The Problem(s) with Pipelines: An Anthology

On Sunday, Dec. 4 the Army Corps of Engineers issued a decision which will again delay construction of  the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The ruling was cheered by water protectors entrenched in the path of the pipeline at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. These representatives of indigenous nations, environmental activists, veterans, and many other groups have been resisting pressure from private security and law enforcement officers from at least 76 different state and federal agencies or departments, as well as enduring sub-zero blizzard conditions. However, the ruling does not definitively end the controversy, it only delays the decision until further environmental impact studies are conducted.

Unfortunately the choices before the Army Corps appear to be limited, given the fact that as much as 87% of the North Dakota portion of the pipeline is already complete, and nearly 50% of the almost $3.8 billion dollar project is completed and/or in the final stages of cleanup and reclamation. Furthermore, any further environmental impact study and public comment for the Army Corps could easily hand the decison over to Trump Administration which has expressed support the pipeline (despite the obvious conflict of interest with the President-Elect owning stock in several of the key companies involved).  So while hands are wrung and ink is spilled on the specifics of this pipeline, let’s take a look at why people around the world are rallying  in opposition to ANY new pipelines.

The short answer is 1) accidents happen, and 2) they are multi-million dollar investment projects which further lock us into years, even decades, of fossil fuel extraction and emissions.

You can explore this map of pipeline spills and releases from our friends at FracTracker, but what exactly do some of these incidents look like on the ground and in the water? Here are some of the most egregious cases from the past decade.

Belle Fourche Pipeline Leak, Dec. 10, 2016. Image Credit – Jennifer Skjod, N. Dakota Dept. of Health

Western North Dakota, near Belfield – December 5, 2016: Just this month, less than 150 miles from Oceti Sakowin Camp, a leak was discovered in the Belle Fourche pipeline. An estimated 176,000 gallons leaked and crews are reportedly testing whether or not they can burn some of the spilled oil to stop further spread of the oil.

As of Dec. 15, ten days after the spill was discovered, less than 1/3rd of the oil had been recovered. But this is the not the first time that True Companies, the pipeline operator, has been in the news.

Yellowstone River, northeastern Wyoming – January 17, 2015: True Company/Bridger Pipeline’s Poplar oil line leaked 32,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River, a tributary of the Missouri River (and by extension, upstream of Standing Rock). The pipeline was supposed to be buried eight feet beneath the river bed, but after the spill investigators discovered that the pipeline had become completely exposed. And it wouldn’t be the first time for the Yellowstone River. In July 2013, an Exxon pipeline also leaked 63,000 gallons of oil directly into a different section of the river when it too became exposed and was damaged by flood debris.

Oil is hard enough to remove from water, but what about when that oil sinks?

Kalamazoo River, Michigan – July 25, 2010: In south-central Michigan a thirty-inch pipeline carrying diluted bitumen from Canada blew a six-foot gash along a corroded seam, releasing 843,000 gallons of heavy oil product into the Kalamazoo River. Canadian energy transporter Enbridge, the operator of the pipeline, would ultimately be deemed responsible for the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history, with a U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) official comparing the company’s spill response to the “Keystone Cops.

Fittingly, the Enbridge spill quickly became Exhibit A in the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline which was ultimately rejected by President Obama in 2015. While scientists and activists debated whether or not tar sands bitumen diluted for transport was more corrosive to pipelines than regular oil,  another major tar sands pipeline would make headlines.

Mayflower, Arkansas – March 29, 2013: In a quiet Arkansas suburb, Exxon Mobil’s Pegasus pipeline burst, spilling an estimated 210,000 gallons of tar sands bitumen through a residential subdivision and into nearby Lake Conway. With assistance the Arkansas Chapter of Sierra Club, we used satellite imagery taken before and after the disaster to document the impact on the community and nearby public lands.

But it is not just the United States concerned about new oil pipelines. Our neighbors in Canada have also had their fair share of pipeline accidents and have their own slate of new pipeline projects concerning them.

Burnaby, British Columbia –July 24, 2007 : On a warm summer afternoon in British Columbia, a contractor’s backhoe struck the Transmountain Pipeline near Westridge, releasing a gusher of over 59,000 gallons of crude oil into a residential neighborhood. But in 2016, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently approved Kinder Morgan’s plans to expand the Transmountain Pipeline, while making moves to block Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline.

In addition to spills on land, locals are deeply concerned about the risk of oil spills from increased oil tanker traffic along the coasts. Those concerns were brought back to the fore when a tug boat, the Nathan E. Stewart, ran aground near Bella Bella, B.C. while pushing an empty fuel barge. Even without any cargo in the barge, fuel and hydraulic fluids from the tug contaminated the shoreline and shellfish beds while it took over a month to extract the Stewart from its watery resting place.

These spills have all focused on oil pipelines, but natural gas and refined petroluem pipelines pose their own unique threat.

Sissonville, West Virginia – December 11, 2012: Here in the Mountain State, an aging 20-inch transmission line exploded a few years ago, enveloping Interstate 77 in a wall of flames and destroying several homes. Fortunately there were no fatalities. The pipeline was constructed in the 1960’s.

Salem Township, Pennsylvania – April 29, 2016: More recently, a thirty-inch gas transmission line in western Pennsylvania exploded, destroying a house and hospitalizing a 26-year-old with third-degree burns over 75% of his body. The Spectra Energy transmission line was installed in the 1980’s.

Shelby County, Alabama – Oct. 31, 2016: An excavator conducting repairs from a prior incident on the Colonial Pipeline struck the massive gasoline transmission line, causing a fiery explosion and ultimately killing two. The Colonial Pipeline provides the East Coast with 40% of the gasoline consumed and is the largest petroleum distribution system in the U.S.

As we have published before, even the Obama Administration has fallen short in addressing serious concerns surrounding pipeline safety. For all of the claims that modern pipelines will be safe and loaded with spill-prevention tech, we’ve yet to see clear evidence of this technology stopping major spills. Even in the Gulf of Mexico, Shell recently lost 90,000 gallons of oil from a subsea pipeline but the person credited with discovering it was not the pipeline operator, but a helicopter pilot who just happened to be passing by.

Even assuming that we could put an end to this litany of disasters, many people are standing up to pipelines because each new project is a multi-million dollar commitment to perpetuate further fossil fuel extraction and consumption for decades to come. In some states and regions, New England for example, companies have proposed passing the construction costs on to ratepayers, even those who don’t consume the gas directly.  If this subject concerns you, we urge you to investigate what kind of pipeline proposals may be in the works in your region. Here are just a few we are aware of:

Mountain Valley Pipeline – West Virginia, Virginia. Interstate natural gas transmission line. Public Comments due Thursday, Dec. 22, 2016

Mountaineer Gas – Washington Co., Maryland; Morgan, Berkeley, and Jefferson County, West Virginia: Local natural gas distribution system. More info on public comments and meetings – Eastern Panhandle Protectors

Trans Mountain Pipeline – British Columbia, Canada. Oil pipeline. More info from Dogwood Initiative.

Pacific Connector LNG – Oregon. Natural gas pipeline associated with an LNG terminal for export. More info on the pipeline and Jordan Cove LNG terminal at Citizens Against LNG.

Rover Pipeline – Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan. Interstate gas transmission line. More info from Ohio River Citizens’ Alliance

Buckingham Compressor Stations – Virginia. An infrastructure upgrade linked to the planned Atlantic Coast Pipeline. More info at Friends of Buckingham, Virginia.

Atlantic Coast Pipeline – West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina. Interstate gas transmission line. More info from Wild Virginia, Allegheny Blue Ridge Alliance, and Friends of Nelson County.

Bayou Bridge Pipeline – Louisiana. Regional oil pipeline connecting major hubs with refineries. More info from Louisiana Bucket Brigade.

Mariner East 2 – Pennsylvania. Intra-state gas liquids transmission pipeline. More info from FracTracker.

Pilgrim Pipeline – New York, New Jersey. Interstate oil pipeline. More info from the Coalition Against Pilgrim Pipeline.

Sabal Trail Pipeline – Alabama, Georgia, Florida. Interstate natural gas transmission pipeline. More info from Stop Sabal Trail Pipleline.

Know of other pipeline projects that should be listed here? Shoot us an email: info@skytruth.org

Confirmed: EPA Findings Edited to Downplay Fracking Impacts

Documents obtained by journalists at Marketplace and APM Reports revealed that federal officials made eleventh-hour edits to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) long-awaited Draft Assessment on the Potential Impacts to Drinking Water Resources from Hydraulic Fracturing Activities. The unsubstantiated edits downplayed the risks of hydraulic fracturing leading to a flurry of headlines claiming the EPA found little risk in fracking.

In fact, the more nuanced language of the report found evidence of contamination events and threats to groundwater, but ultimately the EPA lacked the data to conclude if fracking was having “widespread, systemic impact…” on drinking water. We wrote about these contradictions between the EPA press release and the actual report in June 2015 post entitled:

Word Games Continue: Just What Evidence Did EPA Not Find?

Earlier in 2016 the EPA Science Advisory Board also criticized the edited conclusions and called on the Agency to substantiate their claims or consider revising the report.

Words matter. Science matters. Don’t take headlines and executive summaries for granted, especially as we head into a political transition already swamped with climate deniers and a who’s who of the fossil fuel industry. Become as informed as you can from primary sources, and also support watchdogs and journalists who have proven effective at accurately reporting on what is happening in the world.

Read the full story from Marketplace and APM Reports:

EPA’s late changes to fracking study downplay risk of drinking water pollution

Impact Story: Chevron Spill May Have Reset the Tone for Oil Boom in Brazil

chevron_post

2011 turned out to be both a banner year for Brazilian oil exploration and a big eye-opener for the people of Brazil. Fueled by the discovery of 19 new oil and gas reserves and hungry for the spoils, big multi-national companies poured billions of new investment dollars into the South American nation.

Most Brazilians expressed little concern over the potential safety risks of the offshore boom. But then SkyTruth president John Amos noticed an inconspicuous report of a seemingly insignificant oil leak buried in the daily cycle of business news.

On November 8, 2011, Reuters reported that Brazil’s oil regulator, the National Petroleum Agency (ANP), was investigating an offshore oil leak near Chevron’s Frade field, 230 miles from the coast of Rio de Janeiro. According to the report, Chevron was checking to see if oil was leaking from a crack in the seafloor.

When John reviewed satellite photos of the area, he saw a slick originating near an exploratory drilling site that extended for 35 miles and covered about 180 square kilometers. By his estimates the sheen on the water represented about 47,000 gallons of oil.

Three days later it had grown to 56 miles in length, and Chevron had declared it a natural seep unrelated to their drilling activities. “It is possible, but call us skeptical,” John posted on our blog. “From my previous years working as an exploration geologist I know there are natural seeps off Brazil. But I’ve never seen a natural seep create a slick this large on a satellite image.” What’s more, comparisons with historical satellite photos showed the slick had not been there before.

Over the following days we watched the spread of oil on the water’s surface. While Chevron maintained that it was natural and estimated a leak rate of 8,400 to 13,860 gallons (200 -330 barrels) per day, John posted satellite images that hinted at a much bigger problem. By his analysis the spill was leaking 157,000 gallons (3,700 barrels) per day. That was more than ten times the official estimate.

John’s reports and the indisputable images he posted gained international media attention,  spurred a vigorous discussion on our site, and led to a public outcry in Brazil.

Unable to hide the true nature of the spill, Chevron came under scrutiny from Brazilian legislators and state agencies, and the tone of their official story began to shift.

Under pressure for more transparency, the oil and gas giant eventually conceded they had lost control of a well. They claimed the pressure of the reservoir had exceeded their expectations and forced oil up through fissures in the seafloor.

Kerick Leite who was working for ANP in offshore inspections at the time reflects on the situation this way: “In my opinion, if were not for SkyTruth’s independent assessment of the spill existence and size, I believe the Chevron Spill would have been dismissed as a minor one,” says Leite, “maybe even a natural seep, as initially reported, and remain mostly unknown by the public even today.”

According to the New York Times, Brazil’s former environment minister, Marina Silva, said “This event is a three-dimensional alert to the problems that may occur.” She told the Times that the spill served as a warning just as Brazil was preparing to expand its oil production and exploit its tremendously rich presalt reserves—an extremely complicated process because the presalt lies in 10,000 feet of water beneath thick layers of sand, salt and rock.

As a result of the spill and Chevron’s misleading response, the ANP banned the company from all drilling activities in Brazil onshore and off, pending a full investigation. After lengthy court battles, the company ended up paying  24 violations, and the company paying $17 million in fines to the ANP, more than $18 million to the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment, and $42 million to settle civil lawsuits.

What’s more, it emphasized how small the playing field is in the deepwater oil and gas drilling industry. As we learned through our Twitter followers, the drilling contractor on the job had been Transocean—the same company involved in the disastrous BP / Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico just a year earlier. Brazil dodged a bullet with this accident, but the new understanding of how bad it might have been made Brazilians pay attention.

“It was a wake-up call,” said John. “These are multi-national organizations. The same contractors are working for most of the major name-brand oil companies. This kind of thing can happen anywhere.” Chevron’s reluctance to claim culpability and their delayed response to the spill drove home the need for diligence in regulation and enforcement by Brazilian authorities.

Leite said the spill has led to increased public awareness and concern over safety in the oil and gas industry in Brazil that persists today. “I believe the issue of offshore safety now has more priority than before the chevron spill,” he says. “Back when I still worked at the ANP sector dedicated to environmental issues and operational safety, it had around 16 to 18 servants. Today there are around 40 servants dedicated to it.”

It was a full year before Chevron was allowed to resume doing business Brazil. During that time, a significant portion of the company’s global investments remained inaccessible to them. We hope the loss of profits, over and above the fines levied by Brazilian authorities, will provide incentives for Chevron to do a better job and will send a message to other oil and gas companies. Accidents can no longer be hidden or brushed aside. Chevron’s Frade field spill demonstrated that a satellite image can be worth a thousand words — and in this case, millions of dollars.

 

Impact Story: BP Spill — Using Science to Hold BP and Federal Regulators Accountable

bp_story_slider

Within a day of the April 20, 2010 explosion on BP’s Deepwater Horizon drill rig in the Gulf of Mexico, we began our high tech surveillance of the spill. Examining satellite images and aerial survey data, SkyTruth quickly became a leading source of independent, unbiased information on the size and scope of the disaster.

It was the largest oil spill in the nation’s history, releasing almost five million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. As bad as it was, it could have been even worse. Had BP continued to downplay the extent of the disaster, delaying mobilization of the appropriate response, it may have taken even longer than the 87 days it took to cap the well. Our work challenged the official story, spurred government science agencies to get off the sidelines,  and opened a public dialogue about the magnitude of the risk posed by modern offshore drilling..

Throughout the spring and into mid-summer of 2010, as BP’s disabled well continued to pump oil into the Gulf, SkyTruth president John Amos was quoted in hundreds of news reports, and his interpretation and analysis of the raw imagery helped policy makers, the press and the general public make sense of events as they unfolded.

SkyTruth also played a vital watchdog role. One week after the accident, we raised concerns that the amount of oil spilling into the Gulf was likely much higher than the 1,000 barrels-a-day estimated by BP and repeated by government officials. The New York Times and other media outlets picked up the analysis published on the SkyTruth blog on April 27. The next day, government officials publicly broke ranks with BP and raised its estimate to 5,000 barrels a day, the amount we had initially calculated.

John and other independent experts kept the issue in the headlines by presenting new estimates of 20,000 and then 26,500 barrels per day as new images and data became available, leading the public to question whether BP was low-balling the spill rate. On May 4th, the company privately acknowledged the possibility that the well was likely gushing as much as 60,000 barrels of oil a day, 10 times more than the government had previously estimated.  (Later, the government’s scientific teams concluded that the higher estimate was closer to the truth; they estimated that 53,000 barrels were leaking each day immediately before the well was capped on July 15.)

image gallery

While NASA and the governments of several foreign countries made their satellite images freely available, without organizations like SkyTruth to interpret those images, the public may have never known the true impact of the spill.

Equally important, we invited people directly into the conversation. Tens of thousands visited our website, blog, Twitter and Facebook pages. During the first ten days of June, for instance, our Blog received more than 70,000 visits – 25,000 in a single day. Meanwhile, our Oil Spill Tracker site, deployed on the fly in the first days of the spill, allowed Gulf residents to act as citizen journalists posting commentary and observations, as well as photos and videos of oil awash on the beaches and petroleum-drenched wildlife.

Oceanographer Ian R. MacDonald, who collaborated with the organization during the three-month Gulf spill and an earlier one in Australia’s Timor Sea in 2009, likens SkyTruth’s mission to that of “a fire truck.”

“When there’s an emergency, SkyTruth is there,” says MacDonald, a professor at Florida State University and one of the world’s foremost experts in remote sensing of oil slicks. “From the beginning of the BP spill to the end, SkyTruth was a public source of very timely raw satellite images and interpreted products, as well as a thoughtful commentary that pulled in the views of other people.”

Leaving a MARC: Cutting a Swath though Pennsylvania

3974-277_jhFair.jpg-p.-38-1024x682
Construction work on the MARC 1 pipeline right-of-way in the Endless Mountains of Pennsylvania. Photo by J. Henry Fair, flight by LightHawk.
Fracking is not the only part of oil and gas drilling that has an impact on the landscape and the environment. Case in point: the newly-built MARC 1 pipeline runs for 39 miles through Bradford, Sullivan, and Lycoming counties in northeast Pennsylvania, carrying natural gas produced by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the Marcellus Shale. Along the route this pipeline crosses 71 roads, 19 named streams and rivers, many small unnamed creeks, and cuts through a densely forested swath of the beautiful Endless Mountains.
IMG_24
The MARC 1 pipeline right-of-way crossing a stream in northeast Pennsylvania. 
Photo by J. Henry Fair, flight by LightHawk.

Construction of the pipeline began in the fall of 2012, and we were interested in illustrating construction-related impacts. Finding info on pipeline routes, however, is no simple task. The first map which turned up was a scanned pdf created by Central New York Oil and Gas Company (CNYOG); a deeper dig for a more accurate map turned up the Department of Transportation’s National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS), but unfortunately NPMS data is not available for download. So we decided to create our own map of the pipeline – informed by the CNYOG map, and validated against the NPMS data:

Marc-1_Narrow

The pipeline map was created by tracing the route on aerial and satellite imagery available in Google Earth. Imagery was collected during the pipeline’s construction which helped us do a pre- and post-construction comparison. Road and stream data from the US Census Bureau’s Tiger/Line was used to calculate the number of roads and streams which were intersected by the pipeline. Here is a side-by-side look at a selected site along the pipeline route before and during construction:

MARC 1 pipeline crossing field and forest near Sugar Run, PA. Compare imagery from 2011 and 2012.
Directions to this location.

MARC 1 also traverses Pennsylvania State Game Land for 1.5 miles, with the right-of-way occupying 21 acres of this prime habitat and hunting / recreation area:

Marc-1_oblique2-view2.jpg
 

We used the USGS’s 2011 National Land Cover Dataset to assess the area and types of land use impacted by the construction of the pipeline. Overall, construction of the Marc-1 pipeline right-of-way impacted over 400 acres of land, 318 of which were forested (see the exact breakdown of land cover types at right and raw data here).

Now the MARC 1 pipeline is a done deal and some of the impacts will eventually fade into the background, but the corridor through forest and woody wetlands will remain. From air emissions and habitat fragmentation to property rights issues, we need to be careful not to overlook the environmental impact of pipeline building, especially as developers focus their efforts on expanding pipeline capacity to keep up with oversupply of natural gas.

If you want proof of that, look no further than the MARC 2 pipeline. Yes, developers were already proposing a 30-mile MARC 2 pipeline less than two years after the MARC 1 pipeline was completed. Stay alert…

 

MARC 1 crossing field and forest near the Susquehanna River close to Sugar Run, PA. 
Compare imagery from 2011 and 2012. Directions to this location.

 

MARC 1 traversing rural Bradford County, PA near Foster Branch, a tributary of the Susquehanna River. 
Compare imagery from 2011 and 2012. Directions to this location.

Will Taylor Energy Response Offer Any New Answers?

Screen Shot 2016-01-19 at 12.02.11 PM

Undated photo of Taylor Energy Platform #23051 before it was destroyed by Hurricane Ivan in 2004. Image Credit – Taylor Energy
Today, Jan. 20, Taylor Energy will host a public forum in Baton Rouge, La., to explain what efforts they have taken to respond to the ongoing oil spill in Mississippi Canyon Block 20 (MC-20) – the former site of Taylor Energy Platform #23051. Over eleven years ago Hurricane Ivan triggered a subsea landslide which destroyed the platform and buried 28 wells under a hundred or more feet of mud and sediment. The spill first came to public attention during the 2010 BP/Deepwater Horizon disaster, when GMC charter member SkyTruth observed the leak on satellite imagery and began investigating with GMC assets in the air and on the surface.

SkyTruth-21jun2014-L8-Taylor-slick
 
Above: Landsat 8 image from June 2014; one many satellite observations SkyTruth has catalogued over the past eleven years. 
 

Oil still leaks from the site to this day, eleven miles off the coast of Louisiana, while the now-idled company’s efforts to stop the leak have remained a carefully guarded secret. In early 2015, an AP investigation pressed the U.S. Coast Guard to increase their estimated spill rate to an amount 20x higher than Taylor had ever acknowledged. In Sept. 2015, GMC partners, including the Waterkeeper Alliance, settled a law suit over the company’s lack of transparency about efforts to fix the leak. This forum was a condition of that settlement.

The Gulf Monitoring Consortium has the following questions for Taylor Energy, which, in one presentation posted in advance to the forum’s website called the events surrounding Hurricane Ivan, an “Act of God“.

1) What is the plan to stop this leak?

2) If the plan is to just let it go for the next 100 years, what research has been done to determine that the environmental harm would be minimal and acceptable? Why wasn’t the public involved in that decision making?

3) What lessons were learned and are they being applied to new permitting and drilling in the Gulf?

  • What do we know about slope stability and the risk of slope failure throughout the Gulf, especially in deepwater; and is that risk being incorporated into engineering and permitting?
  • What is the plan if a similar fate befalls a deepwater platform with 20 high-pressure producing oil wells?
  • What systems are in place to successfully shut in those wells in the event of a slope failure?

4) What is the estimated cost to the public of the lost oil and gas revenue if the decision is made to let the reservoir bleed out?

5) What were the various interventions that were deployed on the seafloor to try to capture the leaking oil and gas? How much oil and gas did they capture, and during what time periods? What was done with the captured oil and gas?

To attend, the public is asked to register.

LOCATION:Louisiana State University
Pennington Biomedical Research Center
Building “G”
6400 Perkins Rd
Baton Rouge, LA 70808 

DATE & TIME:9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
January 20, 2016

Truth Elusive as Oil Slicks Spread in Caspian Sea

Last week we reported that heavy seas and high winds in the Caspian Sea were suspected to be the cause of a fatal accident at the SOCAR #10 Platform in the Caspian Sea. The platform is operated by SOCAR, the Azerbaijani state oil company, and is located in the Gunashli oil field approximately 65 miles ESE of Baku, Azerbaijan. Based on two radar satellite images collected since the fire began on December 4, we estimate that least 95,000 gallons of oil have been spilled into the Caspian Sea.

Caspian_Sea_S1A_Dec_13_v3
Above: The most recent image of the Gunashli oilfield reveals a 357 square kilometer oil slick. The image was collected on Dec. 13 by Sentinel 1A,, a radar satellite operated by the European Space Agency (ESA).


The slick has moved to the north since the first satellite image was collected on Dec. 7. After analyzing that first image, we identified a 192 sq. km oil slick, which we estimated contained 50,000 gallons of oilLooking at low-resolution daily imagery from NASA, we last saw a major smoke plume from the site on Dec. 8, but continued to see a heat signature on the 7-2-1 band imagery from Dec. 12 and Dec. 15. The site has been obscured by clouds from Dec. 15 to the present.    

News from Azerbaijan is, at best, hard to come by; at worst, downright contradictory. Since the disaster SOCAR has only issued two press releases on the subject in English, the most recent of which from Dec. 11 emphatically states that, “During the monitoring no signs of oil spills have been observed at the accident area.” On Dec. 16th (or 17th, the timestamps don’t match up), SOCAR has issued a press release in Azeri, and while we aren’t fluent in Azeri, regional media reports confirm that SOCAR is sticking to their story

 
Even more intriguing are seemingly conflicting reports from local news website Ozu.az. The Russian language version of the article appears to accurately report the 300+ sq. km oil spill observed by Sentinel 1A, including a wide-frame satellite image of the smoke plume. Meanwhile the Azeri language version of the article, posted a mere 41 minutes after the Russian version went up, seems to be largely copied-and-pasted from the SOCAR press release, contains no image of the spill site, and does not appear to mention anything about Sentinel 1A or the 300 sq. km. oil spill. 
 

Again, we’re not fluent or even conversant in Azeri (and only partially in Russian), so please check out the articles side-by-side and let us know what you think in the comments. 

One thing is certain, the storm which caused this disaster was certainly a major weather event. Satellite-based sea-surface scatterometry shows the winds on Dec. 4th exceeded 40 knots (46 MPH) in the Gunashli oilfield. 

WMBas181

Combined with the relatively shallow depth of the oilfield (100-400 meters), it is not a surprise that this storm kicked up massive waves. Nearby, at the aging offshore settlement of Neft Daşları (the “Oil Rocks”), three workers were killed in a separate accident on the very same day (Dec. 4) when their living quarters “fell into the sea” (see also press release from SOCAR). The search continues for workers from Platform #10 who are still missing after their lifeboat was reported to have prematurely dropped from the burning platform into the raging sea.

We will continue to track this story and available satellite imagery.

###