Chevron, Pilipinas Shell and Petron last Tuesday submitted their joint comprehensive relocation plan (CRP) to the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Branch 39, in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court to vacate the Pandacan oil depot.
Petron was not a party in the consolidated cases lodged before the Manila court but was constrained to join the two other big oil companies in submitting a CRP after the Supreme Court (SC) junked its separate petition challenging the validity of Manila City Ordinance no. 8027.
Under the Pandacan CRP, one of the options shortlisted by the oil firms was coastal depots because of its strategic access to and from the sea, making it capable in handling sea vessels such as tankers and barges for its product supply and bunkering requirements.
"The ideal site for coastal depot should have adequate depth of harbor, protection from the elements and sufficient maneuvering area for safe and efficient handling of marine vessels," said the oil companies through lawyers from the ACCRA Law firm.
Actual construction of the new facilities should take three and a half years, but securing permits, licenses and other clearances might take longer, they said.
The fuel firms were also considering the combination of inland ex-refinery depots, but this option requires significant capacity upgrades of the multiple sites in order to support the volume requirement of the Pandacan market.
This option involved the utilization of the refinery depots and other nearby depots of the oil companies.
Base locations are Petron's oil terminals in Limay, Bataan; Shell's Tabangao, Batangas; Chevron's San Pascual, also in Batangas; while secondary sites may include Petron's Rosario, Cavite and Navotas depots.
"Due to farther distance of these base locations to the market, provision of additional land-based transportation resources is necessary to ensure continuous supply of fuel products in Metro Manila.
It can also translate to higher delivery costs because the bases locations are more than 100 kilometers away from Metro Manila," said the oil firms.
According to the three biggest oil industry players, the relocation site should be one that will minimize the potential risk the facility may pose to the adjacent property and/or the potential risk to the facility, in case of an incident at the adjacent property.
It should also equally address infrastructure, zoning and regulatory issues which could impact on the viability of the site under construction.
But they said site selection will be dependent on discussions with site owners, communities and local governments.
Issues regarding the power of local governments to enact spot-zoning ordinances must be resolved before a site is acquired.
Such spot-zoning issues were discussed by the oil firms in their motion for reconsideration now pending before the SC.
They also said an executive order must be issued exempting it from future zoning ordinances.
Also, a legal and regulatory framework must be put in place by government to guarantee and protect the new facilities from any possible threats of closure or eviction through unwarranted and arbitrary local government action.
Oil firms filed a motion for reconsideration. It also sought to have the case referred to the SC en banc last February 28.
Oil firms earlier claimed that they stand to lose P30 billion in income, investment and costs of construction of new facilities if forced to relocate.
But while acknowledging that an immediate transfer of the oil terminals has far-reaching consequences and might trigger a crisis, the SC said the relocation should be carried out with a comprehensive plan.
The tribunal noted that as early as October 2001, the oil companies signed a memorandum of agreement with the Department of Energy obliging themselves to undertake a comprehensive and comparative study, to include preparation of a master plan, for relocation of the oil terminals.
According to the SC, the oil companies are not entitled to any compensation since the enactment of the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power by the Manila City Government. (ECV/Sunnex)
