Six Million Gallons, Open Valves, and a Harbor at Risk

While Shoreside Petroleum loaded fuel trucks on the shore of Resurrection Bay, Alaska, the safety valves designed to stop a spill from reaching the water were kept deliberately open — and the company’s own emergency plan admitted its backup containment could freeze solid in winter, leaving the bay completely unprotected.

A Petroleum Empire on the Edge of a Bay Nobody Asked About

Seward, Alaska is a small port city of roughly 2,700 people. It sits at the edge of Resurrection Bay, a deep fjord that feeds into the Gulf of Alaska and supports a web of marine life, commercial fishing, and the kind of wilderness ecosystem that does not recover easily from a petroleum catastrophe. Right on the northwest shore of that bay, 1.5 miles from downtown, Shoreside Petroleum, Inc. operates one of the largest fuel distribution facilities in the region.

The facility is not small. It includes two tank farms, three pump houses, two marine terminals, two marinas, two tank truck loading racks, a vapor combustion unit, and a railroad car unloading station. A second tank farm operates on the east side of Resurrection Bay at the Seward Marine Industrial Center, approximately 7.5 miles from the main plant. The company fuels boats directly from docks in the harbor and receives bulk petroleum by barge, railroad tank cars, and tank trucks.

At the time of the EPA’s 2019 inspection, the facility held an aggregate above-ground storage capacity of 6,354,056 gallons ($6,354,056 gallons of diesel and gasoline — enough fuel to drive a standard car around the Earth more than 85,000 times). The site drainage from both tank farms runs toward Resurrection Bay. The EPA’s own documents confirm the facility is “located at a distance such that a discharge from the Facility could cause injury to fish, wildlife, and sensitive environments.”

What Money Cannot Measure: The Human and Ecological Cost

Resurrection Bay is not an abstraction on a regulatory form. It is a living system. The bay supports commercial salmon and halibut fisheries that Alaskan families have depended on for generations. It sustains marine mammals, seabirds, and the interconnected food web of a subarctic ocean environment. For the residents of Seward, many of whom fish commercially or subsistence-harvest from these waters, the bay is not scenery. It is a food source, a livelihood, and a cultural anchor. Every gallon of diesel that Shoreside Petroleum stored on that shoreline without adequate safeguards represented a real, calculable threat to that community’s ability to eat, work, and exist.

The EPA’s inspection documents confirm that the south tank farm sits 600 feet from Resurrection Bay. The SMIC tank farm is 950 feet away. Both sites drain toward the water. The company stored over 6.3 million gallons of petroleum products at those distances with secondary containment the company itself admitted could fail in winter — because the backup sump could fill with water, freeze, and become useless. That is not a theoretical risk identified by regulators. That is a confession written into the company’s own safety plan. Shoreside Petroleum acknowledged in writing that its containment could freeze and then did nothing structurally adequate to fix it.

The gate valves that state regulators at the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation specifically required as a precautionary safeguard were found open during active truck loading operations. This means that during the very moments when petroleum was being transferred, the last mechanical barrier between a spill and the water was non-functional by choice. Workers at the facility operated those trucks. They showed up to do a job. Nobody told them the safety net beneath them had been left unlatched — because the company had not fixed it, had not documented it properly, and had not trained its emergency responders to the level its own plan promised.

The training failure compounds the physical failures. Shoreside’s 2016 Facility Response Plan committed to providing ICS (Incident Command System) training to all personnel serving in emergency roles, with the plant manager receiving ICS 700/800 level certification. When the EPA inspector asked for documentation proving this training happened, the facility could not produce it. In a real spill event, those are the people who would be giving orders, coordinating containment, and deciding whether to call for outside help. Untrained emergency responders standing between 6.3 million gallons of fuel and a fjord is not a paperwork problem. It is a community safety crisis that was allowed to fester for years.

Straight from the Documents: The Lines They Cannot Walk Back

These are direct citations from the EPA’s official Consent Agreement. Every word below is in the federal record.

Six Years From Violation to Settlement: A Timeline That Should Enrage You

The Damage Beyond the Dollar Sign

Environmental Degradation: A Fjord One Frozen Sump Away from Catastrophe

Resurrection Bay is classified as a navigable water of the United States under the Clean Water Act, subject to tidal ebb and flow and actively used for interstate commerce. The EPA confirmed in its own findings that a discharge from Shoreside’s facility “could cause injury to fish, wildlife, and sensitive environments.” This is not speculative. This is the EPA’s official legal determination, made because the facility sits close enough to the water that the physics of gravity and drainage make a spill’s path to the bay essentially automatic. Both tank farms drain toward the bay.

The most alarming environmental finding is the company’s own written admission that its secondary containment for the “undiked transfer area” could fail every winter. An undiked transfer area with a sump that freezes is, functionally, no containment at all during Alaska’s long cold season. Alaska winters are not a surprise. A petroleum company operating on an Alaskan fjord knowing its containment infrastructure freezes and fails — and leaving it that way — made a deliberate choice to prioritize operational cost over ecosystem protection. Seward averages sub-freezing temperatures for several months a year. That containment system failed predictably, repeatedly, on a schedule anyone could read from a calendar.

The facility also failed to describe or analyze potential spill scenarios for the SMIC tank farm, buried and aboveground piping outside secondary containment, the railroad car unloading area, and the contingency storage tank area. Regulators require a “discharge prediction analysis” — a study of where oil would go, how fast, and how much — precisely because these scenarios need to be understood before a spill, not during one. Shoreside Petroleum simply did not do this analysis for multiple major infrastructure components. The bay’s fish and marine mammals had no protection beyond the company’s indifference.

Public Health: The Workers and the Community They Weren’t Told to Protect

Seward’s economy runs on fishing and tourism. A significant petroleum spill into Resurrection Bay would not just damage the ecosystem. It would shut down commercial fishing, devastate sport fishing charter operations, and potentially contaminate the subsistence food sources that Indigenous and rural Alaskan communities depend on for survival. The ripple effect of a major spill would reach dining tables, not just shorelines. Every family that eats wild-caught salmon from Resurrection Bay is a stakeholder in Shoreside Petroleum’s safety plan — and none of them were consulted when it was written, certified, or ignored.

The training failure documented by the EPA carries direct public health implications. The company’s own Facility Response Plan designated specific workers to serve in Incident Command System roles in the event of a spill. Those workers received job titles and emergency responsibilities without receiving the training those roles require. If a spill had occurred, the workers on the ground would have been improvising emergency response procedures in real time, next to millions of gallons of flammable fuel, near a community whose waterways and air quality would be directly threatened. That is not an administrative gap. That is a worker safety crisis and a community health hazard wrapped together.

Economic Inequality: Who Pays When Corporations Cut Corners

The $128,000 penalty ($128,000 — comparable to what a median-income Alaska household earns in roughly 2.3 years) is the cost Shoreside Petroleum paid for years of documented violations at a facility storing over six million gallons of petroleum next to a living bay. The maximum possible administrative penalty under the law, adjusted for inflation to 2025 rates, was $295,564 per violation period. The EPA settled for well under half the adjusted maximum. The company walks away having paid less than many Alaskans earn over two working lifetimes, for failures that put an entire coastal ecosystem at risk.

The economic inequality embedded in this outcome is structural. Large petroleum facilities in small Alaskan communities operate with enormous leverage. The community needs the fuel supply. The workers need the jobs. The regulators have limited enforcement capacity in remote regions. That power imbalance allows companies to treat safety compliance as optional until regulators show up — and to treat the resulting fine as a cost of doing business rather than a genuine deterrent. The people who fish Resurrection Bay, who live downwind and downstream of this facility, bear the environmental risk. The company’s executives and shareholders bear the fine. Those are not the same people.

What the Math Says About How Much They Value This

Who Is Still Standing There, and What You Can Do About It

The Person Who Signed the Settlement

The Consent Agreement was signed on behalf of Shoreside Petroleum by Matthew Lindsey, Executive Vice President. The agreement certifies that as of the date of signing, Shoreside Petroleum states it has corrected the violations cited. The EPA’s enforcement record is public. Continued compliance can and should be monitored by anyone with an interest in Resurrection Bay.

I was able to find the information used for this case by visiting this following link from the EPA’s website: https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/Filings/79091383E7657B8F85258D2D000F00DF/$File/Shoreside%20Petroleum%20Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Final%20Order_For%20RJO.pdf

Related posts:

Ozone or Ovintiv? A Knight-mare on Clean Air Street | Red Knight Transportation L.L.C. The Poisoned Legacy of Avtex Fibers | FMC Corporation Oxy Vinyls Waited 7+ Hours Before Warning The Public About A Deadly Chemical Leak