Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Seep Tents Masters
Project
External Review
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Group Members
Group Project Manager—Erin Mayberry
 Secretary/Recorder—Wendy Stanford
 Treasurer—Farah Shamszadeh
 Data Manager—Ali Ger
 Client Contact—Misty Gonzales

Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Advisors

Faculty Advisors:
Christopher Costello
 Natalie Mahowald


Project Advisor:

Mel Willis
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Background
Natural gas and oil seep from the ocean
floor in the Santa Barbara Channel
 In 1982, ARCO installed 2 concrete and
steel pyramids to capture the gas
 These are the only tents in the world
 The tents are currently operated by
Venoco, Inc.

Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Background
Gas emitted is mostly methane
 The seeps are considered a natural
source of air pollution in the county
 The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution
Control District is exploring additional
seep tents as a method to reduce
methane emissions

Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Problem Statement

Is it environmentally advantageous to
install additional seep tents to capture
naturally released hydrocarbons?
Further, is it economically and legally
feasible to install additional seep tents?
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Critical Assumptions:
study area
Maps courtesy of the UCSB Hydrocarbon Seeps Project http://seeps.geol.ucsb.edu/
Area studied by the UCSB Hydrocarbon Seeps Research Group
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Critical Assumptions:
study area

Water quality impact area


Air quality and health impact area


Same area as geologic study
Santa Barbara County, CA
Both will have specific section in final
document on potential impacts outside
of study area
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Critical Assumptions:
study area

Terrestrial impact area

Scenario 1: Assume project will use
Venoco’s existing facilities


Assessment of impact of increased production
levels at Venoco
Scenario 2: Engineering data from APCD
include separate processing or cogeneration facilities

Evaluate impacts in addition to Scenario 1
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Critical Assumptions:
geology
UCSB Hydrocarbon Seeps Project
 Reservoir (?)
 Flux (?)
 Natural variation (?)
 Final analysis will include low, medium,
and high estimates

Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Critical Assumptions:
seep tents

Size, number, materials and structure,
placement:

Scenario 1: Determined by the results of
the A.D. Little engineering estimate
ordered by the APCD
 Scenario 2: These data are not available.
We assume that the project will duplicate
the 1982 ARCO project. Design will be
updated if possible.
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Critical Assumptions:
use of the gas

Who will use the captured gas?

Scenario 1: Gas will be sold openly on the
market

Scenario 2: Venoco will contract to sell the
gas exclusively to UCSB
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Critical Assumptions:
use of the gas

How will the captured gas be used?

Scenario 1: Gas is sold on the market, used
for either heat or electricity
 Scenario 2: Gas is sold to UCSB


To eliminate the need for an additional
electricity generation facility, we assume the
gas will be used for heating only
Scenario 3: Gas is sold to UCSB

Engineering report includes co-generation
facility, gas used for heating and electricity
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Critical Assumptions:
use of the gas

How will the gas be processed?
Assume it is not feasible to construct a new
facility to process the gas
 Assume the gas will be cleaned using the
processing facilities available at Venoco,
Inc.’s Ellwood Onshore Facility

Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Critical Assumptions:
use of the gas

Which pipelines will be used?

Existing pipelines from ARCO tents will be
used


New tents will tap into the existing pipelines
(?) Can existing pipelines accept the
increased capacity of the new tents? If
not, will pipelines need to be built?
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Critical Assumptions:
use of the gas

How will the gas be transported to the
user?

Gas will be transported via existing
infrastructure
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Critical Assumptions:
ownership

Who legally owns the captured gas?

The gas is not fugitive gas

Owned by lessee
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Critical Assumptions:
planning period

When would the tents be implemented?
How long would it take to finance, get
permits for, engineer, build and implement
the tents?
 Plan to get data from engineering study or
original ARCO seep tents Environmental
Impact Statement

Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Critical Assumptions:
planning period

What is the useful life of the seep
tents?

What is the life of the seeps?


Data from UCSB Hydrocarbon Seeps research
group
What is the life of the tents?

Data from engineering study or original ARCO
EIS
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Areas of Research

Four areas of research:




Economic feasibility study (Wendy)
Legal feasibility study (Farah)
Water quality & ecologic impact study
(Ali)
Air quality & climate impact study (Misty)
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Research II:
A.
economic feasibility
Calculate the Net Present Value of future gas
sales for the next 20 years
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Discover the processing sequence of the gas
Determine at what point gas is sold
Discover who has been gaining revenue from gas
sales
Construct time series of past revenues
Determine the potential amount of gas captured by
seep tents
Calculate potential future sales revenues of gas for
the next 20 years
Perform Monte Carlo Sensitivity Analysis
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Research II:
B.
economic feasibility
Technology Costs
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Determine what the existing infrastructure is that
supports the collection and processing of seep gases
Determine whether new tents will tie into existing
infrastructure or will require additional supporting
construction
Estimate engineering costs of construction of seep tents
Estimate fixed costs of installation of seep tents
Discover past maintenance costs of seep tents and
infrastructure
Estimate future costs of maintenance of seep tents
Estimate future costs of potential new infrastructure
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Research II:
C.
economic feasibility
Legal and Permitting Costs
1.
2.
3.
Determine permitting fees
Estimate potential fines
Determine the value of potential emissions
reduction credits
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Research III:
legal feasibility

Objective: recommendations for the project

In the lifetime of the project there will be 4
phases:
to be consistent with applicable regulations




Phase
Phase
Phase
Phase
1:
2:
3:
4:
Construction
Operation
Maintenance
Abandonment
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Research III:

legal feasibility
Data collection

What are the federal, state and local
agencies that regulate each phase of the
project?


Source: Santa Barbara County Clerks’ Office
For each agency, what are the applicable
policies and regulations?

Source: Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe/ Legal
Research Database
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Research III:

legal feasibility
Analysis
Is each phase of the project consistent
with these policies and regulations?
 If inconsistent, what are the policy and
regulatory constraints on:

1. The site
2. The design
3. The operation
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Research IV:

marine impacts
Goal: To develop a qualitative model that will
predict the water quality and related marine
ecology impacts of possible seep tent installation
 Objectives:




Determine the fate and transport of the seep hydrocarbons
Determine present state of the seep ecology
Gather data about the measured impacts of the ARCO tents
Use the information above as inputs to predict likely impacts of new
seep tent installations using the selected scenario
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Research IV:

marine impacts
Ecology and environmental nature of the seeps





What are the surface, long shore and subsurface
currents?
How do these currents affect the fate and transport of
the seep hydrocarbons in the water column?
How do the hydrocarbons biodegrade?
What is the seep ecology?
What is the species composition and abundance
compared to non-seep sites?
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Research IV:

marine impacts
Impacts of seep tents on the marine ecology and
water quality






Impacts of the ARCO tents?
Most likely ways that the seeps tents alter benthic
ecology?
Links between the benthos and pelagic ecology?
What are the likely water quality impacts of additional
seep tents?
Will there be a detectable impact of the tents on selected
hydrocarbons concentrations?
How much will the tents reduce the total seep gas
emissions into the atmosphere?
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Research V:
A.
air quality & climate
Quantify total volume of VOCs and compare
them to other natural sources by obtaining
information from the SBCAPCD and UCSB
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What types of gas are released?
What is the area of the seepage at the surface?
What is the flux of gas from the surface?
What are other natural sources of VOCs?
What is the total quantity of other natural
sources?
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Research V:
air quality & climate
B. Review ozone concentrations in the
county
1. What are the processes of ozone
production?
2. What are typical ozone concentrations in
SB throughout the seasons?
3. What environmental factors contribute to
ozone production?
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Research V:
air quality & climate
C. Determine the overall contribution of
methane to global greenhouse gases
emitted from the seeps using data
from UCSB Geology Department
1. How much methane is emitted from the
surface?
2. What is the global balance for methane?
3. Global Warming Potential
a. IPCC (impact on radiation)
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Research V:
air quality & climate
D. Compare current ozone levels with
estimated new levels from reduced
geogenic emissions due to capture by
the seep tents
1. Urban Airshed Model (from EPA)
a. Install model
b. Run model
c. Confirm that model accounts for mobile
sources
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Research V:
air quality & climate
E. Calculate potential impacts of VOC
reductions due to tenting of geogenic
sources
1. How much will VOCs be reduced by
tenting?
2. How will this effect ozone production?
3. How will this effect county ozone levels?
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Research V:
air quality & climate
F. Estimate amount of air toxics released from
the seeps
1. What is the flux of toluene and benzene?
2. What are the health risks associated with these air
toxics?
3. What are the relative sources of these toxics in the
county emissions inventory?
G. Determine ARCO's calculations of emissions
from the seeps
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management
Final Project Report
We will deliver a final document
detailing our findings by April, 2002
 The report could be used for public
review of the possible seeps tents
development project

Questions?
Thank you for your feedback