Overview
Title
Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Request for Extension of Time
Agencies
ELI5 AI
Stingray Pipeline Company is asking for more time until September 30, 2027, to finish cleaning up some of its old pipes because of things like bad weather and needing special boats, and people can say what they think about this before April 22, 2025.
Summary AI
Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C. has requested an extension until September 30, 2027, to complete the abandonment of the West Cameron 509 System and Mainline Facilities. The delays are due to factors like litigation, limited availability of vessels and crew, and pending permits. Public comments on this request can be submitted until April 22, 2025, and any contested requests for extension will be addressed by the Commission within 45 days. The public is encouraged to file comments electronically through the Commission's website.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Document
The document under review is a formal notice from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding a request by the Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C. for an extension of time. The company seeks to delay its deadline to complete abandonment activities on its West Cameron 509 System and Mainline Facilities in offshore Louisiana until September 30, 2027. This extension request stems from delays influenced by various factors such as unresolved litigation, the availability of necessary resources, and the issuance of required permits.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several concerns arise from Stingray Pipeline Company’s request. Firstly, the primary reasons for the delay, such as litigation and resource availability, are significant and require thorough examination. It's crucial to determine whether these delays were unforeseeable or if they could have been anticipated and mitigated earlier. Additionally, the document contains technical and legal language that may pose a challenge for the general public to understand, which could inhibit effective public participation in the comment process.
Furthermore, while the procedural requirements for public commentary and intervention are outlined, the complexity and specificity of these processes may deter public engagement. Simplifying these processes or providing additional guidance could ensure broader and more effective public involvement.
Impact on the Public Broadly
The request for an extension could potentially impact the public in several ways. For individuals and communities residing near or relying on these pipeline facilities, delays in project completion could affect local economies, employment, and environmental conditions. Should the regulatory body grant the extension, the public would benefit from a prolonged period during which they can raise any concerns about the project's impact on their communities or personal interests.
Additionally, there's an implicit assurance that safety and regulatory compliance will remain priorities, as any extensions involve scrutiny under the rules and practices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders such as Occidental Petroleum Corporation, the delay may also affect their operational plans, particularly if consent issues are tied to the abandonment process. Stakeholders involved in maritime logistics may experience periods of disrupted demand, impacting their scheduling and operations due to vessel and crew availability cited as limiting factors in Stingray’s schedule.
Conversely, legal professionals involved in litigation or regulatory processes may see increased demand for their services in resolving these issues. For environmental organizations or community advocacy groups, this extension request presents another window of opportunity to engage in discourse and potentially influence the outcome through formal comments and motions to intervene.
In conclusion, while the Stingray Pipeline Company's request for an extension appears grounded in practical challenges, the full implications necessitate careful review and robust public engagement to ensure the project's continuation aligns with public interest and the concerns of all affected parties.
Issues
• The document involves a request for an extension of time by Stingray Pipeline Company, with no explicit mention of costs or financial implications, so potential wasteful spending cannot be assessed directly from this document.
• There is no information indicating favoritism towards any organizations or individuals. However, the decision to extend should be carefully evaluated to ensure it aligns with public interest and regulatory requirements.
• The document includes technical and legal jargon, which may be difficult for non-experts to understand, such as references to 'NGA facilities', 'Order Authorizing Abandonments', and specific legal codes.
• There is an assumption that the reader understands the implications of not meeting the abandonment deadline as initially specified in the original order.
• The procedural requirements for commenting and intervening could be more clearly explained to ensure public engagement is genuinely accessible.
• The reasons for delay cited (such as litigation and weather conditions) need further clarification on how they specifically impact the project's timeline and whether these factors could have been anticipated earlier.