Petronas Catastrophic Safety Issues


#1

Anyone else worried about safety?
vancouversun.com/business/en … =870e-09d4


#2

Petronas had a massive explosion and had to shut down a new gas pipeline on Borneo Island, "because of construction on soil that proved unstable."
Ever since I saw the poor quality of Petronas’ science evaluating the safety of the Lelu Island berth, trestle and bridge footings-- I have been very worried. It is shocking.
To justify the safety of the site they came up with an engineering study which has been found to be full of holes and errors!
Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat wrote a scathing response to this recent Petronas engineering study.
dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publ … 7-eng.html
I put this link up before. But now, after the Sun’s revelations, you might want to look at it seriously and decide for yourself if there is reason to be worried.
BC govt will be handling regulation, but they were the ones who quickly approved PNW LNG, leaving it for Environment Canada to find these issues. But with such a huge project how can EC possibly find all the problems… if the company itself is presenting such appalling poor science.


#3

ummmmm how does the study of the fisheries aspect pertain to the construction of the bridge, trestle etc. as being flawed? and dangerous? DFO is not an engineering firm, nor did they use any engineering firm to evaluate the structures, they only commented on the effects of the structures on flora banks and the eel grass, where does it state the structures would be unsafe if built there?


#4

[quote=“atsea”]
BC govt will be handling regulation, but they were the ones who quickly approved PNW LNG, leaving it for Environment Canada to find these issues. But with such a huge project how can EC possibly find all the problems… if the company itself is presenting such appalling poor science.[/quote]

The BC government will be “handling” what regulation exactly? BC did not leave anything to CEAA. The EA for an export facility is under federal jurisdiction, while the province (through the Oil and Gas Commission) has jurisdiction over natural gas production and intra-provincial pipelines.


#5

The Petronas modelling report was used to determine the wave and current impacts on sediment around the trestle, berth and bridge foundations. This info is important for erosion or siltation of Flora and Agnew Bank and was required for that.
Is it okay to use bad science if only the Skeena salmon runs are at risk?
Do you think they had a good model for stability reasons but used this poor one for fish-- I doubt it.
Are you suggesting the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat was not qualified to review this model but did anyways?


#6

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“atsea”]
BC govt will be handling regulation, but they were the ones who quickly approved PNW LNG, leaving it for Environment Canada to find these issues. But with such a huge project how can EC possibly find all the problems… if the company itself is presenting such appalling poor science.[/quote]

The BC government will be “handling” what regulation exactly? BC did not leave anything to CEAA. The EA for an export facility is under federal jurisdiction, while the province (through the Oil and Gas Commission) has jurisdiction over natural gas production and intra-provincial pipelines.[/quote]

The BC Environmental Assessment Office did an environmental assesssment of this project. They were working on it jointly with CEAA. After the huge dredge was ditched and the new design was submitted BC quickly approved the project not even waiting to evaluate the new risks from the new design. pacificnorthwestlng.com/medi … 5Nov14.pdf


#7

atsea this is what you posted

Ever since I saw the poor quality of Petronas’ science evaluating the safety of the Lelu Island berth, trestle and bridge footings-

if you are talking about structural safety then yes unless your a structural engineer or hired one to review Petronas findings how can you say that also like I said the DFO was only looking at what impact with water flow the footings would have on the eelgrass not for structural integrity, those pilings are going to be so far buried under the sea floor their integrity will be solid,


#8

[quote=“atsea”]

[quote=“BTravenn”]

The BC government will be “handling” what regulation exactly? BC did not leave anything to CEAA. The EA for an export facility is under federal jurisdiction, while the province (through the Oil and Gas Commission) has jurisdiction over natural gas production and intra-provincial pipelines.
The BC Environmental Assessment Office did an environmental assesssment of this project. They were working on it jointly with CEAA. After the huge dredge was ditched and the new design was submitted BC quickly approved the project not even waiting to evaluate the new risks from the new design. pacificnorthwestlng.com/medi … 5Nov14.pdf[/quote]

BC’s EAO “coordinated” with CEAA, it did not do a review “jointly with CEAA”. This is not a “joint review”, as was done for instance with Enbridge, where one federal-provincial panel looks at all issues. The provincial review was more limited in scope, examining issues under provincial jurisdiction, eg air quality, transportation on Hwy 16, food safety etc. Not all design issues are necessarily pertinent to the province’s jurisdiction.

I don’t understand why you focus so much on the province. There are a variety of provincial approvals, mostly having to do with gas production, intra-provincial pipelines, and highway crossings, but it is the federal CEAA review that is far more critical to the viability of the PNW proposal to build an export facility at Lelu Island, particularly in view of federal jurisdiction over marine resources and fish habitat. The province is the smaller player on those issues.


#9

[quote=“Jabber63”]atsea this is what you posted

Ever since I saw the poor quality of Petronas’ science evaluating the safety of the Lelu Island berth, trestle and bridge footings-

if you are talking about structural safety then yes unless your a structural engineer or hired one to review Petronas findings how can you say that also like I said the DFO was only looking at what impact with water flow the footings would have on the eelgrass not for structural integrity, those pilings are going to be so far buried under the sea floor their integrity will be solid,[/quote]

You are right jabber 63. I should have said in relation to erosion and siltation around the berth, trestle and bridge footings and the integrity of Flora bank ecosystem. But I think it is extremely valid to be concerned about the structural and all other safety aspects given Petronas’ modelling report. This just one more instance where the science being submitted by the proponent in my opinion is extremely biased. Yet the whole assessment process is predicated on trustworthy unbiased science. There is no way the government can review and assess all the aspects of this multi billion dollar project.
I don’t have the money or expertise to assess the model they used for acid rain particles impacting Port Ed citizens. The only reason the Flora bank waterflow model was reviewed so closely was because Lax kw’alaams had good science to dispute it.
I am very worried they averaged the daily winds for air quality, whereas I know in Australia they have a max for peak too.


#10

[quote=“Jabber63”]
those pilings are going to be so far buried under the sea floor their integrity will be solid,[/quote]

And how do you know they will be solid? The scouring around trestles and footings during extreme weather events can be amazing. Do you know there was a model of the scouring effects for likely weather events? Was it reviewed by government experts? I heard that during even a very small earthquake event the sediment would be subject to liquefaction and I am not sure the pilings will be able to reach solid bottom.
I am worried and Petronas has destroyed my trust.


#11

atsea are you saying the multinational companies that have built who knows how many of these plants don’t have the proper structural engineers working for them? now you are stretching things don’t you think. and please as for the DFO they used a 50 year storm event that might or might not occur for their assesment on the effects of Flora Bank. in other words the worst of the worst weather you can ever think of that might hit our area


#12

I am not stretching anything. The Sun article said Petronas had a massive explosion and had to shut down a new gas pipeline on Borneo Island, "because of construction on soil that proved unstable."
And of course worst weather likely to occur should be assessed. Many structures built on trestles or with footings in ocean sediment are fine until a storm. The 50 yr storm event was just one of many issues the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat found lacking. Even for normal common storm events the model only looked at wave size predicted from a short time of wind, not allowing for the obvious fact that wave height takes time to build. They also only looked at the direction of wind which would not impact the concerns- I think that is outrageous and either deliberate or extremely careless. I could go on-- they averaged the tides so as not to have the extremes. This model we are talking about was produced by your so called “proper engineers”.


#13

hate to say this but structural engineers are ahell of alot different then oceanography engineers, and depending on the criteria the ppl hire oceanography engineers for is the report you get, but with structural engineers they have to meet canadian standards for building these massive structures no ifs or buts about it, no fudging period. Oceanography engineers are just looking at what happens to the currents, waves and tides of these structures, and the effect they have on FLora banks, this is what DFO has examined, again they did not examine structural integrity, and on a side note did DFO do a study of a 50 year storm on Flora banks without any structures near it? i’m willing to bet any so called 50 year storm would do damage to flora banks without any structures near it


#14

You are missing the point jabber. Hatch Engineering who Petronas hired and who did this very model are a huge worldwide company who do structural engineering for gas plants, they may well be the ones consulting on the structural stability as well as the possible affects on salmon habitat. Something is wrong with the system. What it looks like to me is that when we are talking billions of dollars there is a risk of conflict of interest. If the hiring company, Petronas in this case, happened to be a bit dodgy, the science may be a bit dodgy.
When Petronas’ first design came out I searched for an engineering firm in BC to double check the modelling for air quality from the plant, with worries about the people living in Port Ed,who would end up extremely close to a gas powered facility similar in size to the US cross border Sumas energy project which was not allowed to proceed due to concerns for Fraser Valley residents. Firm after firm refused the contract because of “conflict of interest”. They explained or hinted that they had oil and gas contracts which were such a large part of their business that they could not guarantee they would not be influenced to find in favour of the industry… Or they did not want to take on the job, find against the industry and lose future business.
Of course Hatch Engineering may just have done a poor job by accident or some of Canada’s top scientists may have it wrong — Or as I think you were implying they would do a better job when the structural integrity was at stake than if the mere Skeena salmon runs were at risk , but I think you are being overly optimistic.


#15

not sure who did what on the engineering or wave study, but all the test holes all the bores they took samples from and are doing so again, those are used to help decide the structural integrity of the plant and bridge, now when they put it out to tender for the construction, yes the companies bidding would use those engineering reports but I would assume that the companies bidding like Betchel would also have their own engineers double check the results of those bore samples before they put in a bid to build the plant and bridge. but here is where I think you are missing my point, i’m talking structural engineering the pilings and so on, you are talking oceanography engineering where the pilings might or might not affect the wave flow over flora banks, 2 different things, and yes i do trust the companies doing structural engineering reports for Petronas because I trust the standards set out by the CSA, shop.csa.ca/en/canada/standards+ … nstruction, and on a side note if it wasn’t for petronas themselves initiating the study on the whole company no one would have found out about the problems they had, don’t know why the did the study, maybe they needed to know what may need to be fixed, and if i’m right most of the problems where not structural most where problems where maintenance wasn’t kept up with, except for that pipeline, but then even in Canada with brand new pipelines they sometimes break.


#16

Related, although it may not be immediately obvious to some readers:

Sudan says oil companies refusing to repair faulty wells amid oil slump

sudantribune.com/spip.php?article56484=

[quote]The minister of oil Mohammed Zayed said that oil companies are reluctant to fix damaged wells in light of the dramatic decrease in world oil prices and the need for injecting more capital for repairment.

He said that the steep decline in oil prices from $110 a barrel last year to $47 has disrupted the economies of production for these companies.[/quote]

Petronas is one of the operators in Sudan, who are refusing to repair faulty wells.

Glowing Petronas webpage about their work in Sudan

petronas.com.my/sustainabili … fault.aspx

Petroleum Company in Sudan Complain from Worldwide Price Decline

news.sudanvisiondaily.com/detail … pid=254999

[quote]The Biggest petroleum company operating in Sudan has conveyed Saturday to the Ministry Petroleum the biggest challenges facing petroleum investment in the country which is the worldwide decline of prices.

The company proposed to the Ministry increase of the volume of investment to reach the value of 3.4 billion Dollars over five years.
The leaders of the Chinese CNPC, the Malaysian PETRONAS and the Indian ONGC and the Sudanese Sudapet company have conveyed during a meeting with the Sudanese Minister of Petroleum Mohamed Zayed Awad a package of proposals on increase of production in the current squares.[/quote]


#17

I should qualify my statement:

It appears likely that Petronas is one of the operators in Sudan, who are refusing to repair faulty wells.

Also, obligatory disclaimer… This is only my opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the company I work for.


#18

[quote=“Tom K”]Related, although it may not be immediately obvious to some readers:
[/quote]

You’re correct, it’s not immediately obvious (or obvious within any other time frame) what any of this has to do with the PNW’s proposed LNG plant at Lelu Island.


#19

You’re correct, it’s not immediately obvious (or obvious within any other time frame) what any of this has to do with the PNW’s proposed LNG plant at Lelu Island.[/quote]

OK, let me make it more obvious.

S SUDAN OFFICIAL: OIL COMPANIES DID ‘NOTHING’ TO PROTECT ENVIRONMENT

sdeconews.com/story-z12923306

[quote]South Sudan, September 23, 2015

A petroleum ministry official has admitted that oil companies before and after independence have done nothing to stop environmental damage caused by oil extraction, while pledging to do better in the future.[/quote]

Does that last bit sound familiar?

Please refer to my earlier comment regarding oil companies currently refusing to repair faulty oil wells in Sudan, due to low oil prices…

[quote]…He said after independence, oil companies worked in areas under transitional agreements rather than using the Petroleum Act of 2012.

“When the laws were out we were supposed to have operationalized them,” the undersecretary said. “We had a time when we locked the oil into the ground for one and a half years, and nothing was done during that time [to operationalize the laws].”

“As we speak today there is no any single block which has been awarded to any investor according to the Petroleum Act 2012,” he said. Machar said the affected regions are contract areas 3 and 7 in northern Upper Nile; 1, 2, and 4 in Unity; and block 5A in Unity.[/quote]

==========================

Oil and Violence in Sudan Drilling, Poverty and Death in Upper Nile State

multinationalmonitor.org/mm2 … elink.html

==============

Petronas also operates in block 5a

Block 5A, South Sudan

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_5A,_South_Sudan

(See the graphic in the link)

==============

Petronas also operates in Sudan contract areas 1, 2 and 4 in Unity (Google it).

=============

So, Petronas operates in all of the Sudan contract areas mentioned in the first article, where a Sudan petroleum ministry official announced that international oil companies have done nothing (so far) to minimize or stop environmental damage caused by oil extraction.

Please read the entire links posted above, before commenting on this comment.

Again, obligatory disclaimer, this comment is solely my own opinion, and does not necessarily represent the views of the company I work for.


#20

To clarify to readers…

I’m actually in favor of this B.C. LNG project. I think it would, overall, be beneficial to Canada and Canadians.

However, the environmental concerns by B.C. local need to be addressed.

It should be very telling that $1 billion was offered to locals, to make their environmental concerns “go away”.

Since the money was rejected, and locals insisted that environmental concerns be addressed before this LNG project gets regulatory approval, due diligence and corporate responsibility should ensure that local environmental concerns are actually addressed.

Petronas has addressed the safety issues discussed in OP’s article.

Similarly, Petronas now needs to address the environmental issues which are highlighted by locals