Thursday, 08 December 2011 15:49
 |
| State of Alaska photo. Alaska Dispatch. |
The line had been completely or partially frozen for as long as six months before ice in it expanded, causing rupture. A majority of the crude ended up under and near the pipeline, with the consistency of a "semi-solid surface," a "stiff Slurpee" or a "snow cone," according to an EPA agent on the scene at the time. But at least some of the oil ended up spreading across the Arctic tundra, in what was consistently described during the hearing as a "plume." That much was uncontested at the hearing.
What was at issue throughout the week was the following:
- Did any of the oil end up in U.S. waters, constituting a violation by BP of the Clean Water Act?
- Did BP act negligently for not anticipating the spill?
The 18-inch flow line that eventually ruptured runs parallel to a 24-inch line. At some point the smaller line became plugged, causing pressure to back up to the point that all of the oil was routed toward the larger pipe.
Because the flow of oil is necessary to keep lines warm, the 18-inch line eventually froze, which lead to increased build up and finally, in the words of EPA criminal unit special agent Matt Goers, a "dynamic explosion."
Arguments heard
Assistant U.S. Attorney Aunnie Steward had argued through the course of the hearing that BP was using an alarm system and temperature sensors at the site of the spill that weren't appropriate to the conditions. The sensors, housed in the processing center, measured ambient temperature rather than the temperature of the line itself.
The sensors were installed in 1993 to warn operators of a condition called "slugging" where large "slugs" of natural gas get separated from the oil and water, a situation that can be dangerous. Slugging, however, is no longer a problem. But the sensors were not moved to reflect the true temperature of the line.
Steward argued that the failure to move the lines outside -- which was done to all other similar lines following a similar line rupture in 2001 that also resulted in a spill -- constituted negligence. That, coupled with what she said was a failure to respond to alarms that indicated a low temperature on the line, constituted BP's "failure to perceive a risk," and ultimately, a "gross deviation of normal standards of care.
"Do we want to wait until someone else is killed by BP to get them focused on safety and the environment and not on the bottom line?" Steward said, rather dramatically, when she wrapped up closing argument Wednesday. (Although BP has been on probation in Alaska since 2001 for various infractions, no one has died in Alaska as a result of negligence on a BP oil field).
For its part, BP's lawyer, Anchorage-based Jeff Feldman said that the witnesses he brought to the stand all week -- including BP operators, an engineer, and executives -- proved that the spill couldn't have been anticipated, and that they followed best industry practices in running the processing center.
Feldman said that the company has been under attack by the government, which is using the "perfect wisdom of 20/20 hindsight." He said that BP had relied on global experts throughout the country to analyze the events that led to the line freezing; not one of them could have anticipated it.
Ultimately, Feldman said, the case was about the people who work at Lisburne. Putting many of their pictures on an overhead screen, he asked, rather dramatically, who among those were negligent?
He said that BP found being on probation a "burden and a distraction" but the real reason he and BP were in court, fighting the revocation, was for the "reputations of professional operators and engineers who do work day in and day out -- who put their lives on the line." They deserve fair treatment, he said, not the "ad hominem" attacks levied by the government.
Clean Water Act has gotten little attention
The alleged Clean Water Act violation got some short thrift in the hearing, but if the judge agrees with the government, the company could be levied further fines. EPA attorney Karla Perrin, who took the Clean Water Act lead in the hearing, argued the wetlands in the Lisburne area, which oil had reached, constitutes a continuous "hydrological system," all of which feed into Prudhoe Bay.
BP argued that a gravel road cutting through the tundra and various berms kept the oil from migrating into the bay.
Perrin said Wednesday, however, that if Judge Beistline agreed that any part of the oil "plume" had gone beyond the road, or the berm, "your analysis is done," she said.
It's unknown when Beistline will rule on the case.