CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Date : 2/18/2011 

Claim Number : 911005-0001 

Claimant : Forest Oil Corporation

Type of Claimant : Corporate (US)

Type of Claim : Removal Costs

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $57,420.54 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On October 27, 2009, at approximately 1340, an oil spill was discovered 

on the Humble Canal, approximately two miles southwest of Paradis, Louisiana in close 

proximity to an oil transfer line that Forest Oil Corporation operates in the Paradis Field. 

The oil was confined to the edge of the Humble Canal, which drains into Lake Des 

Allemands of the Barataria Basin, a navigable waterway of the United States. The oil 

migrated north from the Humble Canal approximately 250 feet into the swamp. Forest Oil 

called out the Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO) Environmental Safety & Health 

(ES&H) Inc. to begin recovery of the oil, while utilizing their own personnel to deploy 

boom. Due to the spill location, the lack of a continuing or identifiable source and the fact 

that Forest Oil’s “mass balance” accounting of oil transported through the line could not 

confirm a release. The suspected Responsible Party (RP) was reported as “unknown”. 

Forest Oil conducted mechanical integrity testing of the transfer line immediately following 

the leak discovery. This revealed the line had complete integrity and its potential as the 

source was ruled out. The Coast Guard subsequently obtained crude oil samples from 

Forest Oil’s tank battery, as well as a sample of the spilled oil, and submitted them for 

forensic hydrocarbon fingerprinting analysis. According to the Coast Guard, the fingerprint 

analysis indicated that the two oils were dissimilar. Forest Oil, with the aid of the Louisiana 

Department of Natural Resources, undertook a thorough effort to identify historic wells, old 

flow lines and similar equipment that exist or existed in the area at a radius of one-half mile 

of the spill. There were a number of potential sources, but a review of those potential 

sources with the Coast Guard has ruled them out. However, Forest Oil Corporation agreed 

to manage the cleanup under the direction of the Coast Guard and utilize their contracted 

OSRO, ES&H.

Description of Removal Activities for this claimant: Forest Oil Corporation utilized their 

own personnel and contracted OSRO, ES&H to deploy boom and skim the water’s surface 

using sorbent pads. After consulting with the Coast Guard and Oil Spill Trustees including 

the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LADEQ), Louisiana Department of 

Natural Resources (LADNR), Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fish, US Fish and 

Wildlife and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), it was 

determined that passive recovery would be necessary for impacts to the swamp. A “passive 

remediation” process of allowing the oil to migrate out of the impacted area into the more 

open water of the Humble Canal, where it could be recovered, was implemented. As a 

result, the spill cleanup occurred over an extended period of time, from October 27, 2009 

through May 1, 2010. 
During this time boom was placed at all entrances to the swamp to prevent further impacts 

to the Humble Canal. Forest Oil also purchased a bird scare cannon and placed it in the area

to prevent further impacts to wildlife.

ES&H billed Forest Oil for their personnel, equipment and disposal costs utilizing a 

standard rate schedule. National Oilwell Varco billed Forest Oil for equipment costs. 

Vanguard billed them for vacuum truck costs and Whitetail Oilfield Services billed them for 

pumping out oil lines for leak testing.

The Claim: On October 18, 2010, Forest Oil Corporation submitted a removal cost claim to 

the National Pollution Fund Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated 

removal costs in the amount of $57,420.54. 

Forest Oil is claiming ES&H invoiced personnel, equipment and disposal of waste costs 

totaling $38,524.30. They are also claiming National Oilwell Varco equipment costs of 

$6,825.07, Whitetail Oilfield Services contract costs of $988.00, Vanguard Vacuum Truck 

invoice costs of $2,687.75 and their own personnel and equipment (scare cannon) costs of 

$8,395.42. Forest Oil provided a spreadsheet of these costs, which the NPFC used to 

approve or deny the cost compensation requested.

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), at 33 USC § 2702(a), responsible parties are 

liable for removal costs and damages resulting from the discharge of oil into navigable 

waters and adjoining shorelines, as described in Section 2702(b) of OPA 90. Removal costs 

are those “removal costs incurred by any person for acts taken by the person which are 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan”. 33 USC § 2702(b)(1)(B).

"Oil" is defined in relevant part, at 33 USC § 2701(23), to mean “oil of any kind or in any 

form, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than 

dredged spoil”.

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) is available, pursuant to 33 USC §§ 2712(a)(4) 

and 2713 and the OSLTF claims adjudication regulations at 33 CFR Part 136, to pay claims 

for uncompensated removal costs that are determined to be consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan and uncompensated damages. 

Under 33 USC §2713(a) all claims for removal costs or damages, with exceptions not 

applicable here, shall be presented first to the responsible party or guarantor of the source 

designated. 

Under 33 USC §2713(b)(2) and 33 CFR 136.103(d) no claim against the OSLTF may be 

approved or certified for payment during the pendency of an action by the claimant in court 

to recover the same costs that are the subject of the claim. See also, 33 USC §2713(c) and 

33 CFR 136.103(c)(2) [claimant election]. 

Under 33 USC §2715(a) any person, including the Fund, who pays compensation pursuant 

to this Act to any claimant for removal costs or damages shall be subrogated to all rights, 

claims, and causes of action that the claimant has under any other law.
Under 33 CFR 136.105(a) and 136.105(e)(6), the claimant bears the burden of providing all 

evidence, information, and documentation deemed necessary by the Director, NPFC, to 

support the claim. 

Under 33 CFR 136.105(b) each claim must be in writing, for a sum certain for each category 

of uncompensated damages or removal costs resulting from an incident. In addition, under 

33 CFR 136, the claimant bears the burden to prove the removal actions were reasonable in 

response to the scope of the oil spill incident, and the NPFC has the authority and 

responsibility to perform a reasonableness determination. Specifically, under 33 CFR 

136.203, “a claimant must establish - 

(a) That the actions taken were necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the 

incident; 

(b) That the removal costs were incurred as a result of these actions;

(c) That the actions taken were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC.” 

Under 33 CFR 136.107, 

“(a) The claims of subrogor (e.g., insured) and subrogee (e.g., insurer) for removal costs and 

damages arising out of the same incident should be presented together and must be signed 

by all claimants.

(b) A fully subrogated claim is payable only to the subrogee.”. 

Under 33 CFR 136.205 “the amount of compensation allowable is the total of 

uncompensated reasonable removal costs of actions taken that were determined by the 

FOSC to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC. 

Except in exceptional circumstances, removal activities for which costs are being claimed 

must have been coordinated with the FOSC.” 

 

Under 33 CFR 136.115(d), the Director, NPFC, will, upon written request of the claimant or 

the claimant's representative, reconsider any claim denied. This is a de novo review. The 

request for reconsideration must be in writing and include the factual or legal grounds for 

the relief requested, providing any additional support for the claim. The request for 

reconsideration must be received by the NPFC within 60 days after the date the denial was 

mailed to the claimant or within 30 days after receipt of the denial by the claimant, 

whichever date is earlier.

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview: 

1. MSTC provided FOSC coordination, with MST2 as 

break-in FOSC. 

2. The incident involved the discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 

2701(23), to navigable waters. 

3. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the claimant has certified no suit has 

been filed in court for the claimed uncompensated removal costs.

4. The claim was submitted within the six year statute of limitations for removal costs. 

5. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted 

with the claim and determined that the removal costs presented were for actions in 
accordance with the NCP and that the costs for these actions were indeed reasonable 

and allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. Analysis:

NPFC CA reviewed the actual cost invoices and dailies to confirm that the claimant had 

incurred all costs claimed. The review focused on: (1) whether the actions taken were 

compensable “removal actions” under OPA and the claims regulations at 33 CFR 136 (e.g., 

actions to prevent, minimize, mitigate the effects of the incident); (2) whether the costs were 

incurred as a result of these actions; (3) whether the actions taken were determined by the 

FOSC to be consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were 

adequately documented and reasonable. 

On November 2, 2010, the NPFC contacted the FOSC and LADEQ to confirm that the RP 

was never identified, fingerprinting of oil did not match Forest Oil’s pipeline and the facts 

concerning Forest Oil’s claim statements are true and correct. Both the acting FOSC and 

LADEQ’s Vincent Cheramie responded, confirming the RP was never identified and 

fingerprinting did not match Forest Oil’s pipeline. They also confirmed that Forest Oil 

employees were on-scene and involved in the removal operations along with ES&H. 

The NPFC requested additional information on three different occasions. Forest Oil 

provided their responses on November 22, 2010, January 25, 2011 and February 16, 2011. 

We analyzed all of the information submitted by the Claimant and denied the following 

costs:

$ 13.99 for costs above what the Claimant paid on invoice # 901880083 

$ 26.13 for costs above what the Claimant paid on invoice # 901885098 

$ 20.05 for costs above what the Claimant paid on invoice # 901889365 

$ 160.00 because Level D PPE is not on signed daily on invoice # 1-21217 

$ 666.00 for airboat rental costs over ES&H cost + 20% allowed on invoice # 9-2897 

$ 810.97 for a flat bottom boat the Claimant ended up purchasing and keeping on invoice # 

9-2897 11/05/09 

$ 86.14 for miscellaneous expenses including equipment and meals with no receipts on 

 invoice # 9-2897 11/06/09 

$ 35.00 for ES&H employee not shown on IAP’s or daily signed logs on invoice # 9-3251 

$ 413.79 for miscellaneous expenses including supplies and meals with no receipts on 

 invoice # 9-3791 

$ 276.25 for no proof of payment on invoice # 9-3546 

$ 840.00 for lack of documentation for work hours for 

$ 485.34 for costs claimed above what makes per hour 

$2000.00 for costs that were not substantiated by payroll records 

$5,833.66 are the total costs denied. See attached spreadsheet for details of these denials.

The NPFC finds all other costs are approved. The remaining invoices submitted were 

supported by signed dailies, proof of payment, and were consistent with the removal actions

undertaken. 

On that basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the claimant did in fact incur 

$51,586.88 of uncompensated removal costs and that amount is properly payable by the 

OSLTF as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the claimant and 

submitted to the NPFC under claim #910122-001. The claimant states that all costs claimed 
are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the claimant for this incident on October 

27, 2009. The claimant represents that all costs paid by the claimant are compensable 

removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as presented by the claimant.

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $51,586.88 as full compensation for 

the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under 

claim # 911005-0001. All costs claimed are for charges paid for by the Claimant for removal 

actions as that term is defined in OPA and are compensable removal costs, payable by the 

OSLTF as presented by the Claimant. 

AMOUNT: $51,586.88

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 2/18/11 

Supervisor Action: Approved