryland $ 158.7 $ 100,787 0.16% 2.57%

Pennsylvania $ 75.7 $ 225,147 0.03% 1.23%

Virginia $ 94.5 $ 145,225 0.07% 1.53%

North Carolina $ 17.8 $ 132,436 0.01% 0.29%

South Carolina $ 85.3 $ 54,746 0.16% 1.38%

Georgia $ 153.9 $ 142,928 0.11% 2.50%

Total Region $ 1,100.5 $ 998,140 0.11% 17.85%

U.S. $ 6,164.6 $ 5,172,844 0.12% 100.00%

Wages

---------- (million $) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

New Jersey, 45%

Delaware, 2%

Maryland, 14%

Pennsylvania, 7%

Virginia, 9%

North Carolina, 2%

South Carolina, 8%

Georgia, 14%

65
Trends in port wages, as illustrated in Figure 32, have followed trends in regional port 

employment.

Figure 32. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region ports wages, 2001-2011. Note: Port employment is defined as the sum of the following NAICS categories: 48831, 488320, 713930, 488330.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

In New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, average wages in ports are higher than 

average wages in those states. For the region as a whole, however, port wages are just 94 

percent of the regional wage. And, in comparison to the U.S. average wage, port wages are just 

75 percent. New Jersey port jobs are the highest paid on average, making an annual average 

wage of $87,000 per year. The next highest is Delaware, with an average wage of almost 

$48,000. Figure 33 shows the trend of average port wages by state. 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

New Jersey Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania

Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Wages (million $)

66
Table 11. Regional and national average annual wage contribution, ports, 2011.

Note: Port employment is defined as the sum of the following NAICS categories: 48831, 488320, 713930, 488330.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 33. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region ports average annual wages, 2001-2011. Note: Port employment is defined as the sum of the following NAICS categories: 48831, 488320, 713930, 488330.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Ports Ports Average

Average Annual Annual Wage as a

Wage as a Percent Percent of 

Total of Total Average Total U.S. Average

Ports State Annual Wage Annual Wage

New Jersey $ 87,518 $ 56,885 153.8% 146.3%

Delaware $ 48,378 $ 50,535 n.a. n.a.

Maryland $ 38,674 $ 50,620 76.4% 64.6%

Pennsylvania $ 47,040 $ 46,662 100.8% 78.6%

Virginia $ 21,534 $ 50,261 42.8% 36.0%

North Carolina $ 33,976 $ 41,933 81.0% 56.8%

South Carolina $ 41,950 $ 37,734 111.2% 70.1%

Georgia $ 40,217 $ 45,580 n.a. n.a.

Total Region $ 44,911 $ 47,526 94.5% 75.1%

U.S. $ 59,826 $ 47,815 125.1% 100.0%

---------- ($) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

Average Annual Wage

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

New Jersey Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania

Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Average Annual Wage ($)

67
2.5 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: INDUSTRY

Increased port activity creates economic benefits in the form of increased employment, economic 

output, and other value-added benefits, such as tax revenue, fees, and royalty and proprietor’s 

income growth. The quantity of goods and services transferred at ports has increased over the 

past decade. According to a 2010 report by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, commercial 

demand for marine transportation continues to grow and has been driven in significant part by 

the increase in international trade (USACE 2010). Figure 34 shows the growth of total 

waterborne commerce in the U.S. from 1991 through 2010. Despite a drop in 2009, total 

commerce as a general trend has been rising. 

Figure 34.Total waterborne commerce of the U.S., 1991 - 2010. Source: USACE 2010.

To accommodate for this growth in demand, ports will need to enhance efficiency. The entire 

maritime system relies on the successful integration of freight modes–water, truck, and rail–for 

the efficient transportation of cargo from vessels through terminals to and from inland 

destinations. Efficient access and the intermodal transfer of goods and cargo is critical to 

maximizing the returns from increasing terminal investments and also could be instrumental in 

maximizing port competitiveness and growth opportunities (USDOT, MARAD 2002).

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Total Petroleum and related products

Coal Crude materials

Food and farm products Chemicals and related prodcuts

All manufactured equipment Primary manufactured goods

Other

Million short tons

68
According to an August 2002 MARAD survey, the state of the intermodal access for U.S. ports 

was generally acceptable for handling the existing volume of cargo flows. However, more than 

one-quarter of the ports indicated that channel depths were “unacceptable in federal waterways” 

(USDOT, MARAD 2002). A 2005 MARAD and DOT report found that the U.S.’s port and 

intermodal freight system is quickly approaching capacity limits as congestion increases in 

metropolitan areas and passenger and freight corridors are pushing existing infrastructure limits. 

The report concluded that the Marine Transportation System’s (MTS) greatest challenge is 

accommodating the projected growth in our international trade and the report noted that “[o]ur 

marine, highway and rail systems will need to be able to manage the increased volumes of 

freight shipments that are so vital to our nation’s continued economic growth”(USDOT, 

MARAD 2005a). An updated 2009 MARAD and DOT report echoed the earlier concerns about 

the effects of a rapid growth in international trade on the nation’s ports system, and also detailed

many new factors that the ports system will need to address. As the maritime trade industry 

grows along with the fleet of vessels that serves it–in both physical size and number–new 

infrastructure improvements will be needed across all modes of intermodal transportation. 

Channel deepening is a main necessity as technological advances are producing wider, taller, and 

heavier vessels. Also, without any dedicated Federal source of funding for marine infrastructure, 

a coordinated Federal response to capacity and flow issues is very difficult to manufacture. That 

being said, the Federal Government has a strong presence in marine transportation, with nearly 

20 departments and agencies. This causes complications when the time arrives to make industry 

decisions due to the large number of parties that have input. Another concern deals with the 

environmental concerns that impact the MTS. Now, more than ever, as environmental awareness 

and sustainability are in the national spotlight, a comprehensive green program for system 

development or sustainability practices in the maritime industry does not exist (USDOT, 

MARAD 2009a). 

As cargo volumes increase, carriers will seek other transport and port alternatives in order to cut 

time and costs. The primary way of increasing efficiencies and lower unit transportation costs 

are to move cargoes through increasingly larger vessels. Vessels began service in the 1960s, 

with capacities of less than 500 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), and now current shippers 

are beginning to place orders on ships that can carry over 10,000 TEUs. Average container 

vessel size was 2,900 TEUs in 2000, but in 2012 that average has increased to 6,100 TEUs4

. 

Today, ships exist that can carry 14,000 TEUs5, while vessels that can carry 18,000 TEUs are on 

order for 2013 (Institute for Water Resources, USACE 2012a). These enormous ships require 

sophisticated and well-organized ports and terminal facilities with first-rate landside intermodal 

connections. 

4

It’s possible for a shipping company to save $4.5 million per voyage by switching from a 2,500 to 6,000 TEU 

vessel (Industry Studies: Transportation, The Industrial College of the Armed Forces National Defense University, 

2001).

5

Examples include the MSC Danit and MSC Beatrice.

69

 
Larger cargo volumes, ships, and operating companies are putting pressure on ports to increase 

their scale of operations, and channel depth appears to be the most significant factor of 

consideration in these expansion decisions. Channel depths at most major U.S. ports typically 

range from 35 to 45 feet (11 to 14 meters). The current generation of new large ships requires 

channels from 49 to 53 feet (15 to 16 meters) (ICAF 2001b). 

Channel depth is a critical issue driving port operations and growth opportunities. Channel depth 

is a major factor in the size of ships that will move into and through a given port, because it 

affects these ships’ ability to move safely through harbors, and breadth of turning basins, and 

terminal-side water depths. Annual and periodic channel dredging requires the removal of 

several hundred million cubic yards of sand, gravel, and silt each year. These dredging activities 

can be challenging and controversial because ports are located in or near environmentally 

sensitive areas, including wetlands, estuaries, and, in some instances, fisheries. There is also the 

potential that materials dredged may uncover toxins or contaminated sediments that have 

accumulated over time (USDOT, MARAD 1998).

Total capital infrastructure expenditures for the period 2004 through 2008 at public U.S. ports 

are estimated at around $10.6 billion. Of this, $1.1 billion, or about 10.5 percent, will be spent 

on dredging (USDOT, MARAD 2005b). The latest update to these figures was in 2009 and 

issued projected data for years 2007-2011. Total projected capital infrastructure expenditures for 

the period 2007 through 2011 at public U.S. ports was $9.4 billion. Of this, $0.964 billion, or 

about 10.3 percent, was to be spent on dredging (USDOT, MARAD 2009b). Improving and 

maintaining navigation channels is critical to sustaining the rapidly growing marine transport 

industry. Bottlenecks can ensue when waterways are not deep enough for ships to safely 

navigate and dock at berths. Some ports must be dredged, so that cargo can move in the most 

cost-effective and efficient way through the intermodal transportation chain. Also, as ship sizes 

and volumes of cargo increase, so must the intermodal transfer operations.

Efficient transportation also depends on intermodal connections. To move waterborne cargo 

quickly to or from land based operations, trucks and railroads need to have clear access to ports. 

According to the AAPA, “for some ports, the weakest link in their logistics chain is at their back 

doors, where congested roadways or inadequate rail connections to marine terminals cause 

delays and raise transportation costs” (AAPA 2009c). The AAPA also references a recent 

Federal Highway Administration (FHA) Report to Congress on the National Highway System 

(NHS) Intermodal Connectors that found connectors to ports, rather than other freight terminals, 

were in their worst condition and received only minimal levels of federal funding and support 

over the past several years. The FHA Report also found that port facilities had twice as many 

miles with pavement deficiencies compared to non-Interstate NHS routes. “Like a pipeline, the 

nation’s intermodal transportation system is only as efficient as its narrowest, most congested 

point, which is often the landside connection. No matter how much ports invest, or how 

productive ports make their marine terminal facilities, our transportation system cannot operate 

to maximum efficiency unless cargo can move quickly and cost effectively in and out of ports”

(APPA 2012).

70
The importance of major intermodal marine linkages or connections to surface transportation 

was recognized in the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. The Act listed 

directions for modifications to connections to major ports, airports, international border 

crossings, public transportation and transit facilities, interstate bus terminals, and rail and other 

intermodal transportation facilities (USDOT, MARAD 1998). In 1998, the Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was signed, authorizing highway, highway safety, 

transit and other subsurface transportation programs for the six year period 1998 through 2003. 

Although the TEA-21 did not earmark specific funds for port-related projects, there were a 

number of port access projects that could meet TEA-21 eligibility requirements (USDOT, 

MARAD 1998). After the expiration of TEA-21, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU) enacted in 2005 and the Moving Ahead for Progress 

in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) enacted in 2012, expanded on many of the topics originally 

included in TEA-21. SAFETEA-LU focuses on “improving safety, reducing traffic congestion, 

improving efficiency in freight movement, increasing intermodal connectivity, and protecting the 

environment” (FHA 2005c). Similarly, MAP-21 builds a “streamlined, performance-based, and 

multimodal program to address the many challenges facing the U.S. transportation 

system....includ[ing] improving safety, maintaining infrastructure condition, reducing traffic 

congestion, improving efficiency of the system and freight movement, protecting the 

environment, and reducing delays in project delivery” (FHA 2012b).

2.6 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: EAST COAST

Ports along the Mid-Atlantic coast have been expanding in preparation of receiving larger 

vessels due to the near-future opening of an expanded Panama Canal. State governments and 

their port authorities are aiming to spend billions to build larger and expand existing ports in the 

quickest manner. In general, ports along the West Coast are already able to handle these larger 

vessels because they are naturally deeper than those along the East Coast (Holeywell 2012). The 

current administration has started to speed up the process for development and deepening of 

several major ports including New York/New Jersey; Charleston, South Carolina; and Savannah, 

Georgia (Schwartz 2012). 

By the end of 2014, the Panama Canal will have completed a massive expansion, increasing the 

width of its locks and adding a third lane that will at least double the canal’s capacity. The Canal 

will be able to accommodate mega-ships that are almost three times as large as any vessel that 

has traveled through the canal before. These newer Post-Panamax ships are up to 1,200 feet (366 

meters) in length, 160 feet wide (49 meters), and need a channel depth of 50 feet (15 meters) to 

travel through. In comparison, the older Panamax ships top out at 965 feet long (294 meters), 

106 feet (32 meters) wide, and need a channel depth of 39 feet (12 meters) (Johnson 2012). The 

East Coast ports are rushing to accommodate these larger vessels because “the ports that become 

the first go-to destinations for larger vessels will have a huge competitive advantage over their 

peers”. In turn, this would create a more efficient trade industry along with increased maritime 

activity and many new domestic jobs (Holeywell 2012). 

71
• The Ports of Baltimore and Norfolk currently have channel depths of 50 feet (15 

meters) and will be able to accommodate the larger Post-Panamax vessels. Both ports 

are adding additional freight features with Norfolk adding new train services and 

Baltimore adding a new double-stack intermodal rail terminal (Journal of Commerce 

2012a).

• The federal approval process for deepening and expansion for the Ports of Charleston, 

New York/New Jersey, and Savannah was recently fast-tracked which may have 

some of these projects completed by 2015 (Journal of Commerce 2012a).

• The Port of New York/New Jersey currently has the capabilities to handle PostPanamax vessels with its channel depths but container terminals on Newark Bay have 

height restrictions arising from the Bayonne Bridge. A 5-year, $1 billion plan is in 

the works to raise the bridge 64 feet (20 meters) for clearance (Holeywell 2012).

• The Port of Charleston grants access to overseas markets to over 20,000 companies in 

two dozen states. It is estimated the project cost of deepening the channel to 50 feet 

(15 meters) will be $300 million while the annual economic impact brought to the 

state of South Carolina by the port is $45 billion (Limehouse 2012).

• The channel deepening project at the Port of Savannah is estimated to cost $652 

million but will return $174 million in annual net benefits to the country. The port 

was the second busiest container port for the export of U.S. goods by tonnage in 

FY2011 (Journal of Commerce 2012b).

2.7 FACTORS IMPACTING EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT

All areas of the Mid-Atlantic impact region have good port coverage and it is highly unlikely that 

any new ports would be constructed to support offshore energy production activities under any 

development scenario. There are two primary factors that may influence port development in 

response to offshore activity: (1) the specific offshore location where development is expected 

to occur; and (2) the degree to which offshore support activities compete, or are in conflict with, 

bulk container and cargo trade that is currently the focus of larger regional ports.

Our research in the Mid-Atlantic OCS and experience along the GOM suggests that smaller and

mediumid-sized ports in the central portion of the Mid-Atlantic impact region may be more 

suitable for offshore support activities since they are: (a) more likely to offer affordable and 

flexible leasing arrangements; (b) less likely to have significant competing bulk cargo activities; 

(c) will have access to marine craft that operate in activities comparable to oil and gas supply and 

support; and (d) are proximate to potential lease areas under consideration.

Consider that along the GOM, small specialized ports like Port Fourchon (Louisiana) Venice 

(Louisiana), Freeport (Texas) and Port Arthur (Texas) serve as primary support facilities for 

offshore oil and gas activities. Larger facilities such as the Port of Houston, the Port of South 

Louisiana, and the Port of Mobile tend to focus on major international trade opportunities and 

not smaller niche markets like offshore oil and gas development. This is not to suggest that 

major ports are not interested in potentially serving offshore activities, but simply to recognize 

that major ports (unlike their smaller counterparts) have certain opportunity costs in pursuing 

support activities for offshore activities.

72
For instance, many major ports along the eastern seaboard, particularly the upper areas of the 

Mid-Atlantic impact region, are in highly developed locations that have relatively expensive or 

limited expansion possibilities. Offshore oil and gas support development at these ports will 

need to be evaluated against the alternative uses for waterfront and port surface space. These 

returns, particularly for cargo-oriented activities, will be heavily influenced by the economies of 

scale associated with bulk operations that are entirely different than the smaller sized specialized 

activities associated with offshore oil and gas service activities. In other words, focusing on bulk 

cargo is likely to yield a higher return for limited port capacity than specialized oil and gas 

activities.

Smaller and medium-sized ports may have more incentives and greater interest in pursuing oil 

and gas support activities. Smaller facilities, being located in relatively less congested areas are 

more likely to have available surface and marine terminal expansion opportunities. These ports 

are also less likely to see a trade-off, or competition, between offshore oil and gas activities and 

cargo traffic since few of these facilities currently handle large-scale bulk cargo operations. In 

addition, state and federal funding mechanisms for infrastructure development can be defined by 

cargo tonnage, often creating a circular challenge for smaller ports. These ports do not qualify 

for additional funds given their low cargo tonnages, but cannot reach these critical tonnage levels 

without further investment. 

Thus, smaller to medium-sized ports may have a greater interest, and more incentives, to pursue 

oil and gas support activities than their larger counterparts. Smaller facilities, being located in 

relatively less congested areas, are more likely to have available surface and marine terminal 

expansion opportunities. Smaller ports are also less likely to see a trade-off, or competition, 

between offshore oil and gas activities and cargo traffic since few of these smaller ports currently 

handle large-scale bulk cargo activities.

In fact, it could be the case that oil and gas support activities will create additional sources of 

business that would be credited to these ports' annual tonnage amounts. Increased tonnage, in 

turn, could help facilitate additional on-site infrastructure development (through tonnage-based 

state and federal public investment or appropriation formulae), which, in turn, could assist these 

facilities in actually securing bulk cargo business. Thus, rather than competing, oil and gas 

activities could be complementary to current cargo activities at smaller sized ports.

Lastly, there are a number of moderately-sized ports located in the Chesapeake Bay region that 

could serve as likely support bases for offshore oil and gas activities. These central Mid-Atlantic

impact region ports are the closest to anticipated regional offshore development.

73
3 SUPPORT AND HELIPORT FACILITIES

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY AND SERVICES PROVIDED

The offshore oil and gas industry relies on an extensive onshore support system to provide its 

supplies and transportation. These support activities range from the supply products and services 

like electric generators, chains, gears, tools, pumps, compressors, to engine and turbine repair 

and construction. Additionally, there are inputs required for daily operation which must be 

transported from onshore support facilities to offshore structures: drilling muds, chemicals, 

lubricants, and other fluids. Many types of transportation vessels and helicopters are also used to 

transport workers, equipment, and materials to and from offshore platforms. Typical facilities 

for this sector include: general support facilities, repair and maintenance yards, supply bases, 

heliports, and offshore service vessels.

Historically, these support activities were “internal” to offshore oil and gas companies, but over 

time third party companies have developed. This third party influx was a result of downsizing 

and specialization, and they now provide a large amount of the onshore support and 

transportation services on a contract basis. Industry downsizing specifically has reduced the 

numerous layers and complicated nature of oil and gas operations by many offshore producers. 

In using contract services, producers are able to utilize supply, transport, and logistics resources 

on an as needed basis as opposed to providing the services permanently. One additional benefit 

of outsourcing is the degree of flexibility for offshore operators, allowing them to keep costs 

down during periods of oil and gas commodity price downturns (Oceanwide 2012).

Because offshore support and transportation facilities are highly dependent upon the drilling and 

production markets, they are also strongly impacted by the cyclical nature of oil and gas 

commodity prices. Specifically, the supply and transport side of the offshore industry are likely

to be the first to be impacted by oil and gas industry downturns. During an economic 

contraction, the first things to be cut to reduce exploration and production company costs are 

discretionary supply, repair, storage, and maintenance activities. Support and transportation 

facilities are thus under pressure to perform efficiently, and to be able to diversify when possible, 

be cost effective, and adequately respond to tenant needs.

Both major corporations and independent producers provide onshore support and transportation 

services. Firms involved in the support sector of this industry are heterogeneous; however, all 

firms have one major source of volatility in common: a large proportion, or perhaps even the 

entirety, of support firms’ business activity, profits, and earnings are greatly impacted by the 

cyclical nature of the oil and gas industry. This relationship has led to two different survival 

tactics employed specifically by these firms: concentration and diversification. Concentration 

has occurred as a result of general merger and acquisition activity. Alternatively, diversification 

stems from taking on a broader number of support and service activities from other maritimebased industries so that falling oil and gas prices have a reduced impact on earnings.

The support and transport sector is crucial to the oil and gas industry. It consists of a variety of 

components to function efficiently including: management, personnel, construction, and design 

innovations. As energy prices increase, offshore oil and gas activity increases, and in turn 

generates a greater level of demand for offshore logistical support.

75
3.2 TYPICAL FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

Due to the number of different and specialized products and services that are contained within 

the title of “support industry” it is not easy to define any aspect as “typical.” Firms can be very 

large corporations or private businesses with few employees. For example, land-based supply

and fabrication centers are generally very large as they provide the equipment, personnel and 

supplies necessary for the industry to function through intermodal connections. Other onshore 

support services include inland transportation to supply bases, equipment manufacturing, and 

fabrication. Also, offshore support includes waterborne and airborne transportation.

Ports, as discussed in the previous chapter, determine the number and type of tenants and port 

users for support services as well. For example, the Port of Iberia is the Gulf Coast’s largest 

shallow water draft port at over 2,000 acres. It houses over 100 companies and employs more 

than 5,000 workers (including welders, pipefitters, mechanics, managers, secretaries, accountants 

and other occupations) (Port of Iberia 2012). 

3.2.1 General Support Facilities

Support facilities can also take many forms, however one common feature is close proximity to a 

port. The port is a centralized location for crews to disembark, storage and loading facilities for 

materials, and generally also has physical attributes that complement support activities. In fact, 

this has become an explicit business practice at ports: developing and providing the necessary 

infrastructure to support offshore drilling and production activities. Most support or service 

companies have one or more of the following characteristics: 

• Access to intermodal transportation access such as roads, inter-coastal waterways, 

railways, etc.;

• Protected wharfs, docks, and dry-docks to load materials destined for offshore 

locations (also can be used for short-term storage);

• Storage and demurrage facilities for longer term equipment and material storage;

• Crew housing;

• Communication facilities and equipment; and

• Workshops and machine and tooling shops.

76
3.2.2 Repair and Maintenance Yards

Much of the repair and maintenance support work done at platform fabrication facilities and 

shipyards is associated with maintaining equipment and vessels for drilling and production 

activities. However, the specific method of repair varies from job to job in both time and scope. 

Depending upon the requirements of the repair or maintenance task, it can take anywhere from 

one day to over a year. As with other aspects of the oil and gas industry, repair jobs are sensitive 

to oil and gas prices. When prices are high work needs to be completed as quickly as possible so 

that the equipment can be put back into service. Similarly, there are strong time constraints 

during hurricane restoration and recovery because of the limited amount of working equipment 

and personnel. In many cases, a number of repair-oriented tasks are pre-fabricated and then 

taken offshore for final assembly and repair. This is often the case with such activities as piping, 

ventilation, electrical and other machinery. Some of the more typical maintenance and repair 

operations consist of the following (USEPA 1997):

• Blasting and repainting the ship hulls, freeboard, superstructure, and interior tanks 

and work areas;

• Major rebuilding and installation of machinery such as diesel engines, turbines, 

generators, pump stations, etc.;

• Systems overhauls, maintenance and installation (e.g., piping system flushing, testing 

and installation);

• System replacement and new installation of systems such as navigational systems, 

combat systems, communication systems, updated piping systems, etc.;

• Propeller and rudder repairs, modification, and alignment; 

• Creation of new machinery spaces through cut outs of the existing steel structure and 

the addition of new walls, stiffeners, vertical, webbing, decking, etc.; and

• Creation of raw materials (pipes, sheet metal, machinery, etc.) or provision of 

specialty services (carpentry, maintenance, warehousing, etc.) by support shops 

working for the yard.

3.2.3 Supply Bases

Supply bases are a vital part of the logistics chain and can consist of large yards with a range of 

services and logistics management to smaller shops that supply one or a few of the supplies 

needed on an offshore platform or vessel. Some of the larger companies offering supply chain 

management services operate from various locations and move equipment and supplies from 

land based supply houses to offshore drilling platforms. Many of the smaller suppliers can be 

thought of more as combined retail and equipment rental stores which supply anything from 

crane rentals, warehouse space, trailer rentals, and dispatch services, to engine parts, fuel, 

navigation tools, potable water, and lubricants (motor oil, hydraulic oil, natural gas, compressor 

oils, grease, gear oil, and synthetics).

77
3.2.4 Heliports

A heliport is a central location where helicopters land and take off for offshore service. 

Helicopters are used to move crew and equipment to areas 150 to 175 miles (240 to 

282kilometers) offshore. A trip of this distance takes about one and a half hours and can reach 

the majority of deepwater platforms and facilities. Supply boats, discussed below, are used for 

shorter distances and are able to carry heavier loads. One other important distinction is that 

helicopters are utilized in instances where speed of delivery (equipment, personnel) may be 

pressing. For example, the Bell 206L Long Ranger has a fuel capacity of 110 gallons, can travel 

up to 320 nautical miles (515 kilometers), and has a cruising speed of about 130 knots (Flight 

Safety Foundation 2005). A supply boat (specifically a crew boat for transporting personnel), on 

the other hand, has a cruising speed to 20 to 30 knots (Sun Machinery 2012). 

Figure 35. EC155 Helicopter.

Source: SNS 2012.

Heliport service providers usually retain a mix of size and quantity of aircraft, with their fleets 

categorized into small, medium, and large helicopters. The small helicopters, which can carry

four to six passengers, are better suited for support of production management activities, daytime 

flights and shorter routes (SEC 2012a). Medium helicopters are the most versatile part of an air 

transportation company’s fleet since they can fly in a variety of operating conditions and can 

handle longer distances and larger payloads than small helicopters. Medium and large 

helicopters are most often used for crew changes on offshore production facilities and drilling 

rigs (SEC 2012a).

78
Helicopters are an important means of transportation, and there are many companies that 

currently support the offshore industry with this endeavor. Three major providers to the existing 

offshore oil and gas industry in the U.S. include: Bristow Group (a portion of which was Air 

Logistics prior to 2010), Petroleum Helicopters Inc. (PHI), and Evergreen Helicopter, Inc. The 

Bristow Group (formerly Offshore Logistics) is the largest provider of helicopter transportation 

services globally, with a fleet of 556 aircraft (SEC 2012a). In the U.S., the Company has four 

bases in Alaska, seven bases in Louisiana and one in Texas (Bristow Group 2012). Services 

pertaining to the offshore industry specifically include offshore and onshore transportation, 

emergency night flights, and transportation for company officials or key personnel including 

special security precautions (Bristow Group 2012). PHI is primarily used for service related to 

the offshore oil and gas industry, but a secondary focus is emergency healthcare transportation. 

This company also specializes in deepwater support for rigs more than 200 miles (322 

kilometers) offshore. They have provided some service internationally, but mainly support the 

Gulf region with locations spanning the Gulf Coast and headquarters in Lafayette, Louisiana

(PHI 2012). Evergreen International Aviation, Inc. provides a multitude of services including 

search and rescue; firefighting; forestry; construction and heavy lifting; and cargo and personnel 

shuttle. It also services the oil and gas industry. In the U.S., the Company has locations in 

Rhode Island, Washington, DC, Oregon and Alaska (Evergreen 2012). 

3.2.5 Crew Services

Many companies exist solely to support the crew and staff required for successful offshore 

drilling. For example, crew members who live on the offshore rigs need catering (hot meal 

delivery and service), laundry, and cleaning and maintenance services for crew barracks. A 

number of companies provide temporary personnel to operate offshore rigs, act in human 

resource positions, and provide on-site services like paramedics and food service (WMMS 2012

and Oceanwide 2012). Additionally, though drilling companies sometimes hire medics directly, 

it is particularly common to hire a third-party medic as part of the crew to ensure safe and

efficient operations (SMS 2012). 

Platforms used for accommodations provide housekeeping services including laundry and 

maintenance of living quarters. Offshore accommodations are a large contributor to operating 

costs, but are unavoidable as a result of strict safety regulations. Also, there is a strong need for 

skilled labor, and in order to attract these workers it is necessary to have comfortable 

accommodations and other non-salary work environment benefits. Many companies now are 

even building accommodation barges, such as the one in Figure 36. This barge is the Offshore 

Olympia and is one of many variations of crew vessels. It has capacity for up to 478 people “in 

126 fully air conditioned cabins with ensuite bathrooms and fitted with lockers, desk and chair.” 

(Barges.com 2012). There is also an onsite hospital facility and numerous recreational options 

for the crew: cinema, gym, television and game rooms.

79
Figure 36. Accommodation barge with helipad.

Source: Barges.com 2012.

These crew services companies also provide medical, entertainment, security, and waste 

management services. A critical service is potable water transportation and waste management. 

There are numerous federal and state laws which require the safe disposal of offshore drilling 

wastes, some of which necessitate being returned to shore. Many offshore supply companies use 

special tanks on OSVs to transport waste to specialized onshore transfer facilities which will 

later send the waste to their final disposition point. The specific details of this process will be 

discussed in a later chapter. 

3.2.6 Offshore Support Vessels

Regular transportation of supplies, materials, and personnel is necessary for any functioning 

offshore oil and gas production operation. Offshore Support Vessels (OSVs) performing these 

operations are required at practically every stage of the offshore drilling and production process. 

Drilling companies may even solicit and bid for specific support vessels for a particular activity 

or project. 

OSVs can take many forms: Platform Supply Vessels (PSV), Anchor Handling Towing Supply 

(AHTS) vessels, crew boats, and Seismic Survey Vessels. All of these support vessels perform a 

range of services like drilling, production, exploration, pipe and cable laying, subsea

construction, towing and salvage, heavy lift, and related operations (Swire 2012a; and IMCA 

2012). For example, the PSV shown in Figure 37 can carry up to 1,600 tons of deck cargo, 300 

cubic meters of bulk cargo capacity, and additional tanks for fuel, water, brine, and liquid mud

(Swire 2012b). Though these OSV’s are discussed as distinguishable types, often many boats 

are built with functionality that crosses over into another type class (Barrett 2008).

80
Figure 37. An example of a platform supply vessel.

Source: Swire 2012b.

The main purpose of PSVs is to deliver supplies needed for drilling and production: fuel, water, 

drilling fluids, dry bulk cement, drill pipe, casing, etc. These boats are fundamental in the 

support of offshore drilling and production and are easily adaptable to serve more specialized 

needs (GulfMark Offshore 2012). PSVs can often provide assistance with construction tasks, 

along with vessels specifically designed as construction support vessels. These boats are 

generally pipe-laying barges, diving support vessels, pipe carriers used to aid in building 

offshore platforms and pipelines to shore-based storage facilities and the installation of 

associated offshore loading facilities (GulfMark Offshore 2012). 

AHTS vessels are used primarily in the towing, positioning and mooring of drilling rigs and 

other equipment. These vessels are also used to transport supplies and equipment to offshore 

drilling rigs, platforms and other installations (SEC 2011c).

Crewboats (fast supply vessels) are much smaller than their OSV counterparts, likely due to the 

fact they are used to transport crew members to, from, and between rigs offshore. Therefore, 

their cargo is significantly smaller than other OSVs. New generation crew boats have been built 

with the capability to carry some supplies, although those amounts are very small and meant to 

be used in emergencies or time-sensitive situation (Barrett 2008).

81
There are still other types of vessels, with more specific functions that include collection of 

geophysical data by survey vessels, fracturing and acidizing of producing wells (well 

stimulation), maintenance work, and multi-purpose supply vessels which can service most 

deepwater operations (Barrett 2008). OSVs can also be also equipped for firefighting and oil 

recovery operations in the event of an oil spill at an offshore platform. Once the necessary 

infrastructure of the offshore site and support is in place, there is a continuing requirement for 

the transportation of food, supplies, personnel and equipment to the platforms. 

The services companies operating in the GOM can be used to illustrate the diversity between 

companies and services provided. For instance, the Atlantic Communications 2011 Gulf Coast 

Oil Directory lists 30 companies in the “Marine Supply Bases- Expediters” section. While the 

majority of companies employ between 1 and 25 people, some have between 100 and 250 or 

even over 1,000 employees and up to seven locations in multiple states (Atlantic 

Communications 2011). Supply bases provided by these companies are equally diverse from 

large yards with many services to smaller shops specializing in one or a few items needed by an 

offshore platform or marine vessel. The following is a simplified list including some products 

and services provided by these bases:

• Dock(s) for loading and offloading, crane services, and pipe storage.

• Personnel: dispatchers, material expediters, and rig clerks.

• Office space, computer sales and rentals.

• Brokering tug, offshore, and crew boats and barges.

• Fueling for rigs and other vessels.

• Ability to purchase, sell, store and deliver marine diesel fuel and lubricants.

• Complete galley, deck and engine supplier.

• Electrical cables for offshore marine applications.

• Wire rope, marine and lifting equipment.

• Navigational supplies and weather instruments.

• Marine supplies, dock, harbor and vessel mooring, hardware.

• Living quarters and temporary accommodation cabins, galleys, diners, utility 

buildings.

The directory also has a section for Catering Services. Some of the 26 companies listed provide 

chef and catering services, while others delivery groceries. For example, Affiliated Marine of 

Houma, LA delivers all groceries from meat to fresh produce, and even has butchers on staff 

(Affiliated Marine 2012). Taylors International Services, Inc. is a large company operating in 

the GOM and internationally, and employs 500 to 1,000 people (Atlantic Communication 2011). 

Taylors catering services provide a range of cuisines and fresh produce (and claim to do so under 

any weather conditions), but also other support services such as management services, 

accommodations, and personnel like cooks, stewards, bakers, utility hands, etc. (Taylors 

International 2012). 

The only support and transport facilities currently located in the Mid-Atlantic impact region are 

heliports. Repair and maintenance facilities have been included with the shipyards database, so

heliports are discussed throughout the remainder of this chapter. However, support facilities will 

be a necessity should drilling occur in the Mid-Atlantic OCS.

82
3.3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

Heliports are located throughout the United States, but those that service the offshore oil and gas 

industry are obviously more prevalent in the GOM region. The heliports identified in the MidAtlantic impact region are likely not being used for oil and gas operations. And the FAA, which 

is the source used to identify existing heliports, does not report data on the usage of the aircraft 

from each heliport. 

According to the FAA there are 1,013 heliports in the Mid-Atlantic impact region states. The 

majority of these however, are either owned by the military, state and local government (e.g., 

New Jersey Turnpike Authority, Town of Ocean City) or private hospitals and corporations. 

Only 12 of the heliports in the Mid-Atlantic impact region states are classified as public entities 

and could potentially be involved in offshore support if such an industry existed in the area (FAA 

2012). And actually, as visible from Figure 38, of these 12 only two are located within 20 miles 

(32 kilometers) of the coast. 

Figure 38. Public heliports in Mid-Atlantic impact region states.

Source: FAA 2012.

Facility Name Owner City State

1 Holly City City of Millville Millville NJ

2 Deldot Helistop State of Delaware Dover DE

3 South Capitol Street Steuart Investment Company Washington DC

4 Total RF TRF Real Estate Partnership Bensalem PA

5 Southern Adams County East Coast Helicopter, Inc. Gettysburg PA

6 Stottle Memorial Eunice M. Stottle Honey Grove PA

7 Horsham Valley Airways Inc Horsham Valley Airways Inc Horsham PA

8 W.P.H.S. Paradigm Aerospace Corporation Mount Pleasant PA

9 Penn's Landing Philadelphia Port Corporation Philadelphia PA

10 Meyers Ken Meyers Candler NC

11 Rockingham County Rockingham County Eden NC

12 US Helicopters Inc US Helicopters Inc Wingate NC

83
3.4 SCOPE OF ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION TO REGIONAL ECONOMY

Although we have identified a few heliports in the Mid-Atlantic OCS region, there is no drilling 

activity off of the Mid-Atlantic OCS, and therefore these heliports are not actively supporting the 

oil and gas industry. Similarly, there are no useful NAICS codes or industry data to use to 

analyze the contribution of the support economy to the area. Heliports are not only used in 

supporting the offshore industry, but also can be used agricultural support, air medical, tourism, 

firefighting, corporate transportation, traffic monitoring, police and military (SEC 2012a). 

Therefore, the economic contribution of this sector cannot be estimated, as it does not yet exist. 

3.5 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: INDUSTRY 

3.5.1 Trends

Support and transportation facilities serving the offshore oil and gas industry are dependent upon 

drilling and production activities and the price of oil and gas. This dependence requires support 

companies to diversify so that they can accommodate changes in the industry such as exploration 

in deeper waters. During the 1990s oil and gas companies consolidated and formed alliances in 

an attempt to protect value to shareholders. Contract support services followed with similar 

behavior and this has proved to be an effective defense at counteracting economic downturns: 

running efficiently, being innovative, diversifying, and consolidating through mergers and 

acquisitions. Evidence of this can even be seen in the helicopter industry (Bristow Group 2012 

and PHI 2012). 

The support and transport sectors are generally very competitive. For instance, oil and gas 

companies usually select one helicopter provider for all services within a region by competitive 

bidding (if not throughout all service regions). In some cases oil and gas companies have the 

capabilities to perform their own helicopter services, making the bidding process even more 

competitive (SEC 2012a). In Bristow Group’s 2012 Annual Report they present a break-down 

of their clients’ contributions to gross revenue. The top ten clients comprise more than 54 

percent of their total revenue and their top client, Chevron, accounts for 11.9 percent of their 

revenues (SEC 2012a). 

Over time deepwater activities in the GOM have forced significant changes on the transportation 

industry: rigs have moved to deeper water and often require greater resources (Barrett 2008). 

The helicopter and vessel industries must upgrade, especially given the older average age of 

fleets in operation so that they are able to meet the demands of the industry.

84
Domestic and international competition also forces companies to be efficient and to use more 

advanced technologies. Similarly, the lack of skilled labor forces companies to ensure offshore 

accommodations are attractive as possible. Fiber optic cables are one innovative example of new 

support technologies being used offshore. Undersea fiber optic cables allow companies to use 

digital information and manage operations collaboratively with onshore personnel while 

increasing productivity, reliability, and safety (Munier and Haaland 2008). Specifically, BP 

installed a new fiber optic network in the GOM which included a 1,100 kilometer, two optical 

fiber pair trunk cable between Pascagoula, Mississippi and Freeport, Texas (Munier and Haaland

2008). There are also built-in expansion nodes for added service to new and existing platforms 

(Munier and Haaland 2008). This type of network is also very useful during storm events 

because of the easier transition from offline to online. 

The transportation sector of the support industry also utilizes technological developments to 

improve safety of boat and flight performance. In 2007 Air Logistics developed a memory card, 

ALERTS, to store flight data and allow the information to be uploaded and viewed from a 

helicopter (including those used currently in the GOM). Flight crews are thus able to review 

data after each flight and can apply this information to fly safer, assist in training and accident 

investigations (Bristow Group 2007).

3.5.2 Outlook

Like most sectors that support the offshore oil and gas industry, if activity in oil and gas 

exploration, development, or production in any region declines drastically, the need for support 

services would also decline. This is difficult to predict. The U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

Act also may further restrict availability of offshore oil and gas leases, thus causing a similar 

impact on the support sector (SEC 2011b). Similarly, the price of crude oil and natural gas 

strongly influence the utilization of support services: resilient prices will lead to continued 

activity in shallow and deepwater producing areas. 

If drilling were to begin off of the Mid-Atlantic coast, support and transport services would be 

needed by the oil and gas industry, which would create a boom (and a beginning) for the support 

and transport sector in this region. As true with most offshore drilling-related industries, the 

service industry is cyclical and dependent upon oil and gas prices. Higher prices stimulate 

exploration efforts and the extent of economic growth, which drive the construction market. 

There is an expectation of continued growth and strength in prices as evident from many 

companies and experts (e.g. Bristow 2012; PHI 2012).

85
3.5.3 Regulatory Changes

There are a number of regulations which apply to the oil and gas industry, particularly 

concerning potential spills in water and other types of air and water pollution. These regulations 

therefore impact the support and transport sector as well. These regulations encompass 

international, federal, state, and local levels. Similarly, a range of U.S. governmental agencies 

have jurisdiction over these support and transport operations: the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Aviation Administration, 

Department of Homeland Security and its related agencies (U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

U.S. Coast Guard), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (SEC 2011b). 

Onshore support services are not explicitly regulated, however, they do have to follow 

environmental statutes because they coincide with other regulated industries. For example, 

repair and maintenance often falls under regulations applied to the shipbuilding industry and its 

regulations as discussed in a previous chapter of this fact book. Some regulations applicable 

here are: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; United States Code, Title 10, Section 

7311; the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act.

Specific regulations for the design and construction of offshore supply vessels were adopted by 

resolution by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The Guidelines for the Design and 

Construction of Offshore Supply Vessels 2006 are actually an amended and revised version of 

regulations originally adopted in 1981 (IMO 2006). Following, in May 2012, the U.S. Coast 

Guard issued a policy letter implementing the IMO’s resolution and providing the United States’ 

interpretations for the design, construction and operation of new and existing U.S. flagged OSVs 

(USCG 2012a). The provisions of both the IMO guidelines and the USCG interpretations “have 

been developed so that limited quantities of cargoes regulated under these Guidelines may be 

carried in bulk with minimum risk to the offshore support vessel, its crew, and to the 

environment” (USCG 2012a). The guidelines address stability, machinery and electrical 

installations, fire protection, lifesaving appliances, radio communications and the transport of 

hazardous and liquid noxious substances in bulk. 

FAA Regulations

There are specific state and federal regulations for heliports, in part due to the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), which oversees all flight operations. The National Transportation Safety 

Board is responsible for reducing the number of accidents in all transportation media. They are 

an independent government entity which investigates past accidents and creates 

recommendations as needed to stop that from happening again (NTSB 2012). However, note 

that the NTSB has no true authority to regulate the transportation industry. The Communications 

Act of 1934 also has a minor role in regulatory concerns for heliport owners and operators. As 

with all other workspaces that have been discussed hereto, workplace health and safety standards 

are defined by the federal Occupational Safety Act (OSHA).

86
The FAA’s jurisdiction is widespread and includes oversight of flight operations in general, to 

personnel, aircraft, and ground facilities. In order to transport personnel and equipment to 

offshore regions air transportation providers must have an Air Taxi Certification from the FAA. 

Similarly, air transportation companies are required to file flight operation reports periodically. 

Under the Federal Aviation Act, aircraft for hire must be registered with the FAA and the 

operator must receive an operating certificate (SEC 2012a). These operating certificates are only 

issued to U.S. citizens, and a company may be considered a U.S. citizen as long as: at least 75 

percent of its voting interest is held by a citizen of the U.S., the president of the company and at 

least two thirds of the directors are a U.S. citizens (SEC 2012a).

Because heliports own and operate radio and communications equipment used in flight 

coordination, the air transportation companies are subject to certain regulations associated with 

the Communications Act of 1934.

3.6 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: EAST COAST 

From 1976 to 1983 there were 433 lease sales and 51 wells were drilled in the U.S. Atlantic 

Region. This was an exploration phase and only one “discovery” of gas shows was made. No

production resulted from this exploratory event due to the distance from shore (about 100 miles

(161 kilometers)) and the lack of both onshore and offshore support infrastructure (BOEM

2012). This is the extent of activity in the oil and gas offshore industry in the Mid-Atlantic OCS 

to date. However, the federal government has displayed an interest in this area for drilling in the 

future, where currently they are performing an assessment and exploration phase (NY Times

2012).

As shown in Figure 38 just 12 public heliports are located in the Mid-Atlantic region and most of 

these facilities are in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Since heliports and support facilities are 

required in areas to enhance offshore production, this industry will only grow in the Mid-Atlantic

region if drilling begins offshore. However, some more limited resources will be necessary if 

onshore shale drilling increases- not to the extent of what is required for offshore operations, but 

still enhancing to the surrounding economy (FAA 2012).

It is unclear whether the Mid-Atlantic OCS will begin producing offshore, and until that time 

there is no reason that a support structure will develop for drilling. Land-based supply and 

fabrication centers provide equipment, personnel, and supplies necessary for the industry to 

function through intermodal connections with ports. Other necessary onshore counterparts to 

offshore drilling are inland transportation to supply bases, equipment manufacturing, fabrication, 

and crew services. The offshore support includes a variety of waterborne and airborne 

transportation. 

87
BOEM released a study in 2012 using data and information available as of January 1, 2009 to 

assess the undiscovered oil and gas resources for the Mid-Atlantic OCS. Nine conceptual plays 

and one high risk play with drilling depths from 7,000 to 30,000 feet (2,134 to 9,144 meters) 

were identified. Since drillships are now able to drill in 12,000 feet (3,658 meters) of water to 

depths of 40,000 feet (12,192 meters) there are no longer engineering or technology issues to 

limit exploration in the Mid-Atlantic OCS, though there is little supporting pipeline 

infrastructure to the coastal regions into the OCS (BOEM 2012). The assessment estimates the 

undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas are between 1.30 and 5.58 Bbls of oil and 11.11 

and 53.62 Tcf of natural gas in the Mid-Atlantic OCS (95 percent and 5 percent confidence 

intervals, respectively) (BOEM 2012).

3.7 FACTORS IMPACTING EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT

No support and transport facilities have been identified on the Mid-Atlantic coast (with the 

exception of heliports). General offshore support and transportation is tied directly to ports. Our 

research does not suggest the development of private (company-owned) service facilities arising

until offshore activity moves to the Mid-Atlantic OCS. Like ports, development in response to 

offshore activity will be influenced by the specific location of offshore activity. 

The capital cost of developing such types of facilities by an individual offshore operator may be 

too expensive for one company alone. Support facility development is likely to track port 

development. Factors weighing against private support base facilities include: 

• Potential conflicts with recreation and residential development. 

• Permitting challenges. 

• Facility development costs. 

• Offshore development scenario uncertainties. 

• Lower cost commercial port opportunities. 

There are currently 12 publicly owned heliports in the Mid-Atlantic region. These heliports do 

not provide service to offshore oil and gas development since there is no development of the 

Mid-Atlantic OCS at this time. With support from the government for drilling in this region 

there is a chance that this support infrastructure will develop. Some influential factors for the 

expansion of the existing heliport system in the region to oil and gas support are below: 

• alternative energy infrastructure utilization; 

• current heliport services; 

• regulatory issues; 

• public funding and development incentives;

• general business conditions; and 

• proximity to OCS development.

88
4 OIL SPILL RESPONSE

4.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY AND SERVICES PROVIDED

Oil spills are widely regarded as serious man-made disasters with profound ramifications for 

regional ecologies and economies. Historically, two of the most well know offshore oil spills are 

the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. The 1969 Santa Barbara oil 

spill began January 28, 1969 about five miles (eight kilometers) off the coast of Santa Barbara, 

California, on a shallow drilling rig platform named Alpha operated by Union Oil. The spill last 

ten days before it was able to be capped with cement slurry, creating an oil slick covering 800 

square miles (2,072 square kilometers) and effecting 35 miles (56 kilometers) of coast line 

(Clarke and Hemphill 2002). In subsequent analysis of the spill, it was determined that a major 

cause of the incident was a waiver issued by regulators allowing the use of lower quality casing 

materials than typically required. A second major oil spill occurred on March 23, 1989 as the 

Exxon Valdez tanker struck Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, while on autopilot. 

Before the ensuing leak was brought under control, the Exxon Valdez discharged 10.8 million 

gallons of crude oil into the surrounding ecosystem (Exxon Valdez Trustee Council 1990).

Subsequent to these offshore oil spills, the federal government and the petroleum industry ability 

to prevent and respond to these disasters has improved dramatically. First, the federal 

government has designated specific federal agencies with oversight of certain types of oil spills 

in different environments. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is 

responsible for oil and other hazardous spills in U.S. inland waters, while the U.S. Coast Guard 

has been designated responsible for spills in deepwater ports and coastal waters (USEPA 2012a). 

The Coast Guard also certifies a number of private companies specializing in cleaning up oil 

spills: called Oil Spill Response Organizations (OSROs).

The EPA also created an “Emergency Management” program to focus on eliminating danger to 

the public and environment caused by oil or hazardous substance spill or release. There is a 

requirement for persons or organizations involved in an accident or release must notify the 

federal government when the spilled amount reaches a previously designated level. This 

designated level differs based upon what the released substance is, but for oil specifically this 

amount relates to whether it is enough to cause harm to the public or environment (USEPA 

2012a). The specific guidelines of when the reporting threshold is reached can be summarized as 

follows:

• water quality standards are violated by the spilled oil;

• there is discoloration or a visible film or sheen on the water surface or adjoining 

shorelines;

• and there is a sludge or emulsion deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon 

adjoining shorelines.

89
There are some official exceptions which negate the need to report a spill. First of all, leakage 

from a properly functioning vessel engine is not considered report-worthy. If that oil is 

accumulated in the vessel’s bilge, however, it is not “properly functioning” and should be 

reported. Case-by-case releases are allowed by the EPA Administrator if the discharge is for the 

purpose of research, demonstration projects, or studies relating to the prevention, control or 

reduction of oil pollution. Note, however, that the use of dispersants or emulsifiers is 

specifically forbidden if used in an attempt to circumvent the discharge regulations.

The EPA also has a list of permitted releases in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES), which mainly fall under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, once a permit is 

obtained (USEPA 2012b):

• if the discharge is in compliance with a permit under Section 402 of the Clean Water 

Act, and the permit includes and effluent limitation which applies to the oil itself, or 

another parameter designated as an indicator of oil;

• If the source, nature, and amount of a potential oil discharge was identified in the 

public record with respect to a permit under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and 

if the treatment system capable of preventing the spill was made a permit 

requirement, therefore the spill is exempt from the notification regulation; and

• If the release is continuous or anticipated intermittently from a specific source which 

is identified in a permit or permit application, and those events which cause the spill 

occur within the scope of relevant operating or treatment systems. This exemption is 

particularly important for manufacturing or treatment systems of a facility or vessel, 

including periodic system failures which cause spills. However, discharges caused by 

spills or episodic events that release oil to the manufacturing or treatment systems are 

not exempt from reporting.

In the aftermath of a 1967 grounding of the oil tanker Torrey Canyon in the English Channel, 

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) has also 

mandated specific allowances pertaining to environmental discharge into marine environments 

from operational or accidental causes. In accordance with MARPOL standards, all relevant 

vessels are required to discharge oil contents at rates no more than 15 parts per million (ppm). In 

the United States – a signatory to MARPOL – the U.S. Coast Guard enforces the convention 

through port state control (PSC) exams, which primarily examine monitoring equipment and 

ships logs for irregularities. The Coast Guard requires all oil tankers 150 gross tons and above to 

carry cargo monitors that provide continuous recordings of oil discharges from slop tanks, and 

oily water separators which clean oil-contaminated bilge and ballast water. Oily water separators 

are also required for non-oil tankers greater than 400 gross tons. Finally, the Coast Guard 

requires all ships 10,000 gross tons and greater to have an oil content meter (OCM) that 

measures the content of the oil in the discharge processed through the ship’s oily water separator

(Allain 2008).

90
4.2 TYPICAL FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

In general, the oil spill response industry is knowledge-based and highly mobile, as many 

varying factors of an oil spill play a major role in the type of response effort employed. Some of 

the most influential factors include geographic isolation, weather, the type of water and shoreline 

impacted. For deepwater spills there are additional concerns including accommodations, access, 

and communication for volunteers on the site. Similarly, small communities may not be able to 

support a full-fledged emergency response effort with sufficient facilities, phone, or radio 

equipment. Warm water environments are most conducive to biodegradation and dispersing 

agents, while moderate wave activity renders gelling agents more effective. Moving water also 

acts as a natural cleaning agent, while spills in stationary water are more severe, since oil has a 

tendency to pool and stay in the same area for an extended period of time. The ecological 

environment of the spill site should also be considered when developing a response plan, so that 

the scheduled oil and cleanup operations do not threaten marine habitats. Depending upon the 

exact type of biological community, some are more sensitive to the physical intrusion that goes 

along with some commonly used methods of cleanup (USEPA 2012a).

Other factors also play a large role in oil spill response efforts, in particular the specific OSV 

category and the speed at which the OSROs can reach the site of an oil spill. Specific OSV 

categories, discussed in an earlier chapter of this Fact Book, typically play a strong role in oil 

spill response as well. OSVs can be differentiated by design, length, horsepower and cargo 

capabilities. For example, PSVs are involved in providing offshore drilling and production 

facilities with various supplies including equipment, pipes, lubricants, chemicals and drilling 

mud. However, these vessels can also perform firefighting and oil recovery operations in case of 

an oil spill at an offshore platform. In some cases, companies may redesign vessels to be more 

specifically suited for oil spill response (MSRC 2012).

The speed at which the OSROs can reach the site of an oil spill additionally determines the 

response efforts employed. Usually, if the OSRO are able to reach the site of a spill within the 

first few hours, the initial employed response is targeted towards containment, wherein special 

plastic booms are deployed to prevent the oil slick from dispersing further. Once contained, the 

OSROs can employ skimmers to pull oil from the surface of the water while leaving the water 

behind. This oil is collected in tanks or vacuum trucks to be disposed of or recycled. 

Additionally, OSROs can employ biological sorbents to safely break down oil compounds. The 

use of biological sorbents has the added benefits of being able to be used along shorelines if 

shorelines are contaminated (Triumvirate Environmental 2012).

91
4.2.1 Oil Spill Response

The main goal of any oil spill response team begins in their preparation, well before any accident 

or spill occurs. Once a spill occurs, in order to minimize damage to human and environmental 

health, action must be taken quickly and well-organized so that the spill can be contained and 

controlled quickly. This planning ahead generally takes the form of a “contingency plan” which

is a set of instructions outlining steps to take before, during, and after an emergency (USEPA 

1999a). These plans attempt to outline different spill scenarios and situations and the steps to 

follow. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identifies four major common elements of a 

contingency plan: (1) hazard identification; (2) vulnerability analysis; (3) risk assessment; and 

(4) response actions.

Hazard Identification

Identification of the dangers related to an oil spill is very difficult to prepare: it is impossible to 

know when and how much oil will be spilled in an accident before said accident has taken place. 

However, it is relatively easy to identify storage facilities for oil, where it travels, and which 

industries or firms use large quantities of oil. In this way, areas with a high probability of spill 

may be identified and “planned” for. Also, weather conditions, geography, isolated locations, 

spill size, can all affect the ability of response personnel to effectively clean after a disaster

(USEPA 1999a).

Some standard information that is collected in the hazard identification stage is:

• Types of oil generally found in the area, both stored and transported through

• Locations where oil is stored in large quantities

• Mode of transportation used to move any large quantities of oil in the area (pipelines, 

railroads, trucks or tankers)

• Extreme weather conditions which are likely or possible in the area of concern during 

different times of the year

• Locations of response equipment and personnel who have been trained to use such 

equipment in spill response

Vulnerability Analysis

Vulnerability analysis takes place after potential risk areas have been identified. This stage 

provides information about resources and communities which are in danger in the event of a 

spill. This wealth of information will assist personnel responding to the spill in making 

appropriate decisions about protecting public health and the environment.

Potential information which can be collected during the vulnerability analysis phase of 

contingency planning includes:

• Lists of the community’s public safety officials

• Lists of facilities which will need special attention: schools, nursing homes, hospitals, 

and prisons

• Lists of recreational areas like campgrounds or beaches

• Lists of special events; their dates, times, location

92
• Identification of exceptionally sensitive parts of the environment which may be 

impacted by oil or water pollution

Risk Assessment

The next phase, risk assessment, is when planners compare the hazard and vulnerability analyses 

for their location of concern to determine the level and kind of risk most likely. The plan 

addresses those concerns by finding the best option to control the spill, how to prevent high-risk 

populations or environments from oil spills. Lastly, the risk assessment addresses the options for 

repairing the damage done by a spill (USEPA 1999a). The risk assessment is created based upon 

findings in the hazard identification and vulnerability analysis, and then is used in determining 

necessary response actions.

Response Actions

Lastly, response actions are created to address risks that may have been identified in the previous 

risk assessment, stage. These actions describe procedures to undertake when a spill occurs. The 

response is planned to take place immediately so that hazards to human and environmental health 

are minimized. Some common elements of response actions include:

• Notifying all entities (including private companies and government agencies)

responsible for cleanup efforts;

• Quickly getting trained personnel and equipment to the location of the spill;

• Defining the magnitude, content, and location of the spill;

• Assessing the direction and speed of movement of the spill;

• Determining the likelihood of sensitive habitats being impacted, based upon location 

characteristics;

• Ensuring the safety of all response personnel and the public in the area;

• If possible, stopping the flow of oil and preventing ignition;

• Containing the spill to a limited area; and

• Removing and disposing of oil as it is taken from land and water.

Once these steps of planning are completed, it is important to run trials of the designed plan to 

ensure it works as designed (USEPA 1999a). There is a wide range of “trial runs” which can be 

as simple as a discussion about how a full-scale response effort would occur or as complicated as 

a true enactment of the planned response. Depending upon the choice of trial, it may take a few 

hours or several days. However, this type of practice enhances the response effort in the event of 

an actual spill by increasing training of response staff, discovering weaknesses of the plan and 

areas which need improvement, provides a lower stress environment to practice the procedures 

and new techniques without the associated risk, allows responders to meet and become familiar 

with one another before a true disaster setting thus building familiarity and teamwork. All of 

these advantages help to make the response effort more effective in the event of a real oil spill

(USEPA 1999a).

93
In the unfortunate event that a spill occurs, oil spill response teams should always do a post-spill 

analysis of their contingency plan to determine areas which can be improved. For instance, were 

there issues that had not been considered in the original plan and were there unexpected 

problems or successes in the chosen cleanup techniques? These and similar questions can be 

used to revise and improve a contingency plan (USEPA 1999a). Contingency plans must always 

be evolving and improving as the approaches and methods to responding to spills are not 

constant.

Other facilities also focus on oil spill response, specific niches of resources that may be impacted 

in the event of a spill. For example, the Avian Conservation Center in South Carolina focuses on

public education, avian medicine, and research. However, they also have a South Carolina Oiled 

Bird Response Facility on site, which is equipped to provide quality medical care to injured or 

orphaned birds of prey and shore birds and response in the event of an oil spill which impact 

native bird populations and their breeding habitats all along the South Atlantic Coast (ACC

2012). This group also strives to promote awareness of the ecological impacts of a spill and how 

to be proactive in reducing its chances. Personnel are trained on site in avian medicine and oil 

spill response pertaining to birds.

Another organization involved in conservation of habitat for native birds in the Mid-Atlantic

region, the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV), has a working group which focuses on oil spill 

response. Specifically, the ACJV Oil Spill Working Group aims to develop a standardized 

protocol for spill responses to help determine the impacts on seabird populations and to improve 

the Natural Resource Disaster Assessment (NRDA) process for data collection after events 

(ACJV 2012).

4.2.2 In Situ Burning

In situ burning is a commonly used technique which involves the controlled burning of spilled 

oil at the spill location. This technique is used because it can significantly reduce the amount of 

oil in water, and similarly, reduces the impacts of oil on the environment (NOAA 2012a). The 

most common method of in situ burning uses a fire-resistant boom and ignites the oil within the 

boom. Two boats usually tow the fire-resistant boom in a U shape to collect the oil for ignition 

away from the main slick. The process may be repeated with more booms filled with oil until no 

longer necessary (Barnea 1997).

94
Figure 39. In situ burning at a crude oil spill

Source: Kusnetz 2012.

There are many advantages of in situ burning: minimizing the spread of the slick, remove oil 

from the site of the spill, avoidance of using storage facilities, less waste and disposal concerns. 

This method is especially beneficial in areas where no other options are feasible like ice-covered 

water or marsh. However, in general this should be considered a complement to other means of 

spill response. Mechanical recovery using booms, skimmers, and dispersants should also be 

utilized immediately following a spill (Barnea 1997). 

The effectiveness of in situ burning depends upon several factors. The key factor that determines 

whether or not the oil will ignite is slick thickness. For fresh, volatile crude, the minimum 

ignitable thickness is about 1 millimeter (mm); for aged, unemulsified crude oil and diesel, 3 to 5 

mm; and for residual fuel oils, about 10 mm. Other factors include wind speed, emulsification of 

the oil, strength of the ignition source, ambient temperature, and waves. The maximum wind 

speed has been determined to be 10 to 12 meters per second; the water-in-oil emulsion should 

not be more than 25 percent water; and the ambient temperature must be above the oil’s flash 

point (Buist, et al 1999). The need for such specific environmental conditions can be viewed as 

one major disadvantage of this technique of oil spill response.

95
There are other considerations to in situ burning. One is the fire-resistant boom. This boom is 

generally made from ceramic fireproof fabric which can withstand heat greater than 2,000 

degrees Fahrenheit, wave action, and towing (Barnea 1997). Other types of booms may be

lighter and made of fire-resistant fabrics; however, they are not designed for long-term use. 

With every type of boom, several factors affect the amount of times they can be used. The 

length of exposure to a burn and the wave action during the burn will affect the rate of 

deterioration. For some types of booms, it is more cost-effective to dispose of the boom rather 

than restoring it for future use (Buist, et al 1999).

Other disadvantages are related to the perceived human and environmental harm that may result 

from in situ burns: flames and heat from the burn; emission generated by the fire; and the 

remaining material left once the fire is out. Heat from the fire is a concern for responders and the 

safest distance is assumed to be four times the diameter of the fire from the edge of an in situ oil 

fire (Buist, et al 1999). 

Carbon smoke particles are also a major concern, as they can cause severe health problems if 

inhaled in high concentration. Exposure to these smoke particles will pose the highest threat to 

workers as concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the fire will likely exceed public health 

standards. Workers should be screened for health conditions, such as asthma, that would make 

them more sensitive to the in situ burning conditions, and all workers should be provided with 

protective equipment (Buist, et al 1999). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also provide 

guidelines for protecting response workers and volunteers (CDC 2012).

Because of the risk to humans and the environment, extensive policies and guidelines have been 

established to limit in situ burning to an extent that the general population will not be at risk 

(Barnea 1997). Though in general in situ burning can be considered helpful to natural resources 

since it limits the spread of the spilled oil, there are some situations or specific regions where it 

may actually threaten resources. Individual regions in the U.S. have adopted policies to protect 

these natural resources in regards to burning (Barnea 1997).

In order for in situ burning to be effective, its approval must come quickly. There is a limited 

time window where burning is feasible (while the oil is thick enough and environmental 

characteristics are suitable). For this reason there is often preapproval for burning, or extremely 

quick approval on a case by case basis (Barnea 1997).

The in situ burn is monitored extremely closely. Specifically, monitoring teams are placed 

downwind of the burn, especially at population centers or other sensitive locations. These teams 

collect samples before, during, and after the burn to check particulate concentration trends and 

notify a supervisor if these levels reach a concerning concentration. Data is also recorded at 

every stage, and is forwarded to the Unified Command (NOAA 2012a). 

96
Research has been done and data collected which show that about 85 to 95 percent of burned oil 

is converted to carbon dioxide and water. Five to 15 percent that is not effectively burnt 

becomes particulates, which is mostly soot, and explains the characteristic black smoke that can 

be seen during an in situ burn. The remaining 1 to 3 percent becomes nitrogen dioxide, sulfur 

dioxide, carbon monoxide, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), ketones, aldehydes, and 

other combustion by products (Barnea 1997).

4.2.3 Bioremediation

Bioremediation is an oil-spill treatment technique used in all types of environmental areas

including soils, ground water, and surface water (both freshwater and marine). Bioremediation 

utilizes bacteria and other microscopic organisms to breakdown petroleum hydrocarbons through 

biodegradation into water and carbon dioxide. In this regards, bioremediation results in actually 

removing oil contaminates from the environment (EPA 2001). Bioremediation is unique in this 

regards as the majority of most other treatment techniques transfer the oil from one medium to 

another, or dilute it, rather than breaking down contaminated oil altogether as bioremediation 

does (USDOE/PERF 2003).

It should be noted that biodegradation is a natural occurring process that is simply harnessed or 

optimized to enhance the rate of biodegradation. Most microbes that degrade petroleum 

hydrocarbons require oxygen, water, proper acidity, and nutrients such as nitrogen and 

phosphorous (USDOE/PERF 2003). Because of this, in some environments biodegradation can 

be slow and the environmental factors that affect biodegradation need to be modified. 

Bioremediation increases the rate at which this biodegradation occur by providing an optimal 

living environment for these microbes (EPA 2001).

Bioremediation techniques must therefore be optimized for the environment and medium being 

treated, and its associated biodegradation rate-limiting factors. For instance, biodegradation in 

groundwater can be limited by the amount of dissolved oxygen present, while biodegradation in 

seawater is usually limited by a lack of nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations. 

Bioremediation of seawater is additionally hampered by the potential for nitrogen and 

phosphorous compounds to result in toxicity to aquatic organisms (USDOE/PERF 2003).

Environmental factors also present the biggest disadvantage to bioremediation, as is it less 

effective or more difficult to cultivate microbes in specific environments. For instance, high

concentrations of salt may be inhibitory or lethal to microorganisms as the high salinity disrupts 

osmotic balance and interferes with enzyme activity. Environments with high acidity (low pH) 

can also negatively affect bioremediation as the optimal range pH range for biodegradation is 6.0 

to 8.5. Biodegradation naturally causes pH levels in soils to drop over time, causing the need for 

lime or limestone to be frequently added to adjust acidity levels. Cold weather below 65 degrees 

Fahrenheit and environments too arid have also been shown to have an adverse impact on 

biodegradation rates (EPA 2001 and USDOE/PERF 2003).

97
4.3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

Historically, oil spills in the Mid-Atlantic OCS have occurred as a result of refinery operations 

which receive cargo from water-borne suppliers and other industrial activities.6 Because of this, 

there exist a number of companies in the Mid-Atlantic impact region which provide oil spill 

response services. 

The private companies involved in the oil spill response industry are extremely mobile; however,

in that they may be stationed in one location, but offer their services across the entire U.S. or 

even internationally. For example, the Coast Guard lists the Marine Spill Response Corporation 

(MSRC) as an OSRO with ocean response capabilities in COTP zone five.7

 MSRC is 

headquartered in Virginia, but provides oil spill response services throughout all Coast Guard 

COTP zones. Environmental Expert Online provides a list of oil spill response companies, many 

of which are located outside of the U.S., but others are on the East and West Coast and in the 

GOM region.

The Coast Guard also provides a listing of all classified OSPROs within their Response Resource 

Inventory System (USCG 2012b). This listing illustrates a similar pattern of widespread 

locations for OSPROs, with some concentration in the GOM and along the coasts.

6 For instance, in 2004 a tanker preparing to dock at the refinery in Paulsboro, New Jersey struck a large, submerged 

anchor. The anchor punctured the hull of the vessel, resulting in a spill of 265,000 gallons of crude oil into the 

Delaware River and nearby tributaries (NOAA 2010). 7 This zone includes most of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland (Chesapeake Bay), Virginia and North Carolina. 

98

 
Table 12 provides a list of these companies with physical locations in the Mid-Atlantic impact 

region. 

Table 12. Coast Guard COTP Zone 5 (Mid-Atlantic) OSRO Companies.

Zone 5 Operating Capabilities

Near River or

OSRO Company Name Offshore Shore Ocean Inland Canal Location

LCM Corporation X X Roanoke, VA

Lewis Environmental 

Group X X Royersford, PA

A Clean Environment Inc. X Tulsa, OK

Oil Mop Inc. X X Belle Chasse, LA

Clean Harbors 

Environmental Services X X Norwell, MA

National Response 

Corporation X X X X X Great River, NY

Miller Environmental 

Group X X Calverton, NY

Marine Spill Response 

Corporation X X X X X Herndon, VA

HEPACO, Inc. X X

Charlotte, NC (MidAtlantic Regional 

Office in Norfolk, VA)

Industrial Marine 

Services, Inc. X X Savannah, GA

Heritage Environmental 

Services, Inc. X X

Indianapolis, IN 

(Offices in Charlotte, 

NC)

Clean Venture, Inc. X X Elizabeth, NJ

All State O.R.C. X X West Milford, NJ

McCutcheon Enterprises, 

Inc. X X Apollo, PA

Triumvirate 

Environmental X X X X X

Somerville, MA 

(Offices in Baltimore, 

MD, and Durham, NC)

Accurate Marine 

Environmental X Portsmouth, VA

Moran Environmental 

Recovery X X Randolph, MA

Allstate Power-Vac X X Rahway, NJ

Environmental 

Restoration, LLC X X St. Louis, MO (Offices in Raleigh, NC)

Source: USCG 2012b.

99
4.4 SCOPE OF ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION TO REGIONAL ECONOMY

Oil spill response services are included in NAICS code 562910, Remediation Services. This 

includes remediation and cleanup of contaminated buildings, mine sites, soil, and ground water;

waste water treatment; and the removal of hazardous material such as asbestos, lead paint, and 

other toxic materials. The development of remedial plans is classified as something different, 

however, and is compiled with a number of similar services, “Environmental Consulting 

Services.” Therefore, the results described below are likely larger than cleanup efforts for oil 

spills alone, but still present an applicable depiction of the industry’s influence in the area and 

over time (USDOL, BLS 2012).

Oil spill response employment comprises a very small portion of overall Mid-Atlantic region 

employment. Table 13 illustrates this fact, where the highest contribution is 0.13 percent of the 

state’s total employment (Maryland). Similarly, the Mid-Atlantic region oil spill response 

employment comprises a mere 17 percent of total U.S. oil spill response employment. Maryland, 

Pennsylvania, and New Jersey employ the greatest number of oil spill response workers in the 

Mid-Atlantic region, nearly 20 percent each, as can be seen in Figure 40. 

Table 13. Regional and national employment contribution, remediation services, 2011.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Remediation

Remediation Employment as a

Employment as a Percent of Total U.S.

Total Percent of Total Remediation

Remediation State State Employment Employment

New Jersey 2,593 3,156,538 0.08% 3.38%

Delaware 249 342,585 0.07% 0.32%

Maryland 2,618 1,991,055 0.13% 3.41%

Pennsylvania 2,926 4,825,064 0.06% 3.81%

Virginia 1,500 2,889,435 0.05% 1.95%

North Carolina 1,399 3,158,293 0.04% 1.82%

South Carolina 707 1,450,840 0.05% 0.92%

Georgia 1,208 3,135,735 0.04% 1.57%

Total Region 13,200 20,949,545 0.06% 17.19%

U.S. 76,795 108,184,795 0.07% 100.00%

Number of Jobs

----------------- (%) -----------------

100
Figure 40. Mid-Atlantic impact region remediation services employment shares, 2011. Source: USDOC, BLS 2012a.

Remediation services employment in the Mid-Atlantic impact region has increased over time, at 

an average annual rate of 2.4 percent. These trends are shown in Figure 41. The number of jobs 

was at its highest in 2011. The largest increases in recent years were in Delaware, Maryland and 

Pennsylvania.

Figure 41. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region remediation services employment, 2001-

2011.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

New Jersey, 20%

Delaware, 2%

Maryland, 20%

Pennsylvania, 22%

Virginia, 11%

North Carolina, 11%

South Carolina, 5%

Georgia, 9%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

New Jersey Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania

Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Number of Jobs

101
Total wages for the remediation services sector are presented in Table 14. Like employment, 

remediation services wages are a very small portion of total state wages. The Mid-Atlantic

impact region wages account for about 16 percent of total U.S. remediation services wages. Of 

total wages paid for remediation services, New Jersey and Pennsylvania account for almost onehalf of the wages paid. 

Table 14. Regional and national wages contribution, remediation services, 2011.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 42. Regional Mid-Atlantic OCS total wage shares, 2010.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Remediation

Remediation Wages as a

Wages as a Percent of Total U.S.

Total Percent of Total Remediation

Remediation State State Wages Wages

New Jersey $ 162.9 $ 179,559 0.09% 3.74%

Delaware $ 11.8 $ 17,313 0.07% 0.27%

Maryland $ 127.8 $ 100,787 0.13% 2.93%

Pennsylvania $ 163.7 $ 225,147 0.07% 3.76%

Virginia $ 68.5 $ 145,225 0.05% 1.57%

North Carolina $ 59.9 $ 132,436 0.05% 1.37%

South Carolina $ 30.2 $ 54,746 0.06% 0.69%

Georgia $ 64.3 $ 142,928 0.04% 1.47%

Total Region $ 689.1 $ 998,140 0.07% 15.81%

U.S. $ 4,359.6 $ 5,172,844 0.08% 100.00%

Wages

---------- (million $) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

New Jersey, 24%

Delaware, 2%

Maryland, 19%

Pennsylvania, 24%

Virginia, 10%

North Carolina, 9%

South Carolina, 4%

Georgia, 9%

102
Similar to the trend in employment in the sector, total wages in remediation services increased 

steadily from 2001 to 2011, at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent annually. Only in 2009 was 

the growth rate negative, at -0.03 percent. This negative growth was driven by Delaware, 

Maryland, and South Carolina, but wages in those states jumped back up soon after.

Figure 43. Historic trends in Mid-Atlantic OCS region oil spill response wages.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Table 15 illustrates that the average annual wage for remediation services are in general, greater 

than the average wage for the state (for all states except Delaware, Maryland and Virginia). 

However, the average annual wage for remediation services in the Mid-Atlantic impact region 

are lower than the average annual wage for remediation services in the U.S. (except New Jersey). 

Regionally, wages are approximately 88 percent of U.S. wages. 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

New Jersey Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania

Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Wages (million $)

103
Table 15. Regional and national average annual wage contribution, remediation services, 

2011.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

The wage trend since 2001 has differed by state, although on average wages in the Mid-Atlantic

impact region as a whole increased by 2.7 percent annually. Figure 44 depicts the growth in 

average annual wages for remediation services in all states individually in the Mid-Atlantic

impact region.

Remediation Remediation

Average Annual Average Annual Wage

Wage as a Percentas a Percent of Total U.S.

Total of Total State Remediation

Remediation StateAverage Annual Wage Average Annual Wage

New Jersey $ 62,828 $ 56,885 110.4% 110.7%

Delaware $ 47,564 $ 50,535 94.1% 83.8%

Maryland $ 48,818 $ 50,620 96.4% 86.0%

Pennsylvania $ 55,949 $ 46,662 119.9% 98.6%

Virginia $ 45,644 $ 50,261 90.8% 80.4%

North Carolina $ 42,828 $ 41,933 102.1% 75.4%

South Carolina $ 42,669 $ 37,734 113.1% 75.2%

Georgia $ 53,222 $ 45,580 116.8% 93.8%

Total Region $ 49,940 $ 47,526 105.1% 88.0%

U.S. $ 56,769 $ 47,815 118.7% 100.0%

---------- ($) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

Average Annual Wage

104
Figure 44. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region remediation services average annual 

wages, 2001-2011.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

4.5 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: INDUSTRY 

Contingency planners today are taking advantage of new technologies to improve their disaster 

plans. For example, planners in the EPA are using geographic information systems (GIS) to 

improve plans by incorporating electronic mapping data. They are able to make electronic maps 

which outline locations of sensitive environments, drinking water intakes, roads, oil storage and 

production facilities, pipelines, boat launches, etc. These tools and resources make prioritization 

much simpler, and quicker, which is vital in minimizing damage to human and environmental 

life. This wealth of knowledge is easily accessed and updated, and also aids in determining the 

types of cleanup equipment needed by illustrating the location of sensitive environments. 

Depending upon the type of land or water where the spill is found, it may be more beneficial to 

use booms than skimmers, or vacuum trucks. Mapping also helps to identify areas which will be 

difficult to access (USEPA 1999a).

Other technologies being used by planners include X-Band and Infrared technology which are 

placed on marine platforms to help better located oil in low visibility conditions (MSRC 2012). 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

New Jersey Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania

Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Average Annual Wage ($)

105
As a result of advancements in data collection and storage, there are now databases which 

document types and properties of crude oil being stored and transported, which are extremely 

useful in the event of a spill. However, these are not current and many newer oils currently 

being produced are not documented in some cases. If data could be collected and gathered from 

operators including characteristics which may impact safety, behavior, fate, potential effects, and 

the best response actions and or techniques. This information can be input into existing 

technologies such as ADIOS from NOAA (OSR-JOP 2012).

ADIOS (Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills) is a database used to model how different oils 

and solutions change physically and chemically in marine environments. This service provides 

an immense amount of information useful to response teams for oil cleanup efforts. The 

database itself contains information about over one thousand crude oils and similar products. 

When a spill occurs, its specific details about environmental conditions, the type of substance 

spilt, and the planned cleanup strategies can be entered and then predictions can be made about 

the effects. This software helps inform crews and better shape cleanup efforts to minimize 

damage by providing predictions pertaining to cleanup techniques like dispersant use, skimming, 

and burning the oil. Specifically, ADIOS uses mathematical equations to predict changes in 

density, viscosity, and water content after release for the relevant details of the spill (NOAA 

2012b).

One danger during the operational phase of spill cleanup is a lack of data, which can cause a 

delay in action, or inappropriate actions being taken which increase the overall damage. There is 

likely room for improvement in oil spill trajectory and subsea plume modeling, even beyond 

ADIOS capabilities, which is a concern cited by OSR-JIP for future research and development 

(OSR-JIP 2012).

In general, the current practice used in tracking spills is region specific. In some areas, the range 

of advancing technology may not be fully employed and oil spill response requires crossfunctional imagery and geospatial data (OSR-JIP 2012).

Many groups, both government based and private corporation conglomerates, have been formed 

to plan and prepare for oil spills. One such group is the Joint Industry Oil Spill Preparedness and 

Response Task Force (JITF). This task force is made up of member companies and associates of 

the American Petroleum Institute (API), International Association of Drilling Contractors 

(IADC), Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), National Ocean Industries 

Association (NOIA), and the U.S. Oil and Gas Association (USOGA). The goal of this group is

to improve the oil spill response system in a number of areas: planning and coordination, 

optimization of each response tool, research and development, technology advancement and 

training, education of all parties preparing for or responding to a spill. The Oil Spill 

Preparedness and Response Subcommittee (OSPRS) was formed to respond to recommendations 

made in the original JITF report (JITF 2011). 

106
NOAA has implemented a monitoring program for in situ burning and dispersant use: special 

monitoring of applied response technologies, or SMART (NOAA 2012c). This program uses 

small, highly mobile teams who collect real-time data during oil spill response, specifically 

dispersant and in situ burning operations. This program is a joint venture with numerous 

organizations including NOAA, the U.S. Coastguard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement.

Once a spill occurs, a Unified Command is established: representatives of the responsible party 

and governmental agents (both state and federal) who are in charge of the spill. Data are 

channeled through the Unified Command so that they can track important concerns and 

questions regarding particulate concentration and effectiveness of dispersants (NOAA 2012c). 

This real-time data is vital for the successful application of in situ burning and dispersants, and 

assists with decision-making for these operations.

The Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC) is the largest standby oil spill response 

company in the U.S. It is a nonprofit organization which was founded in 1990, funded by the 

Marine Preservation Association through its member oil companies (Oil and Gas Journal 2012). 

MSRC started a program known as “Deep Blue” to improve response to oil spills and decrease 

response time for spills in the GOM. MSRC organized contracts with Edison Chouest Offshore 

and Hornbeck Offshore Services to modify five platform supply vessels and multipurpose 

support vessels for potential use as OSRVs (Dittrick 2012). Also, MSRC moved one of its large 

210 foot OSRVs from the Atlantic Coast to Port Fourchon, Louisiana and named it the “Deep 

Blue Responder”. OSRVs are vital for spill response because they can store recovered oil 

temporarily and then can separate oil and water. The recovered oil will be transferred to boats 

and barges for sustainable cleanup efforts (Dittrick 2012). MSRC has expanded its fleet to seven 

vessels that can reach the deepwater area of the GOM and five storage barges dedicated as 

skimming barges from Ingleside, Texas to Tampa, FL (Dittrick 2012).

4.5.1 Regulatory Changes

As one of the agencies responsible for oil and hazardous waste spills, the EPA has published a 

number of regulations to mitigate the impact of such accidents (USEPA 2012a). The most 

extensive regulations and their descriptions are taken from the EPA’s website on emergency 

management for oil spills, but those taken from elsewhere are cited accordingly. All are listed 

below:

Facility Response Plan (FRP) Rule

Certain facilities that store and use oil must submit a worst-case scenario response plan in the 

event that an oil spill or substantial threat of spill occurs. This rule is defined under the Clean 

Water Act, and was amended by the Oil Pollution Act. FRP was enacted in July of 1994.

National Contingency Plan (NCP) Subpart J

107
Grants the EPA the responsibility of compiling a schedule of spill mitigating devices and 

substances that may be authorized for use on oil discharges including: dispersants, oil spill 

mitigating devices such as surface washing or collecting agents, and other chemicals useable in 

the control or removal of spilt oil. Subpart J is a component of the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.

The purpose of the NCP Product Schedule is not to endorse or recommend products for use in 

spill situations, but is merely to compile the information into one easily located place. There is a 

separate recognition system, the EPA’s Design for the Environment (DfE) Program, which tests 

products based on human health and environmental safety and then designates “safer” treatments 

for oil spills. The EPA is revising the NCP Subpart J to clarify the regulation, adding 

consideration for effectiveness and toxicity of products, and to update procedures for submitting 

products to be included in the schedule. 

The National Contingency Plan Product schedule includes products authorized for use on oil 

discharges such as: dispersants, surface washing and collecting agents, bioremediation agents, 

sorbents, and miscellaneous oil spill control agents (USEPA 2012a). Sorbents, however, are not 

required to be on the schedule, but instead manufacturers can apply for EPA sorbent 

classification. Therefore, the manufacturer can share the letter as chemical composition proof 

for the on-scene coordinator at the site of a spill. On the NCA Product Schedule, chemical 

sorbents are classified as Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agents (MOSCA), but in use of oil 

spills they must be removed and disposed of properly (USEPA 2012a).

Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule

Facilities are required to prepare, amend, and implement SPCC Plans to address any likelihood 

or chance of an oil spill or leak. In some instances, the SPCC also requires spill reportage when 

a spill actually occurs. SPCC is a part of the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation and was signed 

into law in December 2006.

Discharge Oil Regulation

Also known as the “sheen rule,” the Discharge Oil Regulation requires individuals or 

organizations to report an oil spill if there is a visible sheen as a result of the spillage, and not 

based on the actual quantity released.

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the EPA also has notification regulations in the event that an 

organization or individual discovers a hazardous substance or oil leak.

4.6 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: EAST COAST 

As stated earlier, a number of companies existing in the Mid-Atlantic impact region provide oil 

spill response. Oil spills have occurred on the Mid-Atlantic OCS, usually from deliveries to 

refineries or other industrial activities that receive water-borne shipments. The oil spill response 

industry is knowledge-based and is highly mobile. Therefore assets from other producing areas 

would more than likely be utilized in the event of a catastrophic accident. If the oil and gas 

industry were to expand to the Mid-Atlantic OCS, it is unlikely that new oil spill response 

investments would be undertaken or even necessary in the area.

108
4.7 FACTORS IMPACTING EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT

There are a number of oil spill response companies located in the Mid-Atlantic impact region, 

including companies that respond to marine situations. The Mid-Atlantic coast has a number of 

refineries that receive cargo from water-borne suppliers. Spills from these imports and other 

industrial activities are likely to be greater than those associated with OCS development.

While oil spill response does not utilize capital-related equipment, this is mostly a knowledgebased industry that is highly mobile and assets from other producing areas could be utilized if a 

catastrophic accident were to occur. It is unlikely that new oil spill response investments will be 

needed in the region. 

109

5 OIL FIELD WASTE DISPOSAL

5.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY AND SERVICES PROVIDED

Waste management plays a critical role in drilling and production operations. There are a 

number of different types of waste generated at drilling sites and production platforms. Some 

wastes are common to any manufacturing or industrial operation, while others are unique to the 

oil and gas industry. The different types of waste generated as a result of offshore exploration 

and production activity include:

• Solids, such as drill cuttings, pipe scale, produced sand, and other solid sediments 

encountered during drilling, completion, and production phases.

• Drilling muds--oil-based, synthetic, or water-based. 

• Aqueous fluids having relatively little solids content, such as produced waters, waters 

separated from a drilling mud system, clear brine completion fluids, acids used in 

stimulation activities, and wash waters from drilling and production operations. 

• Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM), such as tank bottoms, pipe 

scale, and other sediments that contain naturally high levels of radioactive materials. 

• Industrial hazardous wastes, such as solvents and certain compounds with chemical 

characteristics that render them hazardous under Subtitle C of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act and thus not subject to the exemption applicable to 

wastes generated in the drilling, production, and exploration phases of oil and gas 

activities.

• Non-hazardous industrial oily waste streams generated by machinery operations and 

maintenance, such as used compressor oils, diesel fuel, lubricating oils, pipeline 

testing, and pigging fluids.

• Municipal solid waste generated by the industry’s personnel on offshore rigs, 

platforms, tankers, and workboats.

During the drilling process, the largest waste stream is used drilling fluids and cuttings (NPC 

2011a). Drilling fluids or “drilling muds” a special mixture of clay, water, and chemical 

additives that are pumped down-hole through the drill pipe to facilitate the drilling process. 

These fluids serve a number of purposes. Drilling fluids help reduce friction and lubricate and 

cool the drill bit. During the drilling process, cuttings are created in the well (ground rock and

earth), so drilling fluids act as a carrier, keeping the cuttings suspended in the mud until they are 

carried up the well to the surface. These fluids also help control pressure and aid in stabilization. 

Weighting agents are added to drilling fluids to keep pressure on the walls of a well, and 

additives are also used to ensure that the drilling fluids are not absorbed by the rock formation 

and that the pores of the rock formation do not become clogged (Rigzone 2012c). 

There are three categories of drilling fluids: water-based mud (WBM), oil-based mud (OBM) 

and synthetic-based mud (SBM). WBMs are just as they sound, drilling fluids with water used 

as a base. OBMs use petroleum products as the base fluid, such as diesel fuel. OBMs are used 

when there is a need for higher levels of lubrication and viscosity. OBMs also withstand higher 

levels of heat before breaking down. SBMs have synthetic oils as the base fluid. These are often 

used offshore where there is a need for increased viscosity, but less toxicity. 

111
The onshore infrastructure network needed to manage the variety of waste generated by offshore 

exploration and production activities can be divided into three categories:

• Transfer facilities at ports, where the waste is transferred from supply boats to another 

transportation mode, either barge or truck, toward a final point of disposition;

• Special-purpose waste management facilities that are dedicated to handling particular 

types of waste; and, 

• Generic waste management facilities that receive waste from a broad spectrum of

U.S. industry, of which waste generated in the oilfield is only a small part.

This chapter presents a description of waste management techniques for the first two categories: 

these two categories are unique and important to the handling of offshore drilling waste. A 

specific analysis of generic waste management facilities has not been included as generic waste 

management facilities have unique permit terms that render physical capacity only a small factor 

in a site’s longevity, and solid waste landfills would receive only a small fraction of their total 

loading from offshore oil and gas activities. Generic waste facilities will be discussed, but only 

in a general fashion as they relate to general waste disposal.

5.2 TYPICAL FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

The characteristics of drilling waste vary by location as different sites have varying conditions, 

environments, infrastructure and regulatory requirements. Therefore, no single waste 

management technique is used at all locations (NPC 2011a). The Argonne National Laboratory 

identifies three major categories of management technologies and practices for the management 

of drilling wastes: (1) Waste Minimization; (2) Recycle/Reuse; and (3) Disposal (DWMIS 

2012a). 

5.2.1 Waste Minimization

In the waste minimization category, efforts are made to minimize the volumes of waste 

produced. Practices in this category include directional drilling, the drilling of smaller diameter 

holes, and the use of drilling techniques that use less drilling fluid. 

a) Directional drilling is the process of drilling at angles off of vertical, enabling 

producers to reach reservoirs that are not located directly beneath the drilling rig. 

This technique is particularly useful in avoiding sensitive environmental features, 

both above and below the surface. Environmental benefits to directional drilling 

include, but are not limited to, fewer production wells, less waste, and a lesser impact 

on sensitive environments (USDOE, OFE 1999).

112
There are three major types of directional drilling: Horizontal, Extended-Reach and 

Multi-Lateral. Horizontal drilling was developed to access hydrocarbon formations 

that extend over a large area. This enables producers to reach more of the reservoir, 

so that more resources can be pulled from a single well. In Mississippi’s Black 

Warrior Basin, horizontal wells provide six times as much natural gas deliverability 

as some conventional vertical wells (USDOE OFE 1999). Extended reach drilling 

(ERD) is the directional drilling of long horizontal wells. With ERD technology a 

wellbore can be drilled several miles away to reach deposits that may lie under 

sensitive areas (Baker Hughes 2012). This is particularly useful when it is 

impractical or too costly to drill from directly above the target formation (DWMIS 

2012a). And, multilateral drilling employs multiple offshoots from a single wellbore 

that extend in different directions, reaching deposits at various depths (USDOE OFE 

1999).

Figure 45. Advanced drilling techniques. Source: USDOE, OFE 1999.

b) The volume of drill cuttings from a well is directly related to the diameter of the hole 

being drilled. A number of technologies can be employed to drill wells with smaller 

diameters. One example is the spacing of casing strings. With technological 

advancements in case milling, there is a larger variation in casing available for use, 

allowing for closer spacing of successive casing strings, and subsequently a lower 

volume of drill cuttings. Also, slimhole drilling, defined as a wellbore six inches (15 

cm) or less in diameter, will reduce the volume of mud, casing, cement, water, and 

fuel used, and will produce smaller volumes of cuttings (Schlumberger 2012; Zhu and 

Carroll 1995). Slimhole drilling also reduces the operational footprint and area 

cleared for the drilling location (since equipment is smaller) (USDOE, OFE 1999). 

Coiled tubing drilling is a type of drilling that uses a continuous length of tubing 

rather than individual sections of drill pipe (DWMIS 2012a). The tubing is smaller in 

diameter than drill pipe, so like the slimhole drilling, the volume of waste is reduced.

113
c) In some locations, wells can be drilled using pneumatic drilling, either reducing or 

eliminating the need for drilling fluids. Pneumatic drilling uses air, natural gas, mist 

or foam (Azar and Samuel 2007). With pneumatic drilling, only drill cuttings are 

generated which significantly reduces the waste management and disposal 

requirements (USDOE OFE 1999). This technology has limited applications, but can 

be used in fluid sensitive formations or formations with low pressures. 

Drilling waste may also be minimized by using drilling muds and additives that have lower 

environmental impacts. Synthetic Based Muds (SBMs) combine the higher performance of OilBased Muds (OBMs) and the environmentally friendly qualities of Water-Based Muds (WBMs), 

making them ideal for complex and remote offshore drilling environments. SBMs are recycled 

while WBMs can generally be discharged on-site (DWMIS 2012).

5.2.2 Reuse / Recycle

While most WBMs are disposed of once drilling is completed, many OBMs and SBMs are 

recycled. After use, recyclable drilling wastes are processed through a series of vibrating screens 

called shale shakes. The screens get finer and finer after each pass to collect smaller and smaller 

cuttings. The liquid mud that passes through the series of screens is stored in a holding tank and 

can be reused. Once these muds have degraded past the point of recycling, they can be 

discharged to the sea or disposed on shore.

While most drill cuttings are disposed of, some may be reused. Reusable cuttings however, must 

have the appropriate hydrocarbon content, moisture content, salinity and clay content for the 

intended use of the cuttings (DWMIS 2012a). One use of drilling cuttings is for surfaces such as 

roads or drilling pads. Cuttings can also be reused as construction material for fill, cover 

material and landfills, or aggregate or filler in concrete, brick or block manufacturing (DWMIS

2012a). 

Drilling wastes may potentially be used as a substrate for restoring coastal wetlands. Research 

has shown that, in general cleaned drill cuttings have low levels of toxicity and may support 

wetlands vegetation (DOE 1999). However, no permits to conduct field demonstrations have 

been granted, and this application has not been tried in the U.S. (DWMIS 2012a).

5.2.3 Disposal

For offshore drilling and production sites, there are a number of options for disposal of drilling 

fluids and cuttings. While each option has advantages and disadvantages with regard to 

environmental impact, primary considerations also include operational circumstances and costs 

(NPC 2011b). The three main options for waste produced offshore are offshore discharge, reinjection and onshore discharge.

Offshore Discharge

114
This is the most operationally effective and safest method of disposal. It is also, the least 

expensive since the cost of transporting waste is essentially eliminated. WBMs consist primarily 

of water and have been demonstrated to have a limited effect on the environment (NPC 2011b). 

The EPA has evaluated the environmental impacts from WBMs and established guidelines for 

the discharge of WBMs and associated cuttings (CFR 2012a). 

The discharge of SBMs is prohibited. However, cuttings coated with SBMs (up to 6.9 percent)

may be discharged once the cuttings have been separated from the mud (DWMIS 2012b). This 

can be critical for the efficient operation of deep water exploratory drilling because of the long 

distance from shore and limitations on other disposal options (NPC 2011b). Extended guidelines 

have been formed in relation to SBMs (see Table 16). OBMs may not be discharged offshore. 

Table 16. Summary of U.S. offshore requirements for drilling wastes.

Baseline Requirements

• No discharge of free oil (using a static sheen test) or diesel oil

• Acute toxicity must have a 96-hour LC50 > 30,000 ppm (using EPA's mysid shrimp 

toxicity text)

• Metals concentrations in the barite added to mud must not exceed 1 mg/kg for mercury; 

or 3 mg/kg for cadmium

• No discharge of drilling wastes allowed within 3 miles (5 kilometers) of shore*

Additional Requirements for Synthetic-Based Muds (SBMs)

• SBMs themselves may not be discharged

• Cuttings coated with up to 6.9 percent SBMs may be discharged

o Ester SBMs can have up to 9.4 percent SBM on cuttings

• Ratio of Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon mass to mass of base fluid may not exceed 

1 x 10-5

• Biodegradation rate of chosen fluid shall be no slower than that for internal olefin

o Base fluids are tested using the marine anaerobic closed bottle test

• Base fluid sediment toxicity shall be no more toxic than that for internal olefin base 

fluid

o Base fluid stocks are tested by a 10-day acute solid-phase test using amphipods 

(Leptocheirus plumulosus)

o Discharged cuttings are tested by a 4-day acute solid-phase test using amphipods 

(Leptocheirus plumulosus)

• No discharge of formation oil

o Whole muds are tested onshore by GC/MS analysis

o Discharged cuttings are tested for crude oil contamination by fluorescence method

• Conduct seabed survey or participate in industry-wide seabed survey

Source: DWMIS 2012b.

Re-injection

115
The re-injection process involves pumping used fluids and cuttings into an underground 

formation. An underground formation with the appropriate geologic characteristics can be the 

actual well being drilled, or a separate dedicated disposal well. Often, depleted production wells 

can be converted into injection disposal wells. Cuttings or solids are ground into small particles, 

mixed with water or some other liquid to form slurry, and injected into the well (DWMIS 

2012c). 

Sub-surface injection is complicated and the right geologic formation is required. The injected 

slurry must not be able to migrate into other formations, or back to the surface. Also, the types 

and volume of waste, surface equipment and well design must be considered before injection is 

performed (NPC 2011b). If re-injection can be used, it can have a number of advantages (Guo 

and Geehan 2004): 

• It can achieve zero discharge as no waste is left on the surface.

• It eliminates transportation risks, as there is not transportation to another facility or 

temporary storage.

• It eliminates future clean-up liabilities once the disposal well is plugged.

• It ensures the operator total control over the waste management process.

• It is not limited by location and it has been operated from the GOM to Alaska, from 

the North Sea to the Sakhalin Islands.

• It often has favorable economics.

During the production process, produced water creates the largest volume of waste and reinjection is the primary method of disposal (NPC 2011a; and GPRID 2012). 

116
Onshore Disposal

Transportation back to shore is the third option of disposal of drilling fluids and cuttings from 

offshore operations. This option, however, requires extensive use of support vessels, and it

increases safety, environmental risks, and costs. Once onshore however, there are numerous 

options for disposing of drilling waste. These options are listed below. The practicality of each 

of these options depends on environmental conditions, components of the drilling waste, 

regulations, operational limitations and economic factors (NPC 2011b). 

Pits and Landfills: Pits are used for the disposal of cuttings at many onshore drilling sites. The 

pit is lined and is not intended to be used for any chemicals, refuse, debris, or other materials. 

Once drilling has completed, the cuttings are covered with soil and the site is graded to prevent 

water from accumulating. Vegetation is often planted in the area to reduce erosion and promote 

recovery of the area's ecosystem (DWMIS 2012c).

A landfill is an engineered facility with protective liners and caps to isolate waste from the 

surrounding environment. Landfills are used for the disposal of municipal, industrial, and 

hazardous wastes. Landfill waste is covered daily by a layer of soil other non-decomposing

cover material. Drilling waste and other oil field wastes can be disposed of at landfills and may 

even be used as a daily cover (DWMIS 2012c). 

Non-hazardous solid waste generated on offshore drilling rigs includes general trash and garbage 

that is transported to shore for disposal in landfills. Many companies now separate some solid 

waste for recycling (NPC 2011b). Hazardous and combustible wastes such as oil, oily rags, 

spent solvents, paint cans and used oil filters are placed in approved hazardous material 

containers, sealed, labeled and brought onshore for disposal in an approved hazardous waste 

handling facility (NPC 2011b).

Land Application: Drilling muds, produced sand and other fine solids are candidates for land 

application, also called “land farming”. Land farming can be a low-cost method for managing 

oily waste. With this method, the waste is spread over pasture or farmland, allowing the waste to 

be diluted or break down naturally (Annis 2008). Some studies indicate that land farming does 

not adversely affect the soil and may even benefit some soils by adding water-retaining capacity 

and reducing fertilizer losses (DWMIS 2012d). However, it may also add salts or heavy metals 

to the soil and water run-off from the property may create environmental concerns (Annis 2008). 

Bioremediation: Bioremediation uses microorganisms to biologically decompose hydrocarboncontaminated waste (Puder and Veil 2006). The goal is to accelerate the natural decomposition 

process by controlling oxygen, temperature, moisture and nutrients. This topic was discussed in 

the Oil Spill Response chapter.

Thermal treatment: Thermal technologies use high temperatures to destroy or remove 

hydrocarbons from waste materials. Incineration is a technology that heats hydrocarbons to very 

high temperatures, thereby destroying them. The other technology, thermal desorption, applies 

heat to the waste, vaporizing volatile and semi-volatile hydrocarbons. In both cases, additional 

treatment may be needed for metals and salts. Waste streams high in hydrocarbons, like OBMs 

are treated with thermal technologies (Puder and Veil 2006). 

117
Salt Cavern Disposal: Salt caverns are used for a variety of underground storage purposes and 

can be used for the disposal of drilling wastes. Salt cavern disposal may be used for drilling 

muds, cuttings, produced sands, tank bottoms, contaminated soil and completion and simulation 

wastes. Wastes are transported to the cavern site and are combined with water or brine to make 

slurry. When the waste slurry is pumped into the cavern it displaces the brine used to create the 

cavern. The brine is either sold, or injected into another disposal well. The waste within the 

cavern will separate into layers: solids sink to the bottom, oily waste and other hydrocarbons rise 

to the top, and any remaining brine or watery fluids stay in the middle (DWMIS 2012f).

5.3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

The Argonne National Laboratory collected information on commercial exploration and 

production waste disposal companies in different states in 1997. In 2005 and 2006 this 

information was updated with a focus on the availability of offsite commercial disposal 

companies and prevailing disposal methods (Puder and Veil 2006). The researchers found that 

the availability of offsite commercial disposal companies and facilities falls into three categories:

1. States with high oil and gas production typically have a dedicated network of offsite 

commercial disposal companies and facilities in place.

2. In other states, such infrastructure does not exist and often, commercial disposal 

companies only focus on produced water services.

3. About half of the states do not have any industry-specific offsite commercial disposal 

infrastructure. If there is any oil and gas produced waste in these states, operators 

transport that waste to local municipal landfills (if permitted) or haul the waste to 

other states (Puder and Veil 2006).

Considering that there is little exploration and production activity in the impact region states 

(with the exception of Pennsylvania), we would expect there to be a minimal number offsite 

commercial disposal companies. In fact, Pennsylvania is the only state to have commercial 

disposal companies and facilities.8

The five companies located in Pennsylvania dispose of produced water through a “National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System” (NPDES) permit or “Publicly Owned Treatment 

Works” (POTW). The NPDES is a permit program authorized by the Clean Water Act and 

controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into U.S. waters. In 

general, authorized states administer the NPDES permit program and industrial facilities must be 

permitted to discharge directly to surface waters.

8 The Argonne survey contacted the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection for a list of commercial 

disposal companies. The state agency provided a list of eight facilities; and five responded to the survey. 

118

 
POTWs are municipal wastewater treatment plants and are generally designed to take domestic 

sewage (residential, commercial) only. However, POTWs can also receive wastewater from 

industrial users. The General Pretreatment Regulations under the Clean Water Act establish the 

responsibilities of federal, state, and local governments; industry; and the public to implement 

pretreatment standards to control pollutants from industrial users (USEPA 2012b).

Table 17 presents a summary of these companies and their services.

Table 17. Waste management facilities in the Mid-Atlantic impact region (Pennsylvania).

Company Disposal Type of Disposal

Name Method* Waste Cost Comments

Castle

Environmental 

Inc.

Discharge 

(POTW)

Produced 

water

$0.025-

$0.050/gal

Facility operates a nonhazardous 

wastewater processing facility. 

Treatment involves chemical 

precipitation and filtration. 

Hart Resource 

Technologies

Discharge 

(NPDES)

Produced 

water $0.0525/gal

Treatment involves chemical 

precipitation and removal of oils and 

heavy metals. 

Moshannon 

Valley Sewer 

Authority

Discharge 

(POTW)

Produced 

water $0.015/gal

Facility receives mostly gas field frack 

water and occasionally brines.

Pennsylvania 

Brine Treatment

Discharge 

(NPDES)

Produced 

water $0.055/gal

Facility uses chemical precipitation 

and generates a nonhazardous 

residual sludge that is land-filled 

offsite at a PA DEP-permitted facility. 

The treated water is then discharged 

to surface waters.

Tunnelton 

Liquids Co

Discharge 

(NPDES)

Produced 

water or

Pit water $0.045/gal

Facility uses an innovative process to 

treat pit water (containing some 

OBMs and cuttings). It combines acid 

mine drainage from an abandoned 

coal mine with the produced water. 

Sulfates in the mine drainage help 

remove contaminants from the 

produced water. Following several 

treatment steps, the treated 

wastewater is discharged to a river 

under an NPDES permit. Any solids 

are sent to a landfill. Tank bottoms 

are heated and the oil is reclaimed.

Source: Puder and Veil 2006.

119
The Argonne survey identified three companies in Pennsylvania that discharge under NPDES 

authority. Hart Resources Technologies and Pennsylvania Brine Treatment Company use a 

process called chemical precipitation to generate a nonhazardous residual sludge that is then

land-filled offsite at a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection-permitted facility

(Puder and Veil 2006). As described in the table Tunnelton Liquids Co. uses an innovative 

process to treat produced water, combining acid mine drainage from an abandoned coal mine 

with the produced water to remove contaminants. 

The other two Pennsylvania companies, Moshannon Valley Sewer Authority and Castle 

Environmental, discharge produced water to a POTW. In both cases, the companies treat the 

produced water prior to discharge. 

Disposal of produced water is the only type of disposal service identified in the Mid-Atlantic

impact region states. There are no companies that offer bioremediation, burial (landfill or pit), 

salt cavern disposal, evaporation, injection, land application, recycling, or thermal treatment. 

Most of these companies are located in the Gulf region, California, Wyoming, Utah, New 

Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska and Oklahoma. There are a few companies listed in nearby states 

such as Ohio and West Virginia. 

5.4 SCOPE OF ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION TO REGIONAL ECONOMY

Though a few companies have been identified in Pennsylvania, there is no drilling activity off of 

the Mid-Atlantic Coast, and it is likely these companies are mostly serving oil and gas operations 

in the Appalachian region. 

Similarly, there are no useful NAICS codes or industry data to use to analyze the contribution of 

the support economy to the area. Waste disposal for oil and gas operations is likely a very small 

portion of the general waste disposal industry. Therefore, the economic contribution of this 

sector has not been estimated. 

5.5 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: INDUSTRY 

Several factors drive demand for commercial disposal companies, including the supply, demand 

and pricing of oil and gas commodities which drive exploration and production drilling and 

development activity. Demand for most services is related to the level, type, depth and 

complexity of oil and gas drilling (SEC 2011d). 

120
Commercial disposal companies face competition with each other, primarily on the basis of 

price, and their own customers who are continually re-evaluating their decision to use a thirdparty disposal company rather than their own internal disposal methods (SEC 2011d). 

The waste disposal industry is also highly dependent upon environmental laws and regulation. 

The more stringent the regulations, the more demand for waste services as exploration and 

production companies take steps to comply with the more stringent regulations. In addition, the 

specific regulatory requirements of an area often dictate the technologies that can be used and 

materials (if any) that can be discharged (NPC 2011a). 

Numerous companies within the waste management industry have developed innovative methods 

to handle waste. For example, PROwaste built a hydrocarbon recovery and recycling facility

that is located in Baytown, Texas and “processes off-spec refinery products, hydrocarbon 

streams, lube oils and tank pipeline clean out materials” (PROwaste 2008).

Another example is R360 Environmental Solutions’ R3 Technology. R3 is an application of the 

ideas of reducing, reusing and recycling exploration and production waste. Their land treatment 

process decreases soluble salt content, reduces oil concentration through recovery or 

degradation, and can clean cuttings or reuse materials stored in onsite stockpiles. The stock piles 

can be safely eliminated through two new reuse programs to make the waste usable as road base 

or levee fill. 

The R3 road base program converts stockpile materials as an environmentally safe road base 

material. Tests have proved that the material is cleaner, more affordable and has more 

comparative strength than asphalt (R360 2012). In fact, regulatory agencies have approved R3 

road base to be used in building both public and private roads (R360 2012). 

Challenges continue to evolve and be resolved with both traditional and new technology (NPC 

2011b). Efforts to be environmentally conservative are an important driver in all exploration and 

production activities and these efforts will continue to include evaluation of existing drilling 

fluids, solids control and waste management practices. 

5.5.1 Regulatory Changes

Several different types of wastes are generated through oilfield activities and the removal and 

disposal of these wastes are governed by a variety of state and federal statutes, rules, and 

regulations. 

The federal government utilizes two main agencies to regulate specific aspects of offshore oil 

and gas waste disposal operations. These agencies are the EPA and BOEM. On the state level, 

regulations for the disposal of oil and gas waste vary widely from state to state. Detailed 

information for specific states is listed on the Argonne National Laboratory’s Drilling Waste 

Management Information System (DWMIS) web site.

121
The EPA oversees the major federal laws governing waste materials and management activities 

which include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act 

(CWA), and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Table 18 provides a summary of the major 

federal laws governing waste materials and management activities. Within the Outer Continental 

Shelf, BOEM regulates waste disposal, injection criteria, and encapsulation criteria. These 

regulations are detailed at 30 CFR Part 250 (Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer 

Continental Shelf).

Table 18. Federal laws governing waste materials and management activities.

Material Subject Activity Subject

Law of Regulation to Regulation

Clean Water Act Aqueous waste streams Surface discharge

Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act

Solid and hazardous wastes

(unless excluded or 

exempted)

Generation, transportation 

and treatment, storage and 

disposal

Safe Drinking Water Act Waste fluids or slurries Underground injection

Source: Puder and Veil 2006.

In 2002, EPA issued a publication entitled Exemption of Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Production Wastes. The document explains the exemption of certain oilfield wastes from 

regulation as hazardous wastes under RCRA Subtitle C. The report includes background on the 

exploration and production exemption, basic rules for determining the exempt or non-exempt 

status of wastes, examples of exempt and non-exempt wastes, the status of waste mixtures, and 

clarifications of several misunderstandings about the exemption. A subsequent analysis 

summarizing the findings of the Report noted: 

With respect to petroleum production, primary field operations include activities 

occurring at or near the wellhead or production facility, but before the point where 

the custody of the petroleum is transferred from an individual field activity or 

centrally located facility to a carrier for transport to a refinery. Without a transfer 

of custody, the primary field operation ends at the last point of separation. Crude 

oil stock tanks are considered separation devices (Puder and Veil 2006).

In addition to specific oilfield waste regulations, the report noted that wastes that are a product of 

treatment of an exempted waste usually remain exempt, and the exemption is not negated by 

offsite transportation. However, wastes that are not specifically associated with primary field 

operations are not exempted. Any waste that is not associated with primary field operations is 

subject to further inspection for purposes of classification (USEPA 2002). The EPA also noted

in the report:

In general, the exempt status of an E&P waste depends on how the material was 

used or generated as waste, not necessarily whether the material is hazardous or 

toxic. For example, some exempt E&P wastes might be harmful to human health 

122
and the environment, and many non-exempt wastes might not be as harmful 

(USEPA 2002). 

Table 19 presents examples of exempt and non-exempt E&P wastes.

Table 19. Examples of exempt and nonexempt exploration and production waste streams.

Exempt E&P Waste Streams Nonexempt E&P Waste Streams

• Caustics if used as drilling fluid additives • Batteries (lead-acid and nickel cadmium)

• Cement slurry returns and cement cuttings • Caustic or acid cleaners

• Debris, crude-oil soaked, crude-oil stained • Cement slurries, unused

• Drill cuttings and solids • Chemicals, surplus/unusable

• Drilling fluids and muds • Compressor oil, filters, and blowdown waste

• Drilling fluids and cuttings from offshore 

operations disposed of onshore • Debris, lube oil (contaminated)

• Liquid hydrocarbons removed from the 

production stream • Drilling fluids (unused)

• Liquid and solid wastes generated by crude oil 

and tank bottom reclaimers

• Drums or containers, containing chemicals or 

lubricating oil

• Pit sludges and contaminated bottoms from 

storage or disposal of exempt wastes

• Drums, empty and rinsate

• Produced sand • Hydraulic fluids (used)

• Produced water • Sandblast media

• Produced water constituents removed before 

disposal

• Scrap metal

• Soils, crude-oil contaminated

• Soil, chemical-contaminated, lube oilcontaminated and mercury contaminated

• Tank bottoms and basic sediment from storage 

facilities that hold product and exempt waste 

(including accumulated materials such as 

hydrocarbons, solids, sand, and emulsion from 

production separators, fluid treating vessels, 

and production impoundments)

• Solvents, spent (including waste solvents)

• Volatile organic compounds from exempt 

wastes in reserve pits or impoundments or 

production equipment

• Thread protectors, pipe dope-contaminated

• Well completion, treatment, and stimulations, 

and packaging fluids

• Vacuum truck rinsate (from tanks containing 

nonexempt waste)

• Workover wastes (blowdown, swabbing and 

bailing wastes)

• Well completion, treatment and stimulation fluids 

(unused)

Source: Puder and Veil 2006.

123
30 CFR Part 250 – Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf 

This code lays out BOEM’s disposal practices for dealing with offshore oil and gas exploration 

and production wastes. The U.S. allows operators in offshore areas to inject exempt exploration 

and production wastes into injection wells or encapsulated in well bores of wells that will be 

abandoned. This is applicable to wastes that come from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and 

are subject to specific injection and encapsulation criterion. BOEM authorizes each proposal for 

underground waste disposal on a case-by-case basis (CFR 2012b).

If waste is to be injected, the formation that receives the waste must be below the deepest 

underground source of drinking water, isolated by shale layers on top and bottom, and cannot 

contain producing wells (BOEM 2012). And, the injection well must have complete mechanical 

integrity. On the other hand, two types of encapsulation are available for wastes. The first type 

places the waste directly in the well bore of a well that is being abandoned. The second type 

places the waste in a section of pipe then caps both ends and places that pipe within the well 

bore. The top of the encapsulated waste must be at least 1,000 feet (305 meters) below the 

mudline. Additional cement and cast-iron plugs are added to the well bores as a final step 

(BOEM 2012). 

5.6 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: EAST COAST 

Five produced water treatment operators have been identified in Pennsylvania and all provide 

service to operations in the Appalachian region. Pennsylvania Brine for instance, operates two 

commercial wastewater treatment facilities in western Pennsylvania. According to the company, 

in the 12 month period from November 2008 to October 2009, one facility processed about 53 

million gallons of water (Veil 2010). 

Another company, Tunnelton Liquids is actually a remnant of Pennsylvania’s coal industry. The 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection helped to create this company with the 

purpose of cleaning an abandoned mine (Puko 2011). Now the Tunnelton plant operates as a 

commercial wastewater facility, with an average discharge of one million gallons per day. Of 

this volume however, only 100,000 gallons are oil and gas flowback and produced water, the rest 

is acid mine drainage (Veil 2010). 

Hart Resource Technologies (HRT) services 250 customers in the Western Pennsylvania region 

and processes over 23 million gallons of fluids annually. Like the Tunnelton facility, the Hart 

facility was originally constructed to treat acid mine drainage (Veil 2010). HRT notes that 

disposal of these fluids in an economical and environmentally safe manner has been problematic 

for the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania (HRT 2012). This is because of the presence of 

salts, metals and other pollutants that may be harmful if discharged before being treated. 

124
As gas production in the Marcellus shale region continues to expand, so will the need for these 

waste disposal services. However, new policies and environmental regulations will keep the 

industry on its toes as state agencies attempt to manage and regulate the growing number of 

wells. In May 2010, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board adopted new and morestringent discharge requirements for oil and gas flowback and produced waters (Veil 2010). 

These requirements state that no discharge of oil and gas wastewater can be made directly to 

surface waters. Wastewater can be sent to a commercial industrial wastewater treatment plant, or 

to a POTW. Commercial disposal companies that already had discharge permits are 

grandfathered to discharge at their current levels. New dischargers however, will face much 

more restrictive limits (Veil 2010). 

125
5.7 FACTORS IMPACTING EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT

Few oil field waste disposal operators and facilities are in the Mid-Atlantic impact region states. 

The facilities that do exist support Appalachian drilling activities and currently only deal with 

produced water. Development in the Mid-Atlantic impact region will require expanded oilfield 

waste disposal capacity. The capacity will be a direct function of the level of drilling and 

production activity anticipated in the Mid-Atlantic OCS as more drilling and production will 

result in expanded capacity requirements. 

New oilfield waste capacity is likely to arise in two different manners: (1) expansion of existing 

locations; and (2) development of new locations. Factors influencing capacity expansion at 

existing locations include:

a. Availability of surface or subsurface storage capabilities.

b. Costs relative to new development at alternative site.

c. Proximity and transport costs of wastes to existing site.

d. Local permitting and regulatory issues.

Factors influencing new capacity development at a new location include:

a. Proximity of location to oilfield waste users (i.e. producers).

b. Competition with existing facilities (if any).

c. Surface and subsurface availability.

d. Leveraging and expanded commercial opportunities.

e. Other commercial considerations including project finance.

f. Local permitting and regulatory issues.

126
6 PIPELINES

6.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY AND SERVICES PROVIDED

The primary purpose of natural gas pipelines is to move gas from one location to another. 

Generally, natural gas is transported from (1) the wellhead (production location) to an 

intermediate natural gas processing facility; (2) from producing areas to transportation ‘hubs’, 

which distribute gas to other locations such as consuming areas; (3) or between consuming areas. 

Pipeline systems in the U.S. can also move gas that is transported, either from Canada or from 

offshore locations that import gas to U.S.-based liquefied natural gas (LNG) regasification 

facilities. A schematic of the natural gas value chain is provided in Figure 46.

Figure 46. Natural gas industry components.

Natural gas extracted from a geological formation can often be raw and include a host of 

impurities, moisture, inert gases, and other hydrocarbons that must be separated from what is 

referred to as the raw natural gas stream. Thus, natural gas processing is one of the first steps 

that produced natural gas undergoes prior to transportation into the long-haul pipeline system. 

Most major natural gas pipeline systems cannot handle, and typically have strict regulations 

against, the injection of large quantities of raw natural gas into their systems since the impurities, 

moisture, and other inert gases can compromise pipeline material integrity (causing corrosion), 

or the uniformity and quality of the gas delivered to end users. 

Natural Gas

Wells

Gas Processing

Plant

Natural Gas

Company

Main Line 

Sales

Production Transmission Distribution

Consumers

Underground

Storage

127
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, there are over 305,000 miles (490,850 kilometers) 

of major, large pipelines used to transport natural gas that range in size from a diameter of 20 

inches (51 cm) to as large as 42 inches (107 cm). These large pipes serve as the “interstate 

highway” system for natural gas since they transmit natural gas at relatively high pressures in 

order to reduce volumes and provide a source of propulsion with limited off-ramps for lower 

level distribution (USDOE, EIA 2012a). Transportation system pressures range anywhere from 

200 to 1,500 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) and are created by over 1,400 compressor 

stations located along the main trunklines moving natural gas across the U.S. (USDOE, EIA 

2012a; and USDOE, EIA 2007a). 

Pipelines can be characterized as being primarily interstate or intrastate in nature, where the 

designation refers to the areas over which natural gas is transported (Figure 47). Interstate 

natural gas pipelines, for instance, carry natural gas across state boundaries, whereas intrastate 

pipelines transport natural gas within a particular state. The distinction between inter- and 

intrastate pipeline systems is usually important for regulatory and pricing purposes and typically 

has little impact on the nature of the pipeline systems themselves since many intrastate pipeline 

systems, particularly those located along the Gulf Coast, can be made up of intricate systems of 

large diameter pipelines, much like their interstate counterparts.

Figure 47. U.S. natural gas pipeline network.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012a.

128
Most U.S. natural gas producers are dependent upon the interstate pipeline system to move their 

supplies to consuming areas throughout the country. Large diameter (20 to 42 inch) pipelines 

with high capacities transport most of the gas on the national network. Some of the systems with 

the highest capacity are those originating in U.S. producing basins (i.e., midcontinent region, 

onshore Texas and Louisiana, offshore Louisiana) and terminating in large metropolitan 

consuming areas. Historically, the interstate natural gas transportation system was configured to 

move natural gas production originating in the GOM or midcontinent region, into the consuming 

areas of the upper mid-west, the eastern seaboard, or the southeastern U.S.

For instance, Figure 47 shows a number of pipelines originating along the GOM and moving 

natural gas into the southeastern U.S. (particularly Florida), along the Atlantic seaboard, and 

directly east-ward through the eastern mid-western U.S. (Ohio, Pennsylvania) and terminating in 

the northeast (New York City). Likewise, natural gas originating in the Hugoton and other midcontinent basins (Kansas, Oklahoma) move natural gas into the upper mid-west and Great Lakes 

regions. Gas originating in Alberta, Canada, a major non-U.S. (but North American) source of 

natural gas has historically moved gas south into the upper mid-west consuming areas 

terminating at what is called the Chicago hub.

Many of these traditional pipeline linkages and configurations, however, have been challenged as 

natural disasters and the development of new unconventional shale have created large pricing 

differentials that have sent signals to pipeline developers to plan, design, engineer, and construct 

a new series of large pipeline segments linking new production opportunities to traditional 

consuming regions in the U.S. Changes in natural gas production, particularly the development 

of new natural gas shale plays are also significantly changing the nature of pipeline systems 

since these resources are proving to be more ubiquitous, being located in very close proximity, if 

not directly in a number of very large consuming areas that have traditionally not possessed their 

own (or very little) local natural gas sources. 

Figure 48 shows the location of those new natural gas shale plays and highlights the fact that 

while many are located in traditional producing areas (Barnett, Fayetteville, Haynesville), others 

are located directly, or very near, large northeastern or mid-western consuming areas (i.e., 

Marcellus, Atrium, Utica). The development of these new resources is challenging the continued 

importance of big long-lines from traditional conventional production, particularly those along 

the GOM, and leading to billions in new investments to link these new supplies to existing 

transportation lines and directly to various different distribution systems.

129
Figure 48. U.S. shale gas and oil plays.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2011a.

6.2 TYPICAL FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

The natural gas pipeline system in the U.S. comprises a number of components including: (1) the 

gathering or field services systems in the producing areas; (2) the interstate or long-haul 

transportation facilities; and (3) the intrastate, or shorter-haul systems that move natural gas 

between various consuming areas. Each component of the system has a unique role in moving 

gas from the wellhead to retail consumers that are categorized as being residential, commercial, 

industrial, or power generation customers.

130
The natural gas transportation process typically starts with gathering or the collection of natural 

gas from various different wells and production units. In mature areas, gathering systems will 

typically use low-pressure, small diameter pipelines to move raw natural gas from the wellhead 

to the processing plant. However, many larger gathering systems, particularly those in the 

offshore GOM, can be as large in diameter (and under equally high pressure ratings) as the 

longer-haul transportation systems that move gas to market. While natural gas gathering can be 

thought of as the initial component of a broader transportation system that moves gas from 

producers to consumers, gathering is exempted from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (15 U.S.C. § 717(b) (2000)). The 

distinction between a pipeline being gathering, or transportation is important and one not without 

controversy, since defining where gathering ends and transportation begins, can be problematic, 

particularly for offshore production.9

Transportation systems can be classified as being either interstate or intrastate in nature. The 

interstate transmission system is the traditional, and commonly-thought of part of the natural gas 

interstate highway system that moves gas over very long distances from producing areas to 

consuming areas. For instance, the Tennessee natural gas system originates in the GOM

(offshore) and terminates at the Canadian border: some 1,400 miles (2,253 kilometers) away 

(Tennessee Gas Pipeline 2011a). The Transcontinental Pipeline System (or “Transco” system) 

also originates in the offshore GOM, and terminates in New York City. The Transco system 

totals 10,000 miles (16,093 kilometers) of transportation pipe (Williams 2011). One of the more 

recent pipeline systems to be developed over the past several years, the Rockies Express, links 

natural gas production from the Rocky Mountain region in northwestern Colorado to eastern 

Ohio, stretching 1,679 miles (2,702 kilometers) (Kinder Morgan 2011). 

Most interstate natural gas transmission systems are made up of pipes that range from 6 inches to 

48 inches (15 cm to 122 cm) in diameter, with the majority of the segments being largerdiameter pipes (i.e., 12 inches (30 cm) and above). These systems are built with protected steel 

pipe, although some older unprotected portions of the system (bare steel and cast iron) still exist 

in some parts of the country. A breakdown of the materials composition of the U.S. 

transportation system is provided in Figure 49.

9 In 1995, the Sea Robin Pipeline Company petitioned FERC for a declaration that Sea Robin's facilities perform a 

"gathering" function rather than a "transportation" function, thus exempting them from FERC jurisdiction. The 

Commission denied the petition stating that Sea Robin was engaged in jurisdictional transportation activities, not 

gathering. FERC also denied Sea Robin’s petition for rehearing. Sea Robin petitioned the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of 

Appeals. The Court decided that FERC did not give adequate attention to Sea Robin’s physical and operational 

facilities. It granted the petition for review, vacated FERC’s order and remanded the case back to FERC. On 

remand, FERC concluded that Sea Robin's system was comprised of two distinct components: a jurisdictional 

transportation system from the Vermilion 149 Station to Erath, the onshore processing facility, and a nonjurisdictional gathering system upstream of the Vermilion 149 Station.

131

 
Figure 49. Composition of U.S. natural gas pipeline transportation network.

Source: USDOT, OPS 2011.

Intrastate pipelines are similar to their interstate counterparts since they are also composed of 

large diameter pipe (i.e., 12 inches [30 cm] and greater). Generally, intrastate pipelines are 

owned by smaller transportation companies that specialize in moving natural gas from an in-state 

hub location, to large end users like power plants, industries, and manufacturing facilities. The 

definition of intrastate transportation, as opposed to distribution, can often be muddled and can 

often be a function of how a pipeline company or utility classifies a particular line segment or 

series of line segments. These classifications can often be influenced by property tax or ad 

valorem tax definitions that treat public utility and other types of pipelines in differing fashions.

Typically, intrastate pipelines are corporate affiliates of a larger interstate pipeline company, or 

alternatively, a local distribution company (LDC or distribution utility) that specializes in 

moving gas from interstate systems to and between various local consuming areas, often 

delineated by what is referred to as the city-gate” (i.e., the point at which gas is stepped-down in 

pressure to levels more suitable to various types of end-use). Gas is typically stepped down once 

it enters an LDC’s distribution system (at the city gate or main meter station) and moved through 

what are referred to as “distribution mains” and “service lines” to end users.

Steel/Cathodically 

Protected/Bare

1.8%

Steel/Cathodically 

Protected/Coated

97.1%

Steel/Unprotected/Bare

0.5%

Steel/Unprotected/

Coated

0.1%

Cast Iron,

Wrought Iron

0.01%

Plastic

0.4% Other

0.1%

132
6.2.1 Compressors and Compression Stations

Compression is the workhorse or engine of the natural gas transmission system that creates 

pressure on the system to maximize the flow of gas along various different line segments, and 

along the system as a whole. Compression stations are composed of a compressor, or series of 

compressors, and supporting equipment with the sole purpose of maintaining system pressure 

and integrity. Compressor stations are usually, but not always, automated, and are installed 

approximately every 40 to 100 miles (64 to 161 kilometers) along a pipeline route, depending on 

the size of the pipe and volume of gas (INGAA 2011a). All systems have a control center or 

series of control centers that monitor system performance and remotely increase or reduce 

pressure, and in some instances, shut-off valves or compressors along the transmission system. 

Pipeline operators have continuous and detailed operating data on each compressor station, and 

will make adjustments to maximize efficiency and safety on the system (AGA 2005).

When transmission pipelines deliver gas to utilities, the fuel passes through what is commonly 

referred to as a gate station or city gate at which point the LDC takes control of the natural gas 

and its further distribution. The pressure in the transmission segment of the pipeline, which 

usually operates between 200 to 1,500 pounds per square inch (psi) is typically reduced at the 

city gate to levels well below 200 psi to as low as 1⁄4 psi at the distribution mains and service line 

level (AGA 2005). Meters at the gate measure how much gas is being received by the utility, 

and a sour-smelling odorant (usually t-butyl mercaptan or thiophane) is added to help customers 

smell even small quantities of leaked natural gas. The local utility then uses distribution pipes, 

or mains, to bring natural gas service to homes and businesses.

6.2.2 Pipeline Monitoring and Maintenance

Pipeline transportation companies of all types make a series of large investments in a variety of 

equipment and assets that include pipes, pumps, compressors, drivers, dehydration units, meters, 

control systems, and other equipment. Large amounts of potentially-explosive natural gas, 

moving at very high pressures, are mandated to have a high degree of monitoring for safety 

purposes. The large capital investments associated with this equipment and these assets also 

require periodic and unexpected maintenance. Natural gas transmission companies often use a 

combination of preventative maintenance (such as cathodic protection and pipeline coating, 

discussed further in the next chapter), planned and scheduled maintenance, along with frequent 

inspection to ensure pipeline asset integrity.

Traditionally, pipelines were inspected visually by traveling the pipeline route on the ground or 

patrolling the pipeline route in aircraft (USEPA 1997). Aerial inspection is still done today, but 

inspections are more likely to be conducted through digital and computerized instrumentation

and measurement, and through the use of direct monitoring equipment that rests or travels within

or through the pipe itself and can provide more rapid and precise identification of leaks, potential 

leaks, or other operational problems (USEPA 1997).

133
Electronic data systems, the most common of which are referred to as Supervisory Control and 

Data Acquisition systems, or SCADA systems, allow pipeline operators to keep accurate, realtime information about various sections of pipeline (Folga 2007). These SCADA systems allow 

operators to retrieve real operational information from remote sections of pipeline. Natural gas 

flows and volumes can also be controlled by these systems, and the coordination of flows with 

interconnecting pipeline systems, through the use of the Internet, satellite communication, and 

other telecommunication systems. SCADA systems not only allow pipeline operators to get

timely information, but in some instances can allow producers (or pipeline shippers) to have 

access to delivery information in order to efficiently schedule pipeline deliveries (Yoon, et al.

2007). 

An important piece of equipment used in pipeline inspection and maintenance is an intelligent 

robotic inspection device, known as a pipeline inspection guide, or PIG, that physically travels

through a pipeline, inspecting the wall of the pipe for corrosion and defects, measuring the 

interior diameter of a section of pipe, and removing any accumulated debris (USDOE, NETL

2010). The size of the PIG is determined by the diameter of the pipeline being inspected. The 

PIG is carried through the pipe by the flow of the liquid or gas (USEPA 1997). 

PIGs can travel and perform inspections over very large distances. In 1997, a PIG completed an

inspection of the Trans Alaska crude oil pipeline, covering a distance of 1,055 km in one run 

(NDT Resource Center 2011). A PIG uses sensors to take thousands of measurements that can 

later be analyzed by computers to show possible problems, particularly those associated with 

pipeline integrity and development of corrosion. Magnetic-flux leakage PIGs are used to detect 

metal loss (from corrosion) in pipeline walls thereby locating potential problems without the cost 

and risk of using other methods (Nestleroth and Bubenik 1999). 

If a PIG, or other form of inspection identifies an integrity problem, leading to a leak or high 

probability of future leaks, repairs or replacements are usually initiated. In some instances, a 

leak repair can be conducted by inserting a short length of pipe, or “pup joint,” into a leaking or 

leak-prone area (Kennedy 1993). In other instances, the entire pipeline segment may be replaced. 

During repair operations, a pipe segment may also be plugged temporarily on either side of the 

repair section, redirecting natural gas flows around the work area until the repair has been 

completed (Kennedy 1993).

Plugging and redirects are usually methods restricted to onshore pipeline repairs. The repair of 

offshore pipelines differs and can be considerably more complex and costly. A number of 

factors influence offshore pipeline repair methods including: pipeline diameter; rupture location

and gas volumes being transported; water depth; rupture coverage; pipeline segment age; and 

other special hazards (i.e., mud slides, unusual currents, severe weather conditions, etc.) (Woods

1982). Pipe repair methods attempt to balance the economics of the repair, particularly the 

timing for conducting the repairs, against the safety-related challenges of the damage.

134
Offshore repair activities can be partitioned into three distinct categories (Woods 1982):

• Surface repair: A process that requires the damaged offshore pipeline segment to be 

lifted to the surface for repair. Once the pipe is at the surface, the damaged section is 

removed and a new section is welded into place. The repaired pipe is then lowered 

back to the sea floor and carefully reconnected to its original longer segment. This 

approach can be highly contingent upon offshore weather conditions because most of 

the work is done on the surface of offshore repair vessels.

• Underwater hyperbaric welding: Some repairs may require only simple welds that 

do not require a pipeline segment to be lifted to the ocean surface. Underwater 

welding is then conducted by a welder-diver who works in either (a) a completely 

enclosed dry habitat or (b) underwater with the pipe section under repair being 

enclosed in an entirely dry environment through the use of an environmentallycontrolled chamber. Though underwater repairs are less weather sensitive, they do 

require highly skilled diver-welders that must meet specific professional 

qualifications for performing various types of welding work at various different water 

depths. 

• Mechanical connectors: Mechanical repair options include a wide range of 

connectors and seals that attempt to contain a problematic section of pipe. These 

options do not require operators to remove a pipe segment and lift it to the surface for 

repair. Instead a variety of couplings, seals, and or gaskets are used to seal relatively 

small leaks. Mechanical connection options can range from the containment of a pinhole leak with a simple split-sleeve clamp, to something as elaborate as a complete 

spool-piece repair in deepwater through the use of a diver or remote-operated 

equipment. Mechanical repair approaches are also less sensitive to the weather, and 

have somewhat less sensitivity to skill-specific professional resources than 

underwater welding, but are dependent on vendor inventory or manufacturing lead 

time, particularly as the type of mechanical repair becomes more unique. 

6.3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

6.3.1 U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline System

The U.S. has a complex and extensive pipeline system for transporting natural gas from 

production areas to consumers. However, most of the major transportation routes are

categorized into 11 corridors or flow patterns (USDOE, EIA 2012b). Figure 50 shows these 

major corridors, and Figure 51 shows the estimated region-to-region natural gas pipeline 

capacity.

135
• Five major routes originate in the producing areas of the Southwest10 and include

about twenty major interstate pipelines. The Southwest region exports about 45 

percent of the natural gas it produces, which is 47 percent of the total natural gas 

consumed in the lower 48 States. The pipelines leaving this region account for over 

45 Bcf per day of capacity with 62 percent going to the Southeast Region, 20 percent 

to the Central Region, 13 percent to the Western Region, and the remaining 5 percent 

exporting natural gas to Mexico (USDOE, EIA 2012a).11 (see Figure 50)

• Four routes enter the U.S. from Canada including pipelines that flow from (1) western 

Canada to western markets in the U.S. (mainly California, Oregon, and Washington); 

(2) western Canada to the mid-west; (3) western Canada to the northeast; and (4) 

offshore eastern Canada (Sable Island) to New England markets (USDOE, EIA 

2012b). 

• There are two routes, made up of two main pipeline systems that start in the Rocky 

Mountain area (central region). The first is the Kern River Transmission Company 

that extends from the producing areas of southwestern Wyoming, through Utah and 

Nevada to Southern California (Kern River 2011). The second is the Rockies Express

Pipeline that links natural gas production from northwestern Colorado to eastern Ohio

(Kinder Morgan 2011). The other routes operate primarily within the region, or come 

from other regions (USDOE, EIA 2012b).

10 The Southwest Region is defined as Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. 11 These regions are defined as follows: Southeast Region - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee; Central Region - Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming; and Western Region - Arizona, California, Nevada, 

Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

136

 
Figure 50. Major U.S. natural gas transportation corridors.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012b.

137
Figure 51. Estimated region-to-region natural gas pipeline capacity, MMcf per day.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012c.

6.3.2 Mid-Atlantic Region Natural Gas Transmission System

Several large interstate pipeline systems transport natural gas from the southern producing 

regions of the GOM through the eastern U.S. and up to the northeast. Other regional pipelines 

originating in what has historically been a relatively low-volume producing Appalachian basin,

has moved limited amounts of natural gas eastward. The nature of what has been a historically 

very low-volume producing area in the Appalachian area, however, is changing dramatically 

with the development of shale formations throughout the region. 

The probable increase in unconventional natural gas production from the Marcellus Shale areas 

will likely increase the amount of gas transported in this area, potentially to levels that rival 

(conventional) prolific supply basins like the GOM. In addition, the undeveloped eastern portion 

of the Marcellus Shale could extend as far east as parts of Virginia, eastern Pennsylvania, and 

Maryland, possibly creating new onshore resources and pipeline investments. However, it is 

important to note that while there are a number of interstate natural gas pipelines that run through 

the Mid-Atlantic states, none currently run directly along the coast in a fashion comparable to 

systems along the GOM. The following sub-sections outline each major interstate pipeline 

system individually.

Western Central Midwest Northeast

Southwest Southeast

614

1,086

51

4,799 4,451

81

5,875

298

3,594

8,898

405

2,643 11,980

1,028

3,016

1,495

4,018

4,363

216

2,100

27,845

5,047

569

9,267

1,062

5,998

138
Dominion Transmission System

Dominion Transmission maintains 7,800 miles (12,553 kilometers) of pipeline in six states: 

Ohio; West Virginia; Pennsylvania; New York; Maryland; and Virginia. Dominion also operates 

one of the largest underground storage systems in the U.S. and links to other major pipelines and 

markets in the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast regions. 

Figure 52. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas pipelines – Dominion Transmission, 

Inc.

Source: Dominion Transmission 2011.

In March 2009, Dominion Transmission completed its expansion of the Dominion Cove LNG 

facility, which is located on the Chesapeake Bay in southern Maryland. The expansion included 

a 48-mile, 36-inch natural gas pipeline that extends west from the marine terminal to connections 

with interstate pipelines in Virginia as shown in Figure 53.

139
Figure 53. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas pipelines – Dominion Transmission, 

Inc.

Source: Dominion 2011.

The Dominion Transmission, Inc., is the interstate gas transmission subsidiary of Dominion, a 

publicly-traded company headquartered in Richmond, Virginia and one of the largest energy 

producers and transportation companies in the U.S. Dominion, and its component subsidiaries, 

has a portfolio of over 28,142 MW of electric generation capacity, 6,300 miles (10,139 

kilometers) of electric transmission lines, 56,800 miles (91,411 kilometers) of electric 

distribution lines, and 11,000 miles (17,703 kilometers) of natural gas transmission, gathering, 

and storage pipeline. Dominion also has natural gas LDC (utility) operations in Ohio and West 

Virginia and owns the nation’s largest underground natural gas storage system (SEC 2011e).

In 2011, Dominion’s natural gas transportation and storage revenues accounted for just 10 

percent of Dominion’s total revenues. Dominion’s regulated electric sales accounted for the 

greatest share of total revenue, 49 percent, while unregulated electric sales accounted for 23

percent. Natural gas LDC operations only account for two percent of total company revenues

(SEC 2011e). 

Transcontinental Pipeline System

Figure 54 shows the Williams’ Transco Pipeline system which includes 9,800 pipeline miles

(15,772 kilometers) that originates in the GOM and moves gas through 11 southeastern and MidAtlantic states, including major markets in Georgia, the District of Columbia, New York, New 

Jersey, and Pennsylvania (SEC 2011f). The pipeline’s major customers include public utilities 

and municipalities that provide service to retail end users. The Transco system also has natural 

gas storage capacity in four underground fields, and capacity in an LNG storage facility that it 

owns and operates (SEC 2011f).

140
Figure 54. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas pipelines – Transco.

Source: Williams 2011.

While most of the Transco system is further inland, Figure 55 shows Transco’s Zone 5, which 

stretches east from Virginia to Hertford County in North Carolina, just miles from Albemarle 

Sound and the Atlantic Coast. 

Transco Pipeline

Cardinal Pipeline

LNG Storage

Underground Storage

141
Figure 55. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas pipelines – Transco Zone 5, Virginia.

Source: Williams 2011.

Transco’s Zone 6 (Figure 56) cuts through Maryland, near the Chesapeake Bay and up into New 

Jersey, near the Delaware Bay and New Jersey Harbor.

142
Figure 56. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas pipelines – Transco Zone 6.

Source: Williams 2011.

The Transco transmission system is owned by The Williams Companies, Inc., a publicly-traded 

company headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Williams subsidiaries include Williams 

Partners, which operates the Transco transmission system and two other interstate pipelines and 

includes a midstream business that provides natural gas gathering, treating and processing 

services; NGL production, fractionation, storage, marketing and transportation; and deepwater 

production handling and crude oil transportation services (SEC 2011f). Other Williams 

subsidiaries include an exploration and production company, and conduct other activities such as 

Canadian midstream investments and domestic olefins operations. In 2010, Williams Partners’ 

revenues accounted almost 53 percent of The Williams Companies’ total revenues. The 

exploration and production operations accounted for 37 percent of total revenues, and other 

operations accounted for 10 percent (SEC 2010a).

In February 2011, the Company announced it was splitting the company into two separate, 

publicly-traded corporations. The exploration and production business, WPX Energy, became its 

own publicly-traded company through an initial public offering and is one of the largest 

independent producers of natural gas in the U.S. (PR Newswire 2011). WPX Energy already has 

undeveloped positions in the Marcellus Shale and North Dakota’s Bakken oil play, and also has

investments in the Rockies, Barnett Shale, and Arkoma Basin (PR Newswire 2011).

143
Columbia Gas Transmission System

Columbia Gas Transmission (Figure 57) is a 12,000-mile transmission network that averages 3 

Bcf per day and moves natural gas throughout the Mid-Atlantic states. It also owns and operates 

37 storage fields in four states with over 650 Bcf of total capacity (NiSource 2011). Columbia 

Gas customers include LDCs, energy marketers, electric power generators and numerous 

industrial and commercial end users (NGTS 2011).

Figure 57. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas pipelines – Columbia Gas 

Transmission.

Source: NGTS 2011.

The Columbia transmission system is owned and operated by NiSource Gas Transmission & 

Storage (NGTS). In addition to the Columbia transmission system, NGTS owns and operates 

three other interstate pipelines (Columbia Gulf, Crossroads, and Central Kentucky) and has 

interest in a fourth (Millennium Pipeline) (NGTS 2011). 

In August 2010, NGTS and UGI Corporation announced that they were partnering to develop a 

new natural gas pipeline to increase access between producers in the Marcellus Shale of 

Pennsylvania and high-value markets. About 500 MMcf/d of capacity will be accessible to 

producers along the Columbia Gas Transmission pipeline system to interconnections with 

Transcontinental Gas Pipeline, Tennessee Gas Pipeline, Dominion Gas Transmission, and 

Millennium Pipeline Company (Downstream Today 2010).

NGTS is a subsidiary of NiSource, Inc., a publicly traded company headquartered in Merrillville, 

Indiana. In addition to NGTS, NiSource, Inc., has natural gas distribution operations in seven 

states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, Indiana, and Massachusetts 

(NiSource 2011). It also has electric operations in Northern Indiana that include generation, 

transmission, distribution, and wholesale transactions (NiSource 2011). In 2011, NGTS 

operations accounted for about 23 percent of NiSource, Inc. total revenues. The NiSource LDC 

operations accounted for 50 percent, and the electric operations accounted for just over 24

percent (SEC 2011g). 

144
6.4 SCOPE OF ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION TO REGIONAL ECONOMY

The pipeline transportation sector for the impact area is relatively small in comparison to (a) 

each state’s overall GDP and (b) the economic contribution made by the U.S. natural gas 

transportation sector to total U.S. GDP. Pennsylvania’s pipeline transportation GDP makes the 

largest contribution to its state’s overall economy of any in the Mid-Atlantic impact area at just 

0.12 percent. 

The contributions each Mid-Atlantic state makes to total U.S. pipeline transportation GDP is 

consistent with the size and location of pipelines along the Mid-Atlantic seaboard. 

Pennsylvania’s share of U.S. pipeline transportation GDP is far greater than any other state in the 

impact region. 

Table 20. Regional and national GDP contribution, pipeline transportation, 2010.

Source: USDOC, BEA 2012.

Figure 58 highlights the relative share of each Mid-Atlantic state’s pipeline transportation GDP 

shares to the regional pipeline transportation total. Pennsylvania, with $696 million in the annual 

value of its pipeline transportation output, comprises 70 percent of the value of the region’s 

pipeline transportation output. Virginia, accounts for eight percent of the economic value of the 

region’s pipeline transportation output ($79 million per year). Georgia and New Jersey both 

account for seven percent of the region’s pipeline transportation output, both around $70 million. 

The remaining states comprise smaller shares of the region’s pipeline transportation output with 

shares between 0.6 percent and 4 percent. 

Pipeline Pipeline

Transportation Transportation

GDP as a GDP as a Percent

Pipeline Total Percent of Total of U.S. Water 

Transportation State State GDP Transportation GDP

New Jersey $ 65 $ 480,446 0.01% 0.4%

Delaware $ 6 $ 64,010 0.01% 0.0%

Maryland $ 20 $ 293,349 0.01% 0.1%

Pennsylvania $ 696 $ 558,918 0.12% 4.6%

Virginia $ 79 $ 419,365 0.02% 0.5%

North Carolina $ 42 $ 424,562 0.01% 0.3%

South Carolina $ 14 $ 160,374 0.01% 0.1%

Georgia $ 71 $ 403,230 0.02% 0.5%

Total Region $ 993 $ 2,804,254 0.04% 6.5%

U.S. $ 15,287 $ 14,416,601 0.11% 100.0%

GDP

(millions of current $) ----------------- (%) -----------------

145
Figure 58. Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation GDP shares, 2010. Source: USDOC, BEA 2012.

The economic value of the region’s pipeline transportation output has followed trends closely 

associated with the price of natural gas. Figure 59 compares the trends in pipeline transportation

GDP for each Mid-Atlantic impact state since the mid-1990s. Regional pipeline transportation 

GDP increased at an average annual rate of close to 10 percent between 2002 and 2008, 

increasing by 36 percent in 2008 alone. Pipeline transportation GDP decreased by over 20 

percent in 2009 however, as natural gas commodity prices fell to relatively low levels compared 

to the previous six year period. 

New Jersey, 7%

Delaware, 0.6%

Maryland, 2%

Pennsylvania, 70%

Virginia, 8%

North Carolina, 4%

South Carolina, 1%

Georgia, 7%

146
Figure 59. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation GDP.

Source: USDOC, BEA 2012; and Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2012.

Table 21 shows that each state’s total pipeline transportation employment contributions are 

relatively small in comparison to the total employment in each of the states in the Mid-Atlantic

impact region. None of the states in the Mid-Atlantic impact region have pipeline transportation 

employment totals that are over one-tenth of one percent of the overall statewide employment 

totals. 

Pennsylvania has the overwhelming majority of pipeline transportation employment in the 

impact region (see Figure 60). Likewise, it also has the highest employment contribution to total 

U.S. pipeline transportation employment. Overall, the region accounts for eight percent of total 

U.S. pipeline transportation employment.

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

$10

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

New Jersey Delaware Maryland

Pennsylvania Virginia North Carolina

South Carolina Georgia Natural Gas Price

Pipeline Transportation GDP (billion $)

Natural Gas Price ($/Mcf)

147
Table 21. Regional and national employment contribution, pipeline transportation, 2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 60. Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation employment shares, 2011. Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Pipeline Pipeline Transportation

Transportation Employment as a

Employment as a Percent of Total U.S.

Pipeline Total Percent of Total Pipeline Transportation

Transportation State State Employment Employment

New Jersey 350 3,156,538 0.01% 0.81%

Delaware n.a. 342,585 n.a. n.a.

Maryland n.a. 1,991,055 n.a. n.a.

Pennsylvania 1,960 4,825,064 0.04% 4.56%

Virginia 373 2,889,435 0.01% 0.87%

North Carolina 260 3,158,293 0.01% 0.60%

South Carolina 76 1,450,840 0.01% 0.18%

Georgia 401 3,135,735 0.01% 0.93%

Total Region 3,420 20,949,545 0.02% 7.95%

U.S. 43,010 108,184,795 0.04% 100.00%

Number of Jobs

----------------- (%) -----------------

New Jersey, 10%

Pennsylvania, 57%

Virginia, 11%

North Carolina, 8%

South Carolina, 2%

Georgia, 12%

148
Pipeline transportation employment in the Mid-Atlantic impact region has been relatively stable 

over the past decade. The region reported a high of 3,420 pipeline transportation jobs in 2011. 

This is an increase of seven percent since 2001. Between 2007 and 2008, pipeline transportation 

employment increased the most, by over 16 percent. This was mostly due to increases in 

Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. 

Figure 61. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation employment, 

2001-2011. Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Regional wage contributions follow trends similar to employment levels discussed earlier with 

the regional totals dominated by the state (Pennsylvania) with the largest share of transportation 

pipeline miles (see Table 22). Regional shares of total wages paid by Mid-Atlantic coast 

pipeline transportation companies are provided in Figure 62.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

New Jersey Pennsylvania Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Number of Jobs

149
Table 22. Regional and national wage contribution, pipeline transportation, 2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 62. Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation wage shares, 2011. Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Pipeline Pipeline

Transportation Transportation Wages

Wages as a Percent of Total U.S.

Pipeline Total Percent of Total Pipeline

Transportation State State Wages Transportation Wages

New Jersey $ 35.5 $ 179,559 0.02% 0.74%

Delaware n.a. $ 17,313 n.a. n.a.

Maryland n.a. $ 100,787 n.a. n.a.

Pennsylvania $ 180.8 $ 225,147 0.08% 3.78%

Virginia $ 31.8 $ 145,225 0.02% 0.67%

North Carolina $ 20.6 $ 132,436 0.02% 0.43%

South Carolina $ 5.9 $ 54,746 0.01% 0.12%

Georgia $ 35.5 $ 142,928 0.02% 0.74%

Total Region $ 310.1 $ 998,140 0.03% 6.49%

U.S. $ 4,777.5 $ 5,172,844 0.09% 100.00%

Wages

---------- (million $) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

New Jersey, 11%

Pennsylvania, 58%

Virginia, 10%

North Carolina, 7%

South Carolina, 2%

Georgia, 12%

150
Figure 63. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation wages, 2001-2011. Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Table 23 compares the average annual wages paid to employees in the pipeline transportation 

sectors of the Mid-Atlantic impact area. The annual wages for pipeline transportation sector 

employees in each state in the region are considerably higher, in fact orders of magnitude higher 

than the average in-state wage. This is not surprising and consistent with industry trends in other 

parts of the country. The comparisons differ, however, when average annual pipeline 

transportation wages to the U.S. average annual pipeline transportation wage.

New Jersey, for instance, reports the highest average annual wage in the region: almost $100,000 

per year for a pipeline transportation company employee. In Pennsylvania, the average annual 

wage for pipeline transportation is $92,250, which is almost double (198 percent) the average 

annual wage for Pennsylvania in general. In South Carolina, pipeline transportation wages in 

North Carolina are over 200 percent higher than the state average. However, average annual 

pipeline transportation wages in the region are below the U.S. pipeline transportation average of 

roughly $111,000 per year. 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

New Jersey Pennsylvania Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Wages (million $)

151
Table 23. Regional and national average annual wage contribution, pipeline 

transportation, 2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Trends in regional average annual wages for regional pipeline transportation employees are 

provided in Figure 64. The trends show that average annual wage have been increasing at an 

average annual rate of 4.2 percent, with the greatest increases in 2009 (6.6 percent) and 2011 (5.0 

percent). In 2009, Pennsylvania and North Carolina showed the largest increases in average 

annual wages, with increases of 12.6 percent and 8.9 percent.

Pipeline Pipeline Transportation

Transportation Average Average Annual Wage

Annual Wage as aas a Percent of Total U.S.

Pipeline Total Percent of Total Pipeline Transportation

Transportation StateAverage Annual Wage Average Annual Wage

New Jersey $ 99,949 $ 56,885 175.7% 90.0%

Delaware n.a. $ 50,535 n.a. n.a.

Maryland n.a. $ 50,620 n.a. n.a.

Pennsylvania $ 92,250 $ 46,662 197.7% 83.0%

Virginia $ 85,236 $ 50,261 169.6% 76.7%

North Carolina $ 79,208 $ 41,933 188.9% 71.3%

South Carolina $ 77,799 $ 37,734 206.2% 70.0%

Georgia $ 88,681 $ 45,580 194.6% 79.8%

Total Region $ 87,187 $ 47,526 183.5% 78.5%

U.S. $ 111,080 $ 47,815 232.3% 100.0%

---------- ($) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

Average Annual Wage

152
Figure 64. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation average annual 

wages, 2001-2011. Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

6.5 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: INDUSTRY

Between 2005 and 2010, over 14,000 miles (22,531 kilometers) of pipeline, totaling 136,806 

million cubic feet per day of capacity, were added to the U.S. network (USDOE, EIA 2006a; 

USDOE, EIA 2008a; and USDOE, EIA 2009.). The period immediately following Hurricane 

Katrina (2005) to the year before the most recent economic recession (2008) was marked by 

significant capacity development, most of which were added in the southeastern and 

southwestern U.S. (see Table 24). Pipeline capacity development has stalled during the course 

of the last recession and current economic recovery (2009-2010), and is modest, given relatively 

lackluster growth in natural gas demand over the past two to three years.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

New Jersey Pennsylvania Virginia

North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Average Annual Wage ($)

153
Table 24. Recent natural gas pipeline additions and expansions.

Additional Capacity (MMcf/day)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009* 2010*

Central 272 3,873 4,280 6,515 2,558 3,655 

Midwest 519 478 460 311 3,049 - 

Northeast 573 1,082 1,749 4,987 2,382 2,491 

Southeast 795 430 430 10,092 3,403 9,911 

Southwest 5,537 6,792 6,971 22,553 19,684 6,283 

Western 502 50 723 70 671 345 

to Mexico/Canada - - 245 60 105 1,920 

Total Capacity 8,198 12,705 14,858 44,588 31,852 24,605 

Additional Miles

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009* 2010*

Central 19 550 619 1,088 243 871 

Midwest 26 56 13 42 606 - 

Northeast 33 116 134 491 112 249 

Southeast 110 32 184 891 260 601 

Southwest 869 822 700 1,382 2,113 293 

Western 94 6 13 - 309 27 

to Mexico/Canada - - - - - 29 

Total Miles 1,151 1,582 1,663 3,894 3,643 2,070 

Estimated Cost (Million $)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009* 2010*

Central $ 62 $ 823 $ 1,607 $ 2,452 $ 470 $ 1,820 

Midwest $ 86 $ 127 $ 27 $ 102 $ 3,694 $ - 

Northeast $ 78 $ 166 $ 784 $ 1,952 $ 1,194 $ 1,276 

Southeast $ 238 $ 42 $ 304 $ 3,497 $ 845 $ 2,006 

Southwest $ 733 $ 1,124 $ 1,471 $ 3,307 $ 4,855 $ 577 

Western $ 78 $ 11 $ 39 $ 41 $ 821 $ 107 

to Mexico/Canada $ - $ - $ 70 $ 1 $ 37 $ - 

Total Cost $ 1,275 $ 2,293 $ 4,302 $ 11,352 $ 11,916 $ 5,786 

Estimated Cost per Mile (Million $)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009* 2010*

Central $ 3.26 $ 1.50 $ 2.60 $ 2.25 $ 1.93 $ 2.09 

Midwest $ 3.31 $ 2.27 $ 2.08 $ 2.43 $ 6.10 $ - 

Northeast $ 2.36 $ 1.43 $ 5.85 $ 3.98 $ 10.66 $ 5.12 

Southeast $ 2.16 $ 1.31 $ 1.65 $ 3.92 $ 3.25 $ 3.34 

Southwest $ 0.84 $ 1.37 $ 2.10 $ 2.39 $ 2.30 $ 1.97 

Western $ 0.83 $ .83 $ 3.00 $ - $ 2.66 $ 3.96 

to Mexico/Canada $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 

Total Cost/Mile $ 1.11 $ 1.45 $ 2.59 $ 2.92 $ 3.27 $ 2.80 

Note: *Figures for 2009 and 2010 are scheduled or proposed.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2006a; USDOE, EIA 2008a; and USDOE, EIA 2009.

154
The areas relevant to the Mid-Atlantic impact area, highlighted in Table 24, include parts of the 

northeast region (primarily New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) and 

the southeast region (primarily North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia). 

The number of pipeline construction projects completed in 2008 was remarkable: 84 projects 

completed, adding 44.6 Bcf per day of capacity (USDOE, EIA 2009). The southeast saw 19 

different pipeline expansions completed in 2008, adding 891 pipeline miles (1,434 kilometers), 

and over 10.0 Bcf per day of transportation capacity. Much of this capacity was added to 

accommodate capacity coming out of the Southwest region, where production from 

unconventional resources (i.e., Haynesville, Barnett) has been growing (USDOE, EIA 2009).12 

These expansions are a good example of the new infrastructure requirements that are necessary 

to move gas from new production areas (unconventional) to growing consuming markets, 

particularly Florida in the southeastern region. Much of this transportation development moves 

gas from west to east, effectively bypassing the traditional long-haul lines that have moved gas 

from south to east, coming from the GOM.

Northeast pipeline capacity development over the past several years has been based on a number 

of factors, but more on the development and explanation of LNG import terminals than 

unconventional gas development. For instance, in 2009, Dominion completed the addition of 48 

miles (77 kilometers) of new pipeline from its Cove Point LNG terminal in Maryland to 

interstate pipeline connections in Virginia (Dominion 2011). And, 81 miles (130 kilometers) 

were added in central Pennsylvania to allow imported LNG to be transported to natural gas 

markets in the Northeast (Dominion 2010).

Figure 65 and Figure 66 show the total capacity and mileage additions in the Northeast and 

Southeast regions of the U.S. 

12 This includes developments in the Barnett Shale (Texas) and the Fayetteville and Woodford Shales in Oklahoma 

and Arkansas.

155

 
Figure 65. Natural gas pipeline capacity additions, Northeast and Southeast regions.

Note: *Figures for 2009 and 2010 are scheduled or proposed.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2006a; USDOE, EIA 2008a; and USDOE, EIA 2009.

Figure 66. Natural gas pipeline capacity additions, Northeast and Southeast regions.

Note: *Figures for 2009 and 2010 are scheduled or proposed.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2006a; USDOE, EIA 2008a; and USDOE, EIA 2009.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Northeast Southeast

MMcf per day

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Northeast Southeast

Miles

156
According to FERC, natural gas production and transportation re-alignment trends are 

anticipated to continue as developers move into other new unconventional resource plays, 

particularly those in the northeast-Atlantic seaboard (Marcellus) and the upper mid-west-Great 

Lakes (Atrium, Utica) (FERC 2010a). Historically, consuming areas of the northeast have been 

served by Canadian imports; however, these imports are down by over 50 percent from prior 

year levels (2009 to 2010). Supply to the northeast is now being met by conventional and 

unconventional Rockies production through the Rockies Express Pipeline (REX), and 

increasingly through the rapid build-up or Marcellus (unconventional) production in the MidAtlantic-Appalachian region. Marcellus Shale gas production has doubled from 2009 to 2010, to 

around 700 MMcfd and is expected to increase by as much from 2010 to 2011 (FERC 2010a).

6.6 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: EAST COAST

The Mid-Atlantic impact area should see some of the more dramatic changes in gas markets of 

any area in the U.S. given its proximity, and likely exposure, to such a wide range of natural gas 

resources. Historically, the region has been served primarily by sources from the GOM, and to a 

lesser extent, from Canada; these resources will likely continue to be available, albeit at much 

lower volumes, on a forward-going basis. A third new source of supply, discussed earlier from 

the Rocky Mountains region, will continue to provide the region significant volumes from both 

conventional and unconventional resources that were historically “stranded” in the Rockies, but 

have now found economic delivery opportunities in the northeast through the REX. A fourth 

area of opportunity is the exponentially growing production volumes that are “intra-regional” 

and produced in the Mid-Atlantic region itself in the broadly expansive Marcellus shale. A fifth 

set of resources is now emerging in the Great Lakes area (Atrium [Michigan]; and Utica [Ohio])

that could interconnect with the REX and provide even greater supply diversity and lower prices.

These are the natural gas resources against which offshore Mid-Atlantic production will have to 

compete. In fact, FERC reports that 2010 capacity flows on some major pipeline systems have 

changed direction and natural gas from the U.S. is now being exported to Canada via backhaul 

and, a number of Northeast pipeline projects have been proposed (FERC 2011). These 

opportunities have led to the announcement of a number of projects within the region to link 

emerging unconventional production with the various end-use markets of the Mid-Atlantic and 

northeastern region.

For instance, the Tennessee Gas Pipeline, a subsidiary of El Paso Corporation, recently proposed 

to develop what it is designating as the Northeast Upgrade Project, which will increase the 

capacity of Tennessee’s 300 Line in Pennsylvania by over one-half of a Bcf per day (636 MMcf 

per day) of incremental transportation capacity. This new intra-regional upgrade project will 

consist of an upgrade to Tennessee’s existing 24-inch diameter 300 Line by adding five, 30-inch 

diameter pipeline loops, in addition to a undefined upgrade of compression capacity at least four 

different existing compressor stations in the region. Tennessee anticipates making over a $400 

million investment to complete the Northeast Upgrade Project, and when complete, the new 

project is anticipated to greatly expand the company’s existing transmission capacity to meet the 

growing west-to-east gas flow discussed earlier (Tennessee Gas Pipeline 2011b). 

157
Likewise, Dominion Transmission, in June 2010, announced that it entered into a 15-year firm 

transportation agreement with the gas production subsidiary of CONSOL. This new contract 

will help support, and provide some degree of longer term financial support, for Dominion’s 

Northeast Expansion Project. The new contract will support over 200 MMcfd of capacity on the 

project and will collect CONSOL-produced natural gas from a variety of receipt points in the 

central and southwestern Pennsylvania areas of the Marcellus play to interconnections and 

storage facilities in Leidy, Pennsylvania. The project is expected to cost $97 million, and will 

include new compression facilities at three stations in central Pennsylvania. Dominion filed its 

application with FERC in November 2010 and had a projected in-service date of November 2012 

(SEC 2010b). 

In 2010, Dominion Transmission announced a ten-year lease agreement with Tennessee Gas 

Pipeline for firm capacity on both its 300 Line system (under upgrade per above) and its 200 

Line system. The 300 Line system brings gas into the Mid-Atlantic from western Pennsylvania, 

while the 200 Line system branches off and sends deliveries into New England. Dominion will 

construct a 150 MMcfd interconnection (Ellisburg-to-Craigs Project) that will connect the two 

systems increasing the amount of Marcellus-based natural gas that can enter into the system (PR 

Newswire 2010).

Lastly, FERC’s 2011 State of the Market report noted that TransCanada has filed for a reduction

in its long-haul rates in order to remain competitive with shorter-haul customers bringing gas 

from the Marcellus rather than the GOM or Canada (i.e., long-haul customers) (FERC 2011). 

FERC also noted in the same report that both Columbia Gulf Transmission and Tennessee Gas 

Pipeline have filed rate increase proposals, citing increased Marcellus production and the need to 

offer discounted long-haul rates from the Gulf Coast to compete (FERC 2011).

6.7 FACTORS IMPACTING EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT

Production from the Mid-Atlantic OCS region will need to be transported to either an 

intermediate processing point or ultimately an end-use market depending on unknown gas 

quality issues from this new area. Most of the interstate natural gas transportation system along 

the East Coast has been developed to facilitate the movement of natural gas from its primary 

producing area (GOM) to market areas along the eastern seaboard. A number of the existing 

interstate natural gas lines, run along the Appalachian Mountain range and then progress 

northwards and eastward to New York. Currently, there are no natural gas interstate pipelines 

that run directly along the Atlantic seaboard, although Transco does have at least one line 

segment that runs from Mid-Virginia down close to the North Carolina coast and another that 

runs up to the northern New Jersey coast.

Future pipeline development along the Mid-Atlantic OCS is likely to be based on a series of line 

segment extensions from future coastal producing areas to the existing major trunk lines running 

along the Appalachian range. The overall investment level needed to link this production into 

the existing long-haul system will be a function of a variety of factors that include the volumes 

and economics of the gas production from the offshore Mid-Atlantic relative to production 

coming from the other five areas discussed earlier (i.e., GOM, Canada, Rockies, Marcellus,

Great Lakes) in addition to imported sources by LNG regasification facilities 

158
New natural gas transportation systems developed to accommodate new Mid-Atlantic OCS 

natural gas production are likely to be made up of a major trunk-line type segment for a large 

diameter pipeline (at or greater than 24 inches [61 cm]) that will directly connect into an existing 

major trunk line; more than likely the existing Transco system. The beginning of this system 

(upstream, production side) is likely to be interconnected into a series of smaller diameter pipes 

that connect individual offshore wells and structures to the new system. The size of the 

individual gathering lines, or gathering systems, will be a function of anticipated production 

from the area. The number of major trunklines and individual gathering systems will be 

determined, generally, by the scope and scale of Mid-Atlantic OCS production. Larger volumes 

produced in a concentrated geographic region are likely to see a fewer number of large trunk or 

gathering system configurations. Larger volumes produced over a broad geographic region will 

have a tendency to be smaller in capacity (diameter) but more numerous in terms of trunk and 

gathering segments.

As noted earlier, the likely configuration for new natural gas transportation systems along the 

Mid-Atlantic OCS will include (1) a major trunkline, and (2) a series of smaller gathering lines 

connected to the trunkline. This new configuration, in turn, will likely be connected into an 

existing long-haul transportation system that delivers to major end use markets. A new 

production to consuming area pipeline from the Mid-Atlantic production area to either the 

northeast, or even southeastern U.S., while possible, is unlikely. 

Future pipeline development decisions can be thought of as having two components. First, 

where and at what point along an existing natural gas pipeline, will a major trunkline connection 

be developed? Second, where, and at what point will a gathering system be developed to 

connect the producing wells arising from Mid-Atlantic OCS development. The exact size, 

location and nature of this development cannot be answered at this time, but each component of 

a future development has a number of factors that will have to be considered before any 

infrastructure development scenarios.

159
There are a number of factors that will influence one, or a series of major trunkline developments 

that connect coastal production to the existing interstate system. These factors include:

1. Production location: pipeline developments cannot ignore their primary purpose of 

moving gas from point A to point B. Major pipeline segments generally tend to move 

from production areas to transportation segments moving gas to consumption areas. 

These systems’ connections to the major interstate system can vary and are often 

influenced by many of the other considerations discussed below.

2. Distance: is related to location, but does differ and can be influenced by a number of 

factors such as geography, topology, bathometry, and available right of way. The 

geography along the eastern seaboard, and its population density, differs considerably 

from the GOM, which is likely to lead to different prioritization of factors and 

pipeline siting outcomes.

3. Deliverability: an important commercial consideration in developing pipeline 

projects is maximizing its ability to facilitate a wide range of transactions across a 

range of different shippers (which can be producers or consumers, or both). 

Generally, pipeline companies will attempt to maximize the number of shippers on its 

system. In addition to linking new production to the interstate system, some new 

trunk line developments may also attempt to link new Mid-Atlantic OCS production 

to large, intermediate purchasers like power generations, manufacturing and industrial 

plants, and municipal gas systems and local distribution companies.

4. Supporting infrastructure: new line segments will also have to consider the degree to 

which supporting infrastructure such as compression, processing, and storage will be 

needed. Compression requirements are likely to be a function of the size and scope of 

the configuration and deliverability factors impacting development. Processing and 

storage considerations will be discussed in a later section of his memo.

5. Potential competition from other supply resources: as noted earlier, since 2008 there 

has been a dramatic paradigm-shifting development in gas production from shalebased geological formations. One of the more prolific opportunities for shale 

development is in the region referred to as the Marcellus shale play. This area spans 

the Appalachian region and runs as far north as New York State. A significant 

amount of production from this area is anticipated to arise and will compete with 

Mid-Atlantic OCS production for incremental pipeline capacity and access to 

northeastern markets. In addition, over the past five years, pipeline developments 

linking western (Rockies) production to eastern markets have materialized. This new 

source of additional production will also create some new market opportunities for 

Mid-Atlantic OCS gas production. Further, new shale resources in the Great Lakes 

region are likely, at some point in the future, to see development and transportation 

into the Northeast. Last, there are a large number of LNG regasification facilities that 

have seen development or expansion over the past several years. These facilities will 

also be a source of competition with Mid-Atlantic natural offshore gas production.

160
Figure 67 presents a preliminary analysis of the distance an offshore pipeline would need to 

traverse to facilitate production identified in the Five Year Lease Plan released in August 2006. 

Figure 22 provides a similar analysis, but assumes a hypothetical interconnection further south, 

into the high growth markets of the southeast (particularly Florida) and as a way to avoid shale 

production competition. Both diagrams are presented for illustrative purposes, and are not 

intended to represent the paths future transmission lines will take.

161
Figure 67. Mid-Atlantic coast interstate natural gas pipelines, location analysis. 

Distance

Interstate Pipelines Ending County (miles)

1 Philadelphia (Transco) ~225

2 -- Unknown -- Wicomico (MD) ~153

3 Columbia Gas Trans. Connect James City (VA) ~178

4 Columbia Gas Trans. Connect Isle of Wright (VA) ~167

5 Columbia Gas Trans. Connect Chesapeake / Portsmouth (VA) ~162

6 Williams' Transco Hertford (NC) ~207

162
Figure 68. Mid-Atlantic coast interstate natural gas pipelines, location analysis, Southeast 

focus. 

Southern Natural Gas’s 

Cypress Pipeline Project 

Depth: 

~20-50 m Interstate Pipelines Ending County

Distance 

(miles)

1 Atlantic Leg ~473

2 Elba Express Pipeline Connect (El Paso Co.) Chatha ~67

2 SNL Pipeline Connect (subsid. El Paso) Chatha ~67

2 SNL Pipeline Cypress (subsid. El Paso) Chatha ~67

3 -- Unknown -- Glynn ~122

163

7 PIPE COATING

7.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY AND SERVICES PROVIDED

Pipelines used to transport oil and natural gas are coated to protect against corrosion and other 

damage. Pipes may be coated on the exterior and may also be coated on the interior to protect 

against corrosion from the fluids being transported and to improve flow. In addition to corrosion 

protection, pipes that are used offshore may be coated with a layer of concrete to increase the 

weight of the pipe and ensure that it stays on the seabed. 

Pipeline integrity may be compromised by corrosion, natural forces (earthquakes, landslides, 

lightning, heavy rain, floods, mudslides, frost heave, frozen components), excavation, material 

defects or equipment malfunctions (OPS 2011). The most common threat is corrosion. 

Corrosion occurs when an electrical current flows from a pipe into the surrounding soil, causing 

metal loss, or corrosion. One way to arrest the corrosion process is to insulate the metal from the 

soil, or coat the pipe (Folga 2007). Because coatings are the first line of defense in protecting 

pipes from corrosion, they must be well bonded, continuous, and able to resist the effects of their 

environment. 

To be effective, pipe coating must have several properties, including (Kennedy 1993):

• ease of application;

• adheres well to pipe;

• resistant to impact

• flexible;

• resistant to soil stress;

• resistant to water;

• resistant to electricity;

• chemically and structurally stable; and

• resistant to bacteria, marine organisms and cathodic disbondment.

7.2 TYPICAL FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

Pipe coatings are usually applied before the pipe is delivered to the installation site. Coating 

mills apply pipe coatings to protect the line pipe from corrosion once it is laid in the ground. 

Coating mills are often located adjacent to the pipe mill, so line pipe moves straight from the 

manufacturing line to the coating facility (INGAA 2012). At the construction site, the coating is 

rechecked for imperfections or damage that could occur during transportation. When pipe 

lengths are coated and wrapped at a coating yard, a short length at each end of the pipe is left 

bare so the joints can be welded together. A new coating is then applied at the welded joints by 

sandblasting the weld and applying a new layer of coating (Folga 2007). 

165
Pipe coating can also be done at the job site. Individual lengths of pipe are first welded together 

and the pipeline is suspended over a trench. Special machines then move along the pipe to apply 

coating to the pipe and welds. Tape is wrapped over the coating by a tape machine in a spiral. 

The wrapping machine maintains tension on the tape so that it fits tightly over the coating 

(Kennedy 1993).

Figure 69. Pipeline coating applied over the installation site.

Source: Protection Engineering 2012.

7.2.1 Coatings

Several different types of pipe coatings are available to protect pipe. In the past, pipeline 

companies coated pipe with a variety of different coatings such as coal tar enamels, asphalt 

enamels or an enamel tape wrap (INGAA 2012). Today, the most widely used coating is a 

fusion bond epoxy (FBE) coating or an extruded polyethylene (Guan et al. 2005; and Folga 

2007). FBE coating is light blue in color and can often be seen on pipe being transported by rail 

or truck. 

Fusion bonded epoxy

Fusion bonded epoxy coating is also known as powder coating or FBE coating and has been one 

of the primary coatings chosen for pipelines because of its durability, corrosion protection 

properties and ease of application (CCSI 2012). 

To prepare for FBE coating, the external surface of the pipe is cleaned with a shot-blast process. 

The pipe is then heated to a set temperature (450°F-500°F). Three heating methods can be used: 

(1) electrical induction; (2) gas fired forced air; or (3) a combination of high velocity direct flame 

impingement and infrared (Thermacor 2008). After the pipe is heated, it passes through a 

powder coating machine where the epoxy powder is electrostatically applied (Bayou Companies 

2012a). The powder melts onto the heated pipe forming a water tight barrier. Before the pipe is 

transported to the job site, it is both visually inspected and tested with high voltage electricity to 

evaluate the coating's insulating effectiveness (CCSI 2012; and Folga 2007).

166
Three-layer polyolefin (3LP)

Second in use to FBE applications, the three-layer polyolefin coating consists of an FBE primer, 

a polyethylene (PE) or polypropylene (PP) adhesive layer and a top coat of PE or PP. During the 

3LP process, first a primer of FBE is applied to protect the integrity of the steel. Then, adhesive 

is applied the PE or PP to the FBE (Bayou Companies 2012b). 

One disadvantage of 3LP is the possibility of disbondment. Disbondment of 3LP applications 

can hinder the current of cathodic protection and expose the pipeline to environmentally induced 

cracking (Guan 2010). 

Internal diameter coatings

Internal diameter (ID) coatings create a smooth, defect free surface on the inside of a pipe and 

are used to improve the flow of gas through the pipeline. ID coatings also: (1) help to reduce 

wax and hydrate formation; (2) act as an insulator on electrically heated pipe-in-pipe to reduce 

pipe maintenance and make pipeline inspection easier; (3) are used in potable water applications

(Bayou Companies 2012c). 

Concrete weight coating 

Concrete weight coating (CWC) is coating used to provide negative buoyancy (a weight greater 

than the buoyant force of the water) for offshore pipelines or for river or road crossing 

applications (Bayou Companies 2012d). A mix of cement, iron ore and wire wrap is used in 

combination with other coating systems, such as FBE. 

There are three major requirements of concrete coating in maintaining the stability of pipelines

on the seabed (Kiernan 1982):

1. Negative buoyancy: Originally, the chief function of negative buoyancy was to add 

sufficient weight to the pipeline to achieve the required negative buoyancy, hence the 

term “weight coating.” This primary function has not changed over the years since 

the first offshore lines were laid in the GOM in the late 1940s. 

2. Resistance to damage: To remain in position during pipeline life, a concrete coating 

must have resistance to damage during laying and trenching operations, from natural 

environmental hazards during the life of the pipeline at the bottom of the sea, and 

from the effects of human hazards, such as fishing trawls and trailing cables from 

floating vessels.

3. Protection of anticorrosion coating: All presently used techniques of anticorrosion 

coating are subjected to damage when exposed to trawl gear or trailing cables. 

167
7.2.2 Cathodic Protection

Cathodic protection is a method for preventing corrosion in metal by using electric voltage to 

prevent or slow the corrosion process. It is used along pipelines, underground storage tanks, ship 

hulls, water treatment facilities, bridges and steel pilings. In a cathodic protection system, 

anodes are installed and an electric current flows through the soil between the pipe and the 

anodes. The pipeline becomes the cathode of the system and corrosion is decreased. The anodes 

are the part of the system that is corroded, or sacrificed.

The magnitude of the currents in a cathodic protection system depends on several factors 

including: the temperature, moisture content and concentration of salts in the soil; the chemical 

constituents of the soil; distance between anode and cathode; and surface areas of the anode and 

cathode (Kennedy 1993).

Pipeline coatings today are routinely supplemented with cathodic protection. In fact, in 1971, 

the Department of Transportation passed Federal legislation requiring that all oil, gas and gas 

products pipelines be cathodically protected. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 2012c) 

requires all buried metallic pipe installed after July 31, 1997 must be coated and have a cathodic 

protection system designed to protect the pipe in its entirety. A system with cathodic protection 

must also be monitored and tested annually for effectiveness. 

7.3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

Seven companies have been identified in the Mid-Atlantic impact region states (six in 

Pennsylvania, one in Virginia). However, all of these facilities are located inland in the 

Appalachian region, not along the coast or port facilities. 

168
Figure 70. Mid-Atlantic impact region pipe coating facilities.

Liberty Coating Company, LLC provides industrial coatings for the oil, gas and water industries. 

It is located on 35 acres with six coating buildings that cover over 110,000 square feet (10, 219 

square meters). The Company offers a number of coating options, including a proprietary 

coating system called Pritec®. This is a dual layer coating system that uses butyl rubber 

adhesive and polyethylene. The two materials are heated and applied through a dual-extrusion 

process. Pritec® protects pipe with a firmly bonded, damage resistant coating and can be applied 

to pipe ranging in diameter from 3⁄4" to 144" (Liberty Coating 2012). 

Company City State

1 Liberty Coating Company Morrisville PA

2 Dura-Bond Coating Inc Export PA

3 Dura-Bond Coating Inc McKeesport PA

4 Dura-Bond Coating Inc Steelton PA

5 IPSCO Tubulars Inc Ambridge PA

6 Rohm and Haas Chemicals LLC Reading PA

7 Rohm and Haas Chemicals LLC Wytheville VA

169
Figure 71. Liberty Coating storage yard. Source: Liberty Coating 2012.

Durabond Coating has three locations in Pennsylvania. Durabond’s focus is on the Marcellus 

Shale region and offers a number of products for corrosion protection: fusion bond epoxy; XTec extruded polyethylene; dual layer fusion bond; Powercrete® abrasion resistant overcoating:

tape systems: and internal linings (Durabond 2012). Dura-Bond also uses protective paint and 

coating systems to non-fabricated structural steel such as pipe piling, steel piling and H-Beams 

for the construction market (Durabond 2012).

TMK IPSCO is on the Ohio River, adjacent to both rail lines and river barge facilities. It is one 

of the largest producers of welded and seamless pipe and premium connections in North 

America. The Ambridge, Pennsylvania plant is responsible for manufacturing IPSCO’s seamless 

tubular products. The facility has an annual capacity of 260,000 tons (TMK IPSCO 2012).

Figure 72. IPSCO Tubulars, Ambridge, Pennsylvania. Source: IPSCO 2012.

170
Rohm and Haas is a subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company. The Company was founded 

over 100 years ago and was originally was established to sell Rohm’s invention that created a 

superior leather bate. Rohm and Haas products include not only pipe coatings, but plastic 

additives (bottles, window frames, car bumpers), other acrylic coatings (soft drink cans, 

structural steel and cabinets), emulsion products (for paints and polishes), and monomers and 

acrylates (a foundation of products used in resins, coatings, floor care and aircraft windows) 

(Dow 2012).

7.4 SCOPE OF ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION TO REGIONAL ECONOMY

Though a few companies have been identified in Pennsylvania and Virginia, there is no drilling 

activity off of the Mid-Atlantic Outer OCS, and it is likely these companies are mostly serving 

oil and gas operations in the Appalachian region. 

Similarly, there are no useful NAICS codes or industry data to use to analyze the contribution of 

the support economy to the area. Pipe coating services are likely included under NAICS code 

332812, “Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to 

Manufacturers.” This sector includes establishments primarily engaged in one or more of the 

following: (1) enameling, lacquering, and varnishing metals and metal products; (2) hot dip 

galvanizing metals and metal products; (3) engraving, chasing, or etching metals and metal 

products (except jewelry; personal goods carried on or about the person, such as compacts and 

cigarette cases; precious metal products (except precious plated flatware and other plated ware); 

and printing plates); (4) powder coating metals and metal products; and (5) providing other metal 

surfacing services for the trade (USDOC, CB 2002). Therefore, the economic contribution of 

this sector has not been estimated. 

7.5 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: INDUSTRY 

The pipe coating industry is dependent on the oil and gas industry, and changes within the pipe 

coating industry are often spurred by changes and needs in oil and gas exploration and 

production. Pipe coatings have evolved from simple coal-tar applications to sophisticated 

fusion-bonded epoxies and polypropylene coatings. Companies continue to try new, costeffective methods and materials in the battle against corrosion and extreme environmental 

effects. The advantages and disadvantages of each type of coating need to be considered in the 

development of different coating products. 

According to the industry, technology and environmental trends are pushing product innovation 

to meet client needs. For instance, when selecting pipe materials for deepwater installations, 

fatigue is a critical element that must be considered. Also, the installation of export lines and 

flowlines is an expensive and risk-intensive procedure. One company uses a double jointing 

facility, where line pipe is pre-assembled at the mill, then coated with anti-corrosion or thermal 

insulation. The pipe and materials arrive at the site ready to be installed, which decreases 

offshore welding time significantly. Even the anti-corrosion anode pads can be attached before 

applying protective coatings, thereby reducing installation time even further (Tenaris 2012a).

171
As the oil and gas industry continues to push the boundaries of exploration, the pipe coating 

industry will need to be able to adapt and innovate to changing needs. Most of the developments 

in pipe coating technologies are found through a specific company’s research and development. 

The largest companies have the greatest amount of capital and funds to conduct this type of 

research. For example, Tenaris is one of the world’s leading suppliers of pipe and has research 

centers in Argentina, Italy, Japan and Mexico (Tenaris 2012b). 

The outlook for the pipe coating industry is strong, yet also competitive because companies vie 

for market share while trying to keep pace with advances in technology. The market for steel 

pipe is highly competitive, with primary competitive factors being price, quality, services and 

technology (Tenaris 2011). Industry participants must focus on timely and efficient applications 

and offer solution-based services. Research and development will continue to play a major role 

in the pipe coating industry, particularly as environmental regulations become more stringent and 

the oil and gas industry moves into deeper waters. 

7.5.1 Regulatory Changes

Pipe coating industry is not economically regulated like other segments of the natural gas 

industry, but pipe coating techniques have to meet industry standards and specifications as 

established by the Department of Transportation and recommended by the National Association

of Pipe Coating Applicators (NAPCA). 

Sections 195.557 through 195.561 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) list the 

requirements for external coatings for pipelines: 

• Each buried or submerged pipeline must have an external protective coating for 

external corrosion if the pipeline is: 

- Constructed, relocated, replaced or otherwise changed after the applicable date;

- Has an external coating that substantially meets allowable coating before the 

pipeline is placed in service;

- Is a segment that is relocated, replaced, or substantially altered.

• All pipe coating must be inspected just prior to lowering the pipe into the trench or 

submerging the pipe, and any damage discovered must be repaired. 

• Allowable coating materials for external corrosion control include material that is:

- Designed to mitigate corrosion of the buried or submerged pipeline

- Have sufficient adhesion to the metal surface to prevent under film migration of 

moisture;

- Sufficiently ductile to resist cracking;

- Has enough strength to resist damage due to handling and soil stress;

- Supportive of any supplemental cathodic protection;

- If the coating is an insulating type, have low moisture absorption and provide high 

electrical resistance.

172
Regulations for cathodic protection systems are also included in Sections 195.563 and 195.567. 

A cathodic protection system must be installed for all buried or submerged facilities to mitigate 

corrosion that might result in structural failure. A cathodic protection system must be installed 

not later than 1 year after completing the construction. Except for offshore pipelines, electrical 

test leads used for corrosion control is required for all buried or submerged pipeline or segment 

of pipeline. Requirements for how to test are described in the code. 

External Corrosion Control

According to the CFR, every pipeline operator must conduct tests annually on any pipe that is 

buried, in contact with the ground, or submerged, to determine whether the cathodic protection is 

adequate. Also, operators must inspect any bare pipe that is not cathodically protected and study 

leak records for that pipe to determine if additional protection is needed. This needs to be done 

every three years. Whenever buried pipe is exposed for any reason, the operator must examine 

the pipe for evidence of external corrosion. If active corrosion is found, the area should be 

reviewed for leak and analysis of leak repair and inspection records, corrosion monitoring 

records, exposed pipe inspection records, and the pipeline environment.

Internal Corrosion Control

Pipeline operators may not transport hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide that would corrode a 

pipe or other components of a pipeline system, unless it has investigated the corrosive effect of 

the hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide on the system and has taken adequate steps to mitigate 

corrosion. If corrosion inhibitors are used to mitigate internal corrosion, these inhibitors should 

be used in sufficient quantity to protect the entire part of the system. Monitoring equipment 

must be examined twice a year to determine the effectiveness of inhibitors or the extent of any 

corrosion. 

If any pipe is removed from the pipeline, the internal surface must be inspected for evidence of 

corrosion. If the pipe is generally corroded such that the remaining wall thickness is less than the 

minimum thickness required by the pipe specification tolerances, the adjacent pipe must also be 

inspected. Corroded pipe must be replaced with pipe that meets industry requirements, or based 

on the actual remaining wall thickness, the operating pressure must be reduced to be 

commensurate with the limits on operating pressure.

Corrosion control information must be maintained and maps must be kept of cathodically 

protected pipelines, for cathodic protection facilities installed after January 28, 2002. The 

required information includes a stated number of anodes, records of each analysis, inspection, 

investigation, review, survey, and test required by the statute in sufficient detail to demonstrate 

the adequacy of corrosion control measures or to indicate that corrosion requiring control

measures do not exist. 

173
7.6 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: EAST COAST 

Business is strong for some of the pipe coating facilities in the Mid-Atlantic impact region states. 

Dura-Bond Industries for instance, cut its staff by 30 percent during the recession, but is now 

hiring 75 workers for a new planned facility in Duquesne, Pennsylvania (Davidson and Hansen 

2012). The company was recently awarded the entire pipe manufacture and corrosion coating 

responsibilities for the Marc 1 Pipeline (DuraBond 2012). The pipeline, owned by Inergy 

Midstream, L.P. is a 39 mile, 30 inch bi-directional gas pipeline connecting Inergy’s Stagecoach 

South Lateral pipeline interconnect at Tennessee Gas Pipeline’s (TGP) 300 line to Transco’s 

Leidy Line (Inergy 2012).

As gas production in the Marcellus shale region continues to expand, so will business for these 

facilities. The probable increase in unconventional natural gas production from the Marcellus 

Shale areas will likely increase the amount of gas transported in this area, potentially to levels 

that rival (conventional) prolific supply basins like the GOM. In addition, the undeveloped 

eastern portion of the Marcellus Shale could extend as far east as parts of Virginia, eastern 

Pennsylvania, and Maryland, possibly creating new onshore resources and pipeline investments. 

7.7 FACTORS IMPACTING EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT

All existing pipe coating facilities in the Mid-Atlantic impact region states are in the 

Appalachian region. Under a limited or moderate development scenario, it is likely that coated 

pipe would come from these existing facilities, or the GOM region.

Under a limited offshore development scenario, it is most likely that pipe coating services would 

be provided by the GOM region. Coated pipe would be shipped or delivered by rail or truck to 

Mid-Atlantic impact regions. Industry consolidation and economy of scale associated with large 

coating operations may offer further support for this outcome. At this point, we do not anticipate 

any new pipecoating or fabricating facilities being developed along the Mid-Atlantic. It is likely 

that existing regional facilities may see some expansion, some are showing indications of 

increased orders given the rise in Marcellus production, and new pipeline projects bringing gas 

from the Rockies into the Midwest and Appalachian area.

174
8 NATURAL GAS PROCESSING AND STORAGE

8.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY AND SERVICES PROVIDED

8.1.1 Natural Gas Processing

Natural gas, typically produced from a reservoir rock, is a mixture of light hydrocarbon gases, 

impurities and liquid hydrocarbons. Natural gas processing is used to remove the impurities and 

separate the light hydrocarbon mixture into its useful components.

Natural gas is found below the earth’s surface in three principal forms: 

• Associated gas is found in crude oil reservoirs, either dissolved in the crude oil, or 

combined with crude oil deposits. This type of gas is produced along with crude oil 

from oil wells and is separated from the oil at the head of the well.

• Non-associated gas is found in reservoirs separate from crude oil – its production is 

not a result of the production of crude oil. As of 2004, this gas-well gas or dry gas is 

about 75 percent of all U.S. natural gas (USDOE, EIA 2006b).

• Gas Condensate is a hydrocarbon that is neither true gas nor true liquid. It is not a 

gas because of its high density, and it is not a liquid because no surface boundary 

exists between the gas and liquid. Gas condensate reservoirs are usually deeper and 

have higher pressures, which pose special problems in the production, processing and 

recycling of the gas for maintenance of reservoir pressure.

The quality and quantity of components in natural gas varies widely by the field, reservoir or 

location from which the natural gas is produced. Although there really is no typical make-up of 

natural gas, it is primarily made up of methane (the lightest hydrocarbon component) and ethane. 

Figure 73 shows the common components of a natural gas production stream.

175
Figure 73. Common components of natural gas.

Source: Canadian Centre for Energy Information 2009.

In general, there are four types of natural gas: wet, dry, sweet, and sour. Wet gas contains some 

of the heavier hydrocarbon molecules and water vapor. When the gas reaches the earth’s 

surface, a certain amount of liquid is formed. The water found in this liquid has no value; 

however, the remaining portion of the wet gas may contain five or more gallons of recoverable 

hydrocarbons per thousand cubic feet (Berger 1992). When natural gas does not contain enough 

of the heavier hydrocarbon molecules to form a liquid at the surface, it is classified as a dry gas. 

Sweet gas has very low concentrations of sulfur compounds, while sour gas contains excessive 

amounts of sulfur and an offensive odor. Sour gas can be harmful or even fatal to breathe

(Berger 1992).

Hydrocarbons have distinctive weights, boiling points, vapor pressures and other physical 

properties that make their separation from each other possible.

13 Each hydrocarbon has a 

specific combination of pressure and temperature at which it will change from liquid to gas – the 

heavier the component, the higher the temperature, or boiling point (Berger 1992). Processing 

cleans natural gas so that it is in a useable form, but also provides numerous hydrocarbons to 

other distinct markets for use.

13 A boiling point occurs at a combination of temperature and pressure, where the vapor pressure of a liquid is equal 

to the pressure being exerted on it.

176

 
8.1.2 Natural Gas Storage

In order for the natural gas market to operate efficiently, there must be some capability to store 

natural gas. Gas storage provides three services to facilitate this efficiency: base-load storage to 

meet seasonal demand; peaking storage to meet short-term demand peaks; and price arbitrage 

(hedging) to take advantage of changes in volatile natural gas prices between peak and non-peak 

usage periods. There is generally a cyclical up and down pattern in the volume of gas being 

stored throughout the year. This occurs as gas is withdrawn during peak periods of high 

utilization (winter) and gas is stored during low utilizations periods (April through October).

The two principal functions of natural gas storage are: base-load storage and peaking storage. 

Base-load storage is used to meet seasonal demands for gas, while peaking storage is utilized to 

meet short-term peaks in demand. Natural gas demand commonly has peaks which can range 

from a few hours to a few days. Specifically, the injection season typically occurs between April 

and October, when natural gas demand is low and underground natural gas storage facilities are 

filled to prepare for and meet seasonal base-load requirements during the fall and winter peak 

usage from November to March. This withdrawal season, uses natural gas that has been in 

storage to supplement domestic production and imports during this high demand period. Note,

however, that, in addition to the traditional withdrawal season, recent increases in the amount of 

gas fired power generation have caused significant daily variance in the amount of natural gas 

being used, even during summer months.

In the absence of underground storage, there would be a need for larger capacity investments in 

pipeline systems, to the detriment of customers. Pipeline operators would need to construct 

additional pipelines, or larger pipelines, to meet peak localized demands during winter months. 

Market participants, shippers for example, would have to pay capacity fees to utilize these assets, 

which would likely be idle for large periods of time throughout the year. Storage provides a 

great benefit passed along to customers, as opposed to increased pipeline capacity, of lower rates 

and more reliable service.

Another benefit of underground storage comes from the ability to meet new regulatory and 

market requirements. Natural gas markets are very competitive and storage facilities have 

evolved to be varied and complex value-added services that create opportunities for competitive 

sales revenues. The historic regulatory functions of storage to offer simple back-up and 

balancing services on a cost-of-service basis are no longer the only norm. Today, underground 

storage services also facilitate (FERC 2004):

• Daily nomination changes, parking and lending services, and simultaneous injections 

and withdrawals.

• Avoidance of imbalance penalties.

• Liquidity at market centers to limit price volatility. 

• Arbitrage gains from seasonal and regional differences in gas prices, thus creating 

trade opportunities.

• Price risk management for regulated natural gas and electric utilities, and large 

industrial customers that can contract directly with storage operators or indirectly 

through marketers.

177
• Competitive electric generation markets by providing quick service to natural gasfired generation facilities that provide power during load fluctuations in any given 

day, hour, or season. 

8.2 TYPICAL FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

8.2.1 Natural Gas Processing

Natural gas must be processed to remove water vapor, solids, and other contaminants that would 

interfere with pipeline transmission or marketing of the gas. The most common contaminants 

are water, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and helium. In general, natural gas 

processing plants are centrally located so that they can serve multiple fields. Processing plants 

provide two main services: to remove essentially all impurities and to separate the gas into its 

useful components for eventual distribution to consumers. This general process is depicted in 

Figure 74. 

Figure 74. Natural gas processing.

Source: GPA 2004.

WATER WATER

NONASSOCIATED GAS

OIL

GAS CAP OR

ASSOCIATED GAS

OIL WELL

GAS

WELL

GAS

WELL LEASE

SEPARATORS

CASINGHEAD

GAS

Compression Field Treating

Raw Natural Gas

Recovery

System

Natural Gas to Pipeline

Gas Processing Plant Ethane

Propane

n Butane

I Butane

n Pentane

I Pentane

Natural Gasoline

Plant Condensate

Field Condensate

Fractionation

System

LEASE

SEPARATORS

Crude Oil

178
Because the composition of the raw natural gas depends on the characteristics of the 

underground deposit and area geology, the number of steps and exact methods used to create

pipeline-quality natural gas differ across different processing facilities. The general steps in 

processing are presented in Figure 75; however, in some cases, some steps may be combined, 

performed in a different order, or not at all. 

Figure 75. General natural gas processing schematic.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2006b.

Figure 75 depicts the multiple stages involved in the processing and treatment of natural gas

(USDOE, EIA 2006b): 

• Gas-Oil Separators: Natural gas is often found with crude oil, and, while sometimes 

pressure relief at the wellhead naturally separates the gas from oil (using a 

conventional closed tank where gravity separates the gas hydrocarbons from the 

heavier oil), at other times a multi-stage gas-oil separation process is necessary. 

Generally these gas-oil separators are formed from closed cylindrical shells which are 

mounted horizontally with inlets at one end and outlets on the top and bottom for 

removal of gas and oil, respectively. The process separates gas from the flow stream 

through multiple steps of compression heating and cooling. If there is water or 

condensate, some of this is also removed during this separation process.

• Condensate Separator: In most circumstances condensates are removed from the gas 

stream at the wellhead by using mechanical separators. Because the gas-oil 

separation process is often unnecessary, gas generally flows directly from the 

wellhead and enters the processing plant at very high pressure (600 pounds per square 

inch gauge (psig) or greater). This highly pressurized gas enters through an inlet slug 

Gas-Oil

Separator

Oil

Gas

Reservoir

Oil

Reservoir

Gas

Stream

Condensate

Separator

Condensate

Free Water

Dehydrate

Water

Remove

Contaminants

H2S

CO2

Dry Gas

Nitrogen (to Pipeline)

Extraction

Nitrogen

DeMethanizer Dry (Residue) Gas

(to Pipeline)

Fractionator

Natural Gas 

Liquids (NGLs):

Ethane

Propane

Butane

Pentanes

Natural Gasoline

179
catcher where free water is removed from the gas and sent to a condensate separator. 

From here, the gas is routed to storage tanks on site. 

• Dehydration: The dehydration process is the removal of water from produced natural 

gas, and is required to eliminate water which may cause hydrates to form. Hydrates 

form under certain temperature and pressure conditions if there is free water present 

in a gas or liquid. There are several available methods to dehydrate the natural gas 

such as ethylene glycol systems or adsorption dehydration. Ethylene glycol (glycol 

injection) systems can be used as an absorption mechanism to remove water and other 

solids from the gas stream. The adsorption method uses dry-bed dehydrator towers, 

which contain desiccants (such as silica gel or activated alumina), to extract water.

The distinction between adsorption and absorption is an important one: adsorption is 

the binding of molecules or particles to the surface of a material, while absorption is 

the filling of the pores in a solid. The binding to the surface is weak with adsorption, 

and therefore, usually easily reversible (USDOE, EIA 2006b):.

• Contaminant Removal: The gas stream can contain many contaminates, such as 

hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, water vapor, helium, and oxygen. The most 

common technique used for contaminant removal directs the flow of gas through a 

tower containing an amine solution. Amines are useful because they can be reused 

and they absorb sulfur compounds from natural gas. The next processing step utilizes 

the different gravities of contaminants and gas. As the gas flows more slowly 

through a series of filter tubes, the remaining contaminants separate into individual 

tubes. For instance, the smaller particles fall out as the gas passes through, combine 

to become larger components and then flow into the lower section of the unit. As the 

stream of gas moves through the series of tubes, a centrifugal force is generated 

which removes any remaining water and small solid particulate matter.

• Nitrogen Extraction: After contaminant removal, the gas stream is sent to a Nitrogen 

Rejection Unit (NRU). The NRU further dehydrates the natural gas using molecular 

sieve beds. After passing through a brazed aluminum plate fin heat exchanger, the 

nitrogen is cryogenically separated and vented from the stream. There is another 

NRU method which separates methane and heavier hydrocarbons from nitrogen using 

an absorbent solvent. Then, the pressure on the processing stream is reduced in 

multiple decompression steps to flash off the methane and heavier hydrocarbons. 

Last, the liquid from this flash regeneration step is returned to the top of the methane 

absorber as lean solvent. If helium is present, it can be extracted by using membrane 

diffusion in a Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) unit.

• Methane Separation: Methane separation can occur as part of the NRU operation or 

independently within the gas plant. Demethanizing the gas stream from natural gas 

liquids (NGLs) can be done by cryogenic processing and absorption methods. 

Cryogenic methods, lowering the temperature of the gas stream to around -120 

degrees Fahrenheit, are better at extracting lighter liquids such as ethane. The quick 

temperature drop condenses the hydrocarbons while still maintaining methane’s 

gaseous form. Alternatively, the absorption method uses a “lean” absorbing oil to 

separate the methane from the NGLs when the gas stream passes through an 

absorption tower. The enriched absorption oil with the NGLs is disposed through the 

180
bottom of the tower, fed into distillers and heated to above the boiling point of the 

NGLs, but to a point where the oil remains in liquid form. The oil is recycled while 

the NGLs are cooled and sent to the next phase of processing. One other methane 

separation method of absorption refrigerates the lean oil instead of heating it, which 

actually increases recovery rates.

• Fractionation: The final stage presented in Figure 75, fractionation, is the process of 

separating the remaining NGLs present in the gas stream into their respective 

components. In the same way as methane separation, the stages of fractionation use 

the different boiling points of individual hydrocarbons to separate them. The gas 

stream is sent to multiple towers with heating units to heat and then siphon off the 

various liquids into specific holding tanks as they are turned to gas. The liquids 

contained in the separate holding tanks can be sold as individual commodities for 

energy feedstock purposes along the Gulf coast. 

The natural gas processing industry includes a range of companies: fully integrated oil 

companies, intrastate pipeline companies, major interstate pipeline companies and their nonregulated affiliates, financial institutions with trading platforms, and independent processors

(SEC 2011h). Each company type has varying levels of financial and personnel resources. 

Competition in the market generally revolves around the quality of customer service, price and 

fees, and location (SEC 2011h). These factors are also important in the storage market, with the 

addition of the number of pipeline connections available and operational dependability.

Enterprise Products Partners (EPP) is an integrated midstream company with many diverse assets 

that include natural gas gathering, processing, transportation and storage; NGL fractionation (or 

separation), transportation, storage; crude oil transportation; offshore production platform 

services; and petrochemical pipeline and services. EPP is one of the largest natural gas 

processors in North America and owns 24 processing plants located in Colorado, Texas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Wyoming (SEC 2011h). Figure 76 depicts one such 

plant. They process natural gas and sell the NGL byproducts, but state “when operating and 

extraction costs of natural gas processing plants are higher than the incremental value of the 

NGL products that would be extracted, the recovery levels of certain NGL products, principally 

ethane, may be reduced or eliminated” (SEC 2011h). This is problematic because it will likely 

lead to a reduction in NGL volumes available for fractionation and transportation. EPP also 

owns 14 Bcf of natural gas storage capacity in salt dome caverns.

181
Figure 76. Enterprise natural gas processing plant.

Source: USDOE, OFE 2006.

The largest NGL producer in North America and another large integrated midstream company is 

DCP Midstream. DCP Midstream collects natural gas through 62,000 miles (99,779 kilometers) 

of pipe, where it is processed at 61 owned or operated plants in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, 

Texas, Louisiana, and New Mexico. They also own or operate 12 fractioning facilities and a 9 

Bcf storage facility. The storage facility is used for residue gas before it is sold to marketers and 

end users (large industrial customers and natural gas and electric utilities) (DCP Midstream

2012). DCP Midstream’s equity interests also consist of a 50 percent ownership interest of 

Spectra Energy and its Affiliates, 50 percent ownership interest of ConocoPhillips and its 

Affiliates, and DCP Midstream Partners, LP (DCP Midstream 2012).

Targa Resources is another significant provider of midstream natural gas and NGL services such 

as gas gathering, processing, treating, fractionation, storage terminaling, and transportation. The 

processing facilities owned or operated by Targa Resources are located in Louisiana and Texas. 

In fact, the majority of Targa Resources’ assets are located throughout producing basins in the 

those states, primarily in the Permian Basin in west Texas and southeast New Mexico, the

offshore region of the Louisiana Gulf Coast, and, through the Partnership, the Fort Worth Basin 

in north Texas, the Permian Basin in west Texas, and the onshore region of the Louisiana Gulf 

Coast. Terminal assets are located throughout the United States, even in the north east, with one 

in Maryland, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Targa’s processing plants include 22 facilities that 

it owns or operates. In 2011, they processed an average of approximately 2.16 Bcf per day of 

natural gas and produced an average of approximately 124 million barrels per day of NGLs (SEC

2011i).

182
8.2.2 Natural Gas Storage

Natural gas is stored under pressure in three types of underground storage facilities (Figure 77): 

1. Depleted reservoirs in oil or gas fields;

2. Aquifers; and 

3. Salt cavern formations. 

A small amount of natural gas is also stored above ground in tanks in liquid form. All three 

types of underground natural gas storage need access to a transportation pipeline, but beyond this 

similarity there are major differences even within a category. The geological and engineering 

properties of underground sites are the most important considerations when developing or 

expanding underground storage. A few examples of relevant characteristics are size, cushion gas 

requirement, access to transportation pipeline, markets, and gas production sources. In addition, 

each type of storage facility has its own physical characteristics that include porosity, 

permeability and retention capability. Each type of storage facility also has its own economic 

characteristics that include capacity development costs, location, deliverability rates and cycling 

capability. 

Cushion gas is the term used to describe the minimum amount of gas necessary to maintain 

operating pressures in an underground storage facility. The higher the cushion gas requirement, 

the more expensive the facility, due to the amount of valuable gas which is not useable outside of 

storage. In this regard, salt caverns have an advantage in having the lowest cushion gas 

requirement of all underground storage types, as can be seen in Table 25. This advantage 

persists even though cushion gas is also required to maintain the integrity of salt caverns. 

However, reservoir storage is significantly cheaper on a capacity-developed basis due to the 

higher start-up cost of salt caverns. All characteristics should be considered in determining 

which option is the best in any given situation.

The flexibility of injections has become an important characteristic to consider when developing 

an underground storage facility. Since today’s markets are increasingly competitive and fast 

paced, in some situations the ability to quickly withdraw and deliver stored gas translates into 

higher revenue. In the past, this was less important because the main function of the storage 

market was to provide gas during times of high seasonal demand. The needs of today still 

include seasonal demand; however, there are frequent needs which should be addressed 

immediately: like an injection request to a LNG tanker arriving to offload supplies. The 

complement to injection capacity is deliverability: the amount of gas that can be withdrawn daily 

from a storage facility. High deliverability is also vital in today’s market environment (USDOE, 

EIA 2004).

183
Table 25. Characteristics of underground storage.

Storage Number of Cushion Injection / 

Facility Active Gas Injection Withdrawal Withdrawal

Type Fields* Ratio Period Period Flexibility

(days) (days)

Depleted Reservoir 331 50% to 80% 200 to 250 100 to 150 Low

Aquifer 43 50% 200 to 250 100 to 150 Low

Salt Cavern 37 20% to 30% 20 to 40 10 to 20 High

Note: *Number of active fields is as of 2010.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012d; and FERC 2004.

Figure 77. Types of underground natural gas storage facilities.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2004.

While salt cavern storage provides considerable advantages in today’s market, most gas is stored 

in depleted oil and gas reservoirs. In fact, salt caverns make up the smallest number of 

underground storage types in the U.S. More detailed descriptions about each type of facilities 

are provided below.

184
Depleted Reservoir

Depleted reservoirs make up 81 percent of natural gas storage facilities in the U.S., making this

the most commonly used form of underground natural gas storage (USDOE, EIA 2012d). 

Depleted reservoirs are geological formations that once held oil or natural gas, but have since 

been tapped out, or depleted. These formations can take advantage of surface facilities, 

gathering systems and pipeline connections that are already on site. In general, approximately 50 

percent of depleted reservoir contents are working gas. Depleted reservoirs are the cheapest, 

easiest to develop and operate, and the easiest to maintain (FERC 2004, NaturalGas.org 2012b).

In order for a reservoir to be suitable for gas storage it must have the appropriate geographical 

and geological characteristics. Two geological characteristics are important for a depleted 

reservoir to be effective in natural gas storage: high permeability and porosity. Permeability is 

the rate at which gas flows through the formation, and as such determines the rate of injection 

and withdrawal of working gas. High porosity equates to higher amount of gas that can be held 

(NaturalGas.org 2012b).

Most depleted reservoirs are near regions which consume natural gas and have well-developed 

pipeline and transportation infrastructure (USDOE, EIA 2004). Most important is proximity to 

trunk pipelines and large diameter lines for local distribution companies if service is being 

developed to serve local needs. Depleted reservoirs are generally found in producing regions in 

the U.S., and other storage options must be used for areas like New England where there are no 

naturally occurring reservoirs (NaturalGas.org 2012b).

Aquifer Storage

Aquifers are underground natural water reservoirs that can also be used for natural gas storage. 

They are porous, permeable rock formations found below the ground and can be used for natural 

gas storage if the formation is capped with an impermeable rock (USDOE, EIA 2004). The 

geology of aquifers is similar to depleted reservoirs; however they require higher levels of base 

gas (between 50 and 80 percent base gas) and greater monitoring of injection and withdrawals

than depleted fields(FERC 2012a; and USDOE EIA 2004). Before an aquifer is used for storage, 

extensive time and money is spent to determine if its geological characteristics are suitable for

storage. Due to their expensive nature, aquifers tend to be used mostly in areas without depleted 

reservoirs, and are commonly found in the Midwest U.S. Their main purpose is for the single 

winter withdrawal period, but can also be used to meet peak load requirements.

Aquifer storage is the most expensive underground storage option, due to the additional 

geological research requirements and the infrastructure which must be built. Since they are often 

full of water, dehydration equipment must be used to create storage space for the natural gas. 

Similar to other storage facilities, wells must be drilled along with inter-facility pipelines, 

compression systems to move the gas from the facility into the long-line pipeline system. 

Uniquely, aquifers tend to leak natural gas and require “collector” wells which capture any gas 

which escapes from the aquifer (NaturalGas.org 2007b). 

185
Salt Cavern Storage

The internal integrity and strength of salt formations (as structurally sound as steel) make formed 

caverns an ideal type of natural gas storage (see Figure 78) (NaturalGas.org 2007b). Salt caverns 

have very high withdrawal and injection rates and require lower levels of base gas (in 

comparison to reservoirs and aquifers). In general, 20 to 30 percent of the gas held in salt 

caverns is cushion gas and the remaining is working gas, which can be recycled 10-12 times a 

year in this type of storage facility (FERC 2004). Salt caverns are typically used for peak-day 

deliverability like fuel for electric power plants. The Gulf Coast region holds most salt cavern 

storage facilities that are in use, developed from salt dome formations, but caverns have also 

been leached from bedded salt formations in Northeastern, Midwestern, and Southwestern states 

(USDOE, EIA 2004).

Figure 78. Salt dome used in underground storage.

Note: Figure is not drawn to scale.

Source: JISH 2012.

A salt cavern must be developed within a salt dome or salt bed by drilling into the formation and 

pumping water into the deposit to dissolve the salt. Then the salty water, or brine solution, is 

pumped out leaving an empty space in the salt formation. This salt cavern leaching or solution 

mining process is illustrated in Figure 79. 

186
Figure 79. The solution mining process.

Source: JISH 2012.

Salt cavern leaching, though expensive, creates an extremely valuable underground storage 

facility with very high deliverability. Salt caverns have an additional advantage of a very low 

base (or cushion) gas requirement, as compared to the amount necessary in reservoir and aquifer 

storage. One negative aspect of salt caverns, however, is that they are generally smaller than 

depleted gas reservoirs and aquifers, resulting in smaller gas storage capacity. For this reason, 

the main purpose of salt cavern storage is cycling or peaking as opposed to meeting base-load 

storage requirements. They are particularly attractive for emergency periods or periods of 

unexpectedly high demand because of their higher deliverability. 

A major drawback to salt caverns as storage facilities is their high capital cost of development. 

Additional capital investments are required to complete the leaching and mining process, 

including the development of a brine handling system (pipes, pumps, electrical), an injection 

well first used in brine handling (mining) operations, and then converted to facilitate storage 

service. Before the cavern can be used as a storage facility, a number of tests are required to 

ensure the integrity of the cavern and well. For these reasons, creating salt cavern storage sites is 

more expensive than converting depleted oil fields into storage facilities in terms of dollars per 

thousand cubic feet of working gas capacity. However, salt caverns provide the ability to run 

multiple withdrawal and injection cycles each year, thus reducing the per-unit cost of each 

volume of gas injected and withdrawn (USDOE, EIA 2004).

8.3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

8.3.1 Natural Gas Processing

As of 2011, there were 585 operational natural gas processing plants in the United States (Oil & 

Gas Journal 2011). The majority of processing plants are in areas of the country that produce 

natural gas: Alaska, the Rocky Mountain region, and the GOM. As shown in Figure 80 and 

Table 26, Texas and Louisiana accounted for nearly half of the total U.S. processing capacity (45

percent) with Oklahoma in third. 

187
Table 26 illustrates the large variation in processing capacity across states. For example, Texas 

has 194 gas processing plants and Louisiana has only 70, however, Louisiana’s gas processing 

capacity is 14 percent higher than Texas. Total U.S. gas processing capacity is almost 75 Bcf per 

day and current throughput is about 61 percent of capacity (Oil & Gas Journal 2011). 

Figure 80. Concentrations of natural gas processing plants.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2011b.

188
Table 26. Natural gas processing plants in the U.S. as of January 1, 2011.

Number Gas Gas

State of Plants Capacity Throughput

------- (MMcf/d) -------

Texas 194 15,904.3 11,088.1

Louisiana 70 18,180.3 8,790.3

Oklahoma 60 3,944.0 2,691.5

Colorado 44 4,332.7 1,651.7

Wyoming 38 6,145.2 3,424.8

California 31 1,106.9 755.2

New Mexico 26 3,194.0 2,364.9

Michigan 22 1,549.4 625.7

Alabama 14 1,358.0 475.3

Utah 14 531.0 243.2

Kansas 12 2,828.5 889.6

West Virginia 10 825.0 304.0

Pennsylvania 9 73.0 32.5

North Dakota 8 298.0 202.3

Alaska 5 9,525.0 9,298.0

Arkansas 5 873.8 507.4

Kentucky 5 290.0 106.1

Mississippi 4 1,603.4 900.1

Ohio 4 25.0 10.0

Montana 4 15.4 7.8

Tennessee 2 8.0 1.5

Illinois 1 2,200.0 1,426.0

Florida 1 32.0 4.0

Nebraska 1 10.0 8.0

Wisconsin 1 . .

U.S. Total 585 74,852.9 45,808.0

Source: Oil & Gas Journal 2011.

189
Within the Mid-Atlantic impact region states, there are just nine processing facilities. Figure 81

shows that all of these are located in the western part of Pennsylvania.

Figure 81. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas processing facilities.

Figure 82 presents the average annual processing flows for the ten states with the highest 

capacity and Pennsylvania. In terms of throughput, Texas leads the U.S., with about 12.6 Bcfd

of natural gas processed in 2010, and the highest average utilization rate of any state at 71 

percent (USDOE, EIA 2011b). Louisiana and Alaska follow closely behind. Together, 

Louisiana and Texas account for 47 percent of natural gas processing capacity in the United 

States (USDOE, EIA 2011b). To get a comparative idea of the Mid-Atlantic region contribution, 

along with the top ten processing states, Pennsylvania is included. Pennsylvania has 

approximately 36 Bcf of processing capacity, which accounts for about one tenth of one percent 

of the capacity of the entire U.S. (USDOE, EIA 2011b). 

190
Figure 82. Average annual processing flows and utilization rates for top 10 states and 

Pennsylvania.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2011b.

8.3.2 Natural Gas Storage

Nearly half of all storage capacity is in the Midwest. Specifically, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and 

the Gulf Coast areas have the highest concentrations of underground storage, as a result of 

conducive geology and location of depleted oil and gas reservoirs. The Mid-Atlantic region 

accounts for about 14 percent of the number of natural gas storage sites and about 10 percent of 

working capacity in the U.S. However, like natural gas processing, most of these sites are 

located in western Pennsylvania (Table 27). In fact, of the three states in the Mid-Atlantic region 

that have storage facilities, Pennsylvania accounts for 94 percent of facilities (51 out of 54) and 

95 percent of working gas capacity. All of the Pennsylvania storage sites are depleted fields. 

Maryland has one depleted field with 18.3 Bcf of working gas capacity. And, Virginia has one 

depleted field and one salt cavern, totaling 5.4 Bcf of working gas capacity.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

TX LA AK WY CO OK NM IL KS AL PA

Average Annual Flow Average Utilization Rate

Average annual flow (Bcf/d)

Average utilization rate (%)

191
Table 27. Mid-Atlantic impact region natural gas storage fields, 2010.

Number of Fields Working Gas Capacity

Depleted Salt Depleted Salt

Field Aquifer Cavern Total Field Aquifer Cavern Total

Maryland 1 - - 1 18.3 - - 18.3 

Pennsylvania 51 - - 51 431.1 - - 431.1 

Virginia 1 - 1 2 1.4 - 4.0 5.4 

Total Mid-Atlantic

Region 53 - 1 54 450.8 - 4.0 454.8 

U.S. Total 331 43 37 411 3,734.0 364.2 312.0 4,410.2 

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012d.

Consistent with the overall pattern of storage location, a large percentage of depleted reservoirs 

is located near major consuming regions in the Northeast and Midwest to serve peak winter 

heating demand. Table 28 lists the breakdown of storage type by region. In the U.S., depleted 

reservoirs account for 85 percent of working gas capacity. The Midwest, Southwest, and 

Northeast have the highest depleted reservoir capacities at 28 percent, 26 percent, and 19 

percent, respectively. Similarly, these areas account for the highest daily delivery capacities. 

The Midwest also has the most aquifer storage sites accounting for 72 percent of the sites and 65 

percent of capacity. Salt caverns present a different picture: the majority are located in the 

Southwest, accounting for 70 percent of the sites and 74 percent of capacity. The Southeast 

holds 16 percent of salt cavern sites, 23 percent of working gas and 32 percent of daily delivery 

capacity (USDOE, EIA 2012d). 

192
Table 28. Underground natural gas storage by region, 2010.

Central Midwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Western Total

Number

Depleted Field 41 87 110 28 45 20 331

Aquifer 8 31 - 3 - 1 43

Salt Dome 1 2 2 6 26 - 37

Total 50 120 112 37 71 21 411

Working Gas Capacity (Bcf)

Depleted Field 476.8 994.2 839.1 180.3 916.6 327.0 3,734.0

Aquifer 96.0 237.6 - 6.6 - 24.0 364.2

Salt Dome 0.4 2.2 5.5 73.1 230.9 - 312.0

Total 573.2 1,233.9 844.5 260.0 1,147.6 351.0 4,410.2

Maximum Daily Delivery (MMcf)

Depleted Field 5,208 24,664 16,390 4,170 13,895 8,575 72,882

Aquifer 1,733 4,734 - 68 - 1,150 7,685

Salt Dome 1 85 470 7,487 15,570 - 26,613

Total 6,942 29,464 16,680 11,725 29,465 9,725 104,180

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012d.

8.4 SCOPE OF ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION TO REGIONAL ECONOMY

Neither natural gas processing nor natural gas storage has a unique NAICS code. Natural gas 

processing is included in the category for oil and gas extraction activities (NAICS Code 2111). 

This classification code also includes exploration for crude petroleum and natural gas; drilling, 

completing and equipping wells; operation of separators, emulsion breakers, desilting equipment, 

and field gathering lines for crude petroleum and natural gas; and all other activities in the 

preparation of oil and gas up to the point of shipment (USDOC, CB 2002).

Similarly, natural gas storage is included along with a number of related services in the natural 

gas transportation industry: booster pumping station, natural gas transportation, natural gas 

pipeline operation and transportation, and natural gas transmission (processing plants to local 

distribution systems). This is all identified under the main NAICS code 486210 for Pipeline 

Transportation of Natural Gas. Note that this will inherently make this section of this chapter 

identical to the same section in the Natural Gas Pipelines Chapter. The U.S. Census explains the 

reason for this combined coding as, “the storage is usually done by the pipeline establishment 

and because a pipeline is inherently a network in which all the nodes are interdependent.”

(USDOC, CB 2002) The GDP, employment and wage statistics reported in the next two sections 

should be interpreted with this caveat in mind.

193
8.4.1 Natural Gas Processing

The oil and gas extraction sector for the impact area is minute in comparison to (a) each state’s 

overall GDP and (b) the economic contribution made by the U.S. natural gas transportation 

sector to total U.S. GDP. Pennsylvania’s oil and gas extraction GDP makes the largest 

contribution to its state’s overall economy of any in the Mid-Atlantic impact area at just 0.264

percent. 

The contributions each Mid-Atlantic state makes to total U.S. oil and gas extraction GDP is also 

small, totaling just 1.2 percent of the U.S. total for oil and gas extraction. 

Table 29. Regional and national GDP contribution, oil and gas extraction, 2010.

Note: Maryland, South Carolina and Georgia report less than $500,000 in nominal or real GDP.

Source: USDOC, BEA 2012.

Figure 83 highlights the relative share of each Mid-Atlantic state’s pipeline transportation GDP 

shares to the regional pipeline transportation total. Pennsylvania far outweighs the other states, 

accounting for 82 percent of oil and gas extraction GDP. Virginia accounts for 17 percent. The 

remaining three states contribute smaller shares of the region’s oil and gas extraction output,

with shares between 0.1 percent and 1 percent. 

Oil and Gas Oil and Gas

Extraction Extraction

GDP as a GDP as a Percent

Oil and Gas Total Percent of Total U.S. Oil and Gas

Extraction State State GDP Extraction GDP

New Jersey $ 11.0 $ 480,446 0.002% 0.007%

Delaware $ 1.0 $ 64,010 0.002% 0.001%

Maryland n.a. $ 293,349 n.a. n.a.

Pennsylvania $ 1,474.0 $ 558,918 0.264% 0.999%

Virginia $ 309.0 $ 419,365 0.074% 0.209%

North Carolina $ 2.0 $ 424,562 0.000% 0.001%

South Carolina n.a. $ 160,374 n.a. n.a.

Georgia n.a. $ 403,230 n.a. n.a.

Total Region $ 1,797 $ 2,804,254 0.064% 1.218%

U.S. $ 147,505 $ 14,416,601 1.023% 100.0%

(millions of current $) ----------------- (%) -----------------

GDP

194
Figure 83. Mid-Atlantic impact region oil and gas extraction GDP shares, 2010.

Note: Maryland, South Carolina and Georgia report less than $500,000 in nominal or real GDP.

Delaware’s oil and gas extraction GDP is large enough to be reported, however it is too small to be visible on this 

graph.

Source: USDOC, BEA 2012.

Figure 84 compares the trends in oil and gas extraction GDP for each Mid-Atlantic impact state

since the mid-1990s. Oil and gas extraction GDP in Pennsylvania and Virginia shadow any 

value reported by the other impact region states. In Pennsylvania, oil and gas extraction GDP 

has increased at an average annual rate of 20.9 percent. Though this sector has grown steadily 

over the period, much of this increase is attributable to 2009 and 2010, when oil and gas 

extraction GDP increased from $722 million to almost $1.5 billion, an increase of 104 percent. 

Similarly, but on a lesser scale, in Virginia, oil and gas extraction GDP has increased at an 

average annual rate of 16.3 percent. Virginia’s largest increase was in 2003 and 2004 when GDP 

increased from $203 million to $412 million, or 103 percent.

New Jersey, 1%

Delaware, 0.1%

Pennsylvania, 82%

Virginia, 17%

North Carolina, 0.1%

195
Figure 84. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region oil and gas extraction GDP.

Delaware and New Jersey oil and gas extraction GDPs are large enough to be reported, however they are too small 

to be visible on this graph.

Source: USDOC, BEA 2012.

Table 30 lists gas and oil extraction employment statistics for the Mid-Atlantic region in 2011. 

Oil and gas extraction activities are an extremely small portion of employment for the MidAtlantic region, only about .02 percent. The region accounts for 2.94 percent of total oil and gas 

extraction employment in the U.S., with the largest number of people employed in Pennsylvania. 

This is consistent with the previous sections in this chapter, because Pennsylvania has the most 

activity in this sector (in the Mid-Atlantic region).

Figure 85 depicts the employment shares for the Mid-Atlantic region’s oil and gas extraction 

employment. Again, Pennsylvania plays the largest role, comprising 90 percent of the region’s 

number of jobs in this sector in 2011. Virginia accounts for only 9 percent of oil and gas 

extraction employment in the region, and the two remaining states with reliable data account for 

less than one percent each.

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Oil and Gas Extraction GDP (billion $)

New Jersey Delaware Pennsylvania Virginia North Carolina

196
Table 30. Regional and national employment shares, oil and gas contribution (processing 

of natural gas included), 2011.

Note: Data for Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure 

standards. 

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 85. Regional oil and gas extraction employment shares, 2011. Note: Data for Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure 

standards. 

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Oil and Gas Oil and Gas

Extraction Extraction Employment

Employment as a as a Percent of Total U.S.

Oil and Gas Total Percent of Total Oil and Gas

Extraction State State Employment Extraction Employment

New Jersey 34 3,156,538 0.00% 0.02%

Delaware n.a. 342,585 n.a. n.a.

Maryland n.a. 1,991,055 n.a. n.a.

Pennsylvania 4,517 4,825,064 0.09% 2.65%

Virginia 445 2,889,435 0.02% 0.26%

North Carolina 22 3,158,293 0.00% 0.01%

South Carolina n.a. 1,450,840 n.a. n.a.

Georgia n.a. 3,135,735 n.a. n.a.

Total Region 5,018 20,949,545 0.02% 2.94%

U.S. 170,735 108,184,795 0.16% 100.00%

Number of Jobs

----------------- (%) -----------------

New Jersey, 1%

Pennsylvania, 90%

Virginia, 9%

North Carolina, 0.4%

197
Figure 86 depicts the trend in oil and gas extraction employment in the Mid-Atlantic region 

states since 2001. The increase in employment in recent years in Pennsylvania likely 

corresponds to the increase in attention on the Marcellus Shale region (Caiman Energy 2012). 

Employment in Virginia has also been rising, with large increases in 2007 through 2009. 

Employment figures for New Jersey and North Carolina are dwarfed by Pennsylvania and 

Virginia and are thus not visible in the graph. Also, data for North Carolina’s employment 

contribution was disclosed only for 2009 through 2011. 

Figure 86. Historic trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region oil and gas extraction 

employment, 2001-2011. Note: Data for Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure 

standards. Although employment figures for New Jersey and North Carolina are large enough to be reported, they 

are too small to be visible on this graph. 

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Table 31 provides 2011 wage contribution data for the Mid-Atlantic region and the United 

States. This table is consistent with Table 30: the wages of the Mid-Atlantic region are a very 

small proportion of U.S. wages in oil and gas extraction. Pennsylvania accounts for the majority 

of wage contributions within the area (Figure 87). However, wage contributions of all MidAtlantic states are small compared to the total state wages and the total U.S. oil and gas sector. 

Trends in wages are shown in Figure 88.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Number of Jobs

New Jersey Pennsylvania Virginia North Carolina

198
Table 31. Regional and national wage contribution, oil and gas extraction (processing of 

natural gas included), 2011.

Note: Data for Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure 

standards. 

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Oil and Gas Oil and Gas

Extraction Extraction Wages

Wages as a Percent of Total U.S.

Oil and Gas Total Percent of Total Oil and Gas

Extraction State State Wages Extraction Wages

New Jersey $ 4.4 $ 179,559 0.00% 0.02%

Delaware n.a. $ 17,313 n.a. n.a.

Maryland n.a. $ 100,787 n.a. n.a.

Pennsylvania $ 451.2 $ 225,147 0.20% 1.74%

Virginia $ 44.9 $ 145,225 0.03% 0.17%

North Carolina $ 0.9 $ 132,436 0.00% 0.00%

South Carolina n.a. $ 54,746 n.a. n.a.

Georgia n.a. $ 142,928 n.a. n.a.

Total Region $ 501.4 $ 998,140 0.05% 1.93%

U.S. $ 25,969.0 $ 5,172,844 0.50% 100.00%

Wages

---------- (million $) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

199
Figure 87. Mid-Atlantic impact oil and gas extraction wage shares, 2011. Note: Data for Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure 

standards. 

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 88. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region oil and gas extraction wages, 2001-2011.

Note: Data for Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure 

standards. Although wage figures for New Jersey and North Carolina are large enough to be reported, they are too 

small to be visible on this graph. 

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

New Jersey, 0.8%

Pennsylvania, 90%

Virginia, 9%

North Carolina, 0.2%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

Wages (million $)

New Jersey Pennsylvania Virginia North Carolina

200
Table 32 lists average annual wages for the Mid-Atlantic impact region in 2011. New Jersey has 

the highest average annual wage by a significant amount, $129,013. Virginia paid an average 

wage of $100,862, followed by Pennsylvania at $99,891. All average annual wages in this 

region were higher than the average annual wage for this sector in the entire United States. 

When considered as a whole, a worker in the Mid-Atlantic received an average annual wage of 

about 318 percent higher than the average oil and gas extraction worker in the U.S.

Table 32. Regional and national average annual wage, oil and gas extraction (processing of 

natural gas included), 2011.

Note: Data for Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure 

standards. 

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

The trend in average annual wage growth over time is quite different among Mid-Atlantic states. 

Again, data is available only for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, but each state presents 

a unique pattern of wage growth. New Jersey wages are quite volatile, likely resulting from the 

very small size of the employment force in this sector. There are also a few years of missing 

data due to reporting inconsistencies. Pennsylvania and Virginia seem to follow a relatively 

similar path to one another, though Virginia annual average wages are consistently higher 

(USDOL, BLS 2012).

Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Extraction

Extraction Average Average Annual Wage

Annual Wage as a as a Percent of Total U.S.

Oil and Gas Total Percent of State Total Oil and Gas Extraction

Extraction StateAverage Annual Wage Average Annual Wage

New Jersey $ 129,013 $ 56,885 226.8% 84.8%

Delaware n.a. $ 50,535 n.a. n.a.

Maryland n.a. $ 50,620 n.a. n.a.

Pennsylvania $ 99,891 $ 46,662 214.1% 65.7%

Virginia $ 100,862 $ 50,261 200.7% 66.3%

North Carolina $ 43,015 $ 41,933 102.6% 28.3%

South Carolina n.a. $ 37,734 n.a. n.a.

Georgia n.a. $ 45,580 n.a. n.a.

Total Region $ 93,195 $ 47,526 196.1% 61.3%

U.S. $ 152,101 $ 47,815 318.1% 100.0%

---------- ($) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

Average Annual Wage

201
Figure 89. Trends in regional average oil and gas extraction wages.

Note: Data for Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia data do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure 

standards. 

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

8.4.2 Natural Gas Storage

The pipeline transportation sector for the impact area is small in comparison to (a) each state’s 

overall GDP and (b) the economic contribution made by the U.S. natural gas transportation 

sector to total U.S. GDP. Pennsylvania’s pipeline transportation GDP makes up the largest 

contribution to its state’s overall economy of any in the Mid-Atlantic impact area at just 0.12 

percent. Pennsylvania’s share of U.S. pipeline transportation GDP is far greater than any other 

state in the impact region. Every other state’s share of U.S. pipeline transportation GDP is less 

than one percent.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

New Jersey Pennsylvania Virginia North Carolina

Average Annual Wage ($)

202
Table 33. Regional and national GDP contribution, pipeline transportation, 2010.

Source: USDOC, BEA 2012.

Figure 90 highlights the relative share of each Mid-Atlantic state’s pipeline transportation GDP 

shares to the regional pipeline transportation total. Pennsylvania, with $696 million in the annual 

value of its pipeline transportation output, accounts for 70 percent of the value of the region’s 

pipeline transportation output. Virginia accounts for eight percent of the economic value of the 

region’s pipeline transportation output ($79 million per year). Georgia and New Jersey both 

account for seven percent of the region’s pipeline transportation output, both around $70 million. 

The remaining states possess smaller shares of the region’s pipeline transportation output with 

shares between 0.6 percent and 4 percent. 

Pipeline Pipeline

Transportation Transportation

GDP as a GDP as a Percent

Pipeline Total Percent of Total of U.S. Water 

Transportation State State GDP Transportation GDP

New Jersey $ 65 $ 480,446 0.01% 0.4%

Delaware $ 6 $ 64,010 0.01% 0.0%

Maryland $ 20 $ 293,349 0.01% 0.1%

Pennsylvania $ 696 $ 558,918 0.12% 4.6%

Virginia $ 79 $ 419,365 0.02% 0.5%

North Carolina $ 42 $ 424,562 0.01% 0.3%

South Carolina $ 14 $ 160,374 0.01% 0.1%

Georgia $ 71 $ 403,230 0.02% 0.5%

Total Region $ 993 $ 2,804,254 0.04% 6.5%

U.S. $ 15,287 $ 14,416,601 0.11% 100.0%

GDP

(millions of current $) ----------------- (%) -----------------

203
Figure 90. Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation GDP shares, 2010.

Source: USDOC, BEA 2012.

The economic value of the region’s pipeline transportation output has followed trends closely 

associated with the price of natural gas. Figure 91 compares the trends in pipeline transportation

GDP for each Mid-Atlantic impact state since the mid-1990s. Regional pipeline transportation 

GDP increased at an average annual rate of close to 10 percent between 2002 and 2008, 

increasing by 36 percent in 2008 alone. Pipeline transportation GDP decreased by over 20 

percent in 2009 however, as natural gas commodity prices fell to relatively low levels compared 

to the previous six year period. 

New Jersey, 7%

Delaware, 0.6%

Maryland, 2%

Pennsylvania, 70%

Virginia, 8%

North Carolina, 4%

South Carolina, 1%

Georgia, 7%

204
Figure 91. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation GDP.

Source: USDOC, BEA 2012; and Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2012.

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

$10

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

New Jersey Delaware Maryland

Pennsylvania Virginia North Carolina

South Carolina Georgia Natural Gas Price

Pipeline Transportation GDP (billion $)

Natural Gas Price ($/Mcf)

205
Table 34 shows that each state’s total pipeline transportation employment contributions are 

relatively small in comparison to the total employment in each of the states in the Mid-Atlantic

impact region. None of the states in the Mid-Atlantic impact region have pipeline transportation 

employment totals that are over one-tenth of one percent of the overall statewide employment 

totals. 

Pennsylvania has the overwhelming majority of pipeline transportation employment in the 

impact region (see Figure 92). Likewise, it also has the highest employment contribution to total 

U.S. pipeline transportation employment. Overall, the region accounts for just eight percent of 

total U.S. pipeline transportation employment.

206
Table 34. Regional and national employment contribution, pipeline transportation, 2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 92. Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation employment shares, 2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Pipeline Pipeline Transportation

Transportation Employment as a

Employment as a Percent of Total U.S.

Pipeline Total Percent of Total Pipeline Transportation

Transportation State State Employment Employment

New Jersey 350 3,156,538 0.01% 0.81%

Delaware n.a. 342,585 n.a. n.a.

Maryland n.a. 1,991,055 n.a. n.a.

Pennsylvania 1,960 4,825,064 0.04% 4.56%

Virginia 373 2,889,435 0.01% 0.87%

North Carolina 260 3,158,293 0.01% 0.60%

South Carolina 76 1,450,840 0.01% 0.18%

Georgia 401 3,135,735 0.01% 0.93%

Total Region 3,420 20,949,545 0.02% 7.95%

U.S. 43,010 108,184,795 0.04% 100.00%

Number of Jobs

----------------- (%) -----------------

New Jersey, 10%

Pennsylvania, 57%

Virginia, 11%

North Carolina, 8%

South Carolina, 2%

Georgia, 12%

207
Pipeline transportation employment in the Mid-Atlantic impact region has been relatively stable 

over the past decade. The region reported a high of 3,420 pipeline transportation jobs in 2011. 

This is an increase of seven percent since 2001. Between 2007 and 2008, pipeline transportation 

employment increased the most, by over 16 percent. This was mostly due to increases in 

Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. 

Figure 93. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation employment, 

2001-2011. Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Regional wage contributions, provided in Table 35, follow trends similar to employment levels 

discussed earlier with the regional totals dominated by the state (Pennsylvania) with the largest 

share of transportation pipeline miles. Regional shares of total wages paid by Mid-Atlantic coast 

pipeline transportation companies are provided in Figure 94. Trends in pipeline transportation 

wages are presented in Figure 95.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

New Jersey Pennsylvania Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Number of Jobs

208
Table 35. Regional and national wage contribution, pipeline transportation, 2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 94. Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation wage shares, 2011. 

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Pipeline Pipeline

Transportation Transportation Wages

Wages as a Percent of Total U.S.

Pipeline Total Percent of Total Pipeline

Transportation State State Wages Transportation Wages

New Jersey $ 35.5 $ 179,559 0.02% 0.74%

Delaware n.a. $ 17,313 n.a. n.a.

Maryland n.a. $ 100,787 n.a. n.a.

Pennsylvania $ 180.8 $ 225,147 0.08% 3.78%

Virginia $ 31.8 $ 145,225 0.02% 0.67%

North Carolina $ 20.6 $ 132,436 0.02% 0.43%

South Carolina $ 5.9 $ 54,746 0.01% 0.12%

Georgia $ 35.5 $ 142,928 0.02% 0.74%

Total Region $ 310.1 $ 998,140 0.03% 6.49%

U.S. $ 4,777.5 $ 5,172,844 0.09% 100.00%

Wages

---------- (million $) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

New Jersey, 11%

Pennsylvania, 58%

Virginia, 10%

North Carolina, 7%

South Carolina, 2%

Georgia, 12%

209
Figure 95. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation wages, 2001-2011. Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Table 36 provides a comparison of the average annual wages paid to employees in the pipeline 

transportation sectors of the Mid-Atlantic impact area. The annual wages for pipeline 

transportation sector employees in each state in the region are considerably higher, in fact orders 

of magnitude higher than the average in-state wage. This is not surprising and is consistent with 

industry trends in other parts of the country. The comparisons differ, however, when average 

annual pipeline transportation wages to the U.S. average annual pipeline transportation wage.

New Jersey, for instance, reports the highest average annual wage in the region at almost 

$100,000 per year for a pipeline transportation company employee. In Pennsylvania, the average 

annual wage for pipeline transportation is $92,250, which is almost double (198 percent) the 

average annual wage for Pennsylvania in general. In South Carolina, pipeline transportation 

wages in North Carolina are over 200 percent higher than the state average. However, average 

annual pipeline transportation wages in the region are below the U.S. pipeline transportation 

average of roughly $111,000 per year. 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

New Jersey Pennsylvania Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Wages (million $)

210
Table 36. Regional and national average annual wage contribution, pipeline 

transportation, 2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Trends in regional average annual wages for regional pipeline transportation employees are 

provided in Figure 96. The trends show that average annual wage have been increasing at an 

average annual rate of 4.2 percent, and the greatest increases were in 2009 (6.6 percent) and 

2011 (5.0 percent). In 2009, Pennsylvania and North Carolina showed the largest increases in 

average annual wages, with increases of 12.6 percent and 8.9 percent.

Pipeline Pipeline Transportation

Transportation Average Average Annual Wage

Annual Wage as aas a Percent of Total U.S.

Pipeline Total Percent of Total Pipeline Transportation

Transportation StateAverage Annual Wage Average Annual Wage

New Jersey $ 99,949 $ 56,885 175.7% 90.0%

Delaware n.a. $ 50,535 n.a. n.a.

Maryland n.a. $ 50,620 n.a. n.a.

Pennsylvania $ 92,250 $ 46,662 197.7% 83.0%

Virginia $ 85,236 $ 50,261 169.6% 76.7%

North Carolina $ 79,208 $ 41,933 188.9% 71.3%

South Carolina $ 77,799 $ 37,734 206.2% 70.0%

Georgia $ 88,681 $ 45,580 194.6% 79.8%

Total Region $ 87,187 $ 47,526 183.5% 78.5%

U.S. $ 111,080 $ 47,815 232.3% 100.0%

---------- ($) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

Average Annual Wage

211
Figure 96. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region pipeline transportation average annual 

wages, 2001-2011. Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware and Maryland do not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

New Jersey Pennsylvania Virginia

North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Average Annual Wage ($)

212
8.5 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: INDUSTRY 

8.5.1 Trends

As of 2011, there were 585 operational natural gas processing plants in the U.S. (Oil & Gas 

Journal 2011). Operating capacity overall has increased since 2004, despite a reduction in the 

number of processing plants, where combined it is approximately 77 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per

day. The majority of processing plants are located in areas of the U.S. that produce natural gas: 

Alaska, states in the Rocky Mountain region, and states along the GOM (USDOE, EIA 2006b). 

As seen in Figure 97, the total number of gas processing plants operating in the U.S. has been 

declining over the past several years as companies merge, exchange assets, and close older, less 

efficient plants. From 1995 to 1999 the number of gas processing plants decreased overall, with 

a downward and near constant trend after that (USDOE, EIA 2006b). Despite the decrease in the 

number of processing plants, daily processing capacity has actually increased significantly, by 

about 49 percent. For example, Texas has seen an increase in average capacity per plant, but a 

decrease in the number of plants and overall processing capacity. The reason for this 

productivity improvement is the opening of newer plants while older plants which were less 

efficient have been shut down. Pennsylvania however, has seen an increase in both the number 

of processing plants and capacity. The past several years have shown a clear trend of movement 

towards efficiency and economies of scale in the processing industry. 

Figure 97. U.S. natural gas processing plants.

Note: The number of plants for 1992 through 1996 are estimated from the figure provided in True 2000.

Source: True 2000; and Oil & Gas Journal 1997 through 2011.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Number of Plants

213
There are 411 active underground storage facilities in the lower 48 states (USDOE, EIA 2012d). 

The aggregate peak capacity for the U.S. is 4,239 Bcf as of April 2012, which is a three percent 

increase over the previous year’s capacity (USDOE, EIA 2012e).

Injections into, and withdrawals out of, natural gas storage facilities is usually seasonal; storage 

is filled during low utilization periods (April through October) and withdrawn during high 

utilization periods (November through March). This results in a cyclical up and down pattern in 

the amount of stored gas. Figure 98 below shows these cycles since 2005. The total amount of 

gas in storage, though cyclical, has increased over time, while remaining fairly stable over the 

last three years. Note that the volume of base gas is fairly consistent because its quantity varies 

with changes in the amount of available storage facilities over time as opposed to being driven 

by seasonal variations.

Figure 98. Working gas in underground storage.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012b.

A number of new natural gas storage facilities have been certificated by FERC in the past few 

years. Table 37 provides a list of facilities certificated since 2010 along with their capacities. 

The majority of these recent projects are located in the Midwest and Gulf Coast regions, 

consistent with existing infrastructure.

One project of significant size located in a Mid-Atlantic impact state is the UGI Storage 

Company project certified in 2010. This project is three reservoirs totaling 14.7 Bcf of natural 

gas storage and pipeline wheeling services in the Marcellus Shale Region of Pennsylvania. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12

5-Year Range 5-Year Average Working Gas in Storage

214
Table 37. Underground natural gas storage facilities certificated since 2010.

Working Gas Year

Company/Project State Capacity Certificated

(Bcf)

Northeast

 Arlington Storage Company NY 1.4 2010

 UGI Storage Company PA 14.7 2010

Southeast

 MoBay Storage Hub, LLC AL 9.6 2010

 Mississippi Hub LLC MS 15.0 2010

 Petal Gas Storage, LLC MS 5.0 2010

South Central

 BCR Holdings, Inc. LA 15.0 2010

 Cadeville Gas Storage LLC LA 16.4 2010

 Perryville Gas Storage, LLC LA 15.0 2010

 Petrologistics Natural Gas Storage, LLC LA 5.3 2010

 Port Barre Investments, LLC d/b/a Bobcat Gas 

Storage LA 9.3 2010

 Petrologistics Natural Gas Storage, LLC LA 4.6 2010

 Tres Palacios Gas Storage, LLC TX 2.4 2010

 Tallulah Gas Storage, LLC LA 24.0 2011

 CenterPoint Energy- Mississippi River Trans. Corp. LA 1.2 2011

 Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC LA 32.0 2011

 Perryville Gas Storage, LLC LA 5.0 2011

 Golden Triangle Storage, Inc. TX 16.6 2012

Midwest

 Texas Gas Transmission, LLC KY, IN 4.1 2010

 Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline KS 1.4 2010

 Natural Gas Pipelines of America LLC IA 0.5 2010

 Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline KS 2.6 2010

 Northern Natural Gas Storage, LLC IA 2.0 2011

Western

 Colorado Interstate Gas Company CO 0.9 2010

 East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC CO 18.9 2010

 Magnum Gas Storage LLC UT 42.0 2011

 Ryckman Creek Resources, LLC WY 35.0 2011

 Leader One Energy CO 11.0 2011

 Tricor Ten Storage Hub, LLC CA 22.4 2011

Notes: Numbers are as of February 1, 2011.

Source: FERC 2012d.

215
The natural gas market has become more responsive in recent years, with the ability to quickly 

inject or withdraw from storage translates into more revenue. This, as mentioned previously, is 

one reason for the increase in the number of salt caverns in use since the 1980s. Table 38 depicts 

this trend and describes the average amount of withdrawals and injections from storage over the 

past 60 years. 

Table 38. History of average storage withdrawals and injections.

Average Storage Activity

Net

Period Withdrawals Injections Withdrawals

----------------- (Bcf) -----------------

1950 to 1959 384 507 (123)

1960 to 1969 1,001 1,122 (121)

1970 to 1979 1,759 2,009 (250)

1980 to 1989 2,170 2,156 14 

1990 to 1999 2,703 2,753 (50)

2000 to 2009 3,042 3,088 (46)

Source: USDOE, EIA 2011a.

216
8.5.2 Outlook

The natural gas processing and midstream industries are experiencing rapid technological 

improvements, and it is likely that the processing industry will continue to be more efficient in 

production (GPA 2011). Demand for processing services is related to production activity, and 

more processing facilities (particularly fractionation) will be needed soon given today’s market 

production activity in areas rich in oil, condensate and NGLs. Shale gas will likely play a large 

role in this demand for services as well (SEC 2011i).

As is evident in Chairman Kelliher’s statement about the issuance of Order 678, natural gas 

storage development is a top priority. FERC is taking action “to facilitate the development of 

[natural gas] storage (Magill 2008).” The development of new LNG import capacity has had the 

ripple effect of encouraging the construction of nearby storage projects, particularly in the Gulf 

Coast region (Magill 2008). Like production, natural gas imports will come year round, while 

demand is cyclical. Therefore, gas from LNG imports during the injection season when demand 

is low will need to be injected into storage. 

The newly-certificated projects listed in Table 37 are not the only new additions to underground 

gas storage; applications have been filed or will be filed with FERC for a number of pending or 

pre-filed projects. These projects are listed in Table 39 along with their status. These new 

projects total 102.2 Bcf in storage capacity; however, none are located in the Mid-Atlantic

region. 

The two largest recently announced natural gas storage projects are in Louisiana and Oklahoma. 

The Sawgrass Storage project in Louisiana will be a depleted natural gas reservoir conversion 

with a deliverability rate of 300 MMcf per day (Sawgrass Storage, LLC 2011). The Unigas 

Corporation project in Oklahoma is also a storage facility converted from a depleted natural gas 

reservoir. Though the Oklahoma facility will have the same working gas capacity as the 

Sawgrass project, the expected daily delivery is twice that of the Louisiana facility. This storage 

facility is part of a larger project to develop a system of pipelines and storage in Okfuskee county 

Oklahoma (Unigas 2007). 

217
Table 39. Upcoming major storage projects.

Working Gas

Project / Company State Capacity Status

(Bcf)

PetroLogistics Natural Gas Storage, LLC LA 10.7 Pending

Sawgrass Storage, LLC LA 30.0 Pending

UNIGAS Corporation OK 30.0 Planned

Tres Palacios Gas Storage, LLC (Extension Project) TX 9.5 Planned

Picacho Peak Gas Storage AZ 8.0 Planned

Wabash Gas Storage LLC IL 14.0 Pre-Filing

Note: Pending projects are those in which an application has been submitted, but a final FERC decision has not yet 

been reached; Planned projects are those that have been reported in the trade press, but an application has not yet 

been filed with FERC; and Pre-Filing projects are working with interested stakeholders to identify and resolve issues 

before an application is filed with FERC.

Source: FERC 2012b; FERC 2012c; and FERC 2012d.

8.5.3 Regulatory Changes

The main regulatory changes regarding processing are generally also related to the production 

process as a whole. For example, there has been a recent push of regulations regarding safety. 

In the Mid-Atlantic region, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection fined one 

oil and gas company for contaminating groundwater, and another to suspend drilling following a 

blowout. Production and processing continue regardless of these changes which have increased 

the costs associated with production of natural gas (USDOE, EIA 2011c).

State and federal regulation covers almost all natural gas storage facilities. FERC does not have 

jurisdiction over all underground storage facilities (Figure 99 and Figure 100), but those owned 

by an interstate pipeline or integrated into the interstate pipeline network and independently 

operated storage projects that offer storage services in interstate commerce are under FERC’s 

jurisdiction (FERC 2004).

218
Figure 99. FERC jurisdictional U.S. storage by type.

Source: FERC 2004.

Figure 100. Non-jurisdictional U.S. storage by type.

Source: FERC 2004.

219
Storage facility operators who are subject to FERC jurisdiction are generally required to operate 

on an open-access basis by providing available storage capacity to third-parties without 

discriminating. Before Order 636, the storage owner was usually an interstate pipeline company 

and had the ability to make decisions regarding capacity allocation. 

FERC issued Order 636 in 1992 to complete deregulation of the natural gas commodity market. 

This also marked the end of the majority of traditional pipeline merchant services. FERC 

focused specifically on pipeline’s access to storage in the making of Order 636, because they 

believed that ownership of storage by pipelines generated an unfair competitive advantage in that 

the transportation component of firm pipeline sales would be superior to service offered to 

unaffiliated shippers who may not have similar storage access (Cates 2001). 

Since Order 636 was enacted, competitive storage service pricing at market-based rates has 

become a noticeable trend. Under market-based rates, a storage developer has more freedom to 

better craft rates and terms of service to meet specific customer needs.

In June 2006, FERC issued Order 678, which made it significantly easier for storage providers to 

get market-based rate treatment for natural gas storage (Culotta 2006). This regulation was 

intended to encourage the development of new storage facilities. Further motivation behind the 

regulation was explained by FERC Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher: 

Since 1988, natural gas demand in the United States has risen 24 percent. Over 

the same period, gas storage capacity has increased only 1.4 percent. While 

construction of storage capacity has lagged behind the demand for natural gas we 

have seen record levels of price volatility. This suggests that current storage 

capacity is inadequate. Further, this year, what storage capacity exists may be full 

far earlier than in any previous year. According to some analysts, that raises the 

prospect that some domestic gas production may be shut-in.... My hope is that 

reform of market based pricing for gas storage and flexibility on cost based 

pricing will help expand gas storage capacity, which in turn will help reduce the 

price volatility that has characterized gas markets in recent years. There is 

significant potential for near term expansion of natural gas storage. I hope that 

potential is realized (FERC 2006b).

Order 678 also expanded FERC’s market-power analysis methodology to allow storage 

providers to include non-traditional storage alternatives, such as local production, availability of 

LNG, and pipeline capacity as competing sources in its market-power analyses (Culotta 2006). 

FERC chose this as one major focus because of the diversification occurring in the natural gas 

market since the 1990s. 

220
The Commission finds it is appropriate to adopt a more expansive definition of 

the relevant product market for storage to explicitly include close substitutes for 

gas storage services, including pipeline capacity and local production and LNG 

supplies. As explained below, this modification to our market-power analysis 

better reflects the competitive alternatives to storage and is supported by changes 

in the natural gas markets that have occurred since the mid-1990s. In today’s 

markets, these non-storage products may well serve as adequate substitutes for 

gas storage in appropriate circumstances (FERC 2006c).

The second major focus of Order 678 was to implement NGA Section 4(f), which gives FERC 

the authority to grant market-based rates to new storage facilities, even if they cannot 

demonstrate that they lack market power. Thus, as long as it is in the public interest and is 

necessary to encourage needed storage capacity development, new storage facilities will be able 

to charge market based rates (Culotta 2006). This provision applies to both greenfield storage 

and expansions of current facilities because of the useful potential capacity available at said

existing locations.

Since 2006, the only major regulations regarding natural gas storage was Order No. 757, which 

eliminated the semi-annual storage reporting requirements for Interstate and Intrastate Natural 

Gas Companies.

8.6 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: EAST COAST 

The Mid-Atlantic region does not play a significant role in gas processing, with the exception 

perhaps of Pennsylvania which only has 9 processing facilities (USDOE, EIA 2006b). This 

could change in the future however, depending upon production in the area resulting from shale 

gas. 

There are 54 underground natural gas storage sites in the Mid-Atlantic impact region; the 

majority are depleted gas reservoirs found in Pennsylvania. In all, these facilities provide ten 

percent of the working gas capacity of underground storage for the U.S. as a whole (USDOE, 

EIA 2012d). 

The Marcellus Shale is the likely site of the majority of near-term development in the MidAtlantic region because of its potential to bring very large quantities of natural gas to the market. 

It is estimated to be the second largest known natural gas play in the world, and the largest 

geographic gas-producing area in the U.S. (Caiman 2012). The Marcellus Shale extends across 

parts of West Virginia in the northern Appalachian Basin and into Pennsylvania and New York. 

Historically, coal has been the most depended-upon resource in this region. However, with the 

discovery of the Marcellus Shale in 2009, and the progressively optimistic outlook of its contents 

since, state and regional leaders are enthusiastic about the development of the region’s natural 

gas resources as the new fuel (particularly eastern Pennsylvania and northwestern West Virginia) 

(Caiman 2012).

221
Caiman Energy LLC has built a cryogenic plant in the Marcellus Shale in West Virginia as of 

2011, and has planned two additional plants based on drilling projections. These plans 

incorporate plans for additional large-diameter pipelines and gathering lines. Mark West Liberty 

Midstream & Resources LLC along with Sunoco Logistics LP are also working on a project, the 

Mariner West project, which is designed to deliver Marcellus shale-produced ethane to Ontario 

with pipelines beginning in Pennsylvania (Oil and Gas Journal 2011).

Earlier in this chapter major businesses involved in processing and storage were discussed. DCP 

Midstream, for example, has no processing plants in operation in the northeast. Instead, they 

operate wholesale propane terminals in this area to ease facilitation of delivery to natural gas 

customers in the area (DCP Midstream 2012). The underlying reason there are no major 

processing plants in this region is due to their location near producing areas. If shale gas is 

further used where it has been found then it will make sense to develop processing plants near 

that gas production (Oil and Gas Journal 2011).

8.7 FACTORS IMPACTING EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT

The need for gas processing along the Mid-Atlantic OCS will be a function of the degree to 

which wet and sour gas volumes are anticipated to be produced from offshore areas. Assuming 

gas processing is needed, which is likely given the increased use of shale gas, for example, many 

of the same factors influencing gas transportation will be important, including:

a. Location: gas processing facilities will be located as close to production as 

economically feasible;

b. Volumes: production volumes will influence the processing capacity; and

c. Commercial factors: the ability to store, transport, and market the natural gas liquids 

processed from the gas stream will be important in determining facility configuration.

The development of new storage infrastructure could help customers maintain service reliability 

while at the same time managing commodity price volatility (FERC 2004). A number of natural 

gas storage facilities have been identified in the Mid-Atlantic states; the majority of them are 

depleted reservoirs. Gas storage will likely be developed in this area in the future to support new 

production volumes. Some characteristics that will be important in future development include:

a. Location: gas storage will likely be located in proximity to new areas of production, 

but exact location decisions will be a function of both the ultimate location of 

production and the geological capabilities of creating underground storage.

b. Capacity: the size of a storage facility will be a function of the perceived volumes 

available to be stored from the Mid-Atlantic OCS and the commercial consideration 

of the developer. There could be trade-offs between a single large storage facility and 

a larger number of smaller facilities.

c. Deliverability: type of cavern and size of injection well will be driven by 

deliverability goals and the location and number of proximate pipelines and potential 

storage customers.

222
The majority of storage facilities currently located in the Mid-Atlantic region are depleted 

reservoirs. It is likely that reservoir-based storage will continue to be the more common facility 

used to support offshore production given its base-load nature. However, a salt-based facility is 

not unlikely and one has been developed recently in the Virginia area (i.e., Saltville).

223
9 LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS 

9.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY AND SERVICES PROVIDED

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is natural gas converted to liquid form by cooling it to a 

temperature of -256°F, the point at which gas becomes liquid. Once liquefied, natural gas can be 

transported from an area of abundance to an area where it is needed. After the LNG arrives at its 

destination, it is either stored as a liquid, or converted back to natural gas and delivered to endusers. Liquefying gas is not a new process or technology, it is simply a process by which the 

physical properties of natural gas, primarily methane, are altered in order to transport the 

commodity from markets where it is abundant to those more limited in supply (Dismukes 2008). 

The natural gas price controls and production shortages of the late 1960s led many U.S. energy 

planners to look at alternative sources of natural gas to meet domestic energy needs. The energy 

crisis of the 1970s provided the impetus for the first generation of LNG regasification facilities 

in the U.S. During this period, four LNG facilities were developed in the eastern U.S., as shown 

in Figure 101, for the express purpose of importing natural gas. Two of these LNG 

regasification facilities (Cove Point, Maryland and Elba Island, Georgia) are within the potential 

impact area for future East Coast oil and gas activity.

Figure 101. Initial U.S. LNG terminals and original capacity.

Source: FERC 2012.

Elba Island, Georgia

4 Bcf Storage Capacity

Baseload: 540 Bcf per day

Cove Point, Maryland

5 Bcf Storage Capacity

Baseload: 750 MMcf per day

Everett, Massachusetts

3.5 Bcf Storage Capacity

Baseload: 435 MMcf per day

Lake Charles, Louisiana

6.3 Bcf Storage Capacity

Baseload: 700 MMcf per day

224
Despite the growth of LNG regasification in the late 1970s, policies, markets, and the underlying 

economics of natural gas production changed relatively quickly and left these newly developed 

facilities economically stranded for almost 20 years. In fact, two of the facilities shut down 

(Cove Point and Elba Island), while the other two suffered low use (Everett and Lake Charles) 

(Tusiana and Shearer 2007). It was not until the early part of 2000 that the dynamics of natural 

gas supply and demand led to renewed interest in natural gas imports and re-activation of these 

legacy LNG regasification facilities. In 2002, FERC issued what became known as the 

Hackberry Decision granting preliminary approval for the construction of the first LNG 

regasification facility in over 20 years. The facility, originally developed by Dynegy, is located

in Hackberry, Louisiana (USDOE, EIA 2012f).

Forecast growth in natural gas usage, with limited domestic supply capabilities, was the factor 

motivating developers into the construction of new LNG regasification facilities. By the early to 

mid-2000s, the size of the U.S. natural gas market was anticipated to increase substantially. At 

the time, DOE forecasted that U.S. natural gas imports (primarily through LNG regasification) 

would need to grow by as much as 50 percent by 2030 (USDOE, EIA 2007b). The source of this 

imported natural gas was anticipated to come from the prolific conventional reserves around the 

world which were estimated to be around 6,200 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), at the time many of 

these second generation LNG regasification facilities were being developed (USDOE, EIA 

2007b).

The renaissance of LNG regasification, however, was short lived. High natural gas prices and 

supply disruptions created by the tropical activity during the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons 

along the Gulf coast, led to significant natural gas drilling activity, particularly exploratory 

drilling for unconventional natural gas resource found in various shale plays in Texas, Louisiana, 

and the mid-continent areas of the U.S. Natural gas from proven and unproven shale resources 

totals as much as 542 Tcf. Today, U.S. technically recoverable reserves are estimated to be 

2,214 Tcf (USDOE, EIA 2012g). 

This immediate change in the future natural gas outlook has changed U.S. domestic interest away 

from the importation of natural gas, and towards being an exporter to other places in the world. 

Both the legacy and recently-developed LNG regasification facilities, are proposing to change 

their configuration from one focused on imports, to one focused on exports. Considerable new 

investments will need to be made at the facilities proposing to export natural gas produced, 

primarily from unconventional shale resources. Any increase to U.S. natural gas supplies, either 

unconventional, or conventional (like production likely to arise from any future lease sales off 

the Atlantic seaboard), will increase the opportunities for U.S. natural gas exports.

225
9.2 TYPICAL FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

The LNG value chain, shown in Figure 102, is made up of the various stages of natural gas 

conversion, transportation, and delivery. The first part of the value chain is the exploration and 

production process, during which natural gas wells are drilled, reserves are developed, and 

production begins. Natural gas production is delivered, usually by pipeline, to a facility 

dedicated to the second part of the value chain: liquefaction. Liquefaction is a process that 

converts natural gas to a liquid through a super-cooling process. On-site insulated tanks are used 

as intermediate storage facilities before the gas is transported internationally. This intermediate 

storage helps to regulate the flow of natural gas since it cannot be transported in its liquid form in 

a continuous state.

Figure 102. LNG Schematic – production to end-user.

Source: Dismukes 2008.

The third part of the LNG value chain is transportation, usually through specialized ships that 

have their own insulated storage to keep the gas in its cooled and liquefied state until it is 

delivered to its destination market. Any gas that naturally regasifies during the transport process 

(known as boil-off) is used as transportation fuel during the trip. Tankers can typically hold as

much as 2.9 Bcf of natural gas (USDOE, EIA 2003). Today, tankers are being constructed to 

move as much as 3.7 Bcf of natural gas (Colton Company 2012b).

Exploration and Production: World 

natural gas reserves are large, 

estimated at 6,000 Tcf or 60 times the 

volume of natural gas used in 2004. 

Much of this gas is considered 

stranded because it is located in areas 

distant from consuming markets.

Liquefaction: Gas from the producing 

field comes to the liquefaction plant. 

Contaminants are removed and the gas is 

cooled to a temperature of -256°F. By 

liquefying the gas, its volume is reduced 

by a factor of 600.

Transportation: The typical LNG carrier can 

transport 125,000 to 138,000 cubic meters of LNG, 

which will provide 2.6 to 2.8 Bcf of natural gas. The 

typical carrier measures 900 feet in length, 140 feet 

in width and 36 feet in water draft.

Regasification and Delivery: LNG is pumped from the ship to 

insulated storage tanks at a specially designed terminal. It is 

then fed into a regasification plant to return the LNG to a 

gaseous state. The LNG is warmed by passing it through heated 

pipes and various terminal components. The vaporized gas is 

then regulated for pressure and enters the pipeline system to be 

transported to end-users.

ferc.gov

ch-iv.com

rigzone.com

statoil.com

beg.utexas.edu

226
A typical 2.9 Bcf tanker can hold enough natural gas to fuel: (1) a typical natural gas-fired steam 

electricity plant for one to two months, (2) serve over 50,000 typical residential customers for a 

year; or 5 moderately-sized industrial facilities (Dismukes 2008). As of February 2012, there 

were 361 LNG carriers worldwide and 58 under construction (Colton Company 2012b).

The last step in the LNG value chain is the regasification process, which gradually heats the 

imported LNG on a steady and controlled basis and then delivers that natural gas to local 

destination markets or intermediate storage for future delivery to end-users. On-site insulated 

tanks can also serve as intermediate storage facilities at the regasification location to regulate the 

potentially intermitted flow of imported LNG.

To date, all of the LNG facilities developed along the Eastern seaboard or the Gulf Coast are 

regasification facilities. The other three components of the LNG value chain (production, 

liquefaction, and transportation) originate in other locations depending upon the source of the 

natural gas. As will be discussed later, several facilities originally developed as regasification 

locations are now considering additional investments to give the facilities full liquefaction 

capabilities. These types of investments will allow facilities to import or export gas based upon 

U.S. and global market conditions.

Figure 103 presents a general schematic of the LNG regasification process. The process does not 

differ much between onshore and offshore receiving terminals used across the U.S. The first 

step of the regasification process consists of unloading LNG from ships into a series of 

intermediate storage tanks. The physical process of offloading the LNG cargo usually takes 

about 10 to 12 hours, but depends on the capacity of the regasification facility (Cheniere 2012). 

The typical capacity for an onshore facility ranges between 1 Bcf per day to 3 Bcf per day. For 

an offshore facility, the typical capacity ranges from 0.5 Bcf per day to 1.5 Bcf per day. 

Figure 103. Receiving terminal – LNG gas flow.

Source: Dismukes, et al. 2004.

227
The next step in the regasification process is to heat and vaporize the LNG. The primary method 

is to use heat treaters or vaporizers to warm the gas and convert it from a liquid to a gaseous 

state. From there, the gas is injected into large interstate or intrastate pipelines for delivery to 

markets (end-users) or intermediate storage facilities that are commonly used for domestic 

natural gas production.14 Any boil-off associated with the liquid natural gas in storage is 

captured, compressed, and then combined with gas from the vaporizers to feed into pipelines for 

delivery to end-users or intermediate storage facilities.

Two types of regasification facilities, offshore and onshore facilities, are currently in operation 

or development along the GOM. Onshore regasification facilities have existed for over 40 years. 

The primary difference between onshore and offshore facilities tends to be the capacity levels of 

the facilities. Onshore LNG regasification facilities are typically located at or near major ports, 

where LNG tankers arrive and unload their cargoes. Because of their port locations, these LNG 

regasification facilities are referred to as “marine” facilities. Homeland security concerns, 

however, have led to greater interest in locating these regasification facilities further offshore 

away from what are usually densely-populated areas around coastal and port areas. 

Offshore are newer types of facility that have had little historic application even though they tend 

to use many of the same types of technologies and equipment facilitated by their onshore 

counterparts. The following lists some of the various types of offshore LNG regasification 

facilities proposed over the past several years.

Source: True and Sen 2007.

A Gravity-Based Structure (GBS)

has two large concrete caissons that 

are towed to the site and lowered to 

rest on the sea floor. LNG carriers 

offload their cargoes into storage tanks 

on the GBS. The topside of the GBS 

houses vaporizers and other 

equipment to warm the LNG and 

return it to its gaseous state. The gas 

is then transported by pipeline to 

onshore processing facilities for 

delivery to end-users.

14 These intermediate storage facilities are typically underground natural gas storage facilities which are developed 

from various geological formations such as abandoned aquifers, oil and gas reserves, and salt caverns.

228

 
Source: Excelerate Energy 2014.

At a Buoy or Energy Bridge, 

specially designed regasification 

vessels dock with a subsurface buoy 

that is permanently anchored offshore. 

The LNG is returned to its gaseous 

state onboard the regasification vessel 

and delivered to the buoy. The natural 

gas is then sent through the buoy and 

flexible rise to a subsea pipeline. The 

offshore pipeline brings the gas 

onshore and delivers it to end-users.

Source: AMOG Consulting 2008.

Floating Storage and Regasification 

Units (FSRU) or Floating 

Production, Storage, and Offloading

(FPSOs) are floating regasification 

systems where the vaporizer, storage, 

and other equipment is housed on the 

vessel itself. The vessel tethers to a 

buoy-based system during the 

regasification process. The tether 

connects the ship and vaporization 

equipment to the subsea pipeline 

system. Regasified LNG (natural gas) 

is then delivered to end-user markets 

or intermediate storage. When the 

offload is complete, the ship can leave 

the system to get additional cargoes. 

The FSRU system would be 

permanently moored to a tether system 

and would serve as an intermediate 

station for offloading LNG. 

229
9.3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

LNG is not a new means for transporting natural gas from, within, and to the U.S. In addition to 

the large, recently-developed marine terminals developed for importing LNG, there are 

numerous small LNG liquefaction and regasification facilities throughout the U.S. These small 

facilities have been in operation for several decades and have been used by LDCs as a form of 

storage that can be tapped during peak winter use periods to shaving very high weather-related 

surges in natural gas demand usage (also known as a peak shaving resource). 

Most, LDC peak-shaving facilities have a regasification unit attached, but not all have a 

liquefaction unit. Facilities without regasification equipment are known as “satellite” facilities 

and must rely upon tank trucks to deliver LNG from other producing or transportation terminal 

areas. Figure 104 provides a map with the location of several different types of LNG facilities 

located throughout the country. As shown in the figure, about half of the LNG facilities in the 

U.S. are peak-shaving facilities, and well over half of the total LNG capacity around the country 

is associated with the larger marine terminals.

New facility investment and development over the past several years has focused almost 

exclusively on the large marine terminals located primarily along the GOM and the eastern 

seaboard, including the potential Mid-Atlantic impact area for future offshore oil and gas 

activities. Four of the original LNG import facilities, developed in the late 1970s and early 

1980s, are located along the Atlantic and GOM coasts. And three of the four legacy LNG 

regasification facilities are along the East Coast; two of which are located in the Mid-Atlantic

impact area (Cove Point, Maryland and Elba Island, Georgia). The last remaining legacy LNG 

asset is in Lake Charles, Louisiana. 

230
Figure 104. U.S. LNG facilities.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2008b; and FERC 2012e.

Figure 105 provides an expanded view of the currently active LNG facilities located in the U.S. 

All four legacy LNG facilities are still active, and each has had significant capacity expansions 

and upgrades over the past five years. An additional seven facilities are now also in operation. 

These facilities are included in the figure below. Approximately 12 Bcfd of capacity has been 

developed at these new greenfield LNG facilities. 

Last, there is also one formerly operational facility, the Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge that was 

retired in 2011. The Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge, developed in 2005, was the world’s first 

deepwater LNG port and was located 116 miles (187 kilometers) off the south coast of Louisiana 

in 298 feet (91 meters) of water with the capability to deliver approximately 3 Bcf of regasified 

LNG into the pipeline grid through the Sea Robin and Blue Water subsea systems at a rate of 

about 500 MMcf per day (Excelerate Energy 2008a). However, citing changing market 

conditions, Excelerate Energy announced it would retire this facility in April 2011 (Oil & Gas 

Journal 2011). In addition, Excelerate Energy noted that in 2008, Hurricane Ike had caused 

significant damage to both pipeline systems that serviced the Energy Bridge and that neither 

pipeline had been able to return to its prior level of service or provide adequate capacity. The 

Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge was not damaged by Hurricane Ike (Excelerate Energy 2011). 

LNG Peaking Facility (59)

Satellite LNG Peaking Facility (41)

LNG Import Terminal (12)

231
Figure 105. Current U.S. LNG import terminals.

Source: FERC 2012e.

Combined, these eleven active LNG regasification facilities account for 18.5 Bcfd of import 

capacity, which, if fully used, could supply up to 30 percent of total U.S. natural gas demand of 

61 Bcfd, on average. LNG facilities located along the GOM were originally developed to take 

advantage of the unique infrastructure. Large users, Atlantic-based LNG regasification facilities,

were developed almost exclusively as a needed source of supply for large residential and 

commercial end-use markets. 

Five of the eleven facilities are on the Atlantic coast. These facilities total 5.6 Bcfd, or 30 

percent of total U.S. LNG regasification capacity. Of these five facilities, only two are located 

within the potential impact area for future East Coast oil and gas activity. These two (Cove 

Point, Maryland and Elba Island, Georgia) total 3.4 Bcfd of import capacity, which represents 60 

percent of the capacity on the Atlantic coast; and 18 percent of total U.S. capacity.

The Cove Point, Maryland facility is located on the Chesapeake Bay just south of Baltimore. 

Built by Consolidated Natural Gas Company and Columbia Gas System in the 1970s, it received 

its first LNG shipment in 1978 (Downstream Today 2012). The facility had an original peak 

send out capacity of 750 MMcf per day and storage capacity of five Bcf. However, after just two 

short years of operation, in 1980 the terminal was shut down due to unfavorable market 

C

F

K

L

B

D

A J

G

I

H

Regasification Storage

Capacity Capacity

(Bcf per day) (Bcf)

A. Everett, MA 1.035 3.4

B. Cove Point, MD 1.80 14.6

C. Elba Island, GA 1.60 8.4

D. Lake Charles, LA 2.10 9.0

F. Northeast Gateway, Offshore MA 0.80 n.a.

G. Freeport, TX 1.50 4.5

H. Sabine, LA 4.00 10.1

I. Hackberry, LA 1.80 16.9

J. Neptune, Offshore MA 0.40 n.a.

K. Sabine Pass, TX 2.00 16.9

L. Pascagoula, MS 1.50 6.6

232
conditions (CEC 2012). In 1988 Consolidated sold its interest in Cove Point to Columbia who in 

turn sold the terminal to Williams in 2000. Dominion purchased Cove Point from Williams in 

2002 for $217 million (PR Newswire 2002). At the time, the facility was used for storage (five 

Bcf) and employed 25 people (PR Newswire 2002). Dominion reactivated the facility and 

received its first LNG shipment at Cove Point in the summer of 2003. In 2006 Dominion began 

construction on an expansion of the facility. The expansion was finished in 2009 and increased 

the facility’s output capacity from 1 Bcfd to 1.8 Bcfd. Storage capacity at the facility was also 

increased from 7.8 Bcf to 14.5 Bcf (Downstream Today 2012).

Today, Cove Point receives LNG from various locations including Trinidad, Nigeria, Norway, 

Venezuela, and Algeria. A single ship typically delivers 34 million gallons of LNG, which,

according to Dominion, is enough to supply more than 10 million homes (Dominion 2012). In 

addition to serving the natural gas markets of the Mid-Atlantic, the facility also serves a number 

of Dominion Energy’s natural gas-fired electric generation facilities including Possum Point, 

Remington, Ladysmith, and Fairless Works (Dominion 2012).

Figure 106. Cove Point LNG. Source: LNG World News 2012.

Elba Island is the other LNG import terminal located within the potential impact area. Located 

near Savannah, Georgia, the terminal was built by Southern LNG, a part of the El Paso 

Corporation, to supply natural gas to the growing population and industrial base of the 

southeastern U.S. The facility was brought online in 1978 with a peak send out capacity of 540 

MMcf per day and storage capacity of 4 Bcf (Sen 2001). And, like Cove Point, the Elba Island 

facility was shuttered in 1982. After almost 20 years, in 2001 market conditions had turned 

enough that the terminal was reopened (CEC 2012). And, in 2003, Southern received approval 

to expand Elba Island’s sendout capacity. This expansion increased the peak sendout capacity 

by 540 MMcfd and the base load send out capacity by 360 MMcfd and was expected to cost 

$157 million (SEC 2004). Southern announced plans for further expansion of the terminal in 

December 2005. The Elba Island Phase III expansion added storage capacity, which now totals 

233
11.5 Bcf (El Paso 2012). Send out capacity was also increased by 0.9 Bcfd and unloading docks 

at the terminal were upgraded to accommodate new and larger LNG ships (El Paso 2005). 

Figure 107. Elba Island LNG.

Source: El Paso 2012.

Though these facilities still represent a significant source of potential natural gas supply, recent 

development and production of natural gas in the various shale-producing regions of the U.S., 

has changed the importance and attractiveness of LNG imports. In fact, as will be discussed 

later, many large LNG regasification facilities are now seeking licenses to export what is 

becoming a glut of relatively affordable domestically-produced natural gas supplies for foreign 

market consumption.

234
9.4 SCOPE OF ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION TO REGIONAL ECONOMY

LNG regasification facilities tend to be very capital intensive and employ relatively few workers. 

Research has found that on average, approximately 33 workers are employed per Bcfd of 

regasification capacity. Given this limited number of employees, and the fact that employment 

data for LNG facilities tends to not be released due to data disclosure purposes, an estimate 

based on this average is provided in Table 40. 

Table 40. Estimated number of employees by LNG facility.

Estimated 

Facility Capacity Employees 

(Bcfd)

Everett, MA 1.035 34 

Cove Point, MD 1.80 59 

Elba Island, GA 1.60 52 

Lake Charles, LA 2.10 69 

Northeast Gateway, Offshore 

MA 0.80 n.a. 

Freeport, TX 1.50 49 

Sabine, LA 4.00 131 

Hackberry, LA 1.80 59 

Neptune, Offshore MA 0.40 n.a. 

Sabine Pass, TX 2.00 65 

Pascagoula, MS 1.50 49 

Source: FERC 2012e and Author’s estimate using various resources.

235
9.5 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: INDUSTRY 

9.5.1 Trends

Historically, LNG imports have represented a small share of overall U.S. natural gas supply. 

The overwhelming majority of U.S. gas supplies used to meet demand have come from 

producing fields in the lower 48 states. The limited amount of natural gas that has been imported 

into the country, outside of LNG, has been from pipeline imports from Canada. Figure 108

shows overall natural gas import trends over the past two decades. 

The left axis graphs total imports and pipeline imports (the difference between the two series 

being LNG). The right side of the figure shows the growing share of LNG as a percent of total 

consumption. LNG imports peaked in 2007 to a high of 17 percent of total imports and 3.3 

percent of total U.S. consumption. This represents an increase of over 4,000 percent since the 

low of 1995 and almost 240 percent since 2002. However, those shares have fallen considerably 

since the 2007 peak and today, LNG imports have returned to levels comparable to the early 

2000s before the era of the U.S. natural gas supply bubble.

Figure 108. U.S. natural gas imports as a percent of total consumption, 1990-2011.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012d.

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Total Imports Pipeline Imports LNG Imports

Total and Pipeline Imports

as a Percent of Total U.S. Consumption

LNG Imports

as a Percent of Total U.S. Consumption

236
Figure 109 shows historic LNG imports per facility since the mid-1990s. The left side of the 

graph measures total LNG imports (in Bcf) and the right side compares those imports to trends in 

Henry Hub natural gas prices (i.e., wholesale prices). The graph shows the increase in imports 

from all three terminals starting in 2001, when Elba Island became operational. Clearly, the 

import trend has increased considerably since natural gas prices began their climb in 2000, 

though it actually slowed during 2005 and 2006 due to European and Asian competition. Today, 

imports from all facilities have decreased considerably; although the East Coast facilities have 

suffered less than those along the GOM. Today, collectively, the Atlantic-based facilities have 

seen LNG imports decrease by as much as 40 percent from their 2007 high. 

Figure 109. LNG imports and natural gas price.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012d; and Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2012.

In addition to the expansions at existing facilities, there has been a plethora of new facility 

announcements made since approximately 2005. At one time, there were well over 40 proposed 

LNG regasification facilities for location throughout the U.S. including the eastern seaboard, the 

GOM, the Florida coast, and the Pacific coast. Many facilities were announced for both onshore 

and offshore development. However, to date, very few of the announced new, greenfield 

facilities have actually reached commercial operation with one of these actually being 

prematurely abandoned (Energy Bridge) in 2011. 

Figure 110 provides a map of the active LNG regasification facilities in the U.S. This map 

represents a change from other past LNG development representations since it includes several 

facilities that have requested the ability to export LNG in addition to their currently-authorized 

ability to import natural gas.

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

$10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Northeast Gateway Neptune Deepwater Port Sabine Pass, LA

Gulf Gateway, LA Cameron, LA Golden Pass, TX

Freeport, TX Lake Charles, LA Elba Island, GA

Cove Point, MD Everett, MA Natural Gas Price

LNG Imports (Bcf)

Natural Gas Price ($/Mcf)

237
Figure 110. Existing and proposed North American LNG terminals.

Source: FERC 2012e.

Currently, there are 15 applications, totaling 18.7 Bcfd, requesting the ability to export natural 

gas (USDOE, OFE 2012a). The Natural Gas Act of 1938 requires a potential exporter to attain 

authorization from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and 

Supply, Office of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities. Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act, sets 

forth the statutory criteria for review of the instant export application:

[N]o person shall export any natural gas from the United States to a foreign 

country or import any natural gas from a foreign country without first having 

secured an order of the [Secretary of Energy]15 authorizing it to do so. The 

[Secretary] shall issue such order upon application, unless after opportunity for 

hearing, [he] finds that the proposed exportation or importation will not be 

consistent with the public interest. The [Secretary] may by [the Secretary’s] order 

grant such application, in whole or part, with such modification and upon such 

terms and conditions as the [Secretary] may find necessary or appropriate. 

[USDOE, OFE 2011]

15The Secretary’s authority was established by the DOE Organization Act which transferred jurisdiction over 

imports and export authorizations from the Federal Power Commission.

A

E

Existing

J

F

Existing Regasification

A. Everett, MA: 1.035 Bcfd

B. Cove Point, MD: 1.8 Bcfd

C. Elba Island, GA: 1.6 Bcfd (+0.5 Expansion)

D. Lake Charles, LA: 2.1 Bcfd

E. Energy Bridge, GOM: 0.5 Bcfd

F. Northeast Gateway, Offshore MA: 0.8 Bcfd

G. Freeport, TX: 1.5 Bcfd (+2.5 Expansion)

H. Sabine, LA: 4.0 Bcfd

I. Hackberry, LA: 1.8 Bcfd (+0.85 Expansion)

J. Neptune, Offshore MA: 0.4 Bcfd

K. Sabine Pass, TX: 1.0 Bcfd (+ 1.0 Expansion)

L. Pascagoula, MS: 1.0 Bcfd

Approved Regasification

M. Corpus Christi, TX: 2.6 Bcfd

N. Port Lavaca, TX: 1.0 Bcfd

O. Baltimore, MD: 1.5 Bcfd

P. LI Sound, NY: 1.0 Bcfd

Q. GOM Main Pass McMoRan: 1.0 Bcfd

R. Offshore Florida, Port Dolphin: 1.2 Bcfd

S. GOM, Bienville LNG: 1.4 Bcfd K

Regasification

Under Construction

Approved

Under Construction

Liquefaction

Approved

Proposed

G

S

P

O

Q R

I

H

D

B

M

C

L

N

238

 
The Department of Energy’s review of export applications focuses on the domestic need for the 

natural gas to be exported and whether these exports pose a threat to domestic natural gas supply. 

The application must also be consistent with the Department of Energy’s policy of “promoting 

competition in the marketplace by allowing parties to negotiate their own trade arrangements.” 

(USDOE, OFE 2011) In addition, the National Environmental Policy Act requires the 

Department of Energy to consider any environmental effects of its proposed decision. 

Nine facilities have requested authorization to export domestically produced LNG to both free 

trade agreement (FTA) and non-free trade agreement (non-FTA) countries. The other six have 

requested only authorization for FTA exports. Currently, the DOE has approved one facility, 

Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass, for export to both FTA and non-FTA countries (USDOE, OFE 

2012a). Most facilities have received approval to export LNG to FTA countries, but they have 

not yet received approval to export to non-FTA countries. As of June 2012, two East Coast 

facilities, Cove Point, Maryland and Elba Island, Georgia, have applied for export authorization. 

Cheniere Energy’s existing Sabine Pass regasification facility will be retrofitted to be used for 

liquefaction and export (USDOE, OFE 2012b). Project capital costs for liquefaction plants range 

from $1.5 to $10 billion dollars, and the Cheniere project is estimated to cost $10 billion 

(USDOE, EIA 2012h; Wingfield and Carroll 2012). Cheniere expects that approximately 3,000 

jobs will be created or continued during the design, engineering, and construction of the project, 

and 150 to 250 full-time positions will be required to maintain and operate the export project 

(Sabine Pass 2010). In addition, Cheniere estimates that the project will support another 30,000 

to 50,000 new permanent jobs associated with natural gas upstream development (Sabine Pass 

2010).

Current regasification facilities interested in exporting natural gas will likely be required to make 

significant capital investments primarily in the form of liquefaction facilities to convert 

domestically produced natural gas, primarily from the shale formations developing throughout 

the U.S. The dramatic increase in natural gas reserves that has arisen over the past several years 

currently places the U.S. at 273 Tcf of proven resources (Figure 111). The Department of 

Energy’s, Energy Information Administration (EIA) most recent Annual Energy Outlook, puts 

the estimated unproved technically recoverable resource (TRR) of shale gas for the U.S. at 482 

Tcf. 

239
Figure 111. U.S. natural gas production and reserves.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012d.

9.6 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: EAST COAST 

Two of the current LNG regasification facilities (Cove Point, MD and Elba Island, GA) are 

located within the potential impact area for future East Coast oil and gas activity. Figure 112

shows the significant decline in LNG imports for these two facilities, and imports have fallen 

even further since 2010. 

Figure 112. LNG imports and natural gas price.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012d; and Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2012.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Reserves Production

U.S. Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Tcf)

U.S. Natural Gas Marketed Production (Tcf)

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

$10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Elba Island, GA Cove Point, MD Natural Gas Price

LNG Imports (Bcf)

Natural Gas Price ($/Mcf)

240
The decline in imports has been driven largely by the development of shale gas in the U.S. and 

demand for LNG and higher gas prices in other countries. Given this abundance of domestically 

produced, low-cost natural gas, at least two of the impact area facilities have applied for 

exportation authorization. 

The Cove Point LNG terminal will operate as a bi-directional facility, allowing Dominion 

Energy to export LNG when natural gas prices in the U.S. are low and to import LNG if and 

when market conditions change. Dominion Cove Point LNG (DCP) is proposing to export up to 

the equivalent of 1 Bcfd and anticipates its liquefaction facility to come online in 2016 (DCP 

2011). DCP also believes its facility is well positioned to export natural gas from the Marcellus 

Shale and the Utica Shale (DCP 2011). In addition, the facility is connected directly or indirectly 

to transmission lines that carry gas from the production regions of the Gulf Coast, and shale 

plays in the south (the Fayetteville in Arkansas, the Haynesville in Louisiana, and the Barnett in 

Texas). 

The DCP application for export states that it expects construction and operation of the 

liquefaction project to create and support between 2,700 and 3,400 jobs, and 1,000 additional 

indirect jobs throughout Maryland. 

9.7 FACTORS IMPACTING EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT

There are currently two LNG regasification facilities located along the Atlantic coast. Imports 

through both of these facilities have decreased significantly in recent years. Given the surge in 

estimated reserves and domestic natural gas supply, it is likely imports will remain low and these 

facilities under-used. 

Because of the development of shale and increased natural gas supply, a number of facilities 

have applied to the Department of Energy for authorization to export natural gas. 

It is highly unlikely, given expected overall market conditions over the next several years, that 

any U.S. or East Coast LNG import facility would expand its current capacity.

241
10 REFINERIES

10.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY AND SERVICES PROVIDED

The petroleum refining industry is dedicated to the processing of crude oil and other crude oilbased feedstocks into usable fuels and products. Refineries have been operating as long as crude 

oil has been produced, because crude oil has few uses in its raw and unprocessed form. The first 

refinery in the U.S. began production in 1861 near Titusville, Pennsylvania, adjacent to the site 

where Edwin Drake and W.A. Smith had discovered the first producing oil field. The woodfired still worked on a batch method that took three days and produced only kerosene (Wisdom, 

Peer and Bonnifay 1998; and Uhl 1984).

The processing of crude oil into useable petroleum products requires a variety of physical and 

chemical changes that have been developed over the past hundred years at specialized 

manufacturing units known as petroleum refineries. Early refineries were most interested in 

producing kerosene from the crude, a process that simply involved heating or “boiling” the 

mixture to various temperatures to extract one product, kerosene, for clean burning, uniformquality fuel for lighting purposes. Today, the refining process produces a large number of end 

products through a range of processes including heating, distilling, and catalytic conversions. In 

today’s refineries, a 42 U.S. gallon barrel of crude oil provides slightly over 44 gallons of 

different petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil, jet fuel, and liquefied 

petroleum gas.

Figure 113. Products made from a barrel of crude oil (gallons).

Source: Author’s construction from information in USDOE, EIA 2012i.

Gasoline: 19 gallons; 42%

Liquefied Petroleum

Gas (LPG): 2 gallons; 4% 

Heavy Fuel Oil: 2 gallons; 4%

Other Products: 7 gallons; 16%

Jet Fuel: 4 gallons; 9%

Diesel Fuel & Heating Oil: 10 gallons; 25%

242
10.2 TYPICAL FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

Differences in crude oil composition and consistency have led to the development of different 

types of refineries. Crude oil input quality can be an important factor in defining the scope of a 

refinery’s operations and refining processes. Crude oil is not uniform or homogeneous in quality 

and can vary in gravity and sulfur content. Each characteristic will determine the degree of 

additional processing, treatment, capital investment, and profitability needed to develop a given 

slate of refined product yields.

The gravity of any given crude oil stream is an important qualitative characteristic. A crude oil 

stream can be either heavy (low gravity) or light (high gravity), or somewhere in between. A 

heavy crude oil input, with relatively low gravity, is typically thicker, does not flow well, and is 

usually associated with a higher carbon to hydrogen ratio than a crude stream that is considered 

light. Heavier crude oils, typically produced and imported from such places as Venezuela and 

Saudi Arabia, are also known to contain a high level of carbon residues, asphaltenes, sulfur, 

nitrogen, and heavy metals (Lloyd Minster 2011).

Sulfur content is a second and important qualitative difference in crude oil that can impact 

refining configurations. Generally, sweet crudes contain less than 0.5 percent sulfur by weight 

while high sulfur, or sour crudes, typically have a sulfur content of 0.5 percent or higher. High 

sulfur crudes are more corrosive than their “sweeter” counterparts making them more expensive 

to handle and process. Over the years, various regions’ crude oil production has been named by 

its qualitative difference, such as Heavy Louisiana Sweet, West Texas Intermediate, and 

Wyoming Sour.

Unique product blends and regulatory requirements, such as those restricting the sulfur content 

of various types of fuels, can also impact the configuration of a modern refinery. The geographic 

needs for various refined products, the availability of inputs, export and distribution capabilities, 

input cost characteristics and historic evolution can also be important determinants that have led 

to the development of certain refineries in various locations of the country. Today, these factors 

tend to be more important in decisions associated with maintaining or expanding existing 

facilities, than it does in developing new ones since no new modern greenfield refinery has been 

developed since the Garyville, Louisiana refinery started operations in 1976 (Marathon 

Petroleum 2011).

While each individual refinery can differ, some common operations occur at most facilities. For 

instance, the initial phase of most refining processes begins with the heat separation of the crude 

oil components through a series of distillation towers. This distillation process is a modern 

variation of the boiling processes used by refineries over one hundred years ago. Today’s 

modern distillation towers, however, are much more complicated and use individually calibrated 

temperatures and pressures to separate various unique types of fuels from crude oil inputs. 

243
Crude oil entering the distillation tower is separated into various vapor and liquid mediums using 

heat generated from furnaces that can reach temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit. The 

vaporized portion of the crude oil input rises through the tower condensing into different 

products as the temperature falls. The heavier, liquid portion of the crude remains at the bottom 

of the distillation tower (ExxonMobil 2006). 

Figure 114. Distillation process and yield schematic.

Source: Author’s construct from information in ExxonMobil 2006.

A schematic of how distillation towers separate products from gases at the top, to very heavy, 

viscous liquids at the bottom, is presented in Figure 114. The thick liquids remaining at the 

bottom of the distillation tower are considered unfinished and usually require further processing 

(ExxonMobil 2006). Yield refers to the relative percentage of each type of separated component, 

or product streams, produced through the primary distillation process. This percentage will vary 

depending on the composition of the crude being processed. 

400 C

<30 C

Barrel of 

Crude Oil

Light Ends

Naptha

Kerosene

Diesel/Distillate

Medium Gas/Oil

Heavy Gas/Oil

Vacuum Tower 

Bottoms

4

8

8

16

44

44

80

Carbon 

Atmos per 

Molecule

Cracking

Units

Lubes 

Processing

Alkylation

Unit

Reformer

Hydrotreating

Propane, Butane, LPG

Gasoline

Jet Fuel

Diesel Fuel

LPG, Gasoline

Jet& Diesel Fuel

Industrial Fuel/Lubricants

Asphalt Base

End Products

Distillation Tower

Each type of 

hydrocarbon 

changes from 

liquid to vapor 

within a specific 

temperature 

range. 

In general, the 

more carbons in a 

molecule, the 

higher its boiling 

point. This allows 

for separation 

within the 

distilling process.

244
The heaviest hydrocarbons, having the highest boiling points, remain at the bottom of the 

distillation tower and can be further processed through an additional distillation process that 

takes place under vacuum. The resulting materials from vacuum distillation can be further 

processed into lubricating oils and other products through another process known as solvent 

extraction. Various types of solvents can also be used to separate impurities, non-lubricating 

types of oils, or various waxes from the various hydrocarbon mixes produces from the primary 

distillation process (AIP 2011).

An important and secondary form of refining is commonly referred to as the cracking process 

during which intermediate hydrocarbon blends, commonly from the distillation process, are 

exposed to various catalysts under controlled heat and pressure to produce various types of 

refined products. The most common refined products that arise from the cracking process 

include gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), unsaturated olefin compounds, cracked gas oils, 

cycle oil, light gases, and solid coke. The cracking process can also lead to the separation of a 

class of liquid hydrocarbons known as naphthenes, often used as solvents and diluents, olefins 

(propylene and butylene), and parrafins (AIP 2011). With additional treatment (reformation),

these intermediate refined products can be important building blocks for a wide range of 

petrochemical products, including:

• Ammonia • Guitar strings • Ping-Pong paddles

• Antiseptics • Heart valves • Plastic beverage containers

• Bubble gum • Ice chests • Roller-skate wheels

• Crayons • Insect repellant • Sneakers

• Denture adhesive • Life preservers • Synthetic fibers

• Eyeglass frames • Liquid detergent • Telephones

• Fertilizer • Mascara • Tobacco pouches

• Floor polish • Paint • Volleyballs

Reforming is another important function that can occur during the refining process. The 

reformation process converts naphthenes into products that can be used as petrochemical inputs 

or components of high-octane gasoline. An additional refining process, known as isomerisation, 

separates paraffins or single-chained hydrocarbons, into isoparrafins to create a product more 

readily processed into other outputs and to be more effective in fuel blends (Earth Science 

Australia 2011). Alkylation is a refining function that produces isoparrafins from the bonding of 

olefins and isobutene (Fahim, et al. 2010). And, a process known as polymerization creates large 

hydrocarbon molecules from smaller, lighter, chains under exposure to heat, pressure, and 

catalysts to yield a high-octane gasoline component polymer gasoline (AIP 2011). 

The varied transformations required at modern refineries depend on the quality and composition 

of the crude oil being processed and many of the additional supporting facilities that may be 

integrated at the refining location: for instance, the collocation of a downstream petrochemical 

plant that may take many of the refineries’ byproducts as inputs for chemical manufacturing. 

The types of transformation that occur at a refinery are important in defining the rate of products 

that can be generated from the facility. The scope of refining processes can also be important 

determinants of the overall importance and profitability of a particular refinery because more 

transformation capabilities will tend to result in more value-added refined products.

245
10.3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

The coastal region of the Atlantic is included in PADD District 1 as defined by the U.S. 

Department of Energy.

16 PADD District 1 is home to some 14 refineries with approximately 1.6 

million barrels per day (MMBbls/d) of refining capacity. PADD District 1 is a relatively evenlybalanced refining region in that it accounts for nine percent of the total number of refineries and 

nine percent of total U.S. refining capacity. These relative shares differ from the Gulf Coast

(PADD 3), which accounts for only 38 percent of the total refineries in the U.S., but close to 50 

percent of total U.S. refining capacity. PADD 1 also differs from the western U.S. (PADD 5),

which accounts for 23 percent of all U.S. refineries but only 18 percent of total U.S. refining 

capacity.

Figure 115. Number and capacity of U.S. refineries, as of January 1, 2011. Source: USDOE, EIA 2012i.

Atlantic region refineries (PADD 1) are also relatively close to the average size for a typical U.S. 

refinery. The U.S. currently has over 17.7 MMBbls/d of total refining capacity located at over 

148 refineries, for an average refinery size of almost 120 thousand barrels per day (MBbls) of 

capacity. PADD 1 refineries have an average size of about 116 MBbls/d of capacity, smaller 

than a large modern Gulf Coast facility of over 154 MBbls/d of capacity, but larger than a 

refinery in the western U.S. that averages about 92 MBbls/d of capacity.

16 The five regions referred to as “Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts” or “PADDs” were created during 

World War II to facilitate oil allocation for defense purposes. Though the original PADDs were abolished in 1946, 

they were re-activated during the Korean War and taken over by the U.S. Department of the Interior (Oil and Gas 

Division) and then later by the U.S. Department of Energy.

PADD 1:

14 refineries,

1.6 MMBbls/d

9% of U.S. Total

PADD 3:

56 refineries,

8.6 MMBbls/d

49% of U.S. Total

PADD 5:

34 refineries,

3.1 MMBbls/d

18% of U.S. Total

PADD 2:

27 refineries,

3.7 MMBbls/d

21% of U.S. Total

PADD 4:

17 refineries,

0.6 MMBbls/d

3% of U.S. Total

Total U.S. Refining Capacity = 17.74 MMBbls/d

246

 
East Coast refineries have followed development and capacity trends similar to the overall U.S. 

industry. For instance, the number of refineries along the eastern seaboard has decreased from a 

high of 27 in 1982 to 14 in 2011. However, overall operable refining capacity for the region has 

remained relatively constant, at about 1.6 MMBbls/d, since the late 1990s.

Figure 116. PADD 1 refineries.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012i.

U.S. refineries in general and refineries along the eastern seaboard, have preserved total 

operating capacity, and met U.S. refined product needs through a trend often referred to in the 

industry as “capacity creep.” This arises through the concentration and expansion of refining 

capacity at existing facilities rather than the investment in new greenfield sites. Figure 117

shows the capacity creep and increased average refinery size for both refineries along the eastern 

seaboard and the U.S. average. In 1982, the year with largest number of refineries in both the 

East Coast and the U.S., an average-sized refinery was 68 MBbls/d (East Coast) and 59 MBbls/d 

(U.S.). Today, average refinery capacity is 116 MBbls/d (East Coast) and 120 MBbls/d (U.S.). 

In the U.S. average refinery capacity has increased 102 percent. Thus, capacity creep has led to 

the addition of close to 60 new refineries over the past three decades, even though the number for 

East Coast refineries is not as dramatic since most of these expansions have occurred in either 

the Gulf Coast or the Midwestern U.S. (PADD 2).

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

Number of Refineries Capacity

Number of Refineries

Operable Capacity (MMBbl/d)

247
Figure 117. Historic trends in average operable capacity (PADD 1 v. U.S.).

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012i.

The ownership characteristics of East Coast refineries differ from other regions of the U.S. 

Generally, major oil companies, typically comprised of the super-majors that have integrated oil 

and gas operations from production to distribution, control a large majority of total U.S. refining 

capacity. In the U.S., major oil companies own approximately 94 percent of all refining capacity 

while independent oil refining companies own approximately six percent. This differs along the 

broader East Coast region (PADD 1) where majors control a lower-than-average 85 percent of all 

operable capacity and independents control as much as 15 percent of the region’s refining 

capacity; almost three times the U.S. average independent ownership share (see Figure 118).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

PADD 1 U.S.

Average Capacity (MBbl/d)

248
Figure 118. Average ownership shares.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012j.

There are 11 refineries located in the Atlantic coast region which are listed, along with their 

operating capacities, in Table 41.

17 The geographic location of each of these refineries has been 

provided on a map in Figure 119. Nine of these refineries are operating, with a total capacity of 

1.4 million barrels per calendar day; while the other two are currently “idle.” Of the nine 

refineries that are currently operating, four are located in New Jersey, one in Delaware, three in 

Pennsylvania and one in Georgia. One of the idle facilities is in New Jersey, and one is in 

Virginia. 

17 There are a total of 14 refineries in the PADD 1 district; one of these refineries is in West Virginia and two are in 

northwest Pennsylvania, and are not in the Atlantic coastal region. 

PADD 1 U.S.

Independent

15.3%

Majors

84.7%

Independent

5.9%

Majors

94.1%

249

 
Table 41. Mid-Atlantic impact region refineries.

Bbls per Bbls per

Calendar Day Stream day

Operating Idle Operating Idle

New Jersey

1 Chevron USA Inc. (Perth Amboy) - 

 

80,000 - 

 

83,000 

2 ConocoPhillips Co (Linden) 238,000 - 250,000 - 

3 Hess Corporation (Port Reading) 65,000 - 70,000 - 

4

Nustar Asphalt Refining LLC 

(Paulsboro) 70,000 - 75,000 - 

5 Paulsboro Refining Co LLC 160,000 - 166,000 - 

Delaware

6

Delaware City Refining Co LLC 

(Delaware City) 182,200 - 190,200 - 

Pennsylvania

7 ConocoPhillips Co (Trainer) 185,000 - 190,000 - 

8 Sunoco Inc. (Marcus Hook) 178,000 - 194,000 - 

9 Sunoco Inc. R&M (Philadelphia) 335,000 - 355,000 - 

Virginia

10 Western Refining Yorktown Inc.

(Yorktown) - 66,300 - 70,800 

Georgia

11 Nustar Asphalt Refining LLC 

(Savannah) 28,000 - 32,000 - 

Total Region 1,441,200 146,300 1,522,200 153,800 

Note: Data is as of January 2011.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012i; and Reuters 2011a.

250
Figure 119. Mid-Atlantic impact region refineries. Source: Author’s construction; and USDOE, EIA 2012i.

The following summarizes the characteristics of each operating refinery. 

• ConocoPhilips’ Linden, New Jersey facility was built by John D. Rockefeller in 1908 

and has a total capacity of 238,000 barrels per day (ConocoPhillips 2011a; and 

USDOE, EIA 2012j). The facility reports 830 employees, is the second largest 

refinery on the East Coast, and fifteenth largest in the U.S. (Caroom 2010; and 

ConocoPhillips 2011a). The refinery has a railway container terminal and a heliport. 

It processes mainly light, low-sulfur crude from the North Sea, Canada, and West 

Africa and produces mostly transportation fuels, including gasoline, diesel fuel, and 

jet fuel. Other products include petrochemical feedstocks, heating oil, and residual 

fuel oil. In addition, an onsite petrochemical plant produces lubricants and additives;

a polypropylene plant produces over 775 million pounds per year of polypropylene. 

Products are delivered to customers on the East Coast by pipeline transport, barges, 

railcars and tank trucks. This facility can process up to 238,000 barrels per day with 

naphtha or reformer feed and diesel fuel the main outputs at 97,000 and 108,000 

barrels per day respectively (USDOE, EIA 2012i).

251
• Hess Corporation’s Port Reading, New Jersey facility is a fluid catalytic cracking 

(FCC) unit located just ten miles (16 kilometers) from New York City. The facility 

has a total capacity of 70,000 barrels per day and primarily produces gasoline and 

heating oil which is distributed to local Hess retail outlets and industrial and 

residential customers in the area (Hess 2009; and SEC 2010c). 

• The Paulsboro, New Jersey refinery is owned by PBF Energy has a total capacity of 

160,000 barrels per day and approximately 540 employees (Valero 2010; and Valero 

2009a). It is located on 950 acres in southern New Jersey on the Delaware River, 15 

miles (24 kilometers) south of Philadelphia. The refinery receives feedstocks from its 

deepwater access on the Delaware River, including sour crudes such as Arab Light, 

Arab Heavy, Hamaca, Urals, and Kirkuk (Valero 2009a). It produces gasoline, middistillate products, petroleum coke, liquefied petroleum gases, fuel oil, and molten 

sulfur. In addition, it produces a variety of lube oil base stocks that are sold to an 

adjacent Exxon Mobil finished-lube blending and packaging plant and to other 

purchasers. Much of the jet fuel production supplies Philadelphia International 

Airport through a pipeline. Products from the Paulsboro refinery are moved out by

docks, on-site truck racks, and through various pipeline connections, including a spur 

of the Colonial pipeline (Valero 2009a).

• The Nustar refinery also in Paulsboro, New Jersey has a total operating capacity of 

70,000 barrels per day (USDOE, EIA 2012j). The facility is located on the Delaware 

River and has two petroleum refining units, a liquid storage terminal for petroleum 

and chemical products, three marine docks, a polymer-modified asphalt production 

facility and a testing laboratory. The refinery produces and supplies various grades of 

asphalt that are delivered to 12 different asphalt terminals in the northeastern U.S. by

ship, barge, railcar, and tanker. Its location on the river allows for access to receipts 

and shipments (SEC 2010d). 

• PBF Energy’s refinery in Delaware City, Delaware has a total operating capacity of 

182,200 barrels per day (USDOE, EIA 2012j). The facility is located on 5,000 acres 

on the Delaware River, is accessible by pipeline, barge, and truck-rack facilities and 

has approximately 570 employees (Valero 2009b). It refines primarily sour crude 

into conventional and reformulated gasoline, diesel, low-sulfur diesel, and heating oil. 

It also has the ability to produce ultra-low-sulfur diesel. The plant has an 1,800 tons 

per day petroleum coke gasification unit and a 160 MW cogeneration plant. PBF 

Energy purchased the facility from Valero Energy in 2010. Valero Energy had idled 

the facility in November 2009 as the company was losing an estimated $1 million per 

day due to reduced gasoline demand (Reuters 2011b). PBF Energy restarted the 

facility in May 2011 (Reuters 2011a). 

252
• The ConocoPhilips refinery in Trainer, Pennsylvania has a total capacity of 185,000 

barrels per day (USDOE, EIA 2012j). It is located on Delaware River, 10 miles (16 

kilometers) southwest of Philadelphia International Airport. The refinery processes 

mainly light, low sulfur crude oil that it receives from West Africa, Canada, and the 

North Sea. Its produces mostly transportation fuels such as gasoline, diesel and jet 

fuel, but also heating oil, residual fuel oil and liquefied petroleum gas. Products from 

this facility are primarily distributed to customers in Pennsylvania, New York, and 

New Jersey by pipeline, barge, railcar and truck. Heating oil is distributed by tanker

(ConocoPhillips 2011b).

• Sunoco’s Marcus Hook refinery in Pennsylvania is strategically integrated with its 

Marcus Hook polymers plant (Sunoco 2011a). The refinery is located on the 

Delaware River, 20 miles (32 kilometers) south of Philadelphia and has a total 

capacity of 178,000 barrels per day. Both of Sunoco’s Marcus Hook and Philadelphia 

refineries process crude oil imported from foreign sources delivered by ocean-going 

tanker (SEC 2010e). 

• Sunoco’s Philadelphia refinery in Pennsylvania has a total capacity of 335,000 barrels 

per day and over 900 employees (USDOE, EIA 2012j; and Sunoco 2011b). The 

facility is located on the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia and produces gasoline, 

aviation fuel, kerosene, heating oil, residual fuel, propane, and butane. The facility 

also produces petrochemical feedstocks that are shipped to Sunoco Chemicals’ 

Frankford plant (Pennsylvania) to make phenol, which is used in the manufacture of 

plastics and synthetics (Sunoco 2011b). Other products are transported by pipeline to 

markets in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. 

• The Nustar refinery in Savannah, Georgia has a total capacity of 28,000 barrels per 

day (USDOE, EIA 2012j). It is located adjacent to the Savannah River and includes

two atmospheric towers, a tank farm, a marine dock, a polymer modified asphalt 

production facility, a testing laboratory and processing areas (SEC 2010d). The 

refinery produces and supplies various grades of asphalt that are delivered to nine 

different asphalt terminals in the southeastern U.S. by truck, rail, and marine vessel. 

Its location on the river allows for access to receipts and shipments (SEC 2010d). 

Other Refining Capacity on the East Coast (Idled or Low Volume Operations)

• Chevron’s Perth Amboy facility in New Jersey is located near the New York-New 

Jersey border. Chevron purchased the refinery from Barber Asphalt Corporation in 

1946. In 1983, the company discontinued gasoline and heating oil production as 

falling demand, excess refining capacity and inefficient refining processes made the 

facility uneconomic (Oil & Gas Journal 1983). Chevron continued to run its asphalt 

production and terminaling operations until 2008 when it was idled indefinitely (SEC 

2010f). Today the facility is operated as a terminal (SEC 2010f). 

253
• Western Refining’s Yorktown refinery is located on 570 acres on the York River with 

access to the Chesapeake Bay and has its own deep-water port access. Before it was 

idled in 2010, the facility had a capacity of 70,800 barrels per day and most of the 

facility’s feedstocks came from Canada, the North Sea, South America, and the Far 

East (Burkhardt 2010; and Western Refining 2009). Refining operations were 

temporarily suspended in September 2010 due to the “challenging refining margin 

environment experienced on the East Coast, the continued low price differentials 

between light and heavy crudes, and poor coking economics.” (Burkhardt 2010, SEC 

2010g). Western Refining still operates the products terminal and supplies finished 

projects to the East Coast region. 

The nine active refineries on the Atlantic coast have a total capacity of almost 1.4 MMBbls per 

day and are equipped to process light, sweet crude and certain grades of heavier, sour crude oil. 

They also each have the capability to manufacture a wide range of refined products. Currently, 

none of these refineries are connected to a major interstate crude oil pipeline and receive most of 

the crude oil they process from non-domestic sources by tanker. Crude oil refined at these 

facilities is primarily light, sweet crude originating from the North Sea, Canada, and West Africa 

with fewer imports from the Middle and Far East. The source of crude, and the products 

imported into each facility along the East Coast impact area, is provided in Table 42. The 

private companies involved in the oil spill response industry are extremely mobile; however, in 

that they may be stationed in one location, but offer their services across the entire U.S. or even 

internationally. For example, the Coast Guard lists the Marine Spill Response Corporation 

(MSRC) as an OSRO with ocean response capabilities in COTP zone five. MSRC is 

headquartered in Virginia, but provides oil spill response services throughout all Coast Guard 

COTP zones. Environmental Expert Online provides a list of oil spill response companies, many 

of which are located outside of the U.S., but others are on the East and West Coast and in the 

GOM region.

The Coast Guard also provides a listing of all classified OSPROs within their Response Resource 

Inventory System (USCG 2012b). This listing illustrates a similar pattern of widespread 

locations for OSPROs, with some concentration in the GOM and along the coasts.

Table 12 provides a list of these companies with physical locations in the Mid-Atlantic impact 

region. 

254
Table 42. Imported refinery inputs, 2010.

Product Imported Country of Origin

New Jersey

ConocoPhillips Co (Linden)

Crude Oil Canada

Motor Gas Blending Components Algeria, Canada, Georgia, Norway, UK

Reformulated Blendstock for Oxygenate 

Blending (RBOB)

Canada, Virgin Islands, UK

Hess Corporation (Port Reading)

Gasoline Treated as Blendstock (GTAB) India, Netherlands, Virgin Islands

Motor Gas Blending Components Algeria, Estonia, France, India, Libya, Nigeria, 

Norway, UK, Venezuela

Unfinished Oils, Heavy Gas Oils Belgium, Estonia, Israel, Italy, UK, Virgin 

islands

Nustar Asphalt Refining LLC (Paulsboro)

Crude Oil Mexico, Venezuela

Paulsboro Refining Co LLC

Crude Oil Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, 

Russia, Saudi Arabia, 

Motor Gas Blending Components France, Venezuela

Unfinished Oils, Heavy Gas Oils Belgium, Syria, Virgin Islands

Delaware

Delaware City Refining Co LLC (Delaware City)

Motor Gas Blending Components Canada

Pennsylvania

ConocoPhillips Co (Trainer)

Crude Oil Algeria, Angola, Canada, Columbia, Congo, 

Gabon, Libya, Nigeria, Norway

Sunoco Inc. (Marcus Hook)

Crude Oil Angola, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Canada, 

Columbia, Congo, Gabon, Libya, Nigeria, 

Norway

Sunoco Inc. R&M (Philadelphia)

Crude Oil Angola, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Cameroon, 

Canada, Columbia, Congo, Gabon, Libya, 

Nigeria, Norway

Unfinished Oils, Naphthas & Lighter Cote D'Ivoire, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, 

Trinidad & Tobago, Venezuela

Georgia

Nustar Asphalt Refining LLC (Savannah)

Crude Oil Venezuela

Unfinished Oils, Heavy Gas Oils Canada, Taiwan

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012i.

255
10.4 SCOPE OF ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION TO REGIONAL ECONOMY

The refining sector for the impact area is relatively small in comparison to (a) each state’s overall 

GDP and (b) the economic contribution made by the refining sector overall to the U.S. GDP. 

Delaware’s refining GDP makes the largest contribution to its state’s overall economy of any in 

the Mid-Atlantic impact area at 0.84 percent. This is an interesting outcome given the relatively

small share of total regional refining capacity (12.6 percent) located in Delaware. By 

comparison, Pennsylvania refineries have the largest refinery operating capacity in region, but 

only contribute four-tenths of one percent to the state’s overall GDP.

The contributions each state makes to total U.S. refining GDP, however, run more along the lines 

expected given each state’s total refining capacity. New Jersey, with the second-largest regional 

refining share (37 percent), makes the second-largest contribution to the regional refining sector 

GDP of 34 percent; and total U.S. refining sector GDP of 1.2 percent. However, the state 

accounts for only three percent of total U.S. refining capacity. Similarly, Delaware, which 

makes a larger relative contribution to its own economy, makes a relatively smaller contribution 

to the economic output of the overall U.S. refining sector.

Table 43. Regional and national GDP contribution, refinery sector, 2010.

Source: USDOC, BEA 2012.

Refining

GDP as a Refining GDP

Total Percent of Total as a Percent of

Refining State State GDP U.S. Refining GDP

New Jersey $ 2,137.0 $ 480,446 0.445% 1.244%

Delaware $ 537.0 $ 64,010 0.839% 0.313%

Maryland n.a. $ 293,349 n.a. n.a.

Pennsylvania $ 2,352.0 $ 558,918 0.421% 1.369%

Virginia $ 605.0 $ 419,365 0.144% 0.352%

North Carolina n.a. $ 424,562 n.a. n.a.

South Carolina n.a. $ 160,374 n.a. n.a.

Georgia $ 590.0 $ 403,230 0.146% 0.343%

Total Region $ 6,221 $ 2,804,254 0.222% 3.621%

U.S. $ 171,795 $ 14,416,601 1.192% 100.0%

GDP

(millions of current $) ----------------- (%) -----------------

256
Figure 120 highlights the relative share of each Mid-Atlantic state’s refining GDP shares relative 

to the regional refinery total. New Jersey, with over to $2.0 billion in the annual value of its 

refinery output, accounts for 34 percent of the value of the region’s refinery output. 

Pennsylvania, home to 48 percent of the region’s operating capacity, accounts for 38 percent of 

the economic value of the region’s refinery output (close to $2.4 billion per year). The 

remaining states comprise a much smaller share of the region’s refinery output with values 

around $500 to $600 million per year.

Figure 120. Regional refinery GDP shares, 2009.

Source: USDOC, BEA 2012.

Until 2003, the economic value of the region’s refinery output has followed trends closely 

associated with the price and profitability of its outputs. Figure 121 compares the trends in 

refining GDP for each Mid-Atlantic impact state since the mid-1990s and compares those trends 

to the “crack spread”18 available in the market during a comparable time period. Regional 

refining GDP saw two relatively large and noticeable peaks in 2003 and in 2008 at over $16 

billion in constant 2009 dollars. Those fortunes have fallen considerably since 2003 with 

regional refining GDP now at a level less than half ($6 billion) its prior high. Interestingly, this 

is also the same year that crack spreads started to increase leading to a short-lived renaissance in 

the refining industry. This graphs shows that eastern-based refineries did not take advantage of 

that renaissance that saw increased output and new capacity expansion plans. Most of these new 

opportunities were restricted to the Gulf Coast, and, as the chart shows, not the East Coast, 

18 A crack spread is a general measure of refined product profitability as reflected in the price of crude oil inputs 

relative to refined product outputs. A “3:2:1 crack spread” is one of the more commonly-reported forms of crack 

spreads and represents the commodity-priced cost of purchasing 3 barrels of crude oil and selling 2 barrels of 

gasoline and 1 barrel of distillates on futures markets.

New Jersey, 34%

Delaware, 9%

Pennsylvania, 38%

Virginia, 10%

Georgia, 9%

257

 
despite the increasing overall profitability of selling refined product from a pure commoditypriced basis.19

Figure 121. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region refining GDP.

Source: USDOC, BEA 2012.

Table 44 shows that each state’s total refinery employment contributions are very small in 

comparison to the total employment in each of the impact region’s states. None of the states in 

the Mid-Atlantic impact region have refinery employment totals that are over one percent of the 

overall statewide employment totals. Refining employment in New Jersey and Pennsylvania 

represents the highest contributions, at 0.05 percent each. On a regional basis, both New Jersey 

and Pennsylvania have the highest share of total refinery employment.

19 Crack spreads simply measure the profitability, broadly, of refining crude oil into end-use products given broad 

market dynamics. In the broadest terms, a crack spread can be thought of as a ratio of refined product inputs to 

outputs. These crack spreads do not reflect specific or individual refinery profitability opportunities which can be 

influenced by a variety of other factors than the simple ratio of inputs to outputs.

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

New Jersey Delaware Pennsylvania Virginia Georgia Crack Spread

Refining GDP (billion $)

Crack spread ($/Bbl)

258

 
Table 44. Regional and national employment contribution, refinery sector, 2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware does not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 122. Mid-Atlantic impact region refinery employment shares, 2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware does not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Historic regional refinery employment has been relatively stable over the past decade along the 

Mid-Atlantic coast. The region reported a high of just over 5,000 refinery jobs in 2001. Though

employment fell through the early part of the decade, it rebounded in 2004 and 2005, but has 

fallen again in recent years.

Refinery

Refinery Employment as a

Employment as a Percent of Total U.S.

Total Percent of Total Refinery

Refinery State State Employment Employment

New Jersey 1,588 3,156,538 0.05% 2.23%

Delaware n.a. 342,585 n.a. n.a.

Maryland n.a. 1,991,055 n.a. n.a.

Pennsylvania 2,286 4,825,064 0.05% 3.21%

Virginia 77 2,889,435 0.00% 0.11%

North Carolina n.a. 3,158,293 n.a. n.a.

South Carolina n.a. 1,450,840 n.a. n.a.

Georgia 17 3,135,735 0.00% 0.02%

Total Region 3,968 20,949,545 0.02% 5.57%

U.S. 71,248 108,184,795 0.07% 100.00%

Number of Jobs

----------------- (%) -----------------

New Jersey, 40%

Pennsylvania, 58%

Virginia, 2%

Georgia, 0.4%

259
Figure 123. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region refinery employment, 2001-2011. Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware does not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards. Historic data for Virginia does not meet 

BLS or state agency disclosure standards and is not included in this figure.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Regional wage contributions, provided in Table 45, follow trends similar to employment levels. 

The regional totals are dominated by the states with the largest shares of refining capacity (New 

Jersey and Pennsylvania). The regional shares of total wages paid by Mid-Atlantic coast 

refineries are provided in Figure 124.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

New Jersey Pennsylvania Georgia

Number of Jobs

260
Table 45. Regional and national wages contribution, refinery sector, 2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware does not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 124. Mid-Atlantic impact region refinery wage shares, 2011. 

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware does not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Refinery

Refinery Wages as a

Wages as a Percent of Total U.S.

Total Percent of Total Refinery

Refinery State State Wages Wages

New Jersey $ 182.2 $ 179,559 0.10% 2.06%

Delaware n.a. $ 17,313 n.a. n.a.

Maryland n.a. $ 100,787 n.a. n.a.

Pennsylvania $ 216.8 $ 225,147 0.10% 2.45%

Virginia $ 6.1 $ 145,225 0.00% 0.07%

North Carolina n.a. $ 132,436 n.a. n.a.

South Carolina n.a. $ 54,746 n.a. n.a.

Georgia $ 0.9 $ 142,928 0.00% 0.01%

Total Region $ 406.0 $ 998,140 0.04% 4.58%

U.S. $ 8,857.2 $ 5,172,844 0.17% 100.00%

Wages

---------- (million $) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

New Jersey, 45%

Pennsylvania, 53%

Virginia, 2%

Georgia, 0.2%

261
Figure 125. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region refining wages, 2001-2011. Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware does not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards. Historic data for Virginia does not meet 

BLS or state agency disclosure standards and is not included in this figure.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Table 46 provides a comparison of the average annual wages paid to employees in the refining 

sectors of the Mid-Atlantic impact area. The annual wages for refinery employees in each state 

in the region are considerably higher, in fact orders of magnitude higher than the average in-state 

wage. This is not surprising and consistent with industry trends in other parts of the country. 

The comparisons differ, however, when average annual refinery wages are compared within the 

region and to the U.S. average annual refinery wage.

Generally, average annual refinery wages in the region are below the U.S. average. 

Pennsylvania, with the second highest share of refining capacity in the region, has considerably 

lower-than-average wages that are 76 percent of the U.S. average. New Jersey, while better, is 

also slightly lower-than-average.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

New Jersey Pennsylvania Georgia

Wages (million $)

262
Table 46. Regional and national average annual wage contribution, refineries, 2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware does not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Trends in regional average annual wages are provided in Figure 126. The trends show that, in 

general, average annual wages for refinery employees have been increasing for New Jersey and 

Pennsylvania, but fell in 2010 and 2011 for Georgia.

Refinery Refinery

Average Annual Average Annual Wage

Wage as a Percentas a Percent of Total U.S.

Total of Total State Refinery

Refinery StateAverage Annual Wage Average Annual Wage

New Jersey $ 114,755 $ 56,885 201.7% 92.3%

Delaware n.a. $ 50,535 n.a. n.a.

Maryland n.a. $ 50,620 n.a. n.a.

Pennsylvania $ 94,843 $ 46,662 203.3% 76.3%

Virginia $ 78,885 $ 50,261 157.0% 63.5%

North Carolina n.a. $ 41,933 n.a. n.a.

South Carolina n.a. $ 37,734 n.a. n.a.

Georgia $ 53,641 $ 45,580 117.7% 43.1%

Total Region $ 85,531 $ 47,526 180.0% 68.8%

U.S. $ 124,315 $ 47,815 260.0% 100.0%

---------- ($) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

Average Annual Wage

263
Figure 126. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region refinery average annual wages, 2001-

2011.

Note: n.a. is “not available.”

Data for Delaware does not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards. Historic data for Virginia does not meet 

BLS or state agency disclosure standards and is not included in this figure.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

New Jersey Pennsylvania Georgia

Average Annual Wage ($)

264
10.5 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: INDUSTRY 

10.5.1 Trends

Refineries are undergoing one of the more challenging operational periods witnessed over the 

past three decades. The challenges are a stark reminder of the uncertainty associated with the 

refining business. In 2004, industry analysts and policy makers heralded the advent of the new 

“golden age of refining.” By 2010, that golden age had slipped away the industry is faced with a 

number of new simultaneous challenges including:

• High and volatile crude oil input prices;

• Decreased demand for refining product;

• Excess capacity development;

• Uncertain regulatory changes;

• Alternative transportation fuels; and

• Changes in industry composition and potential “de-integration.”

Sunoco, a major East Coast independent refiner, summed up these challenges recently in its 

annual report to investors by noting that “... the volatility of crude oil, refined product, and 

chemical prices and the overall supply and demand balance for these commodities should 

continue to have a significant impact on margins and the financial results of the Company” (SEC

2010e).

10.5.1.1 Crude Oil Prices

Crude oil prices, provided in Figure 127, have fluctuated dramatically over the past eight years. 

The more recent period of crude oil price increases began in earnest around January 2005 when 

increased U.S. refined product demand (gasoline, diesel, get fuel, etc.), coupled with increasing 

refined product demand from developing countries like China and India, put increasing pressure 

on global spare production capacity, and, ultimately, price.

265
Figure 127. Monthly crude oil spot prices.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012i.

Crude oil prices accelerated at an average monthly rate of 2.8 percent between January 2005 and 

June 2008, the point at which they hit their near-term peak. The U.S. financial market meltdown 

and subsequent global economic recession that began in December 2007 pulled the proverbial 

rug out from under crude oil prices almost overnight. Over the following nine months, world 

crude oil prices fell by 242 percent, one of the fastest and most precipitous decreases in recorded 

history. The decrease erased virtually three years of gains, and returned crude oil prices not seen 

since about January 2005.

The reduction in crude oil prices, however, was short-lived. Markets soon re-loaded their 

longer-run expectations about world petroleum demand, pushing crude oil prices up at an annual 

rate of 122 percent from January 2009 to January 2011, when crude once again broke the 

important psychological barrier of $100 per Bbl. One of the more unique trends arising during 

this period has been the wide swing and variation in crude oil prices increasing from close to 

$140/Bbl, then falling to around $40/Bbl, and rising again to over $100/Bbl: a high to low swing 

of 250 percent. This creates a number of challenges for refiners, particularly the independent 

refineries that dominate the eastern seaboard, because crude oil represents its single largest input 

and significantly impacts final refined product and margins. 

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11

WTI Brent (Europe)

Spot Price ($/Bbl)

266
Figure 128. Monthly crude oil spot and retail gasoline prices.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012i.

Figure 128 highlights the direct relationship between crude oil prices and retail gasoline prices. 

Before January 2005, retail gasoline hovered between $1.50 per gallon to $2.00 per gallon. 

Retail gasoline prices surged during 2005, driven in part by the Gulf Coast refining interruptions 

created by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita that year. Retail gasoline prices see-sawed throughout 

2005 to early 2007, when they began a steady crude oil-price induced rise. Average U.S. retail 

gasoline prices peaked at over $4.00 per gallon before the global financial market crash and 

onset of the global economic recession. Retail gasoline prices have followed crude oil prices on 

its upward march to come close to re-establishing their pre-recessionary highs of around $4.00 

per gallon.

10.5.1.2 Refined Product Demand

Figure 129 and Figure 130 show the recent trends in refined product demand and prices for U.S. 

retail gasoline and diesel, respectively. The impact of high prices on the demand for each refined 

product is easily discerned.

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

Jan-00 Jul-01 Jan-03 Jul-04 Jan-06 Jul-07 Jan-09 Jul-10

WTI Gasoline (U.S. City Average)

Crude Oil ($/Bbl)

Gasoline ($/Gallon)

267
Figure 129. Gasoline prices and demand.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012i.

Before 2005, U.S. retail gasoline demand remained steady at about 1.5 MMBbls per day, and 

then began to fall in 2007 as retail prices surged to new highs, reaching $3.58 per gallon in June 

of 2008. Since June 2007, retail gasoline sales have decreased 32 percent. During the same 

period, prices have increased 33 percent. 

Figure 130. Diesel prices and demand.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012i.

$/gallon

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

Jan-00 Jul-01 Jan-03 Jul-04 Jan-06 Jul-07 Jan-09 Jul-10

Gasoline Price Gasoline Sales

Sales (MMBbls per day)

$/gallon

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

Jan-00 Jul-01 Jan-03 Jul-04 Jan-06 Jul-07 Jan-09 Jul-10

Diesel Price Diesel Sales

Sales (MMBbls per day)

268
Retail diesel prices and demand have followed a similar trend to gasoline as diesel demand has 

also decreased considerably over the past several years. Before 2005, U.S. diesel fuel was priced 

attractively relative to retail gasoline. Changes in fuel standards required the dramatic reduction 

of sulfur from 200 parts per million to less than 10 parts per million, which increased costs, and 

subsequently, prices. Like retail gasoline, diesel demand slowed in 2007 due to the onset of the 

global economic recession. Today, diesel demand is 45 percent lower than its high of 617,478 

Bbls per day set in August 2006.

Figure 131. Quarterly change in GDP and unemployment.

Source: USDOC, BEA 2012; and USDOL, BLS 2012.

While refined product prices can be an important determinant of the quantities of refined product 

purchased in any given year, the economy and general economic activity can also have a 

significant impact on the demand for refined products. The global economic recession and its 

corresponding impacts on the U.S. economy have been important factors in influencing refined 

product demand. The sharp contraction in U.S. economic output helps explain the significant 

decrease in both U.S. refined product demand and prices (see Figure 126). The uncertainty 

associated with the domestic and global economic recovery and growth is an important factor 

influencing, and creating challenges, for all refiners, particularly independent refineries, many of 

which are concentrated along the East Coast.

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

Q1 

2000

Q1 

2001

Q1 

2002

Q1 

2003

Q1 

2004

Q1 

2005

Q1 

2006

Q1 

2007

Q1 

2008

Q1 

2009

Q1 

2010

Q1 

2011

GDP Unemployment

GDP (Percent change)

Unemployment (Percent change)

269
10.5.1.3 Excess Refinery Capacity

During the period before the 2008 recession, a number of factors arose that led to the belief that 

the U.S. was woefully short of refining capacity and needed to consider a more aggressive and 

expansive development of existing, if not new refineries. Price increases throughout 2004–2008 

were one of the major factors motivating the call for new development. The refinery outages 

created by the tropical activity of 2005 (Katrina, Rita) and 2008 (Gustav, Ike) also raised 

questions about not only the amount of available refinery capacity, but the logic of its 

development along a potentially vulnerable part of the country. During this period, a number of 

different policymakers began to openly advocate policies that would facilitate, or directly 

encourage, the development of a new petroleum refinery. 

In 2005, the state of Louisiana contacted members of OPEC in response comments made about 

the limitations of U.S. refining capacity. Michael Olivier, Secretary of Economic Development 

for the state of Louisiana, stated that “Louisiana is keen on attracting development at existing 

refineries or Greenfield and we want to send a strong message” (Taylor 2005). A solicitation of 

bids by the Louisiana Department of Economic Development requested a study for construction 

of a refinery with “world-class environmental performance” and the ability to use alternate 

feedstocks (Taylor 2005).

In June 2006 the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process 

Schedule Act, with support from the Bush Administration. H.R. 5254 included measures to 

expedite the permitting process for refinery construction and expansion and encouraged refinery 

siting on former military sites (Woolley and Peters 2006). Citing national security, the bill’s 

main advocate, Texas Representative Joe Barton stated, “[t]he message we hear from home is 

‘America needs American energy.’ One part of that need is for more domestic refining capacity” 

(Johnson 2006).

The need and apparent political enthusiasm for the development of new refining capacity did not 

go unnoticed by industry. In 2004, Marathon Oil Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Clarence 

Cazalot, was reported as noting:

We believe at Marathon that we are reaching a golden age of U.S. refining. I 

certainly don't believe we are always going to see gasoline prices at the level that 

they are at today. There has not been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976, 

and that was our refinery in Garyville, La., just north of New Orleans on the 

Mississippi River," Cazalot said of the 245,000 b/d plant.

The industry is not investing in new refining capacity because it's spending 

massive sums to upgrade existing refineries to meet new clean fuel standards, he 

said.

Marathon alone will invest $900 million over the 2002-06 timeframe. There is a 

little bit of additional capacity that we picked up in that, but most of that is just 

staying-in-business investment (Dittrick 2004).

270
Industry’s enthusiastic response resulted in one of the largest announced refinery build-outs since 

the late 1960s. Table 47 provides a listing of some 15 refinery projects that were announced or 

commenced during this time period. The table shows that most projects were located in the 

Midwest or the GOM. None of these major projects was proposed for the Atlantic seaboard.

Table 47. Refinery announcements.

Project

Refinery Location Type Capacity Announced Current

(bbl/day) Status

Arizona Clean Fuels LLC Yuma, AZ Greenfield 150,000 1999 in development 

Flint Hills Resources Rosemount, MN Expansion 50,000 Jan-05 completed 2007

Chevron Global Refining Pascagoula, MS Expansion 15,750 Jun-05 completed 

Tesoro Corporation Anacortes, WA Expansion 25,000 Jun-05 canceled 

Frontier Oil Cheyenne, WY Expansion n.a. Jul-05 completed 

Wynnewood Refining 

Co.

Wynnewood, 

OK Expansion 15,000 Oct-05 completed 

Marathon Oil 

Corporation Garyville, LA Expansion 180,000 Nov-05 completed 

Frontier Oil El Dorado, KS Expansion 11,000 Dec-05 completed 

Marathon Oil 

Corporation Detroit, MI Expansion 80,000 Jan-06 completed 

Coffeyville Resources Coffeyville, KS Expansion 15,000 Jan-06 completed 

Motiva Enterprises LLC Port Arthur, TX Expansion 325,000 Apr-06

under 

construction 

BP America Inc. Whiting, IN Expansion 260,000 Sep-06

under 

construction 

ConocoPhillips Ferndale, WA Expansion 25,000 2006 postponed 

Connacher Oil and Gas Great Falls, MT Expansion 9,500 2007 canceled 

Valero Port Arthur, TX Expansion 45,000 2008

delayed 

indefinitely 

Source: Armistead and Evans 2006; Reuters 2007; and Reuters 2008. 

Many refinery projects, however, did make it to commercial operation despite the equally 

significant number of project cancellations. Unfortunately, for most refineries, the capacity 

development came to the market much too late to take advantage of, or help alleviate, the high 

pre-recessionary refined product prices. These now-apparent mistimed additions have help lead 

to a refining capacity glut that has squeezed margins and profitability, and had little to no impact 

on refined product prices given world crude oil prices. This glut has pressured refineries of all 

types, particularly independents, and those with lower profitability like the ones along the 

Atlantic seaboard. These challenges were recently emphasized by Sunoco, which advised 

investors:

...the profitability of the Refining and Supply business will continue to be 

challenged in 2011 due to volatility in the global marketplace causing ongoing 

weakness in product demand and the general oversupply of refined products due 

to increases in worldwide production capacity. The absolute level of refined 

product margins is difficult to predict as they are influenced by extremely volatile 

271
factors, including the absolute level of crude oil and other feedstock prices, 

changes in industry production capacity, the effects of weather conditions on 

product supply and demand and the status of the global economy. Furthermore, 

excess capacity, increasing biofuels mandates and environmental regulations 

continue to adversely impact the refining industry. These factors may prevent

refiners, including Sunoco, from earning their cost of capital and may lead to 

industry plant closures in the future (SEC 2010e, emphasis added).

10.5.1.4 Regulatory Changes

Refineries have also been significantly impacted by changes in fuel standards and the use of 

various fuels to meet localized air emission requirements, particularly those that attempt to 

reduce smog and nitrous oxides (NOx). For instance, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

tightened emissions standards for “tailpipe emissions.” (USEPA 1999) The new standard, 

called “Tier 1,” set NOx standards for cars at 0.6 gpm, which was a 40 percent reduction from 

the previous 1981 standard (USEPA 1999). Tier 1 standards were applicable to new light-duty 

vehicles, such as passenger cars, light-duty trucks, SUVs, minivans, and pick-up trucks, and 

were phased in between 1994 and 1997 (Dieselnet 2007). 

Tier 2 standards were adopted in December 1999 with a NOx requirement of 0.07 gpm for both 

cars and light-duty trucks (USEPA 1999). Tier 2 was implemented from 2004 through 2009 and 

extended standards to include heavier vehicle categories (Dieselnet 2007). The Tier 2 standards 

also included regulations on sulfur levels in gasoline and diesel fuel quality. As shown in Figure 

132, the regulations required an average gasoline sulfur standard of 120 parts per million (ppm) 

beginning in 2004. In 2005, this average standard was reduced to 30 ppm. The EPA has also 

established rules for highway diesel, non-road diesel, and locomotive and marine diesel. The 15 

ppm specification is known as Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) and was phased in from 2006 to 

2010. 

272
Figure 132. EPA regulations, sulfur fuel specifications.

Source: Dieselnet 2007; and USEPA 2011a.

In April 2010 the EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) finalized a joint rule establishing a national program of new 

standards for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles (USEPA 2011b). These rules 

are intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy and cover passenger 

cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles (Pew Center 2011). 

A report from the Pew Center noted that proposed Federal standards will accelerate the fuel 

economy improvements required under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy or “CAFE”

program, administered by the NHTSA, within the Department of Transportation. The new 

standards slightly modify those included in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA) seeking average fuel economy of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. However, these 

standards were soon challenged by an executive memorandum ordering the EPA and the 

NHTSA to develop stricter standards. Though the memorandum did not cite specific fuel 

economy figures, it pushed for further improvements in fuel efficiency for cars and light trucks 

made in 2017 and beyond, and medium and heavy trucks made in 2014 through 2018 (Baker

2010). Automakers applauded President Obama’s efforts, and cited the need for a single national 

program for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions because it would be difficult to comply 

with a regulatory patchwork of standards from NHTSA, the EPA, and multiple states (Roland

2010). 

Before the EPA and the NHTSA finalized their regulations, a group of 19 U.S. senators sent a 

letter to President Obama urging him to set the “maximum feasible” standard (Argus Media

2011). In addition, a proposal developed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the California Air Resources Board suggested an 

average of 56.2 miles per gallon for all new cars and trucks by 2025 (Mitchell and Terlep 2011). 

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) responded and warned that “arbitrary new 

federal fuel economy and GHG standards could lead to higher car prices, less-safe vehicles and 

industry job losses” (Argus Media 2011).

On-Road Off-Road Locomotive

Gasoline Diesel Diesel & Marine

2004 120 ppm 500 ppm 500+ ppm

2005 30 ppm

2006 15 ppm

2007 500 ppm 500 ppm

2008

2009

2010 15 ppm

2011

2012 15 ppm

273
In July 2011, President Obama and 13 different automotive manufacturers, who represented

close to 90 percent of the auto sales in the U.S., reached a historic agreement to a new set of 

aggressive fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks (NHTSA 2011). The new fuel 

efficiency standards call for a reduction of five percent per year for cars, and 3.5 percent per year 

for light duty trucks over the next five years (Federal Register 2011). After five years, 

manufacturers will be required to increase car and light truck fuel efficiency, on fleet-wide basis, 

by five percent per year. These standards are set to reach an overall fleet-wide efficiency target 

of 54.5 MPG by 2025 (Federal Register 2011). 

This is a significant increase in efficiency and will have important impacts on the refinery 

industry given the current glut of excess capacity in the marketplace. Current estimates by the 

Administration place total fuel savings at around 12 BBbls per year and the reduction of 6 billion 

metric tons of CO2 (NHTSA 2011).

10.5.1.5 Alternative Fuels Standards

Another factor significantly impacting refineries across the U.S. are the new and increasing 

standards for alternative fuels and alternative fuel blends required under the Renewable Fuel 

Standard (RFS) program, established by the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005. The RFS 

program is managed by the EPA. The original EPAct requirements set a target fuel blend level 

for gasoline of 7.5 billion gallons (178 MMBbls) of renewable fuel by 2012. These standards 

were almost immediately modified by the EISA in the following ways: 

• RFS eligibility was expanded to include diesel, in addition to gasoline;

• Renewable fuel blend requirements were increased from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 

36 billion gallons by 2022;

• New renewable fuel categories were established with separate volumetric 

requirements; and

• EPA was required to apply lifecycle greenhouse gas performance threshold standards 

so that each class of renewable fuel emits fewer greenhouse gases than the petroleum 

fuel it replaces.

Figure 133 highlights the historic change in annual renewable fuel refining capacity and 

installations throughout the U.S. The chart shows a dramatic increase starting in 2007: at about 

the same time period, some of the initial petroleum refining additions were beginning to come 

online. 

274
Figure 133. U.S. fuel ethanol industry plants and production capacity.

Source: RFA 2011.

Figure 21 highlights annual production of renewable fuels, in billion gallons, over the decade 

before the EPAct and EISA were adopted. These new fuel production levels had an immediate 

and important impact on traditional refining operations, particularly profitability, as more and 

more capacity was displaced by new biofuel capacity.

Figure 134. U.S. fuel ethanol production.

Source: RFA 2011.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Plants Capacity

Number of Plants

Capacity (million gallon-per-year)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billion gallons

275
Biofuels are not the only new transportation fuel competing with traditional petroleum-based 

fuels. The past several years has seen an increase in the advocacy and promotion of a wide range 

of other transportation fuel sources particularly electricity and natural gas vehicles. The 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), commonly referred to as the “Stimulus 

Bill,” led to the funding of over $2.4 billion for 48 projects for manufacturing electric vehicles, 

vehicle batteries and electric vehicle components. This funding included grants to:

• U.S. based manufacturers to produce batteries and their components and to expand 

battery recycling capacity ($1.5 billion);

• U.S. based manufacturers to produce electric drive components for vehicles, 

including electric motors, power electronics, and other drive train components ($500 

million); and

• The purchase of plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles for test demonstrations in 

multiple locations; to deploy them and evaluate their performance; to install electric

charging infrastructure; and to provide education and workforce training to support 

the transition to advanced electric transportation systems ($400 million) (USDOE, 

EERE 2009).

The Stimulus Bill also included funding for programs of interest to natural gas vehicle (“NGV”) 

promoters, including a Department of Energy pilot program for alternative fuel, infrastructure,

and advanced technology vehicles ($300 million); a diesel emissions reduction program that will 

facilitate the use of natural gas vehicles ($300 million); a Federal Transit Administration capital 

expenditures grant ($8.4 billion); numerous community block grants for energy efficiency and 

conservation ($3.2 billion); and a U.S. General Services Administration Federal Fleet acquisition 

of fuel efficient vehicles ($300 million) (NGVAmerica 2009). The Stimulus Bill also included 

two important changes to the tax credits for natural gas vehicles and fueling infrastructure design 

to facilitate the use of NGVs (NGVAmerica 2009). 

10.5.1.6 Industry Decomposition

Historically, the two main participants in the refining industry h have been integrated majors and 

independent refiners. The integrated majors have long held a dominant position in the refining 

business and were the original source of operations for the Standard Oil Company, the 

predecessor to what was historically referred to as the “seven sisters.” However, some major oil 

companies are in a historic position. Many are starting to find the economics of continuing 

refining operations as part of their overall operations to be challenging and have begun the 

process of “spinning-off” these downstream operations (refining, retail) into separate, nonaffiliate companies.

276
In January 2011, Marathon Oil Corporation announced that it would spin off its downstream 

business into a stand-alone company (New York Times 2011). The exploration and production 

part of the company will keep the Marathon Oil Corporation name, while the new Marathon 

Petroleum Corporation would include the refining plants, pipeline transportation and the 

Speedway gas station chain (New York Times 2011; and Daily 2011). Marathon’s president and 

CO stated that “the substantial improvement in the global business and financial environments 

over the last two years has created the conditions under which we believe it is now appropriate to 

move forward with the formation of two strong independent energy companies” (Fontevecchia

2011). 

Similarly, in July 2011, ConocoPhillips announced it would separate its refining and production 

businesses into two publicly traded corporations (Ordonez 2011). Conoco Chief Executive 

James Mulva noted, in a conference call with investors, that “we came to the conclusion that [the 

split] was the best way to create value" for shareholders (Ordonez and Gilbert 2011). 

ConocoPhillips also plans to split its upstream and downstream business into two stand-alone, 

publicly traded corporations. According to the company, the resulting exploration and 

production company will focus on oil and gas worldwide, while the downstream company will 

focus on refining and marketing, primarily in the U.S., although ConocoPhillips has downstream 

operations in Europe (Ordonez and Gilbert 2011).

10.6 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: EAST COAST 

Despite their history and legacy as the originating locale for petroleum production and refining, 

facilities along the eastern seaboard are some of the lowest margin refineries in the U.S. Most 

serve in a relatively niche role and can be thought of as occupying the very upper end of the U.S. 

refinery supply curve. As such, these facilities will be some of the last to be utilized or 

expanded, and one of the first to be curtailed during periods of industry expansions or 

contraction, respectively.

East Coast refineries are also forced to compete with their Gulf Coast counterparts through 

regional product deliveries (imports) on the Colonial Pipeline system (see Figure 135 ). The 

Colonial system originates in Houston, Texas and carries a variety of refined products, including 

several grades of gasoline, kerosene, home heating oil, and diesel fuel up the entire East Coast, 

terminating 5,519 miles (8,882 kilometers) later at the New York harbor. The Colonial system, 

developed in the late 1960s and expanded several times, delivers an average of 100 million 

gallons per day (Colonial Pipeline 2011a). This is equivalent to 2.3 MMBbls per day, or a level 

comparable to the output of 165 percent of the capacity along the East Coast. This competitive 

alternative to regional refining helps to keep refined product processes lower for consumers, but 

also prevents existing regional refineries from expanding in any meaningful fashion. This differs 

from more geographically-isolated West Coast refineries which, though also somewhat less costeffective, have no import capabilities other than through tankers.

277
Figure 135. Colonial Pipeline system map.

Source: Colonial Pipeline 2011b.

Over the past two years, the economic downturn has begun to have a noticeable effect on 

refineries in the Mid-Atlantic. In November of 2009, Valero closed the coker at its 180,000 

barrel per day refinery in Delaware City due to economic conditions (Reuters 2011b). In April 

of 2010, Valero announced that it was selling the Delaware City refinery to PBF Energy 

Partners, a fund of Petroplus, Blackstone Group, and First Reserve. After investments of 

between $125 and $150 million, Petroplus reopened the facility in the spring of 2011 (Goldstein

2010). The $220 million purchase price not only includes the refinery, terminal and pipeline, but 

also a 218 megawatt power plant complex.

Also in late 2009, Sunoco permanently shut down all processes at its Westville, New Jersey 

refinery (SEC 2009a). In the announcement Sunoco cited economic conditions, weak demand 

for refined products, and increased global refining capacity (Sunoco 2009). All production from 

this facility was transferred to the company’s two nearby refineries in Marcus Hook and 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This shutdown affected 400 employees (Sunoco 2009).

In August of 2010, the Western Yorktown, Virginia refinery was also idled due to the “poor 

outlook for East Coast refining margins” and low price differentials between light and heavy 

crudes. Although the plant will continue to operate its products terminal to supply final products 

to the East Coast 230 of the 260 employees lost their jobs (Burkhardt 2010, SEC 2010g). 

278
The recent shut-downs of these regional East Coast refineries, however, may be leading to a 

fundamental change in regional supply dynamics that may increase the profitability of these 

facilities, albeit only in the most limited fashion in the near-term depressed refined product 

market. For instance, recent decreases in regional refining capacity, coupled with maintenance 

outages and output idling, has helped tighten New York Harbor (NYH) to U.S. Gulf Coast 

(USG) conventional gasoline and distillate differentials as seen in Figure 136. 

Figure 136. New York Harbor – U.S. Gulf Coast price differentials.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012i.

Another potential indicator of tighter Mid-Atlantic refined product markets resulting from this 

capacity realignment may be materializing in recent refined product stock information. Figure 

137 shows historic PADD 1 gasoline stocks back to 2007, while Figure 138 provides comparable 

information for distillates over the same time period. PADD 1 gasoline stocks have been 

decreasing from their 62 MMBbls recent high reached around January 2009. By the summer 

2011, those stocks were down to slightly over 50 MMBbls. Though the move is not as dramatic 

as the winter-summer 2008 inventory drop, regional inventories were relatively flat for an entire 

year before starting the more recent tightening in the summer of 2010.

-$0.40

-$0.30

-$0.20

-$0.10

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

Jan-07 Jul-07 Jan-08 Jul-08 Jan-09 Jul-09 Jan-10 Jul-10 Jan-11 Jul-11

NYH-UGC Conventional Gasoline Differential

NYH-UGC Ultra Low Sulfur No. 2 Diesel Differential

Differential ($/gallon)

279
Figure 137. PADD 1 gasoline stocks (total motor gasoline).

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012i.

A similar trend can be seen in regional distillate stocks (Figure 138). Again, while the recent 

2009 to 2011 regional tightening is not as dramatic as that seen in 2008, distillate stocks have 

held relatively steady for almost two years before starting its recent contraction. Summer 2011 

regional distillate stocks are currently at levels not seen since prior to the recession.

Figure 138. PADD 1 distillate fuel oil stocks.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012i.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan-07 Jul-07 Jan-08 Jul-08 Jan-09 Jul-09 Jan-10 Jul-10 Jan-11

Million barrels

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Jan-07 Jul-07 Jan-08 Jul-08 Jan-09 Jul-09 Jan-10 Jul-10 Jan-11

Million barrels

280
The last potential indicator of potential regional market tightening can be reflected in regional 

gasoline imports. PADD 1 historically imports a considerable amount of gasoline from 

European refineries. Between 2005 and 2007, PADD 1 gasoline imports from Europe averaged 

about 83 MMBbls per year. Figure 139 shows that those imports have fallen considerably in 

recent years, to 41.7 MMBbls in 2009 and 14.3 MMBbls in 2010. 

Figure 139. PADD 1 imports of finished motor gasoline.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012i.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Imports (MMBbls)

281
10.7 FACTORS IMPACTING EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT

As of mid-2012, 11 refineries were located along the Mid-Atlantic OCS. Of those, two are 

currently idle. The nine active refineries in the region are relatively large by East Coast 

standards; six have capacities of over 160,000 barrels per day. All have the ability to handle 

light, sweet and certain grades of heavier, sour crude oil. Most all produce a wide range of 

refined products from the high to lower end of the barrel. Most, if not all, of these facilities get 

their crude oil input supplies from imports and not from other producing basins in the U.S. None 

of these refineries are currently connected to a major interstate crude oil pipeline and obtain most 

of their crude oil supplies from tankers.

Clearly, existing refinery capacity could be used to process Mid-Atlantic OCS crude oil 

production. It is highly unlikely, given expected overall market conditions over the next several 

years, that any East Coast refinery would expand its current capacity without a high degree of 

certainty that offshore development was certain and imminent. Further, it would be nearly 

impossible to site a new greenfield refinery along the Mid-Atlantic OCS.

If Mid-Atlantic OCS oil production were to materialize in the near future, it is highly likely that 

East Coast refineries would substitute some of their current imports from Canada, the North Sea 

and Africa for Mid-Atlantic OCS production, provided the economics of doing so are favorable. 

These economics will be ultimately driven by a comparison of the total average cost of crude 

inputs produced offshore along the Mid-Atlantic OCS compared with the total average cost of 

imported crude inputs. Factors influencing these relative cost differentials include:

1. Crude oil quality: light, sweet crude is often priced at a premium relative to heavier 

sour crudes. The quality of Mid-Atlantic OCS production has not been identified and 

further input is needed from BOEM on this issue. Regardless, most East Coast 

refineries are processing the heavier inputs. Mid-Atlantic OCS production will have 

to be priced to this qualitative basis or transported elsewhere to earn a higher margin.

2. Transportation: the cost differential of transporting crude from the Mid-Atlantic OCS 

to nearby refineries needs to be considered. Pipeline alternatives, which currently do 

not exist, could be evaluated. Pipeline options are likely to be expensive and reduce 

producer flexibility in marketing crude output since an extensive system linking crude 

to multiple refineries, like that in the GOM region, does not exist. Further, most of 

the region’s refineries now import crude oil via tanker, so continued tanker imports, 

via floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSOs) are likely to be the near 

term, if not longer term option. 

3. Market conditions: the long run need for refined product in the U.S. is anticipated to 

decrease and not rise to 2007 highs for at least a decade. If refined products can be

imported via pipeline or tanker from cheaper sources than East Coast refining 

operations, East Coast crude oil production may need to be exported to other refining 

location in the U.S. (GOM, Midwest) or abroad (Europe).

282
11 ELECTRIC POWER

11.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY AND SERVICES PROVIDED

Electricity is an integral part of modern life in most developed countries. Electricity is used for 

lighting, running appliances, electronics, and for heating and cooling. It is essential to factories, 

commercial business, and some recreational facilities. As will be discussed later, electricity is 

also an essential input for the industries located in the Mid-Atlantic impact region states. 

Electric utilities are responsible for ensuring a consistent and reliable source of electricity to the

consumers in their service territories. Electric utilities can be investor-owned, publicly-owned, 

cooperatives or Federal utilities. Power marketers may also be considered electric utilities. 

These companies buy and sell electricity, but usually do not own or operate electric utility assets 

(generation, transmission, or distribution facilities).

Over 1,700 nonutility power producers generate electricity in the U.S. These facilities are

typically cogeneration facilities at industrial sites that produce electricity as a byproduct for 

efficiency and reliability purposes. Also included are independent power producers (IPPs) that 

produce and sell power on the wholesale market at non-regulated rates. The IPPs do not have 

franchised service territories and most are exempted from the regulatory requirements imposed 

on traditional utilities by FERC.

Electric utilities have historically been thought of as regulated monopolies and have pre-defined 

market service territories within which they are the exclusive providers of service. Electric 

utilities are regulated by the state in which they operate and are one of the more heavily 

regulated industries out of the various energy industries. Competition in the power generation 

sector and retail service has been introduced in some states and will be discussed in greater detail 

below. The introduction of retail competition, however, is a function of state determinations and 

policy. There are no federal mandates at this time for retail competition.

Electricity is a relatively homogeneous commodity and is typically differentiated only by 

customer type and, in some instances, on the type of service quality (i.e., firm or various types of 

interruptible service). Utility service territories are typically distinguished by restricted 

geographic locations, although this can vary across different states. Classes of service, or 

sectors, for electricity customers typically include residential, commercial, industrial, and others 

and are used for setting rates and for long-run capacity planning (i.e., load growth and peak 

demand).

11.2 TYPICAL FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

An electric power system is a group of generation, transmission, distribution, and 

communication facilities that are physically connected and operated as a single unit under one 

control (Figure 140) (USDOE, EIA 2008c). Dispatch centers are responsible for matching the 

supply and demand of electricity and maintaining the electricity flow.

283
Figure 140. Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution. Source: USDOE, EIA 2008c.

Power plants use a number of different types of fuel to produce electricity: fossil fuels (coal, 

natural gas, or a refined oil product), nuclear energy, and renewable energy sources, such as 

water (hydroelectric power), biomass, waste-to-energy, geothermal, wind, and solar energy, and 

alternative fuels. Figure 141 shows the relative share of electricity generation in 2010 by fuel 

type.

Figure 141. U.S. electric power industry net generation by fuel source, 2010.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012k.

Coal, 45%

Natural Gas, 24%

Nuclear, 20%

Hydroelectric, 6%

Other Renewables (non-Hydro), 4%

Petroleum, 1%

Other, 1%

284
In most areas, demand for electricity fluctuates daily. Demand is usually highest in the afternoon 

and early evening (on-peak). Seasonal demand reflects regional weather and climatic conditions;

the highest demand occurs in the summer when air-conditioning use is greatest. Power plants 

tend to operate in two basic modes: base-load and peaking load. Base-load power plants are 

efficient generators that produce electricity around the clock at an even consistent level. These 

plants generally include nuclear, coal-fired, geothermal, and waste-to-energy plants. Peaking 

plants are used when demand increases above the normal base load or demand. For the most 

part, these plants are less efficient and expensive to operate. 

Transmission lines are the large, high-voltage power lines that move electricity from generating 

plants, sometimes over long distances to substations located near population centers. The U.S. 

electric transmission grid totals more than 200,000 miles (321,869 kilometers) of high-voltage 

transmission lines (EEI 2012).20 The voltage from these transmission lines is reduced to move 

power onto smaller, lower voltage distribution lines. 

Local utilities deliver electricity to customers through a network of existing transmission and 

distribution lines. These are the lines that are seen along streets, supported by wood poles 

(Figure 142). 

Figure 142. Electric transmission: high voltage transmission and low voltage distribution.

Source: Clough Harbor and Associates 2008; FreeFoto.com 2008.

20 This includes lines that are 230 kV or greater.

285

 
Often, a utility will generate excess electric power that it does not need to serve its customers. 

This power may be used as “sales for re-sale” and become part of the wholesale electricity 

market. This wholesale market is open to anyone who can generate power, connect to the 

transmission grid, and find another party to purchase their production. Sellers in the wholesale 

market include competitive suppliers and marketers, independent power producers, and those 

utilities with excess generation (EPSA 2010). 

In the past, the electric utility was a regional monopoly, characterized by vertically-integrated 

companies that provided generation, transmission, and distribution service to customers. The 

utility owned its generation facilities, and the transmission and distribution lines through which 

power travels to customers. These utilities charged customers regulated cost-based rates, made 

up of the cost to generate, transport and distribute power. Though most states still use this 

model, a number of states have restructured their electric power industries. In these states, the 

generation of electric power is no longer done by the utility, but rather a number of competitive 

suppliers will compete to supply the electricity. Ownership or operation, or both, of generation, 

transmission, and distribution facilities are separated into independent entities. And, in these 

deregulated markets, prices for electric power are determined by competition in the market. In 

most cases, the utility that was once the regional monopoly still owns the transmission and 

distribution service, and rates for such are still regulated and cost-based. While a competitive 

supplier may be providing the electricity, the regulated utility still delivers that power through its 

distribution system. As shown in Figure 143, most states still have integrated-utilities, while 

others have restructured the market. Some states started the restructuring process and then 

suspended the effort.

Figure 143. Electricity restructuring by state.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2010.

Not Active

Active

Suspended

286
More than 2,930 electric utilities in the U.S. are responsible for ensuring a reliable source of 

electricity to all consumers in their service territories (USDOE, EIA 2012m). Distribution 

utilities can generally be classified as into three categories by ownership type: (1) investorowned; (2) publicly-owned; (3) cooperatives; and (4) federal utilities. There are 193 investorowned electric utilities, 2,005 publicly owned electric utilities, 873 consumer-owned rural 

electric cooperatives, and nine Federal electric utilities operating in the U.S. (USDOE, EIA 

2012n). Power marketers buy and sell electricity, but usually do not own or operate generation, 

transmission, or distribution facilities.

Investor-owned electric utilities are privately owned and operate much like private businesses, 

providing a service for their customers and a return for their investors. These utilities are 

assigned certain geographic areas where they must provide service. They are regulated and 

required to charge reasonable prices and fair service to all consumers. Most provide basic 

services for the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. 

Nonprofit agencies operated by local governments, publicly owned electric utilities serve 

communities in their regions at cost. Excess funds are returned to consumers in contributions to 

the community, economic growth, efficient operations, and rate reductions. Examples of 

publicly owned electric utilities are municipals, public power districts, state authorities, irrigation 

districts, and other state organizations. 

Most municipal electric utilities only distribute power; however, some larger municipalities may 

actually own generating facilities and transmission lines. These utilities obtain their financing 

from municipal treasuries and from revenue bonds secured by proceeds from the sale of 

electricity. Voters in a public utility district elect commissioners or directors to govern the 

district independent of any municipal government.

Cooperative electric utilities are owned by their members and are typically established in rural 

areas with fewer consumers which are not as attractive to investors. Cooperatives are 

incorporated under state laws and are usually directed by an elected board of directors, which in 

turn selects a manager.

Federal electric utilities in the U.S. are part of several agencies in the U.S. Government:

• the Army Corps of Engineers in the Department of Defense, 

• the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the 

Interior, 

• the International Boundary and Water Commission in the Department of State, 

• the Power Marketing Administrations in the Department of Energy (Bonneville, 

Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area), and 

• the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 

287
There are also three federal agencies that operate generating facilities:

• TVA, the largest federal producer; 

• the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and 

• the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

The TVA markets its own power. Generation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (except for 

the North Central Division, for example, Saint Mary's Falls at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan), and 

the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation are marketed by the federal power marketing administrations: 

Bonneville, Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area.

11.3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

11.3.1 Generation 

There are 2,970 electric power generators in the Mid-Atlantic impact region states (USDOE, EIA 

2012l). The locations of these generating facilities are shown in Figure 144. Facilities in these 

states total 210,033 MW of generating capacity. Figure 145 shows the regional break-out of the 

capacity of these facilities. The most generation capacity is located in Pennsylvania, which totals 

almost 50,000 MW, or 24 percent of the regional total. Georgia is second, with 40,087 MW, or 

19 percent of the regional total. The smallest share is Delaware’s, with just 3,336 MW, or two 

percent of the regional total.

Figure 144. Mid-Atlantic impact region electric generators by fuel type.

288
Figure 145. Mid-Atlantic impact region share of electric generation capacity, 2011.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012l.

Figure 146 shows each state’s generating capacity by fuel type. Natural gas is the primary fuel 

used in the region, fueling almost 70,000 MW of capacity, or 33 percent of the regional total. 

However, only four states use natural gas as the primary source: New Jersey, Delaware, 

Virginia, and Georgia. Coal-fired capacity makes up the majority in Maryland, Pennsylvania, 

North Carolina, and South Carolina. In total, coal provides 68,248 MW of capacity, or 32 

percent of the regional total. 

Some states also have significant amounts of nuclear capacity. In South Carolina, 26 percent of 

the state’s generating capacity comes from nuclear-fueled units. Pennsylvania and New Jersey 

also have significant capacity fueled by nuclear (20 percent and 21 percent, respectively). In 

Virginia and South Carolina, hydroelectric fueled capacity is significant (15 percent and 14 

percent of those state totals).

New Jersey, 9%

Delaware, 2%

Maryland, 7%

Pennsylvania, 24%

Virginia, 13%

North Carolina, 15%

South Carolina, 12%

Georgia, 19%

289
Figure 146. Mid-Atlantic impact region share of electric generation capacity, 2011.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012l.

11.3.2 Transmission

The U.S. transmission system is the backbone of the U.S. electric power industry moving electric 

power over long distances, from generation source to local distributor. To better support 

competition in the electric power industry, the power transmission system in the U.S. has been 

reorganized from a fragmented system with many operators to one where a handful of 

organizations operate the system (USDOE, EIA 2000). 

When interconnected, transmission lines become high-voltage transmission networks. In the 

U.S., these networks are referred to as grids. There are three major grids in the U.S.: The 

Eastern Interconnect, the Western Interconnect, and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 

(ERCOT). As shown in Figure 147, these three regions are separated into eight regional entities:

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

New Jersey Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia North

Carolina

South

Carolina

Georgia

Other Renewable (Non-Hydro) Oil Hydro Nuclear Coal Natural Gas

Generation capacity (MW)

290
Figure 147. Current NERC regions.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2000.

Each of these regions is overseen by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or 

NERC. In 2007, FERC granted NERC the legal authority to enforce reliability standards with all 

U.S. users, owners, and operators of the bulk power system and made compliance with those 

standards mandatory and enforceable (NERC 2012). The regions are defined as:

1. Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC);

2. Reliability First Corporation (RFC);

3. Midwest Reliability Organization (MRO);

4. SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC);

5. Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC);

6. Southwest Power Pool (SPP);

7. Texas Regional Entity (TRE); and

8. Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC).

291
Within each of these regions are Independent System Operators (ISOs), also known as Regional 

Transmission Organizations (RTOs). FERC created RTOs as a way to coordinate generation and 

transmission across each geographic region. These regional organizations operate wholesale 

electricity markets that allow participants to buy and sell electricity on a day-ahead or real-time 

spot market basis. The RTOs also provide non-discriminatory transmission access; facilitate 

competition among wholesale suppliers; and forecast demand and schedule generation to ensure 

that enough power is available at all times. All of these services are provided more efficiently on 

a regional basis rather than a small-scale utility-by-utility basis. As shown in Figure 148, there 

are seven RTOs in the U.S:

• ISO NE: operates in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,

and Connecticut. 

• NY ISO: operates only in New York, but is regulated by FERC because the state’s 

transmission grid is interconnected with the rest of the region. 

• PJM: operates in all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, 

New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia,

and District of Columbia. 

• MISO: operates in all or parts of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, 

South Dakota, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Manitoba, Canada. 

• SPP: Operates in all or parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. 

• CAISO: operates only in California. This ISO is also regulated by FERC because the 

state’s transmission grid is interconnected with the rest of the Western states. 

• ERCOT: operates only in Texas. The ISO is entirely encompassed within the state 

and has its own intrastate transmission grid and is therefore subject only to state 

regulatory authority. 

292
Figure 148. U.S. regional transmission organizations.

Source: FERC 2012f.

Because the trades in the wholesale market occur within these regional, multi-state 

interconnections, they are interstate sales and regulated by FERC. The one exception to this is 

ERCOT. The ERCOT region of Texas functions as its own, separate entity and is regulated by 

the Public Utilities Commission of Texas because the entire interconnection lies within the state.

Most of the Mid-Atlantic impact region is located within the PJM Interconnection. North 

Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, however, are not located within an RTO.

11.3.3 Distribution

There are close to 30 million customers in the Mid-Atlantic impact region, consuming over 900 

million MWh of electricity. Investor-owned utilities in this region serve 74 percent of the 

customers and provide 69 percent of electricity sales. Cooperatives serve an additional 16 

percent of customers and deliver 11 percent of electricity sales. Municipalities only account for 

five percent. Retail power markers serve five percent of customers, but sell about 16 percent of 

the MWh (see Figure 149).

293
Figure 149. Mid-Atlantic impact region, customers and sales by utility type. Source: USDOE, EIA 2012m.

Figure 150 and Figure 151 show the regional customers and sales by state and type of utility. 

Pennsylvania has the largest number of customers and utility sales and most of these are served 

by investor owned utilities (81 percent). Georgia has a significant number of customers served 

by cooperatives: 42 percent of customers are served by cooperatives; 51 percent served by 

investor-owned, and the remaining seven percent are served by municipalities. In general, 

municipalities and cooperatives have a larger role in electricity distribution in the southern part 

of the Mid-Atlantic impact region. Municipalities serve only one to two percent of customers in 

New Jersey, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.

Figure 150. Mid-Atlantic impact region utility customers by state and type of utility.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012m.

Investor Owned, 74%

Municipal, 5%

Cooperative, 16%

Retail Power

Marketer, 5%

Investor Owned, 69%

Municipal, 5%

Cooperative, 11%

Retail Power

Marketer, 16%

Customers Sales

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

New Jersey Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia North

Carolina

South

Carolina

Georgia

Investor Owned Municipal Cooperative Retail Power Marketer

Number of customers (million)

294
Figure 151. Mid-Atlantic impact region utility sales by state and type of utility.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012m.

Table 48 shows a list of major investor-owned electric utilities in the Mid-Atlantic coastal 

region. One large company in the area is Dominion, which has two separate electric distribution 

companies (Dominion Virginia Power and Dominion North Carolina Power) that distribute 

electricity in the states of Virginia and North Carolina. Together, these Dominion companies 

account for 11 percent of customers, 13 percent of sales, and 14 percent of revenues out of all 

investor-owned utilities in the Mid-Atlantic impact region states. Dominion comprises of 

thirteen separate subsidiaries engaged in many activities in the energy industry, including electric 

generation and transmission, and natural gas transportation and distribution. Dominion’s 

electricity distribution service territory is shown in Figure 152.

0

50

100

150

200

250

New Jersey Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia North

Carolina

South

Carolina

Georgia

Investor Owned Municipal Cooperative Retail Power Marketer

Sales (million MWh)

295
Table 48. Investor owned utilities in Mid-Atlantic impact region states.

Number of

Customers Sales Revenue

(MWh) (thousand $)

New Jersey

Atlantic City Electric 547,763 9,683,043 1,034,324 

Jersey Central Power & Light 1,099,194 21,481,810 2,219,024 

Public Service Electric & Gas 2,157,077 42,516,023 4,285,190 

Rockland Electric 72,470 1,665,455 209,828 

Delaware

Delmarva Power 301,543 8,360,863 599,684 

MidAmerican Energy 177 268,029 17,708 

Maryland

Baltimore Gas & Electric 1,240,290 31,808,754 2,175,149 

Delmarva Power 199,456 4,329,714 363,990 

MidAmerican Energy 899 919,838 65,319 

The Potomac Edison 252,769 6,954,244 485,700 

Potomac Electric Power 531,189 15,332,821 1,178,333 

Pennsylvania

Citizens Electric 6,823 164,677 16,726 

Duquesne Light 587,610 14,027,155 846,056 

Metropolitan Edison 552,631 13,969,633 1,055,464 

Pennsylvania Electric 582,091 14,072,672 912,124 

PPL Electric Utilities 1,403,889 36,941,727 1,797,564 

Pennsylvania Power 160,250 4,585,851 233,288 

PECO Energy 1,574,521 39,369,235 3,039,841 

Pike County Light & Power 4,662 75,242 6,036 

UGI Utilities, Inc. 62,067 985,564 99,636 

Wellsborough Electric 6,178 119,727 13,195 

West Penn Power Company 717,269 20,104,093 1,029,315 

Virginia

Appalachian Power 521,923 15,845,232 1,203,709 

Kentucky Utilities 29,250 936,229 71,866 

Dominion Virginia Power 2,319,501 74,323,597 6,503,719 

North Carolina

Progress Energy Carolinas 1,277,207 37,353,311 3,235,956 

Duke Energy Carolinas 1,853,838 55,430,896 4,171,486 

Dominion North Carolina Power 118,724 4,176,834 300,719

South Carolina

Progress Energy Carolinas 165,996 6,264,949 515,592 

Duke Energy Carolinas 542,712 20,785,579 1,426,044 

Lockhart Power 6,238 183,692 16,829 

South Carolina Electric & Gas 663,433 22,151,222 2,263,198 

Georgia

Georgia Power 2,360,487 84,299,772 8,098,561 

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012m.

296
Figure 152. Virginia Electric & Power Company (Dominion) service territory.

Source: Dominion 2010a.

Duke Energy and Progress Energy also have a significant presence in the Mid-Atlantic impact 

region through the subsidiary companies Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas. 

Figure 153 shows these two companies’ service territories. These two investor-owned utilities

are vertically integrated utilities providing for electric generation, transmission, and distribution 

needs of the region. The two companies merged in 2011 and, though the resulting company is 

named Duke Energy, the utilities continue to operate as Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress 

Energy Carolinas. Combined, these companies account for 18 percent of customers, 20 percent 

of sales, and 19 percent of revenues of all investor-owned utilities in the Mid-Atlantic impact 

region states. 

Figure 153. Duke Energy Carolinas and Progress Energy Carolinas service territories.

Source: Duke Energy 2011a.

297
11.4 SCOPE OF ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION TO REGIONAL ECONOMY

Electric power generation employment contributions are relatively small in comparison to the 

total employment in each of the impact region’s states. None of the states in the Mid-Atlantic

impact region have electric power generation employment totals that are over one percent of the 

overall statewide employment totals. On a regional basis, Pennsylvania and South Carolina have 

the highest share of total electric power generation employment. Notice though, that while the 

electric power generation employment makes up a relatively small portion of total state 

employment, the electric power generation employment in these states makes up over 21 percent 

of total electric power generation employment in the U.S.

Table 49. Regional and national employment contribution, electric power generation, 

2011.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Electric Power Electric Power

Generation Generation Employment

Employment as a Percent of Total U.S.

Electric Power Total Percent of Total Electric Power

Generation State State Employment Generation Employment

New Jersey 3,293 3,156,538 0.10% 1.98%

Delaware 269 342,585 0.08% 0.16%

Maryland 2,621 1,991,055 0.13% 1.58%

Pennsylvania 8,488 4,825,064 0.18% 5.11%

Virginia 4,046 2,889,435 0.14% 2.44%

North Carolina 4,150 3,158,293 0.13% 2.50%

South Carolina 8,205 1,450,840 0.57% 4.94%

Georgia 4,293 3,135,735 0.14% 2.58%

Total Region 35,365 20,949,545 0.17% 21.29%

U.S. 166,099 108,184,795 0.15% 100.00%

Number of Jobs

----------------- (%) -----------------

298
Figure 154. Mid-Atlantic impact region electric power generation employment shares, 

2011.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Electric power generation employment in the Mid-Atlantic impact region has been falling. In 

2001, electric power generation employed almost 50,000 workers. Now, that number is just over 

35,000. This is an average annual decrease of 3.3 percent. Decreases in New Jersey’s electric 

power generation employment are the cause of most of this decrease. 

New Jersey, 9%

Delaware, 1%

Maryland, 7%

Pennsylvania, 24%

Virginia, 11%

North Carolina, 12%

South Carolina, 23%

Georgia, 12%

299
Figure 155. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region electric power generation employment, 

2001-2011. Note: Historic data for Delaware does not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Regional wage contributions, provided in Table 50, corroborate the employment levels discussed 

above. Regional shares of total wages paid by Mid-Atlantic coast electric power generation have

been provided in Figure 156. Again, Pennsylvania and South Carolina have the highest share of 

regional wages and total regional electric power generation wages account for 21 percent of total 

U.S. electric power generation wages. 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

New Jersey Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia

North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Number of Jobs

300
Table 50. Regional and national wage contribution, electric power generation, 2011.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 156. Mid-Atlantic impact region electric power generation wage shares, 2011. 

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Electric Power Electric Power

Generation Generation Wages

Wages as a Percent of Total U.S.

Electric Power Total Percent of Total Electric Power

Generation State State Wages Generation Wages

New Jersey $ 408.2 $ 179,559 0.23% 2.41%

Delaware $ 28.6 $ 17,313 0.17% 0.17%

Maryland $ 324.2 $ 100,787 0.32% 1.91%

Pennsylvania $ 985.0 $ 225,147 0.44% 5.81%

Virginia $ 391.2 $ 145,225 0.27% 2.31%

North Carolina $ 396.3 $ 132,436 0.30% 2.34%

South Carolina $ 698.9 $ 54,746 1.28% 4.12%

Georgia $ 337.9 $ 142,928 0.24% 1.99%

Total Region $ 3,570.3 $ 998,140 0.36% 21.05%

U.S. $ 16,964.4 $ 5,172,844 0.33% 100.00%

Wages

---------- (million $) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

New Jersey, 11%

Delaware, 1%

Maryland, 9%

Pennsylvania, 28%

Virginia, 11%

North Carolina, 11%

South Carolina, 20%

Georgia, 9%

301
Trends in electric power generation wages have followed trends in regional port employment.

Figure 157. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region electric power generation wages, 2001-

2011.

Note: Historic data for Delaware does not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

In each of the Mid-Atlantic impact region states, average annual wages for electric power 

generation are double the total state average annual wage. And, in comparison to the U.S. 

average annual wage for electric power generation, the wage difference is split. In four states, 

New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the average annual wage for electric power 

generation is greater than the U.S. average. In North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia,

however, the average annual wage for electric power generation is less than the U.S. average. 

Figure 158 shows the trend of average port wages by state. 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

New Jersey Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia

North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Wages (million $)

302
Table 51. Regional and national average annual wage contribution, electric power 

generation, 2011.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Figure 158. Trends in Mid-Atlantic impact region electric power generation average 

annual wages, 2001-2011. Note: Historic data for Delaware does not meet BLS or state agency disclosure standards.

Source: USDOL, BLS 2012.

Electric Power Generation Electric Power Generation

Average Annual Average Annual Wage

Wage as a Percent as a Percent of Total U.S.

Electric Power Total of Total State Electric Power Generation

Generation StateAverage Annual Wage Average Annual Wage

New Jersey $ 123,964 $ 56,885 217.9% 121.4%

Delaware $ 106,320 $ 50,535 210.4% 104.1%

Maryland $ 123,710 $ 50,620 244.4% 121.1%

Pennsylvania $ 116,044 $ 46,662 248.7% 113.6%

Virginia $ 96,706 $ 50,261 192.4% 94.7%

North Carolina $ 95,484 $ 41,933 227.7% 93.5%

South Carolina $ 85,180 $ 37,734 225.7% 83.4%

Georgia $ 78,726 $ 45,580 172.7% 77.1%

Total Region $ 103,267 $ 47,526 217.3% 101.1%

U.S. $ 102,134 $ 47,815 213.6% 100.0%

---------- ($) ---------- ----------------- (%) -----------------

Average Annual Wage

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

New Jersey Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia

North Carolina South Carolina Georgia

Average Annual Wage ($)

303
11.5 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: INDUSTRY 

11.5.1 Generation and Consumption

As shown in Figure 159, electric power generation in the U.S. has been increasing. Since 1990, 

electric power generation has increased at an average annual rate of 1.6 percent. Power 

generation fueled by coal has remained relatively stable (increasing at an average annual rate of 

0.8 percent), while power generation fueled by natural gas has increased significantly. Natural 

gas fired-generation has increased at an average annual rate of 5.1 percent. These increases were 

highest 1998 through 2002, when natural gas fired-generation increased by 44 percent, and again 

in recent years. In 2009 natural-gas fired generation increased 4.3 percent and another 7.2 

percent in 2010. Non-hydroelectric renewable generation (i.e., wind, solar, biomass) has also 

increased considerably, at an average annual rate of 5.1 percent (the same as natural gas). In the 

last three years, the use of these renewable has increased 20 percent (2008), 14 percent (2009) 

and 16 percent (2010).

Figure 159. U.S. electric power generation by fuel type. Source: USDOE, EIA 2012k.

The EIA expects this trend to continue. The Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) for 2012 shows that 

the natural gas share of electricity is expected to increase from 24 percent in 2010 to 28 percent 

in 2035. Similarly, renewables share of electric power generation is expected to increase from 

10 percent to 15 percent. And the share of electric generation from coal is expected to fall to 38 

percent by 2035, from 44 percent in 2010 (USDOE, EIA 2012g).

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Coal Natural Gas Nuclear

Hydroelectric Renewable (non-Hydro) Petroleum

Other

Generation (million MWh)

304
A number of factors influence decisions to add capacity and the type of capacity (fuel choice). 

These factors include an increase in electricity demand; the need to replace older, inefficient 

plants; the cost and operating efficiencies of different generation options; fuel prices; state 

mandates for renewable resources; and the availability of tax incentives for certain technologies 

(USDOE EIA 2012g). Figure 160 presents the expectations for capacity additions by fuel.

Figure 160. Annual Energy Outlook, Capacity Additions by Fuel Type.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012g.

Figure 161 shows the trends in electric power consumption. Since 1990, electric power 

consumption increased for all sectors: residential 54 percent (or an average annual rate of 2.1 

percent); commercial 77 percent (or an average annual rate of 2.8 percent); and industrial 5 

percent (or an average annual rate of 0.3 percent). In recent years, however, the rate of increased 

consumption for each sector has slowed. On average, for each year since 2007, residential 

consumption has increased by just 1.1 percent, commercial by just 0.4 percent, and industrial 

consumption has actually decreased by 0.3 percent. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035

Coal Nuclear Renewables/ other Natural gas

Capacity additions (GW)

305
Figure 161. Electric power consumption by customer class.

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012k.

According to the EIA’s 2012 Annual Energy Outlook, electricity demand is expected to increase 

22 percent from 2010 to 2035. Residential demand is expected to increase by 28 percent due to 

increases in population, disposable income, and population shifts to warmer climates with greater 

cooling requirements. Commercial demand is also expected to increase, by 28 percent, mostly 

due to demand in service industries. In the industrial sector, however, as noted with Figure 161, 

demand has slowed and has even been declining in recent years. However, the EIA projects 

industrial demand to increase slightly, by just 2 percent from 2010 to 2035 (USDOE, EIA 

2012g). 

The growth in demand for electricity should be somewhat offset by efficiency gains in both the 

residential and commercial sectors. In both sectors, continuing efficiency gains are expected for 

electric heat pumps, air conditioners, refrigerators, lighting, cooking appliances, and computer 

screens. In addition, federal and state polices will continue to drive energy efficiency. 

11.5.2 Transmission

NERC assesses and reports on the reliability and adequacy of the North American bulk power 

system in North America. In its most recent Long-Term Reliability Assessment, it cites the 

ability to site, permit, and build new transmission assets as one of the highest risks facing the 

electricity industry over the next 10 years (NERC 2011). 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Residential Commercial Industrial

Retail Sales (million MWh)

306
The need for new transmission can be driven by reliability, resource integration, and the need to 

address congestion issues. Projected additions to the transmission system can indicate a 

strengthening of the bulk power transmission system. Over the next ten years, approximately 

39,000 miles (62,764 kilometers) of new high-voltage transmission line are projected to be added 

to the U.S. transmission system. Of this, about 30,000 miles (48,280 kilometers) are either under 

construction or planned and the other 9,000 miles (14,484 kilometers) are considered conceptual 

(NERC 2011). 

The PJM region is expected to increase by just 1,517 miles (2,441 kilometers), from 53,079 

miles (85,422 kilometers) to 54,596 miles (87,864 kilometers). This is an increase of just under 

three percent. Most of this increase (1,192 miles, or 1,918 kilometers) is planned for the 2011-

2015 timeframe. 

Table 52. Transmission line additions by assessment area.

Total

Existing,

Under

Under Construction,

Existing Construction 2011-2015 2016-2021 and Planned

2010 2011 Planned Conceptual Planned Conceptual Additions, 

2021

ERCOT 29,107 486 5,666 ‐ 496 ‐ 35,755 

FRCC 11,973 45 240 ‐ 134 11 12,392 

MI SO 50,144 33 805 141 255 1,050 51,237 

MRO‐MAPP 10,314 75 574 ‐ ‐ ‐ 10,964 

NPCC ‐ New 

England (ISO‐NE) 8,496 182 342 180 35 16 9,056 

NPCC ‐ New York 

(NYISO) 10,990 ‐ 14 - 12 - 11,016 

PJM 53,079 271 1,192 520 54 236 54,596 

SERC‐E 21,995 213 130 81 164 276 22,502 

SERC‐N 21,303 96 654 11 22 29 22,075 

SERC‐SE 27,316 114 263 69 336 34 28,029 

SERC‐W 13,604 127 114 33 70 41 13,915 

SPP 32,857 181 1,961 264 216 180 35,215 

WECC‐US 103,371 495 5,879 2,089 2,404 2,900 112,149 

Total U.S. 394,549 2,138 17,833 3,388 4,199 4,773 418,900 

Source: NERC 2011.

307
11.5.3 Regulatory Changes

Electric utilities are regulated by local, state, and federal authorities. As with natural gas 

pipelines, in general, interstate activities are subject to federal regulation, while intrastate 

activities are subject to state regulation. Also, plant and transmission line construction issues and 

retail rates are state regulatory functions. Other issues, such as wholesale rates (sales and 

purchases between electric utilities), licensing of hydroelectric facilities, questions of nuclear 

safety and high-level nuclear waste disposal, and environmental regulation, are federal issues. 

Federal Regulation

For many years, the focus of national policy has been to encourage competition in wholesale 

power markets. FERC is charged with regulating the prices, terms, and conditions of wholesale 

power sales and transmission services. FERC states that its core responsibility is to “guard the 

consumer from exploitation by non-competitive electric power companies” (FERC 2010b). To 

do this, FERC has attempted to maintain the appropriate balance between regulation and 

competition. Regulation is the primary approach for wholesale transmission service; competition 

is the primary approach for wholesale generation service. Although the commission’s views of 

this balance have changed over time, FERC’s goal is to find the best mix to protect customers 

from monopoly power (FERC 2010b).

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005)

EPAct2005 updated a number of federal laws that govern the electric power industry and made 

important changes to guarantee electric reliability for consumers. The Act strengthened the legal 

framework for encouraging wholesale competition (FERC 2010b). In addition, it gave FERC 

authority to review merger and acquisition activity by investor-owned electric utilities. Some of 

the important changes made by EPAct 2005 are detailed below (EEI 2007):

• Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA): Enacted in 1935 to 

regulate the corporate structure and financial operations of utility holding companies. 

PUHCA was repealed by EPAct, which gave FERC more authority to protect 

consumers. By repealing PUHCA, Congress eliminated federal restrictions on the 

scope, structure, and ownership of electric companies (Southern Company 2010). 

This has encouraged investment in critical energy infrastructure by allowing new 

classes of non-utility investors and increasing the availability of capital (Southern 

Company 2010). However, the mandate was accompanied by new provisions 

allowing FERC and state regulatory authorities access to the books and records of 

most holding companies and their affiliates. FERC was also given the authority to 

approve cost allocation issues within holding company systems if requested by a 

utility or state commission (EEI 2007). 

• Reform of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA): Signed into law in

November 1978 as part of the National Energy Act. In an attempt to expand the use 

of cogeneration and renewable energy sources, PURPA required utilities to purchase 

power from a qualified facility (“QF”) at their avoided cost regardless of whether 

308
they needed the power. 21,22 PURPA also required electric utilities to sell requested 

energy and capacity to QFs. 

This resulted in electricity prices that were above-market, so EPAct removed some of 

the requirements. It eliminated the mandatory purchase obligations and revised the 

criteria for new QFs that wanted to sell power. If an electric utility can prove that 

QFs in their region have full access to competitive wholesale power markets, then 

they do not have to follow the mandatory purchase obligation.

• Creation of the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO): EPAct also created an 

independent, self-regulating entity called ERO. ERO enforces reliability rules on the 

nation’s transmission system. Unregulated utilities (cooperatives and governmentowned utilities) are required to comply with reliability standards as well (Southern 

Company 2010). FERC has oversight authority for ERO. In July 2006, FERC 

certified the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) as ERO, which 

became operational in January 2007 (EEI 2007).

FERC Orders 888, 890 and 1000

In 1996, FERC issued Order 888, which required transmission providers to offer open-access 

transmission service on a nondiscriminatory basis to wholesale transmission customers. In 2007, 

FERC issued Order 890, which required public utility transmission providers to participate in 

open transmission planning processes at the local and regional level. Through this order, FERC 

encouraged greater coordination among neighboring transmission providers and interconnected 

systems, state authorities, and other stakeholders. 

In July 2011, FERC built upon Order 890 by issuing Order 1000 in attempts to prevent undue 

discrimination and preferential treatment in transmission service. Through Order 1000, FERC 

has allowed each public utility transmission provider 18 months to comply with a series of 

planning, cost allocation, and non-incumbent developer reforms. Though Order 1000 provides a 

framework for cost allocation and requires certain considerations that need to be addressed, in 

terms of enhancing reliability, the potential benefit the order brings is in its inter‐regional 

transmission planning reform. Specifically, Order 1000 requires public utility transmission 

providers to participate in regional transmission planning processes that consider, in part, the 

transmission needs of the region driven by public policy requirements of state and federal laws. 

Order 1000 also requires these same providers to participate in regional cost allocation 

discussions to determine cost allocation of new transmission facilities, while satisfying six 

regional cost allocation principles laid out by FERC (FERC 2012g). Though many regions 

within the U.S. electric grid already perform inter‐regional planning as outlined by Order 1000, 

the order facilitates the acknowledgement of large, interconnection‐wide issues by the federal 

government.

21 A qualifying facility, or QF, is a class of generating facility that receives special rate and regulatory treatment. 

These facilities are either small power production facilities with a capacity of 80 MW or less, and a renewable 

primary energy source (hydro, wind, solar, biomass, waste, or geothermal resources); or a cogeneration facility that 

sequentially produces electricity and another form of useful thermal energy (heat or steam) in a way that is more 

efficient than the separate production of both forms of energy.

22 Avoided cost is the cost the utility would have paid to build or generate power on its own.

309

 
Environmental Regulations

Hundreds of environmental rules and regulations apply to the electric power industry. Two of 

the most significant are the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act. In addition, electric 

generators are subject to regulations that focus on air emissions from fossil fuel-based plants. In 

1990, the Acid Rain Program made a series of amendments to the CAA and subsequent 

programs to address ozone transport. These changes have helped to significantly reduce 

emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from electricity generation. Other 

noteworthy federal regulations include the Toxic Substances Control Act, which controls 

chemicals, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which controls hazardous waste. 

Electric companies are also subject to state issued environmental regulations (EEI 2007). 

In 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued three new major regulations to 

further reduce SO2, NOX, and mercury emissions: the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the 

Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), and the Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR). In 2008,

however, CAIR was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The court 

decision kept the requirements of CAIR in place temporarily but directed the EPA to develop a 

new rule to implement CAA requirements (USEPA 2012c). In 2011, the EPA finalized the 

replacement rule: the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). CSAPR would require 23 states 

to improve air quality by reducing power plant emissions that cross state lines and contribute to 

ozone and fine particle pollution in other states (USEPA 2012d). However, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated this rule as well, and sent the rule back to the agency for 

revision (WSJ 2012). In the interim, CAIR will remain in place.

CAIR applies to all fossil-fuel-fired units with capacity of 25 MW or greater that provide 

electricity for sale in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. It also includes combined 

heat and power units larger than 25 MW that sell at least one-third of their potential electrical 

output and supply more than 219,000 MWh of electricity to the grid. CAMR focuses on coalfired power plants and establishes “standards of performance” to limit mercury emissions. The 

rule creates a market-based cap-and-trade program (USEPA 2012e). CAVR applies to all states 

and requires additional controls for SO2 and NOX to reduce haze that affects National Parks and 

wilderness areas. 

11.6 CURRENT TRENDS AND OUTLOOK: EAST COAST 

Both CAIR and CSAPR will have a major impact on companies’ decisions regarding new 

electric power generation capacity and fuels to fire that capacity. These rules are also likely to 

force many older coal-fired generation units to cease operations due to the investment cost

needed to get these plants into compliance. This is especially the case when examining coalfired power plants using bituminous coal without the use of a flu-gas desulfurizer (FDG) unit to 

remove SO2 and NOX emissions from waste steam produced in the plant’s operations. In the 

U.S., subbituminous coal is mined predominately in the Powder River Basis region of the state of 

Wyoming; bituminous coal is mined predominately in the Appalachian region. Bituminous has a 

higher energy content than subbituminous coal, but it also has higher sulfur concentrations. The 

different locations of these mining operations cause a regional effect in the usage of bituminous 

compared with subbituminous coal, with Eastern States using primarily bituminous coal, and 

310
Western States using primarily subbituminous coal. 

Table 53 shows unscrubbed bituminous coal-fired electrical generation within the Mid-Atlantic

impact region states. Within these eight states, 8.3 percent of annual electric generation is 

produced by older unscrubbed bituminous coal-fired electric power plants. Georgia has the 

highest percentage, by far, with 23.4 percent of the state’s generation coming from unscrubbed 

bituminous. In Maryland, 8.6 percent of generation is from unscrubbed bituminous coal. The 

remaining states have much smaller shares, ranging from 0.2 percent (North Carolina) to 2.8 

percent (Delaware). 

Table 53. Unscrubbed bituminous coal-fired generation.

Percent

Generation Generation from

Unscrubbed Unscrubbed

Bituminous Coal Total Bituminous Coal

(MWh) (%)

New Jersey 339,711 12,296,605 2.8%

Delaware 50,061,193 213,772,228 23.4%

Maryland 18,462,128 215,967,303 8.5%

Pennsylvania 181,744 107,969,381 0.2%

Virginia 1,003,056 122,602,911 0.8%

North 

Carolina 1,449,679 86,152,363 1.7%

South 

Carolina 561,498 37,371,254 1.5%

Georgia 1,258,661 86,135,211 1.5%

Total 73,317,670 882,267,256 8.3%

Source: USDOE, EIA 2012o.

Coal-fired generation is facing more stringent environmental regulations and increased cost for 

compliance; at the same time, the price of natural gas is falling and the fuel is becoming 

increasingly abundant. The EIA projects continued development of shale gas resources, and by 

2035 it will account for 49 percent of total U.S. natural gas production. This is more than double 

shale’s current share of 23 percent (USDOE, EIA 2012g). Recently, the EIA announced that, for 

the first time since EIA began collecting data, generation from natural gas-fired plants is equal to 

generation from coal-fired plants (USDOE, EIA 2012p). 

To take advantage of this abundant and low cost resource, a number of utilities have started to 

displace some of their coal-fired generation with natural gas. Some companies have started to 

use gas-fired generating units that were originally intended to serve peak-power demand more 

frequently. Other companies are operating plants that typically use a mix of coal and natural gas 

solely on natural gas. And new gas-fired units will be built to replace older, less efficient, and 

now uneconomical units (Katusa 2012). The CEO of one utility called the switch from coal to 

natural gas a “perfect storm” of economic and regulatory factors (Lipton 2012). 

311
For example, Southern Company’s (which operates Georgia Power) combined cycle gas turbine 

units ran at 70 percent of capacity in the beginning of 2012, which is double the plants’ typical 

use (Katusa). The company stated in its first quarterly report for 2012 that “[a]s part of Southern 

Electric Generating Company’s (SEGCO) environmental compliance strategy, the Board of 

Directors of SEGCO approved adding natural gas as the primary fuel source in 2015 for its 1,000 

MWs of generating capacity and the construction of the necessary natural gas pipeline” (SEC 

2012b).

Also, Progress Energy (Progress Energy Carolinas) announced that it intends to retire its coalfired plants without environmental controls by the end of 2013. These retirements represent 

about 1,600 MW of capacity, or one-third of the utility’s coal-powered units (Energy Policy 

Update 2012a). In September of 2012, Dominion Virginia filed an application with regulators to 

convert its Bremo Power Station from coal to natural gas. The cost of the conversion would be 

$53.4 million, which is one-third of the estimated cost of continued operation on coal ($155 

million) (PR Newswire 2012).

11.7 FACTORS IMPACTING EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT

Electric power infrastructure in the Mid-Atlantic impact region is extensive with more than 856

power generation facilities located in these states. Many of these states are anticipating the 

development of considerable new offshore alternative energy assets that may have implications 

for offshore oil and gas production infrastructure. 

The Upper Mid-Atlantic region (New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania) has 325 power 

generation facilities that total almost 80,000 MW of generating capacity. Most of this capacity 

(66 percent) is fueled by coal (31 percent) and natural gas (35 percent). About 19 percent of this 

capacity is nuclear powered. The remainder is fueled by oil (nine percent) and renewable 

generation (six percent). It is likely that new generation in the region will primarily be driven by 

natural gas (USDOE, EIA 2012l).

Some states in the upper Mid-Atlantic region are actively promoting offshore energy

development, primarily offshore wind. For instance, regulators in New Jersey have approved 

plans for 350 MW of offshore wind, and are currently soliciting proposals to build more. 

The Central Mid-Atlantic region (Maryland and Virginia) has 172 power generation facilities,

accounting for over 40,000 megawatts of capacity. Most of this capacity (58 percent) is fueled 

by coal (29 percent) and natural gas (29 percent). About 14 percent of this capacity is nuclear 

power generation. The remaining generation is fueled by oil (15 percent), renewable (13

percent), and other resources (less than one percent) (USDOE, EIA 2012l).

The Lower Mid-Atlantic region (North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia) has 359 power 

generation facilities, accounting for 97,000 megawatts of capacity. Most of this capacity (69 

percent) is fueled by coal (35 percent) and natural gas (34 percent). About 17 percent of this 

capacity is nuclear power generation. The remaining generation is fueled by oil (3 percent), 

renewable (10 percent), and other resources (1 percent) (USDOE, EIA 2012l).

312
Figure 162. Mid-Atlantic impact region electric generators by fuel type.

Source: Author’s construct using USDOE, EIA 2012l.

313
Most of the wholesale transmission of electricity throughout the U.S. is controlled by a number 

of Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs). Most of the states in the Mid-Atlantic region,

on which this report is based, are controlled by the PJM Interconnection. The PJM includes all 

or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia 

(see Figure 163).

Figure 163. PJM Interconnection.

Source: PJM 2009.

314
To manage the electricity in this region, PJM dispatches 163,500 MW of generating capacity 

over 56,350 miles (90,687 kilometers) of transmission line (PJM 2009). PJM is responsible for 

maintaining the integrity of these transmission lines and for managing the additions or changes to 

the grid (i.e., new generating plants, substations or transmission lines). PJM also forecasts future 

electricity needs and develops a 15-year plan to ensure that reliability is maintained. Figure 164

shows some of the major transmission expansion projects that are currently ongoing. 

Figure 164. PJM Interconnection key upgrade projects.

Source: PJM 2009.

315
REFERENCES

10 U.S.C. §7309

15 U.S.C. § 717(b) (2000).

Public Law 109-163 Sec. 3506.

Allain, R. 2008. MARPOL Annex I. The Coast Guard Proceedings. Winter 2008-09, Volume 

68, No. 4. 

American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA). 2012. U.S. public port facts. Available at: 

http://www.aapa-ports.org/files/PDFs/facts.pdf. (February 11, 2014)

American Gas Association (AGA). 2005. How does the natural gas delivery system work? 

Available at: 

http://www.aga.org/Kc/aboutnaturalgas/consumerinfo/Pages/NGDeliverySystem.aspx.

(February 11, 2014)

American Petroleum Institute. 2009. Offshore production facilities. Available at: 

http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas-overview/exploration-andproduction/offshore/offshore-production-facilities.aspx. (February 11, 2014)

Annis, D. 2008. Drilling mud – application to pasture and farmland. Available at: 

http://www.noble.org/ag/soils/drillingmud/. (February 11, 2014)

Argus Media. 2011. Automakers urge caution on new fuel economy, GHG rules. Available at: 

http://www.argusmedia.com/News/Article?id=751359&page=10. (February 11, 2014)

Armistead, Thomas and Beth Evans. Upgrade plans flow while oil prices ebb. Engineering 

News-Record. October 10, 2006.

Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV). 2012. Oil spill working group. Available at: 

http://www.acjv.org/oilspill_wg.htm. 

Australian Institute of Petroleum (AIP). 2011. Refining of petroleum. Available at: 

http://www.aip.com.au/industry/fact_refine.htm. (February 11, 2014)

Atlantic Communications. 2011. Gulf coast oil directory, 2011 Edition. Volume 59, Number 1.

Austin, A., T. Priest, L. Penney, J. Pratt, A. Pulsipher, J. Abel, and J. Taylor. 2008. History of 

the offshore oil and gas industry in Southern Louisiana. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

MMS2008-042.

317
Avian Conservation Center (ACC). 2012. The center for birds of prey. Available at: 

http://www.thecenterforbirdsofprey.org/. (February 11, 2014)

Azar, J.J. and G.R. Samuel. Drilling engineering. PennWell Corporation. March 2007.

Baker, Peter. 2010. Obama mandates rules to raise fuel standards. New York Times. May 21, 

2010.

Baker Hughes Incorporated. 2012. Extended reach drilling. Available at: 

http://public.bakerhughes.com/environment/downloads/Extended%20Reach%20Drilling.

pdf. (February 12, 2014)

Barges.com. 2012. Fleet. Available at: http://www.barges.com/fleet/. (February 11, 2014)

Bayou Companies. 2012a. Fusion bonded epoxy powder coating. Available at: 

http://www.bayoucompanies.com/Services/Coating-Services/FBE-Coating.aspx. 

(February 11, 2014)

Bayou Companies. 2012b. Three layer polyolefin coating. Available at: 

http://www.bayoucompanies.com/Services/Coating-Services/3-Layer-Polyolefin.aspx. 

(February 11, 2014)

Bayou Companies. 2012c. ID coating. Internet website: 

http://www.bayoucompanies.com/Services/Coating-Services/ID-Coating.aspx. (February 

11, 2014)

Bayou Companies. 2012d. Concrete weight coating. Available at: 

http://www.bayoucompanies.com/Services/Coating-Services/Concrete-WeightCoating.aspx. (February 11, 2014)

Barnea, N. 1997. Health and safety aspects of in-situ burning of oil. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration.

Barrett, D. 2008. The offshore supply boat sector. Marine & Commerce. February 2008.

Berger, B. and K. Anderson. 1992. Modern petroleum: a basic primer of the industry. 

PennWell Corporation; 3 Sub edition. December 1992.

Bristow Group, Inc. 2012. Helicopter transportation services. Available at: 

http://www.bristowgroup.com/helicopter-services/. (February 11, 2014)

Buist, I., J. McCourt, S. Potter, S. Ross and K. Trudel. 1999. In situ burning. Pure Appl. 

Chem., Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 43–65, 1999.

318
Burkhardt, P. 2010. Western Refining to shut down Virginia plant after profit margins narrow. 

Bloomberg.com. August 5, 2010.

Caiman Energy. 2012. Caiman and the Marcellus. Available at: 

http://www.caimanenergy.com/where-we-work/marcellus. (February 11, 2014)

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2012. Significant events in the history of LNG. 

Available at: 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/documents/SIGNIFICANT_EVENTS_LNG_HISTORY.P

DF. (February 11, 2014)

Canadian Centre for Energy. 2012. Charts and Illustrations. Available at: 

http://www.centreforenergy.com/AboutEnergy/ONG/NaturalGas/ChartsIllustrations.asp. 

(February 11, 2014)

Caroom, Eliot. 2010. Fuel backup was caused by power outage at Bayway Refinery in Linden. 

New Jersey On-Line, LLC. October 25, 2010

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2012. Interim guidance for protecting 

Deepwater Horizon response workers and volunteers. Available at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/oilspillresponse/protecting/. (February 11, 2014)

Cheniere. 2012. Sabine Pass LNG terminal. Available at: 

http://www.cheniere.com/LNG_terminals/sabine_pass_lng.shtml. (February 11, 2014)

Chesapeake Shipbuilding. 2012. Profile. Available at: 

http://www.chesapeakeshipbuilding.com/profile.html. (February 11, 2014)

Clarke, K. C. and J.J. Hemphill. 2002. The Santa Barbara oil spill, a retrospective. Yearbook of 

the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, Editor Darrick Danta, University of 

Hawai'i Press, vol. 64, pp. 157-162.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 2012a). Code of Federal Regulations, 40CFR435, Title 40 –

Protection of environment, chapter 1- Environmental Protection Agency, subchapter N –

effluent guidelines and standards, part 435-oil and gas extraction point source category. 

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 2012b). Code of Federal Regulations, 30 CFR Part 

250.300(b)(2) – Oil and gas and sulphur operations in the outer continental shelf, subpart 

C – pollution prevention and control. 

Code of Federal Regulations, 30 CFR Part (CFR 2012c). Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR 

Part 192, Subpart I - Transportation. Other Regulations Relating to Transportation.

Colonial Pipeline Company. 2011a. About us. Available at: 

http://www.colpipe.com/ab_main.asp. (February 11, 2014)

319
Colonial Pipeline Company. 2011b. System map. Available at: 

http://www.colpipe.com/ab_map.asp. (February 11, 2014)

Colton Company. 2012a. Shipbuilding history. Available at: http://shipbuildinghistory.com/ 

(February 11, 2014)

Colton Company. 2012b. LNG carriers in service or under construction. Available at: 

http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/today/highvalueships/lngactivefleet.htm. (April 17, 

2012)

Commercial Coating Services International (CCSI). 2012. Fusion bonded epoxy (FBE). 

Available at: http://www.commercialcoating.com/index.php?q=technical_data/fbe. 

(February 11, 2014)

ConocoPhillips. 2011a. Bayway refinery. Available at: 

http://www.conocophillips.com/en/susdev/accountability/engagement/community_adviso

ry/bayway/Pages/index.aspx. (July 23, 2011)

ConocoPhillips. 2011b. U.S. refining – PADD 1 (East Coast). Internet website: 

http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/about/worldwide_ops/country/north_america/pages/e

ast.aspx (February 11, 2014)

Daily, Matt. 2011. Marathon to split off refining arm, shares up. Reuters. January 13, 2011.

Davidson, P. and B. Hansen. Across USA, pace of jobs recovery is all over the map. USA 

Today. August 30, 2012.

Davis, Donald W. 2002. Louisiana’s oil spill program and development program: 110 research 

awards in support of 72 projects and still counting. Prepared for Integrated Petroleum 

Environmental Consortium, 2002.

DCP Midstream. 2012. Operations overview. Available at: 

https://www.dcpmidstream.com/Operations/Pages/OperationsOverview.aspx. (February 

11, 2014)

Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. 2012. Offshore rig basics. Available at: 

http://www.diamondoffshore.com/ourCompany/ourcompany_offshorerigbasics.php. 

(October 4, 2012)

Diesel Net. 2007. Emission standards. Available at: 

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_t2.php. (February 11, 2014)

Dittrick, Paula. 2004. Marathon CEO expects more consolidation within industry. Oil & Gas 

Journal. July 5, 2004.

320
Dittrick, Paula. 2012. MSRC completes Gulf of Mexico oil spill response expansion. Oil & 

Gas Journal. March 2, 2012.

Dominion Inc. 2010. Dominion puts Cove Point expansion project into full commercial service. 

Available at: http://dom.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=760. (February 11, 

2014)

Dominion Inc. 2011. Expansion of Dominion Cove Point LNG. Available at: 

http://www.dom.com/dominion-virginia-power/powering-virginia/dominion-covepoint.jsp. (February 11, 2014)

Dominion Transmission. 2011. Dominion Transmission informational postings Available at: 

http://escript.dom.com/jsp/info_post.jsp?&company=dti. (February 11, 2014)

Dow Inc. 2012. Products. Available at: http://www.dow.com/louisville/products.htm. 

(February 11, 2014)

Downstream Today. 2010. NiSource, UGI to build new Marcellus pipeline. Available at: 

http://www.downstreamtoday.com/News/ArticlePrint.aspx?aid=23733&AspxAutoDetect

CookieSupport=1. (February 11, 2014)

Downstream Today. 2012. Cove Point LNG. Available at: 

http://www.downstreamtoday.com/projects/project.aspx?project_id=53. (February 11, 

2014)

Earth Science Australia. 2011. Refining of petroleum. Available at: 

http://earthsci.org/mineral/energy/gasexpl/refine.html. (February 11, 2014)

Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2010. Energy market and infrastructure information for 

evaluating alternate energy projects for OCS Atlantic and Pacific regions. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Volume 1. 

Edison Chouest Offshore. 2012. Specialized vessels designed for job-specific tasks. Available 

at: http://www.chouest.com/vessels.html. (February 11, 2014)

Edison Electric Institute (EEI). 2007. Key facts about the electric power industry. Edison 

Electric Institute. July 2007.

Edison Electric Institute (EEI). 2012. Electricity transmission. Available at: 

http://www.eei.org/ourissues/ElectricityTransmission/Pages/default.aspx. (February 11, 

2014)

El Paso. 2005. El Paso Corporation announces Elba Island expansion and related pipeline 

project. Available at: http://investor.elpaso.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=97166&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=798185&highlight. (April 19, 2012)

321
El Paso. 2012. Southern LNG (SLNG). Available at: 

http://www.eppipelinepartners.com/Assets/slng.shtm. (February 11, 2014)

Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA). 2010. Electricity primer: the basics of power and 

competitive markets. Available at: http://www.epsa.org/industry/primer/. (February 11, 

2014)

Evergreen International Aviation, Inc. 2012. Locations. Available at: 

http://www.evergreenaviation.com/EHI/loc_us.html. (April 19, 2012)

Excelerate Energy. 2014. Offshore floating regasification: Gateway. Available at: 

http://excelerateenergy.com/offshore-floating-regasification-gateway. (February 18, 

2014)

ExxonMobil. 2006. A simple guide to oil refining. Available at: 

http://www.exxonmobil.com/AustraliaEnglish/PA/Files/publication_2006_Simple_Guide_Refining.pdf. (February 11, 2014)

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 1990. Details about the accident. Available at: 

http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/details.cfm. (February 11, 2014)

Fahim, M.A., T.A. Al-Sahhaf, H.M. S. Lababidi, Amal Elkilani. 2010. Fundamentals of 

petroleum refining. (Oxford: Elsevier Science and Technology). 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2004. Current state of and issues concerning 

underground natural gas storage. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Staff Report. 

Docket AD04-11-000. September 30, 2004.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2010a. Winter 2010-11 energy market assessment. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Enforcement. October 21, 2011.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2010b. Electric competition. Available at: 

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/competition.asp. (February 11, 2014)

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2011. 2010 state of the markets. Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Office of Enforcement. April 21, 2011.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2012a. Natural gas storage – storage fields. Available 

at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/storage/fields.asp. (February 11, 2014)

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2012b. Pending storage projects (updated 6/21/12). 

Available at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas.asp. (February 11, 2014)

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2012c. Major storage projects on the horizon (updated 

6/21/12). Available at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas.asp. (February 11, 2014)

322
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2012d. Storage projects currently in pre-filing 

(updated 6/21/12). Available at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas.asp. (February 11, 

2014)

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2012e. LNG. Available at: 

http://ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/lng.asp. (February 11, 2014)

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2012f. Regional transmission organizations (RTO) / 

independent system operators (ISO). Available at: 

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/rto.asp. (February 11, 2014)

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2012g. Order no. 1000 - transmission planning and 

cost allocation. Available at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/transplan.asp. (February 11, 2014)

Federal Register. 2011. 2017-2025 model year light-duty vehicle GHG emissions and CAFE 

standards: supplemental notice of intent. Available at: 

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/08/09/2011-19905/2017-2025-model-yearlight-duty-vehicle-ghg-emissions-and-cafe-standards-supplemental-notice-of. (February 

11, 2014)

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 2012. Federal Reserve economic data. Available at: 

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/.(February 11, 2014)

Flight Safety Foundation, Helicopter Safety. 2005. Bell 206L Long Ranger. Available at: 

http://www.flightsafety.org/hs/hs_mar-apr05.pdf. (February 12, 2014)

Folga, S.M. Natural gas pipeline technology overview. Argonne National Laboratory, Decision 

and Information Sciences Division. November 2007.

Fontevecchia, Augustino. 2011. Marathon Oil splits itself into refining, E&P businesses. 

Forbes. January 13, 2011.

Gas Processors Association (GPA). 2004. The gas processing industry. Tulsa: Gas Processors 

Association.

General Dynamics, Bath Iron Works. 2012. Shipbuilding. Available at: 

https://www.gdbiw.com/Shipbuilding.html. (February 11, 2014)

Global Petroleum Research Institute Designs (GPRID). 2012. Conversion of oil field produced 

brine to fresh water. Global Petroleum Research Institute Designs, Texas Engineering 

Experiment Station, The Texas A&M University System. Available at: 

http://www.gpri.org/ConversionBrine.htm (February 12, 2014)

323
GlobalSecurity.org. 2012. Shipyards. Available at: 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/intro-shipyard.htm. (February 11, 2014)

Goldstein, S. 2010. Petroplus rallies on deal to buy Delaware refinery. Marketwatch. 

Available at: http://www.marketwatch.com/Story/story/print?guid=CD70DF11-1D7B4B6C-BB65-9F7386A86B7F. (February 11, 2014)

Goure, D. 2011. The contribution of the Jones Act to U.S. security. Arlington: The Lexington 

Institute. October 2011.

Grup Servicil Petroliere. 2012. GSP Prometeu. Available at: http://www.gspoffshore.com/thefleet/jack-up-rigs/gsp-prometeu. (February 11, 2014)

Guan, S.W., N. Gritis, A. Jackson and P. Singh. 2005. Advanced onshore and offshore pipeline 

coating technologies. 2005 China International Oil & Gas Pipeline Technology 

(Integrity) Conference & Expo. 

Guan, S.W. 2010. Layer of protection, new challenges and developments in pipeline coatings. 

North American Oil & Gas Pipelines. Available at: 

www.brederoshaw.com/non_html/journals/NAP_JanFeb2010.pdf (February 12, 2014)

Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. 2011. Annual report. 

Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. 2012. Gulf Island facilities. Available at: 

http://www.gulfisland.com/services_facilities.php. (February 11, 2014)

Gulf Mark Offshore. 2012. Marine transportation services: Services. Available at: 

http://www.gulfmark.com/Services-30.html. (February 11, 2014)

Hart Resource Technologies, Inc. (HRT). 2012. About us. Available at: 

http://www.hartresourcetech.net/about.html. (October 29, 2012)

Hess Corporation. 2009. Marketing & refining. Available at: 

http://www.hess.com/rm/refining.htm. (July 23, 2011)

Holeywell, R. 2012. Panama Canal expansion has U.S. ports rushing. Available at: 

http://www.governing.com/panama-canal-expansion-has-ports-rushing.html. (February 

11, 2014)

Huntington Ingalls. 2013. About Newport News shipbuilding. Available at: 

http://nns.huntingtoningalls.com/about/index. (February 11, 2014)

Industrial College of the Armed Forces (ICAF). National Defense University. 2008. Final 

report: shipbuilding industry. Washington D.C.: National Defense University

324
Industrial College of the Armed Forces (ICAF). National Defense University. 2009. Final 

report: shipbuilding industry. Washington D.C.: National Defense University.

Industrial College of the Armed Forces (ICAF). National Defense University. 2011. Final 

report: shipbuilding industry. Washington D.C.: National Defense University.

Inergy Midstream. 2012. Marc I Pipeline project. Available at: 

http://www.inergylp.com/midstream/expprojects/marc1hub/index.asp. (February 11, 

2014)

International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA. 2012. Industry guide- marine and 

specialist vessel sector. Available at: http://www.imcaint.com/divisions/marine/industry/. (February 11, 2014)

International Maritime Organization. 2006. Adoption of the guidelines for the design and 

construction of offshore supply vessels. Resolution MSC.235(82). Adopted December 

1, 2006.

The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA). 2011a. Compressor stations. 

Available at: http://www.ingaa.org/cms/129.aspx. (February 11, 2014)

The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA). 2011b. A view from the nation’s 

pipeline industry. Presented to Society of Gas Lighting/Society of Gas Operators, Yale 

Club NYC. February 17, 2011.

The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA). 2012. Pipe coating. Available at: 

http://www.ingaa.org/cms/127.aspx. (February 11, 2014)

Johnson, Jeff. 2006. House passes refinery siting bill. Chemical & Engineering News. June 9, 

2006.

Johnson, T. 2012. Widening of Panama Canal will remade world trade patterns. Available at: 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/06/159848/widening-of-panama-canal-will.html.

(February 11, 2014)

Joint Industry Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Task Force (JITF). 2011. Progress report on 

industry recommendations to improve oil spill preparedness and response. Joint Industry 

Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Task Force. November 2011.

Jones, J. 2008. “Design-build” method useful for refinery project execution. Oil & Gas Journal. 

May 12, 2008.

Journal of Commerce. 2012a. East coast ports. Internet website: http://www.joc.com/specialtopics/east-coast-ports. (February 11, 2014)

325
Journal of Commerce. 2012b. Port of Savannah harbor deepening reaches major milestone 

USACE releases final documents showing powerful economic benefits. Available at: 

http://www.joc.com/port-savannah-harbor-deepening-reaches-major-milestone-usacereleases-final-documents-showing. (February 11, 2014)

Kammerzell, J. 2005. Eastern GoM hub frees independent deepwater fields. Offshore. March 

2005.

Katusa, M. 2012. Shale gas take on coal to power America’s electrical plants. Forbes. June 30, 

2012.

Kennedy, J. L. 1993. Oil and gas pipeline fundamentals. Oklahoma City: PennWell Publishing 

Company.

Keppel Offshore & Marine LS. 2011. Report to stakeholders 2011. Available at: 

http://www.keppelom.com/en/content.aspx?sid=2607. (February 11, 2014)

Kern River Transmission Company. 2011. About us. Available at: 

http://www.kernrivergas.com/InternetPortal/Desktop.aspx. (February 11, 2014)

Kiernan, E. 1982. Concrete protects offshore pipeline. Oil & Gas Journal. May 3, 1982.

Kinder Morgan. 2011. Natural gas pipelines. Available at: 

http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/gas_pipelines/rockies_express/. (September 7, 

2011)

Kusnetz, N. 2012. North Dakota’s fracking spill a ‘significant problem’. Internet website: 

http://www.publicherald.org/archives/16126/investigative-reports/energy-investigations/. 

(February 11, 2014)

Lane, Frederic Chapin. 2001. Ships for victory: a history of shipbuilding under the U.S. 

Maritime Commission in World War II. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.

Liberty Coating Company. 2012. Coating systems offered. Available at: 

http://libertycoating.com/specifications.html. (February 11, 2014)

Lipton, E. Natural gas is on a roll, executive declares. The New York Times. April 26, 2012.

Limehouse, C. Harbor deepening a port success story. The Post and Courier. August 14, 2012.

Lloyd Minster Heavy Oil Science Center. 2011. What is heavy oil? Available at: 

http://www.lloydminsterheavyoil.com/whatislaunch.htm. (February 11, 2014)

LNG World News. 2012. USA: Sierra Club opposes Cove Point LNG export plans. Available 

at: http://www.lngworldnews.com/usa-sierra-club-opposes-cove-point-lng-export-plans/.

(February 11, 2014)

326
Maersk Drilling. 2012. Maersk Rig 52. Available at: 

http://www.maerskdrilling.com/DrillingRigs/DrillingBarges/Pages/MaerskRig52.aspx

(October 15, 2012)

MarineLog.com. 2009a. Aker Philadelphia launches seventh tanker. Internet website: 

http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2009apr00201.html. (February 11, 

2014)

MarineLog.com. 2009b. Seadrill’s latest delivery en route to Brazil. Internet website: 

MarineLog.com. 2012. Seadrill's latest delivery en route to Brazil. March 12, 2009 Available 

at: http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2009mar00123.html. (February 11, 

2014)

Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC) 2012. Oil spill response. Available at: 

http://www.msrc.org/services/oil-spill-response/. (February 11, 2014)

McDermott International, Inc. 2012. Projects. Available at: 

http://www.mcdermott.com/Projects/Pages/default.aspx. (February 11, 2014)

Marathon Petroleum Corporation. 2011. Garyville, Louisiana. Available at: 

http://www.marathonpetroleum.com/Operations/Refining/Garyville_Louisiana/. (July 23, 

2011)

Mitchell, Josh and Sharon Terlep. 2011. U.S. eyeing 56.2 MPG cars by 2025. Wall Street 

Journal. June 25, 2011.

Murdock, Deroy. April 17, 2009. Clean, safe, and secure. National Review Online. Available 

at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227312/clean-safe-and-secure/deroymurdock. . (February 11, 2014)

National Petroleum Council. 2011a. Waste management. Working document of the NPC North 

American Resource Development Study. Prepared by the Technology Subgroup of the 

Operations & Environment Task Group. Made available September 15, 2011.

National Petroleum Council. 2011a. Subsea drilling, well operations and completions. Working 

document of the NPC North American Resource Development Study. Prepared by the 

Offshore Operations Subgroup of the Operations & Environment Task Group. Made 

available September 15, 2011.

NaturalGas.org. 2012a. Offshore drilling. Available at: 

http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/extraction_offshore.asp. (October 15, 2012)

NaturalGas.org. 2012b. Storage of natural gas. Available at: 

http://naturalgas.org/naturalgas/storage/ (February 12, 2014)

327
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2011. President Obama announces 

historic 54.5 mpg fuel efficiency standard. NHTSA Press Release. July 29, 2011.

NDT Resource Center. 2011. Pipeline inspection. Available at: http://www.ndted.org/AboutNDT/SelectedApplications/PipelineInspection/PipelineInspection.htm.

(February 11, 2014)

Nestleroth, J. B. and T. A. Bubenik. 1999. Magnetic flux leakage (MFL) technology for natural 

gas pipeline inspection. Prepared for The Gas Research Institute. February 1999.

New York Times. 2011. Marathon Oil to split in two. New York Times. January 13, 2011. 

NGV America. 2009. Fact sheet: American Recovery & Reinvestment Act, Pub. L. No. 111-5. 

NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage (NGTS). 2011. Our companies. Available at: 

http://www.ngts.com/en/about-us/our-companies.aspx#columbiagastransmission.

(February 11, 2014)

NiSource, Inc. 2011. Our companies. Available at: http://www.nisource.com/en/about-us/ourcompanies.aspx. (February 11, 2014)

Noble Corporation. 2012. Noble Joe Alford – rig specifications. Available at: 

http://www.noblecorp.com/Fleet/RigDetail.asp?RigAbbrev_CH=NJA. (October 16, 

2012)

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). 2011. 2011 long-term reliability 

assessment. North American Electric Reliability Corporation. November 2011.

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). 2012. About NERC: company 

overview. Available at: http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=1|7. (February 11, 2014)

Oceanwide. 2012. Global maritime employment: about us: offshore/energy. Available at: 

http://www.oceanwidecrew.com/for-employers/offshore-energy. (February 18, 2014)

Offshore. 2009. J. Ray McDermott delivers Maloob-C drilling platform. Offshore. August 11, 

2009.

Offshore-Technology.com. 2007. Online monitoring of ageing North Sea jackets. November 

30, 2007. Available at: http://www.offshoretechnology.com/contractors/instrumentation/fugro2/press3.html. (February 11, 2014)

Oil & Gas Journal. 1983. Chevron trims Perth Amboy, N.J., refinery. Oil & Gas Journal. April 

4, 1983.

328
Oil & Gas Journal. 2011. Excelerate Energy to retire Gulf Gateway LNG port. Oil & Gas 

Journal. April 18, 2011.

Oil Spill Response Joint Industry Project (OSR-JIP). 2012. Work program. Available at: 

http://oilspillresponseproject.org/work-program. (February 11, 2014)

Paganie, D. 2007a. Independence Hub breaks records through collaboration, innovation. 

Offshore. December 2007.

Paganie, D. 2007b. Demand driving port expansion. Offshore. September 2007.

Paganie, D. 2007c. Independence Hub sets sail. Offshore. February 2007.

Perilloux, Gary. 2008. Houma company will receive state aid. The Advocate, October 11, 2008

Pew Center on Global Climate Change (Pew Center). 2011. Federal vehicle standards. 

Available at: http://www.pewclimate.org/federal/executive/vehicle-standards.

PHI, Inc. 2012. PHI Oil & Gas. Available at: http://www.phihelico.com/oil-and-gas. (February 

11, 2014)

PJM. 2009. Company overview. Available at: http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm/who-weare/territory-served.aspx (February 12, 2014)

Port Fourchon. 2012. About us. Available at: http://www.portfourchon.com/overview.cfm.

(February 11, 2014)

Port of Iberia. 2012. Fast facts. Available at: http://www.portofiberia.com/fastfacts01.html.

(February 11, 2014)

Port of Philadelphia. 2012. Facilities. Available at: http://www.philaport.com/facilities.htm.

(February 11, 2014)

Port of Wilmington. 2012. Port profile. Available at: 

http://www.portofwilmington.com/.(February 11, 2014)

PR Newswire. 2002. Williams to sell its Cove Point LNG facility for $217 million in cash. PR 

Newswire. August 1, 2002.

PR Newswire U.S. 2005a. COMMSA contracts 3 remote power generation systems for 

platforms in Gulf of Mexico. August 15, 2005.

PR Newswire. 2010. Dominion announces 10-year contract for Ellisburg-to-Craigs natural gas 

project. PR Newswire. August 9, 2010.

329
PR Newswire. 2011. Williams to pursue separating into two stand-alone, publicly traded 

companies; boosts dividend 60%. PR Newswire. February 16, 2011.

PR Newswire. 2012. Dominion Virginia power proposes to convert Bremo Power Station from 

coal to natural gas. September 5, 2012.

Protection Engineering. 2012. Pipeline protection. Available at: 

http://www.corrosioncoatings.com/pipeline-protection.htm. (February 11, 2014)

Puder, M.G. and J.A. Veil. 2006. Offsite commercial disposal of oil and gas exploration and 

production waste: availability, options and costs. Argonne National Laboratory, 

Environmental Sciences Division. August 2006.

Puko, T. 2011. Water treatment plant in cross hairs. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. May 20, 

2011.

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). 2011. Statistics. Available at: 

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/statistics#C. (February 11, 2014)

Reuters. 2007. U.S. refinery expansion plants. July 19, 2007.

Reuters. 2008. U.S. refinery expansion plants. January 15, 2008.

Reuters. 2011a. UPDATE 1-PBF says Delaware City refinery up and running. July 15, 2011.

Reuters. 2011b. PBF's Delaware City refinery restart coming up. April 29, 2011.

Richardson, G.E., L.D. Nixon, C.M. Bohannon, E.G. Kazanis, T.M. Montgomery, M.P. Gravois. 

2008. Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2008: America’s offshore energy future. Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Report MMS 2008-013. New 

Orleans.

Rigzone.com. 2011. Shell digs deep setting world record. Available at: 

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=112707 (February 11, 2014)

Rigzone.com. 2012a. Petrobras starts up production at Cascade Field. Available at: 

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=115693. (February 11, 2014)

Rigzone.com. 2012b. Significant investment to keep deepwater GOM revival going. Available 

at: 

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/121128/Significant_Investment_to_Keep_Deep

water_GOM_Revival_Going. (February 11, 2014)

Rigzone.com. 2012c. How do drilling fluids work. Available at: 

http://www.rigzone.com/training/insight.asp?insight_id=291&c_id=24. (February 11, 

2014)

330
Roland, Neil. 2010. Industry likes long-term mpg plan; The positives: ample lead times, unified 

approach. Automotive News. May 24, 2010.

Sabine Pass Liquefaction. 2010. Application of Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC for long-term 

authorization to export liquefied natural gas. Docket No. 10-111-LNG. Filed with U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. September 7, 2010.

Safety Management Systems (SMS). 2012. Medical. Available at: 

http://www.safetyms.com/medical. (February 11, 2014)

Schlumberger Limited. 2012. Oilfield glossary. Available at: 

http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/.(February 11, 2014)

Schwartz, J. Panama Canal’s growth prompts U.S. ports to expand. New York Times. August 

20, 2012.

Sen, Colleen Taylor. 2001. Renaissance of the U.S. LNG industry. Pipeline & Gas Journal. 

June 2001.

Scott, Willie. 2011. Offshore oil production platforms - how they work. Bright Hub 

Engineering Available at: http://www.brighthubengineering.com/marine-enginesmachinery/59481-offshore-oil-production-platforms-how-they-work/.(February 11, 2014)

Sun Machinery. 2012. Work boats for sale. Available at: 

http://www.sunmachinery.com/work_boats_for_sale.htm. (October 28, 2012)

Sunoco, Inc. 2009. Sunoco announces strategic actions to strengthen competitive position; idles 

Eagle Point Refinery, reduces quarterly dividend to $0.15 per share. Available at: 

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=99437&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=1339286&highlight. (July 23, 2011)

Sunoco, Inc. 2011a. Marcus Hook – polymers plant. Available at: 

http://www.sunocochem.com/products/marcushookf.htm. (July 23, 2011)

Sunoco, Inc. 2011b. Philadelphia refinery. Available at: 

http://www.sunocochem.com/products/philaf.htm. (July 23, 2011)

Swire Pacific Offshore. 2012a. Offshore Support. Available at: 

http://www.swire.com.sg/Services/Swire-Pacific-Offshore.aspx (February 12, 2014)

Swire Pacific Offshore. 2012b. Our fleet. Available at: http://www.swire.com.sg/Fleet.aspx

(February 12, 2014)

Taylor, Gary. 2005. Louisiana keen on luring investment for new refineries. Platts Oilgram 

Price Report. August 12, 2005.

331
Taylors International Services, Inc. 2012. Services: A full menu of services. Available at: 

http://www.taylors-international.com/services.html. (February 11, 2014)

Tenaris. 2012a. High specification pipeline products for shallow, deep and ultra-deepwater. 

Tenaris. 2012b. Research & development. Available at: 

http://www.tenaris.com/en/RAndD.aspx. (February 11, 2014)

Tennessee Gas Pipeline. 2011a. Welcome to Tennessee Gas Pipeline. Available at: 

http://www.tennesseeadvantage.com/default.asp. (February 11, 2014)

Tennessee Gas Pipeline. 2011b. About the project. Available at: 

http://www.northeastupgradeproject.com/ABOUT-THE-PROJECT.aspx. (September 7, 

2011)

Thermacor Process, Inc. 2008. Fusion bonded epoxy. Available at: 

www.thermacor.com/images/dbProduct/.../FBE%20Complete.pdf. (October 29, 2012)

TMK IPSCO. 2012. Ambridge. Available at: http://www.tmk-group.com/tmkipsco_ambridge.php. (February 11, 2014)

Transocean. 2012. Fleet specifications. Available at

http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/Discoverer-Deep-Seas-60C77.html?LayoutID=17.

(October 15, 2012)

Triumvirate Environmental. 2012. OSRO’s and oil spill cleanup methods. Available at: 

http://www.triumvirate.com/industrial-services-blog/bid/33124/OSRO-s-and-Oil-SpillCleanup-Methods. (October 30, 2012)

True, W. and Taylor Sen, C. 2007. Middle East, Africa set to lead world in doubling 

liquefaction capacity. LNG Observer. Volume 4, Issue 1. January/February 2007.

Tusiani, M. and G. Shearer. 2007. LNG: A Nontechnical Guide. Penwell Books. 2007.

Uhl, William. More than breaking down a barrel; petroleum refining. National Petroleum News. 

February 1, 1984.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Institute for Water Resources. 2010. Commerce of 

the United States. 

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (USC, OTA). 1995. Assessing the potential 

for civil-military integration: selected case studies. OTA-BP-ISS-158. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. September 1995.

332
U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis (USDOC, BEA). 2012. Internet 

website: http://www.bea.gov/.(February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Bureau of Industry and Security (USDOC, BIS). 2001. National 

security assessment of the U.S. shipbuilding and repair industry. May 2001 Available at: 

http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/forms-documents/doc_download/56-national-securityassessment-of-the-u-s-shipbuilding-and-repair-industry-2001 (February 12, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. International Trade Administration (USDOC, ITA). 1994. U.S. 

industrial outlook 1994. 35th ed.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010. 

Federal, state natural resource agencies receive $27.5 million to restore Delaware river 

damaged by 2004 oil spill. Available at: 

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20101115_delawareoil.html. (February 11, 

2014)

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2012a. 

In situ burning. Internet website: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemicalspills/oil-spills/resources/in-situ-burning.html. (February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2012b. 

ADIOS Available at: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/oilspills/response-tools/adios.html. (February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2012c. 

SMART Available at: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/smart. (February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. U.S. Census Bureau (USDOC, CB). 2002. 2002 NAICS. Available 

at: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?chart=2002. (February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy and the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (USDOE/PERF). 2003. 

A summary of the DOE/PERF bioremediation workshop. April 2003.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Drilling Waste Management Information Systems (DWMIS). 2012a. 

Drilling waste management technology descriptions. Available at: 

http://web.ead.anl.gov/dwm/techdesc/index.cfm. (February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Drilling Waste Management Information Systems (DWMIS). 2012b. 

Fact sheet – discharge to ocean. Available at: 

http://web.ead.anl.gov/dwm/techdesc/discharge/index.cfm. (February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Drilling Waste Management Information Systems (DWMIS). 2012c. 

Fact sheet – Onsite burial (pits, landfills). Available at: 

http://web.ead.anl.gov/dwm/techdesc/burial/index.cfm. (February 11, 2014)

333
U.S. Dept. of Energy. Drilling Waste Management Information Systems (DWMIS). 2012d. 

Fact sheet – land application. Available at: 

http://web.ead.anl.gov/dwm/techdesc/land/index.cfm. (February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Drilling Waste Management Information Systems (DWMIS). 2012e. 

Fact sheet – bioremediation. Available at: 

http://web.ead.anl.gov/dwm/techdesc/salt/index.cfm. (February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Drilling Waste Management Information Systems (DWMIS). 2012f. 

Fact sheet – disposal in salt caverns. Internet website: 

http://web.ead.anl.gov/dwm/techdesc/salt/index.cfm. (February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (USDOE, EERE). 2009. 

President Obama announces $2.4 billion in grants to accelerate the manufacturing and 

deployment of the next generation of U.S. batteries and electric Available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/news/news_detail.html?news_id=12697.

(February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE EIA). 2000. The changing 

structure of the electric power industry 2000: an update. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Energy Information Administration. October 2000.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE EIA). 2003. The global 

liquefied natural gas market: status and outlook. Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/global/worldlng.html. (February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE EIA). 2004. The basics of 

underground natural gas storage Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/storagebasics/storageb

asics.html. (February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE EIA). 2006a. Additions to 

capacity on the U.S. natural gas pipeline network: 2005. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas. August 2006.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE EIA). 2006b. Natural gas 

processing: the crucial link between natural gas production and its transportation to 

market. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil 

and Gas, Washington D.C., January 2006.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2007a. Natural gas 

compressor stations on the interstate pipeline network: developments since 1996. U.S. 

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas. 

November 2007.

334
U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2007b. International 

energy outlook (chapter 4, natural gas). Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/archive/ieo07/nat_gas.html. (February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE EIA). 2008a. Additions to 

capacity on the U.S. natural gas pipeline network: 2007. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas. July 2008.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE EIA). 2008b. U.S. LNG 

peak shaving and import facilities, 2008 Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/lngpeaksha

ving_map.html.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE EIA). 2008c. Residential 

electricity prices: a consumer’s guide. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information 

Administration. DOE/EIA-X061. January 2008.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE EIA). 2009. Expansion of 

the U.S. natural gas pipeline network: additions in 2008 and projects through 2011. U.S. 

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas. 

September 2009.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE EIA). 2010. Status of 

electric restructuring by state Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/restructuring/restructure_elect.html. (February 

11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2011a. Maps: 

exploration, resources, reserves, and production. Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/maps/maps.htm.

(February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2011b. Natural gas 

processing plants in the United States: 2010 update. Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2010/ngpps2009/. (February 

11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2011c. Natural gas 

year-in-review 2010. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration, 

Office of Oil and Gas. December 9, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2012a. About U.S. 

natural gas pipelines. Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/index.html.

335
U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2012b. Major 

natural gas transportation corridors. Internet website: 

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/index.html.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2012c. Natural gas 

pipeline capacity & utilization. Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/usage.html.

(February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2012d. Natural gas 

navigator Available at: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/.(February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2012e. Peak 

underground working natural gas storage capacity. Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/storagecapacity/.(February 11, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2012f. FERC’s Hackberry 

decision (2002). Available at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngmajorleg/ferc.html.

(February 11, 2014) 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2012g. Annual 

energy outlook. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. June 

25, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2012h. Project 

sponsors are seeking Federal approval to export domestic natural gas. U.S. Department 

of Energy. Energy Information Administration. April 24, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2012i. Petroleum 

navigator. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/. (February 11, 2014) 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2012j. Refinery 

capacity report. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. June 

22, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2012k. Electricity, 

detailed state data. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/.(February 11, 

2014) 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2012l. Form EIA860 detailed data. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/index.html.

(February 11, 2014) 

336
U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2012m. Form EIA861 data files. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861/index.html.

(February 11, 2014) 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2012n. Form EIA826 data monthly electric utility sales and revenue data. Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia826.html. (February 11, 2014) 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2012o. Form EIA923 detailed data. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/. (February 

11, 2014) 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration (USDOE, EIA). 2012p. Monthly 

coal- and natural gas-fired generation equal for first time in April 2012. Today in 

Energy. July 6, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory (USDOE, NETL). 2010. Final 

technology status assessment report, instrumented pipeline initiative. U.S. Dept. of 

Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. February 25, 2010.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Office of Fossil Energy (USDOE OFE). 1999. Environmental benefits of 

advanced oil and gas production technology. Washington, D.C. October 1999.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Office of Fossil Energy (USDOE OFE). 2006. Impact of the 2005 

hurricanes on the natural gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico region. Office of Fossil, 

U.S. Department of Energy. July 2006. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Office of Fossil Energy (USDOE, OFE). 2011. Opinion and order 

conditionally granting long-term authorization to export liquefied natural gas from Sabine 

Pass LNG Terminal to non-free trade agreement nations. FE Docket No. 10-111-LNG. 

DOE/FE Order No. 2961. May 20, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Office of Fossil Energy (USDOE, OFE). 2012a. Natural gas regulation. 

Available at: http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/gasregulation/. (February 11, 2014) 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Office of Fossil Energy (USDOE, OFE). 2012b. Energy Department 

approves gulf coast exports of liquefied natural gas. Available at: 

http://fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2011/11023-

DOE_Approves_LNG_Export_Applicatio.html. (February 11, 2014) 

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 2012a. 16711 CG-ENG policy 

letter no. 03-12. May 15, 2012. 

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. United States Coast Guard (USCG). 2012b. United States 

Coast Guard Response Resource Inventory System. Available at: 

https://cgrri.uscg.mil/UserReports/WebClassificationReport.aspx. (February 11, 2014) 

337
U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Mineral Management Services (MMS). 2005. Creating new 

opportunities and challenges: growing support industry. May 24, 2005. Available at: 

http://www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2005/press0524.htm(February 11, 2014) 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012a. Offshore stats and 

facts. Available at: http://www.boem.gov/BOEM-Newsroom/Offshore-Stats-andFacts/Offshore-Stats-and-Facts.aspx(February 11, 2014) 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012b. Offshore statistics by 

water depth. Available at: 

http://www.data.boem.gov/homepg/data_center/leasing/WaterDepth/WaterDepth.asp

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USDOL, BLS). 2012. Quarterly census of 

employment and wages. Available at http://www.bls.gov/cew/. (February 11, 2014) 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 1996. Report on survey of 

U.S. shipbuilding and repair facilities. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime 

Administration, Office of Marine Asset Construction and Technology. 1996.

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 1999. An assessment of the 

U.S. Marine Transportation System: a report to Congress. September 1999.

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2002. Intermodal access to 

U.S. ports, report on survey findings. August 2002.

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2004. Report on survey of 

U.S. shipbuilding and repair facilities. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime 

Administration, Office of Marine Asset Construction and Technology. December 2004.

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2005a. Report to Congress 

on the performance of ports and the intermodal system. June 2005.

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2005b. United States port 

development expenditure report. November 2005.

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2006a. Report on survey of 

U.S. shipbuilding and repair facilities. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime 

Administration, Office of Marine Asset Construction and Technology. December 2006.

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2006b. Maritime 

Administration annual report to Congress, fiscal year 2006.

338
U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2011. U.S. water 

transportation statistical snapshot. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime 

Administration, Office of Policy and Plans, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs. 

February 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Office of Pipeline Safety (USDOT, OPS). 2011. Distribution, 

transmission, and liquid annual data. Available at: 

http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/data-stats. (February 11, 2014) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997. Profile of the shipbuilding and repair 

industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance. November 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999a. Understanding oil spills and oil spill 

response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial 

Response. EPA 540-K-99-007. December 1999.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999b. Emission facts: the history of 

reducing tailpipe emissions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile 

Sources. May 1999.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. A citizen’s guide to bioremediation. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

EPA 542-F-01-001. April 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Exemption of oil and gas exploration 

and production wastes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. 

EPA-530-K-01-004.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011a. Fuels and Fuel Additives. Diesel fuel. 

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oms/fuels/dieselfuels/index.htm. (February 11, 2014) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011b. EPA and NHTSA finalize historic 

national program to reduce greenhouse gases and improve fuel economy for cars and 

trucks. Available at: 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved

=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.epa.gov%2Fotaq%2Fclimate%2Fregulation

s%2F420f10014.pdf&ei=3bP7UoqYD4qQ2QXJtYD4DA&usg=AFQjCNGA7E8N8XPaK5nw2UmEsp95VP3wA&sig2=uCkkxPRlQrtfhDQ5qOo9fg&bvm=bv.61190

604,d.b2I (February 12, 2014)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012a. Oil spills. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/. (February 11, 2014) 

339
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012b. National pollutant discharge 

elimination system (NPDES), pretreatment program. Available at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=3. (February 11, 2014) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012c. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/. (February 11, 2014) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012d. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/CSAPR/index.html (February 12, 

2014)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012e. Clean Air Mercury Rule. Basic 

information. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/camr/basic.html. (February 11, 2014) 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2004. Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC, 

Form 10-K, Fiscal year ended December 31, 2004.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2006. Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc., Form 

10-K, Fiscal year ended December 31, 2006.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2009a. Sunoco, Inc., Form 10-K, Fiscal year 

ended December 31, 2009.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2010a. The Williams Companies, Inc., Form 

10-K, Fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2010b. Dominion Resources, Form 10-K, 

Fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2010c. Hess Corporation, Form 10-K, Fiscal 

year ended December 31, 2010.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2010d. NuStar Energy L.P., Form 10-K, 

Fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2010e. Sunoco, Inc., Form 10-K, Fiscal year 

ended December 31, 2010.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2010f. Chevron Corporation, Form 10-K, 

Fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2010g. Western Refining, Form 10-K, Fiscal 

year ended December 31, 2010.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2011a. Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc., Form 

10-K, Fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

340
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2011b. Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. 

Form 10-K, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2011c. SEACOR Holdings Inc. Form 10-K, 

for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2011d. Newpark Resources, Inc. Form 10-K, 

Fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2011e. Dominion Resources, Form 10-K, 

Fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2010f. The Williams Companies, Inc., Form 

10-K, Fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2011g. NiSource Inc., Form 10-K, Fiscal 

year ended December 31, 2011.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2011h. Enterprise Products Partners L.P. 

Form 10-K, Fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2011i. Targa Resources Partners LP. Form 

10-K, Fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2012a. Bristow Group Inc. Form 10-K, for 

the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2012b. Southern Company. Form 10-Q, for 

the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

Tubb, R. 2005. Deepwater Gulf of Mexico records & achievements. Pipeline & Gas Journal. 

October 2005.

Valero Energy Corporation. 2009a. Paulsboro refinery. Available at: 

http://www.valero.com/AboutUs/Refineries/Paulsboro.htm. (July 23, 2011)

Valero Energy Corporation. 2009b. Delaware City refinery. Available at: 

http://www.valero.com/AboutUs/Refineries/DelawareCity.htm (July 23, 2011)

Valero Energy Corporation. 2010. Valero Completes Sale of Paulsboro Refinery. Available at: 

http://www.valero.com/NewsRoom/Pages/PR_20101217_0.aspx. (February 11, 2014) 

Veazey, M.V. 2012. Port Fourchon: Charting a course for recovery. Available at: 

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=116978. (February 11, 2014) 

Wall Street Journal. 2012. EPA smack-down number six. August 21, 2012.

341
Western Refining. 2009. About Western Refining. Available at: 

http://www.wnr.com/AboutUs.aspx. (July 23, 2011)

Wikimedia. 2012. Philadelphia shipyard. Available at: 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3APhiladelphia_Naval_Shipyard2.jpg. 

(February 11, 2014) 

Wilds, J., C. Dufour and W. Cowran. 2006. Louisiana, yesterday and today: a historical guide 

to the state. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. 

Williams. 2011. Gas pipeline operations. Available at: 

http://www.energy.williams.com/Gas_Pipeline_Operations. (September 7, 2011)

Wingfield, B. and J. Carroll. 2012. Cheniere wins approval for biggest U.S. gas-export 

terminal. Bloomberg Business Week. April 17, 2012.

Wisdom, L., E. Peer, and P. Bonnifay. 1998. Cleaner fuels shift refineries to increased resid 

hydroprocessing. Oil and Gas Journal. February 9, 1998.

Wolley, John T. and Gerhard Peters. 2006. The American presidency project. Available at 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=24935. (February 11, 2014) 

Woods, J. W. 1982. Here are methods and techniques for choosing proper approaches to 

pipeline repair. Tulsa: PennWell Corporation. July 19, 1982.

World Oil Magazine. 2007. New products. August, 2007.

World Oil Magazine. 2012a. Deepwater needs spur most advances in offshore rig designs. July 

2012.

World Oil Magazine. 2012b. New products and services. Vol. 233(6). June 2012.

WVEC.com. 2010. Western Refining suspending most operations at Yorktown plant. 

Available at: http://www.wvec.com/news/local/Western-Refining-to-close-Yorktownplant-100030339.html#.(February 11, 2014) 

Yoon, M. S., Warren, C. B., and Adam, S., Pipeline system automation and control, ASME 

Press, New York, N.Y., 2007.

Zhu, T. and H.B. Carroll. 1995. Slimhole drilling: applications and improvements. Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Energy, Bartlesville Project Office. NIPER/BDM-0155. August 

1995.

342
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has 

responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural 

resources. This includes fostering the sound use of our land and water 

resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the 

environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The 

Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure 

that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging 

stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a 

major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people 

who live in island communities.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Mission

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) works to manage the 

exploration and development of the nation's offshore resources in a way that 

appropriately balances economic development, energy independence, and 

environmental protection through oil and gas leases, renewable energy 

development and environmental reviews and studies.