Run for you`re life

[gwasser]

I am an avid investor in Canada`s oil and gas industry. I am very proud to have worked in this industry that achieved so much here in Alberta and in Canada. After a 25plus year career in the oil and gas industry, I have many friends in that industry. But lately, I am becoming aware more and more of environmental and safety issues related to oil and gas operations and that pass government review because of incompetence, laziness or pure corruption. It is time to speak up.The latest issue was published in the Calgary Herald this week. Encana incorrectly installed safety valves on a toxic(sour?) gas well head so they could not properly shut down the well when a gas blow-out occurred. Not only that, the well blew because upon installing the wellhead, a lot of sand was left in the equipment that when gas followed through at high rates, the gas and sand literally sandblasted a big hole in the piping. Hence the blow out.

To make matters worse, the Emergency Response Plan did, according to a review by government agencies, was not up-to-date, it was not properly exercised, nor were people living in the area and emergency agencies notified. I copied the full article below.

No wonder, local people feel threatened enough to blow up well heads. I am sure that during the heat of the boom over the past years and with the lack of skilled and experienced labor many oil companies had problems and issues like this. But it happens under the supervision of senior management and professional engineers, who seem not to feel accountable other than to themselves and the increasing values of their stock options. Where is the integrity of the oil patch that I knew?

The government is not one hair better. Their agencies let this stuff pass and they approve licenses and permits of unsafe operations. Governments are supposed to protect the public, but they also want to be re-elected. If they shut down a plant, next day the papers will report how the government stands in the way of progress, they see their royalty revenue fall and people lose jobs. So if an underpaid government worker tries to stop some of these problem issues, he/she gets pressured big time by the big mighty oil company at one side and by the government elected officials who are afraid of losing votes above him/her . Sometimes, the government worker`s or official`s hand gets a bit greased as well, which makes it a bit easier to give in to these pressures. If you made $60,000 a year wouldn`t you?

Here is the Herald article:

EnCana issues apology for B.C. blowout

Emergency plan failed, says watchdog
By Karen Kleiss, Calgary HeraldFebruary 5, 2010

Oil and gas giant EnCana Corp. apologized Thursday to residents affected by a toxic well blowout in northern British Columbia in November and outlined steps the company is taking to make gas wells safer.

The mea culpa came hours after B.C.`s oil and gas watchdog issued a critical report that said the company failed to properly execute its emergency response plan, failed to promptly alert residents and emergency agencies, and failed to maintain an up-to-date emergency response plan.

The report also said the emergency shut-off valves were in the wrong place, so that even when the well was shut down, the gas continued to leak.

"We at EnCana sincerely apologize to the residents impacted by this incident," said Mike McAllister, vice-president of the EnCana unit that operates in the area around Pouce Coupe, B.C., where the blowout happened.

"We are sorry this happened."

Pouce Coupe is about 580 kilometres northwest of Edmonton.

McAllister said this type of leak is rare. The well had been in operation for only two weeks, but had not been properly cleaned of sand before operation started.

When the gas started pumping through the pipes, it carried the sand with it, and the sand eroded the inside of the pipe and caused a hole, which in turn caused the leak, he said.
McAllister said the company takes full responsibility for the blowout and has conducted a fresh risk assessment on all of its 500 well sites. It has examined 225 wells and shut those that need upgrading.

The company has also started upgrading emergency shutdown valves at 190 well sites and reduced the "set point" at which hydrogen-sulphide monitors sound the alarm.

Finally, he said, the company is conducting a thorough review of communication systems.

An investigation conducted by B.C.`s Oil and Gas Commission in the months following the blowout found the company didn`t start evacuating area residents until 71 minutes after the first alarm went off , and didn`t notify the government until nearly an hour after workers visually confirmed the leak.

The report, released Thursday, also says the company`s emergency response plan was out of date.

© Copyright © The Calgary Herald

If you think this is as bad as it gets, just read my next post.

 

[housingrental]

Interesting article Godfried thank you

 

[ZanderRobertson]

On the positive side, at least there is such a thing as safety and quality regulations now, if not always followed. There are thousands of miles of pipeline in the ground all across Alberta which were built with very little oversight. At least now every weld is x-rayed to inspect for structural integrity.

 

[gwasser]

QUOTE (ZanderRobertson @ Feb 7 2010, 11:02 PM) On the positive side, at least there is such a thing as safety and quality regulations now, if not always followed. There are thousands of miles of pipeline in the ground all across Alberta which were built with very little oversight. At least now every weld is x-rayed to inspect for structural integrity.Not when they find out after the burial of the pipe line that the photos were taken by an inexperienced employee and messed up. Or when the photos are misfiled.Anyway here is another dandy, you may have heard about:
John Browne was CEO of British Petroleum ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-451947/Lord-Browne-The-Sun-King-lost-shine.html ), sometimes called `Beyond Petroleum`. Yeah right.

Because of budget cuts for maintenance and training at BP, the ignoring of warnings by employee, the documents submitted to government agencies contain misleading information about the refinery`s true state and the outright lying to employees workers on sight during safety briefings led to this horrific distaster. In later posts you`ll learn that BP is not the only oil company that operates in this fashion.

<H1 style="MARGIN: auto 0cm">The Explosion At Texas City</H1>2005 Refinery Explosion In Texas Killed 15, Injured 170

Next week, one of the world`s largest oil companies, BP, will go to court in Galveston, Texas, to face a young woman who says the company killed her parents. As correspondent Ed Bradley reports, the woman`s parents were among 15 oil workers who died in an explosion last year at BP`s refinery in Texas City, Texas. At least 170 others were also injured in the blast. It was the worst workplace accident in this country since 1989.
60 Minutes spent the last three months investigating the explosion at Texas City, and what we found was a failure by BP to protect the health and safety of its own workers, even though the company made a profit of $19 billion last year.
60 Minutes also found evidence that BP ignored warning after warning that something terrible could happen at Texas City.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/26/60minutes/main2126509.shtml

From the same site:

In the aftermath of the explosion, BP blamed the disaster mostly on operator error and fired six employees. 60 Minutes went to Texas City to investigate further. BP officials gave the 60 Minutes team a tour of the refinery, but they declined our request for an on-camera interview. They referred our team to their own report on the explosion, which concluded there was "no evidence of anyone consciously or intentionally taking actions or decisions that put others at risk."
But when 60 Minutes spoke to the chief government official who has been investigating the explosion, she told Bradley that is not true.
"The problems that existed at BP Texas City were neither momentary nor superficial. They ran deep through that operation of a risk denial and a risk blindness that was not being addressed anywhere in the organization," says Carolyn Merritt, who was appointed by President Bush to be chairman of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, the federal agency which investigates all major chemical disasters.
"These things do not have to happen. They are preventable. They are predictable, and people do not have to die because they`re earning a living," Merritt says.
Asked if she thinks this accident could have been easily prevented, Merritt says, "Absolutely."
Over the past 18 months, Merritt`s investigators found problems at Texas City just about everywhere they looked: antiquated equipment, corroded pipes about to burst, and safety alarms that didn`t work.
"There were three key pieces of instrumentation that were actually supposed to be repaired that were not repaired. And the management knew this," she says.
"Nothing was done about it?" Bradley asks.
"They authorized the startup knowing that these three pieces of equipment were not properly working," Merritt replies.
"So you had critical alarms, critical safety mechanisms which were known by management to be faulty, and they weren`t fixed?" Bradley asks.
"That`s correct," Merritt says.
That, says Merritt, is just part of what went wrong in Texas City. BP`s own rules require office trailers to be parked at a safe distance from dangerous operations, but BP had placed trailers full of workers in an open area, right next to the unit being filled with gasoline. BP also failed to tell the workers in those trailers about the dangerous operation about to take place close by.
"There was not a thing said about that unit starting up," says Pat Nickerson.
"So if I understand you correctly, that morning there was a safety meeting. The plant was about to start up the unit, which is an especially dangerous procedure, but none of the workers were told about this at the safety meeting?" Bradley asks.
"Nothing was said," Nickerson says.
Asked how many people were at the meeting, Nickerson says, "Three, four hundred people."
"Placing a trailer during a startup operation that`s going to be full of people without any warning is the telltale sign that you`ve lost that understanding and realization of the very risk of what you do," says Merritt.

<H3 style="MARGIN: 10pt 0cm 0pt">Do you think this does not happen in Canada? From the same website:</H3>There is evidence that Texas City`s own plant manager, Don Parus, was dismayed by unsafe conditions at the refinery and even tried to get the attention of his bosses in London. He showed them a report revealing that most workers at the refinery felt the plant was unsafe: one worker wrote "the equipment is in dangerous condition andthis is not taken seriously." Another wrote "this place is set up for a catastrophic failure.""What do you do you when you realize that everybody at the plant says this place is about to blow up?" Coon asks. He says the company didn`t do much. "Two months later the plant blew up," Coon says.Before the explosion, plant manager Don Parus did persuade BP London to increase spending at Texas City, but he has now acknowledged in a deposition that it was too little, too late.
60 Minutes has learned BP did have time to fix what was wrong at the refinery. Two and a half years before the explosion, the company`s own safety experts sent a report to London that actually predicted what would happen. It warned that the history of petroleum leaks at Texas City created "…the potential for a major site incident…."
And yet, BP`s top refinery executive John Manzoni said under oath that he only learned of serious safety concerns at the refinery on the day of the explosion. "The 23rd of March, 2005," he said during the deposition.
"Before that you had no idea there was a risk of catastrophic injury?" he was asked.

"No. I think had I been aware that we could have had a catastrophic failure, we would have taken action earlier, different action," Manzoni replied.
"Are you telling me there were not members of management who were quite aware there was a great risk of harm to people at Texas City before this explosion occurred?" he was asked.

"I believe that there were, I believe that nobody knew the level of risk at Texas City, because if they had known, I have absolutely no doubt we would have taken different and substantively different actions," Manzoni answered.
Last week, the company sent 60 Minutes a letter which said: "BP accepts responsibility for the explosion and fire at the Texas City refinery. We are deeply sorry for what occurred and for the suffering caused by our mistakes."
The company has set aside $1.6 billion to settle lawsuits with victims and survivors. If every plaintiff settles and the case never goes to trial, many damaging internal BP documents will remain under court seal. Eva Rowe, who lost both of her parents, says she won`t go along with that. Hers is the lawsuit against BP that goes to court next week.
"To BP my parents were just another number. To them, they`re replaceable," Rowe says. "To me they weren`t just a number. They`re somebody."
"A lot of people who suffered terrible losses that day have already settled with BP. Has BP offered to settle with you?" Bradley asks.
"Yes," she says.
"And they`ve offered you, I assume, a substantial amount of money?" Bradley asks
"I want everyone to know what they did, you know. If we settle and all, everything we know has to remain confidential. I don`t want that to happen," she says.
"So you`re willing to go to trial?" Bradley says.
"I`m ready," Rowe says. "I`m ready to go to trial."

<H2 style="MARGIN: auto 0cm">From Forbes:</H2>A plaintiff attorney in Texas has determined that BP Chief Executive, Lord John Browne, will not be able to cower beneath the corporate aegis. Lord Browne has been accused by attorney Brent Coon of having an a priori knowledge of the under-investment in the Texas City facility, which contributed to the explosion that killed 15 people and injured more than 100 in March 2005.In spite of the oil giant`s protestations that their CEO is a nonessential character in the affair, a trial judge in Galveston, Tex., has ordered the depositions of both Lord Browne and BP (nyse: BP - news - people ) Global Refining Director John Manzoni in relation to lawsuit claims against BP brought by victims of the 2005 blast.
The 57-year old Lord Browne has been asked to provide a video deposition and be available to testify at trial in a lawsuit. BP has publicly accepted responsibility for the blast, and made settlements with many victims of the tragedy.
However, in an e-mailed statement to Forbes.com, the company said it would seek appellate review of the judge`s order that Lord Browne and John Manzoni`s depositions should go forward. "Neither [has] unique knowledge of the Texas City incident on March 23, 2005," the statement added. "Other BP management, more closely associated with the operations of the plant, are already assisting in the discovery process."
It looks like being a gruesome week for the Cambridge University and Stanford Business School-educated Lord Browne. U.S. investigators are also examining whether BP manipulated crude-oil and unleaded-gasoline markets, heralding a rise in regulatory scrutiny of the British energy giant. BP already faces a civil complaint filed by U.S. commodities regulators for allegedly manipulating much of the U.S. market for propane.
A jury trial is set to begin Sept. 18 in Galveston.

BP`s Browne Ordered to Testify Over Texas Explosion (Update6)

By Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Margaret Cronin Fisk Oct. 11 (Bloomberg) -- BP Plc Chief Executive Officer John Browne was ordered by a Texas judge to give sworn testimony for lawsuits stemming from an explosion that killed 15 workers and injured hundreds more at the company`s biggest refinery.

The judge also sanctioned BP for failing to turn over a document, allowing victims to seek punitive damages beyond the normal state limit. A lawyer for injured workers also told the judge at a hearing in Galveston, Texas, that prosecutors subpoenaed records the company turned over to his clients for the suits.

Browne, 58, has been giving interviews and meeting with BP employees &#96;&#96;indicating he has unique superior knowledge,`` Judge Susan Criss said at the hearing. &#96;&#96;I`m not convinced he doesn`t want to come here to this courtroom and tell the whole world.``

London-based BP, Europe`s largest oil company, faced about 1,300 lawsuits from people killed or injured by the March 2005 explosion at the company`s Texas City refinery complex near Houston. It resolved about 1,000 claims, including 114 cases settled in principle earlier this week. The trial of the Galveston case, which involves two deaths, starts next month.

Deposition Opposed

BP spokesman Neil Chapman said the company will oppose the judge`s order that Browne appear to testify at a pretrial deposition, a sworn interview conducted by lawyers in the case. Chapman declined to comment on the subpoena.

&#96;&#96;While we respect the judge`s decision, we will appeal,`` Chapman said. &#96;&#96;John Browne does not have unique knowledge of the accident.``

Plaintiffs claimed BP destroyed documents that showed the company intentionally misrepresented to state air-quality regulators the type of air-pollution controls installed on the unit that exploded in March 2005 and asked Criss to block BP`s ability to defend the issue at trial.

Criss today found the company failed to produce a key document, giving plaintiffs the right to break the state-mandated cap on punitives of twice economic damages plus $750,000. Texas law lifts the cap if someone maliciously or intentionally destroys evidence.

The plaintiffs claim the refinery would have been shut down to retrofit to a safer flare venting system, preventing the explosion, if BP had hadn`t misrepresented the pollution controls.

Evidence Request

Art Gonzalez, a lawyer for workers and families suing BP over the explosion, told the judge the U.S. Attorney`s Office in Houston requested documents subject to a court protective order in the case. He has until Nov. 20 to produce the documents, he said.

The prosecutors asked lawyers for the victims yesterday &#96;&#96;to produce all underlying information we`ve obtained in the case,`` said Brent Coon, lead attorney for the injured workers.

&#96;&#96;They have expressed an interest in the findings we`ve uncovered in the civil case that relates to the criminal investigation,`` Coon said in an interview during a court break today. The requested material includes depositions, exhibits and other documents, he said. John Yembrick, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney`s Office in Houston, declined to comment.

Both Parents Lost

The company has set aside $1.2 billion to cover claims related to the explosion. BP doesn`t disclose the amount of money paid so far in settlements, Chapman said.

BP has settled with the families of all but two of the workers who died in the blast. BP also faces more than 300 claims by injured workers. A suit brought by Eva Rowe, who lost both parents in the Texas City explosion, is set for trial next month.

BP disregarded worker safety at the Texas City refinery, leading to the explosion, Rowe`s attorney Coon said. BP management ordered 25 percent, across-the-board reductions in all operating budgets in the late 1990s. That resulted in shoddy maintenance and safety training at the refinery, Coon said.

&#96;&#96;That meant reducing training, reducing staffing, pushing off maintenance,`` Coon said in an interview. &#96;&#96;As a result, they started getting fissures in the infrastructure, and everything kept getting shakier.``

Problems in Alaska

Similar claims of poor maintenance practices spawned by budget cuts have plagued BP`s pipeline operations on Alaska`s North Slope. After numerous leaks, BP was forced in August to curtail production at Prudhoe Bay, the largest U.S. oilfield, to perform emergency maintenance on corroded pipes.

Coon told Criss today he wants to ask Browne about budget cuts, including &#96;&#96;all your pipelines operating in America,`` testimony that might shed light on the Alaskan operation.

Coon told the judge at a hearing last month that he had uncovered evidence that BP misrepresented to a state air-quality board the type of pollution-control equipment installed on the Texas City refinery unit that later exploded.

By filing an application that misrepresented the unit`s release valves as being part of a safer, flare system -- instead of the older, more dangerous, blow-down stack that existed on the unit -- BP was able to renew its pollution permit and keep the unit operating, the plaintiffs said. If the overflow vapors had been vented to a safety flare, Coon contends there wouldn`t have been any explosion.

Missing Diagram

A required diagram illustrating the unit`s venting system was missing from the state`s records. Coon asked BP environmental engineer Danny White at the hearing today if he had falsified or destroyed portions of the permit documents supplied to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. &#96;&#96;I am not a liar, and I would never do that,`` White testified.
&#96;&#96;There was no hoodwinking of the state into believing the release valve on the isomerization unit went to a flare,`` Jim Galbraith, an attorney for BP, told Criss in urging against sanctions. &#96;&#96;BP cannot be held responsible for not producing something, if there`s no evidence we ever had it.``

&#96;&#96;I believe it existed, and I`m granting all the relief they requested,`` Criss said.

The judge`s sanctions means the jury will be instructed &#96;&#96;to infer that the document would have been unfavorable to the party that had it and couldn`t find it,`` Coon said in an interview. BP will also have to repay expenses incurred by the plaintiffs` lawyers to investigate the issue.

Shares of BP in London fell 1.5 pence to 576.5 pence.

The case is Arenazas v. BP Products North America, 05CV0337, 212th District Court, Galveston County, Texas.

To contact the reporters on this story: Laurel Brubaker Calkins in Galveston, Texas, at laurel@calkins.us.comhttp://mailto:laurel@calkins.us.com; Margaret Cronin Fisk in Southfield, Michigan, at mcfisk@bloomberg.nethttp://mailto:mcfisk@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: October 11, 2006 17:33 EDT

Today John Mazoni is CEO of Talisman Energy in Calgary.

 

[gwasser]

My next post on my tirade about the oil industry and safety and environment is a review of the big Suncor fire in 2005. Final loss $1.2 billion dollars stemming from a $10,000 cost saving.

I made these posts nearly entirely based on news paper clips. But after the Suncor story I will tell you based on information from my own oil patch sources some of the things that are going on. Hopefully you will agree that some of this is unacceptable. In spite of my dislike of environmental fanatism, I can understand why these activists react the way the do. But in my opinion, they are just as bad as the companies they`re trying to fight.

But if we as a community do not understand what is going on, if we don`t know of the oil industry`s darker sight and of the laziness and vote anxiety of our political leadership, who will pay the bill in the end? Being it through bad real estate performance, or high taxes, loss of royalties ,or a sick environment. If we don`t stand up and are aware, it is us Albertans that will be paying the price. Stelmach and friends will be long gone and so will the oil companies. Leaving us behind to live in a mess.