|
Judge rules BP didn’t violate probation Beistline says government failed to prove negligence in 2009 pipeline rupture and oil spill in Lisburne field on Alaska’s North Slope Wesley Loy For Petroleum News
BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. did not violate its probation as a consequence of a pipeline rupture and oil spill in the Lisburne field, a federal judge ruled Dec. 27.
In a 13-page decision, U.S. District Judge Ralph R. Beistline of Anchorage held that prosecutors had “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that BP committed criminal negligence” in connection with the November 2009 spill.
The ruling came less than a month after a technically complex seven-day evidentiary hearing that featured dueling government and BP experts.
The government had charged that the spill proved BP was a “recidivist offender and repeated violator” of environmental laws and regulations.
BP’s lawyers maintained the government’s negligence case was “almost exclusively built on 20/20 hindsight,” and that the company had acted properly in dealing with a pipeline that froze up and ultimately burst.
‘Accidents will happen’ The judge said he couldn’t fault officials for petitioning the court to find the company in violation of its probation, “for there clearly were reasons for concern.”
But on balance, Beistline sided with BP.
“While the Court would prefer a failsafe system where accidents never happen, it recognizes that human beings and engineering practices are not perfect and that, on occasion, unexpected or unanticipated accidents can and will happen,” the judge wrote. “Certainly, in retrospect, things could have been done differently that may, or may not, have prevented this spill. But in the instant case, the Court concludes, based on the evidence presented, that BP was following accepted industry practices at all relevant times and could not have reasonably expected a blowout similar to the one that occurred on November 29, 2009. Further, the Court concludes that once the freeze up was discovered, BP acted reasonably in addressing the problem.”
Asked for reaction to the ruling, BP Alaska spokesman Steve Rinehart told Petroleum News by email: “We are pleased with the decision and appreciate the court’s attention. We know that the privilege of working in Alaska comes with a responsibility to maintain high standards. We will continue our commitment to running safe and compliant operations.”
The government’s case When the Lisburne spill occurred, BP Alaska was on probation stemming from the company’s misdemeanor conviction for a violation of the Clean Water Act. The conviction stemmed from a major, corrosion-related oil pipeline leak in 2006 in the Prudhoe Bay field.
The Lisburne field is adjacent to Prudhoe. BP operates both fields on behalf of multiple owners.
BP’s three-year term of probation was just about to end when, on Nov. 17, 2010, the company’s probation officer, Mary Frances Barnes, petitioned the court recommending the probation be revoked due to violations.
The alleged violations centered on the rupture of a pipeline designed to carry a warm blend of crude oil, water and gas from wells to the Lisburne Production Center. About 13,000 gallons of oil spilled onto the tundra.
The pipe — a so-called common line, 18 inches in diameter and known as the L-3 line — was “looped” with a 24-inch pipeline, meaning both lines carried fluids from a common source to a common endpoint, the court petition said. The 24-inch line did not rupture.
Prosecutors accused BP of two probation violations: first, that the company violated Alaska law with a negligent discharge of a pollutant to state land and water, and second, that BP violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits a discharge to “waters of the United States.”
Barnes and prosecutors said BP could have prevented the pipeline rupture and spill. They said BP operators failed to act on numerous low-temperature alarms suggesting flow through the 18-inch line had either slowed or stopped.
Prosecutors also contended operators at the Lisburne Production Center lacked proper training, and the government suggested, according to Beistline’s ruling, that BP “should have had a flow monitor of some sort” on the L-3 line to alert the company of a blockage in the line.
“The 2009 spill vividly demonstrates that BP has not adequately addressed the management and environmental compliance problems that have plagued it for many years, and that continue to result in operational, process safety, and equipment failures,” prosecutors said in one court filing.
‘A very stiff Slurpee’ The looping arrangement tended to mask the freeze-up in the pipeline, as the larger, parallel 24-inch line continued to deliver all the oil operators expected at the Lisburne plant.
BP’s lawyers argued the company and its employees weren’t negligent. Rather, they said the Lisburne rupture was an “unprecedented event” for a BP pipeline of that type on Alaska’s North Slope, and the employees were highly trained and responded appropriately to the conditions.
BP operators discovered the no-flow condition of the pipeline on Nov. 14, 2009, but it ruptured 15 days later, before an assessment of how to deal with the problem was completed, BP said.
Because the contents of the pipe were mostly frozen or congealed, the spill was unusual, piling up beneath the line like a snow cone or “a very stiff Slurpee,” BP said in court papers, quoting an Environmental Protection Agency agent who observed the cleanup.
The company also argued the Lisburne spill wasn’t subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction because the wetland spill site was not directly adjacent to navigable waters.
The judge wrote that BP employees who testified “appeared to be well qualified and knowledgeable with regard to pipeline operations.”
He was less impressed with the government’s expert witness, Jan Windhorst, whom the judge noted had not visited the Lisburne Production Center and had no experience with similar facilities.
“The Court cannot find that he provided credible evidence to suggest a violation of industry standards was a cause of this incident,” Beistline wrote.
Released from probation Beistline concluded that “well qualified engineers simply did not anticipate the problem that ultimately developed.”
The judge noted that BP’s investigation, which the company shared with the government, found the pipeline rupture “was not caused by corrosion or improper maintenance, but was caused by a sequence of circumstances, including cooling and warming of ambient temperature after the flow stopped, which led to the freezing of both water and hydrates. This ultimately resulted in increased gas pressure within the pipeline that caused the rupture. Why the flow slowed initially remains a mystery to all.”
Beistline said BP operators, based on years of experience, “simply did not regard the low temperature alarm on L-3 as indicative of a reduced flow or blockage of the line. In hindsight, this was a mistake, but it was not unreasonable based on the state of the industry at the time of the 2009 spill.”
The judge added that industry standards didn’t require a flow monitor on a common line such as L-3.
He declined to find BP in violation of its probation under either state law or the Clean Water Act, saying negligence wasn’t proved.
He also noted that once the spill occurred, BP “acted quickly and responsibly and without regard to cost” in cleaning it up, such that “an untrained observer would likely be unable to find any indication that a spill had occurred.”
However, Beistline offered an admonition: “BP is now clearly on notice of the potential that a freeze up could occur within an 18 inch common line that is part of a looped line system and that a freeze up could cause the pipe to burst. It is incumbent upon BP to make sure this does not happen again.”
At the end of his ruling, Beistline dismissed the petition and released BP from probation.
| 