|
|
|
BP/ARCO ARCHIVED YAMSITE STORIES GULF OIL CALAMITY: Latest in Long List of BP-ARCO Environmental Disasters The news coming out of the Gulf of Mexico is another in a long series of disasters that appear attributed to BP-ARCO. In 2006, the EPA named ARCO’s Texas City refinery as the nation’s top polluter. 15 refinery workers died at that plant in 2003 during a horrible explosion and OSHA ruled that known equipment problems, failure to follow established safety guidelines, and inadequate training were factors in those deaths and injuries. In November of 2002, BP was fined for spill cleanup problems with a 60,000 gallon Prudhoe Bay pipeline spill. Crude oil spilled to wetlands and leaked through ice cracks to a drinking-water lake. BP West Coast was sued for $319 million by California's Southland Air Quality Management District in March of 2003 and lost. An antitrust lawsuit was filed in December of 2005 against Exxon Mobil and BP by the Alaska Gasoline Port Authority; the suit alleged that the two oil giants conspired to eliminate competition for the exploration, development and marketing of natural gas from Alaska's North Slope to markets in the United States in order to drive prices of natural gas artificially higher. In 2006, BP-ARCO settled a lawsuit regarding its Washington state refinery operations that claimed the company illegally increased production over limits put into law by former U.S. Sen. Warren Magnuson to protect Washington's inland marine waters. thereby endangering the Washington shoreline. The limits prohibited production beyond limits that refineries could handle. In Montana in 2008, about 90 residents in the Anaconda and Opportunity areas filed a lawsuit against the Atlantic Richfield Co. and other companies alleging that smelting operations contaminated their property and put the public health at risk. In 2007, BP Products North America agreed to pay a total criminal fine of more than $60 million for violations of federal environmental regulations in Texas and Alaska. In addition to the penalty, the company must spend approximately $400 million on safety upgrades and improvements to prevent future chemical releases and spills. In Yerington, BP-ARCO has been continuously stonewalling and stalling environmental investigation and cleanup of the radioactive-contaminated Yerington Anaconda Mine, which is now known to be leaking uranium and activity into groundwater below the site; that groundwater flows to local residents and the Yerington Paiute Tribal Reservation to the north. The lives and medical safety of those residents is threatened since they all draw their water supplies from domestic wells located in the path of water migration. BP ARCO’s poor environmental track record is much more extensive than has been described here. (04-28-2010)
BRITISH PETROLEUM KNEW OF SAFETY DANGERS IN TEXAS CBS 60 MINUTES aired a segment on Sunday, October 29, 2006, in which it said that a three-month investigation "found evidence that BP ignored warning after warning that something terrible could happen at Texas City." Link (Posted November 3, 2006) BP SUED OVER OIL PRICE MANIPULATIONS A recent Federal Court lawsuit filed against British Petroleum claims the international oil giant manipulated crude oil prices by refusing to allow traders access to U.S. storage facilities, according to documents filed Tuesday, September 5, 2006. "BP abused its dominant market position by not making available space at its crude oil storage facilities in Cushing, (Oklahoma), to market participants who were obligated to deliver crude oil at Cushing," the complaint said. http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/20060906/bp-us-traders-lawsuit.htm (September 10, 2006) BP MAKES TOP OF THE LISTS! The YAMSite has learned that the Environmental Protection Agency has named BP's Texas City Refinery as the nation's worst polluter. The refinery released nearly three times as much pollution from its plant in 2004 is it did the year before, as well as three times as much pollution as the "second worst polluter, Exxon." 15 refinery workers died at the plant in March of 2005, and OSHA has launched a Criminal Investigation into that accident. A class-action lawsuit was also filed April 14, 2006 against BP by owners of royalties who claim they have been underpaid because BP added unallowable costs before distribution of the royalty payments. This comes hot on the heels of a December 2005 settlement in a similar case, where BP agreed to pay $233 million to 4,500 Colorado royalty owners after an 11-year legal battle. (May 19, 2006) BP STEPS IN IT AGAIN:
US agency conducting another criminal probe An April 5, 2006 article in WALLS TREET JOURNAL reports that U.S. environmental regulators are conducting a criminal investigation into BP- Plc's management of pipelines in Alaska's North Slope. The newspaper said the investigation, which has been under way for several months by the Environmental Protection Agency, was expanded to include an early March spill of an estimated 134,000 to 267,000 gallons of crude from a BP-operated pipeline at Prudhoe Bay. This news comes not long after another criminal investigation into BP's activities at a Texas City, Texas refinery that exploded in March of 2003, killing 15 people and injuring over 170. OSHA has previously ruled that known equipment problems, failure to follow established safety guidelines, and inadequate training were factors in those deaths and injuries. The Alaskan pipeline investigation is being conducted by EPA's criminal-investigation division, a person familiar with the matter told the Journal. If investigators find any violations of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. attorney's office could forward the matter to a federal grand jury for possible prosecution. Previously, BP was fined by the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission in January of 2005 for safety violations at a Prudhoe Bay well accident caused by excessive pressure in 2002. Explosion and fire seriously injured a worker. The Commission said BP put production ahead of shutting down and repairing wells. Also in January of 2005, the Commission fined BP for violating rules drawn up after the well explosion on preventing dangerous pressure from building up in Prudhoe Bay wells. While BP, the world's second-largest listed oil firm by market value, has cultivated a reputation for being the greenest of the oil majors, in January 2003, Alaska OSHA proposed fines for violations of the state’s worker safety law in failing to protect workers in an explosion that killed a worker. Criminal Probation. In December 2002. the U.S. District Court found BP had not installed a leak detection system that could promptly detect Prudhoe Bay pipeline spills, and failed to comply with Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation requirements for best-available technology for crude oil pipelines. The Court ordered probation conditions allowing the state agency unrestricted access to the corporation’s records and oil fields to verify compliance with environmental, health, and safety regulations. This action resulted from a July, 2001 petition to the court submitted on behalf of 77 BP employees. In November of 2002, BP was fined for spill cleanup problems with a 60,000 gallon Prudhoe Bay pipeline spill. Crude oil spilled to wetlands and leaked through ice cracks to a drinking-water lake. In June 2002, BP paid fines for delays in installing leak detection systems for Prudhoe Bay crude oil transmission lines. In February of 2000, the Federal Court ordered BP to pay $6.5 million in civil penalties, $15.5 million in criminal fines, and to implement a new environmental management program, while ordering five years of probation for late reporting of hazardous dumping down Endicott wells.BP recently said that its record $22.34 billion in 2005 earnings could have been even better had the Texas refinery not been closed down since September of 2005. (Posted April 8, 2006) BP 4TH QUARTER 2005 PROFITS ONLY $3.69 BILLION Although BP's 2005 annual profits were more than $22.34 billion, British Petroleum executives say that the oil giant missed its 4th quarter predictions due to hurricanes and accounting related charges. (Posted February 12, 2006) BP AGREED TO PAY $81 MILLION AS SETTLEMENT OVER EMISSIONS SUIT YAMSite.info research reveals that BP West Coast was sued for $319 million by California's Southland Air Quality Management District in March of 2003. The suit was brought due to an alleged "thousands" of air pollution violations over an eight-year period. After admitting "no wrong doing," BP reached an out-of-court settlement of $81 million in March of 2005. Area school officials reported that three schools were in "lock down" conditions in 2003 due to hydrogen sulfide gases. In 2004, after the suit was filed, BP agreed to spend $25 million to upgrade emission controls at its Carson refinery. (Posted February 12, 2006) BP, EXXON-MOBILE DEFENDANTS IN LAWSUIT An antitrust lawsuit was filed in December of 2005 against Exxon Mobil and BP by the Alaska Gasoline Port Authority. The suit alleges that the two oil giants are conspiring together to eliminate competition for the exploration, development and marketing of natural gas from Alaska's North Slope to markets in the United States in order to drive prices of natural gas artificially higher. The attorney for the plantiff is David Boies, a prominent figure in the Florida Presidential election / "pregnant-chad" debacle. (Webmaster's Note: The filing of a lawsuit in no way implies that the defendants are guilty of the alleged act. This story is provided for informational purposes only.) Read theFull Story (Posted January 30, 2006) BP/ARCO STOPS ALL DOMESTIC WELL SAMPLING Although the sampling of domestic wells in 2004 and 2005 showed increasing levels of uranium in many wells, BP/ARCO stopped sampling wells at or above the 25mcl level in the fall of 2005. That decision was based on the fact that BP/ARCO had agreed to supply bottled water for domestic purposes to owners of those wellls. At the time of that decision, the company stated that it would continue testing of wells that were below the 25mcl limit in case there were any increases in uranium levels that would warrant more owners receiving bottled water. In January of 2006, BP/ARCO is stating that they will no longer test any well that has been previously tested. Their new position is that levels of uranium are not changing enough to warrant any further testing. BP/ARCO has, however, agreed to test any domestic wells that have not been previously tested. (Posted January 15, 2006) BP AND IRANIAN OIL COMPANY IN JOINT VENTURE The National Iranian Oil Company and British Petroleum have entered into an agreement to supply gas to the British market. A report in PAYVAND on December 29, 2005, says that NIOC and BP are participating in a joint venture to explore for natural gas in the RUHM Gas Field which is located northeast of Aberdin, Scotland. The cost of exploration is estimated at 350 million British pounds. The field's proven gas reserves are 1,100,000 billion cubic feet of which an estimated 800 billion cubic feet can be exploited and it is anticipated that the cost of exploration will be recovered within one year of production. (Posted January 15, 2006) http://www.payvand.com/news/05/dec/1232.html BP/ARCO STALLS MINE SITE WORK Just over a year after the United States Environmental Protection Agency took charge of the remediation and cleanup of the shuttered Yerington Anaconda Mine Site under CERCLA, www.YAMSite.info has learned that BP/ARCO is showing outward signs of being uncooperative in the process. EPA, through an emergency removal Action Memorandum dated December 7, 2005, asked ARCo to cooperate in addressing PCB containing electrical equipment remaining on the site, and provide interim controls on fugitive dust sources at the site. ARCo has declined to do so and EPA will proceed to conduct the work itself, using EPA funds. Work on the PCB containing equipment should start in February and the dust control work will begin later, EPA will later pursue recovery of costs. Site security through improved fencing, long-promised by BP/ARCo, continues to be "evaluated and discussed." A meeting at the site was conducted on December 13th between EPA, BLM, NDEP, and ARCo to review current fencing and to determine what upgrades are required. EPA has asked ARCo to respond by January 16th. Air monitoring results for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2005, due from BP/ARCo December 15th, have been delayed until at least January 13th. ARCo acknowledged that it had verbally agreed to the December date during a public meeting, but said that it had not agreed to the date in writing. A confusion in the chronological order of producing the reports has been blamed. (Posted January 8, 2006) BP FACES POTENTIAL CRIMINAL CHARGES The Department of Justice is reviewing a March 2005 explosion at a Texas oil refinery owned and operated by BP/ARCo to determine if criminal charges should be filed. The announcement was made on December 14th. The refinery, 35 miles southeast of Houston, is the company's biggest and is the third largest oil refinery in the United States. It processes some 460,000 barrels of oil a day. 15 workers were killed in the explosion and 170 injured. In May, BP admitted that refinery supervisors and other workers were responsible for "fatal errors" that caused the blast. Workers had overfilled a tower used to boost octane levels in gas, and the resulting overheating caused the explosion according to reports from the company. Supervisors were also slow to evacuate the area where the explosion occurred. In September, OSHA fined BP Products North America Inc. more than $21 million in penalties following its investigation of the explosion. The penalties were part of a settlement agreement that requires BP to, among other things, resolve all of the various safety issues and hazards for which they were cited, to hire firms to evaluate and make recommendations regarding plant safety, and to promptly advise OSHA of any accidents at the refinery. John Miles, Regional Administrator for OSHA, said the agency found more than 300 health and safety violations at the refinery. Miles said that it was a willful violation, defined as those committed with intentional disregard to OSHA regulations. The U.S. Department of Labor has referred the case to the Department of Justice for possible criminal proceedings. YAMSite has also learned that there have been several previous incidents at the refinery, some of which also resulted in deaths. References: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9072-1542364,00.html http://gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnn52399.htm http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=11589 http://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=75733&forum_id=4&jump_to=1534676 (Posted January 8, 2005)
|