Odourless gas entering network

Mr Magnolia

Am I on my own thinking that this hasn't received the media attention and scrutiny that it should have?

I'm very surprised that whatever safety measures* which were in place to ensure mercaptan was added in the correct volume failed and the the network volume has to be flared.

*in the context that this is a major transmission line, I don't know what pressure it's operating at but it must be circa 30bar?

Turbulent Bill

Focus seems to be on disruption to customers, not the catastrophic consequences if an odourless leak did happen. Hopefully a HSA audit will follow, along with a fine from the EPA for having to flare off so much gas.

Needles73

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

Focus seems to be on disruption to customers, not the catastrophic consequences if an odourless leak did happen. Hopefully a HSA audit will follow, along with a fine from the EPA for having to flare off so much gas.

So you think in future they shouldn't flare so as to avoid EPA fine ?

G-Man

Will they be fined? Surely cost of gas would be big enough disincentive and secondly, do we want to fine industrial users for choosing the safe option in an emergency.

I am not arguing for no fine, just interested to know why a fine is justified in these non - normal.

Mr Magnolia

A fine would be a deterrent with regard to future possible fugitive emissions. Just because it's the safest option doesn't mean the environmental impact should be disregarded.

Needles73

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

A fine would be a deterrent with regard to future possible fugitive emissions. Just because it's the safest option doesn't mean the environmental impact should be disregarded.

The cost of gas id imagine is huge deterent as is reputational damage. Actual environmental damage is relatively minor other than localised light and noise pollution. The gas was always going to get burnt one way or another..,

Turbulent Bill

G-Man wrote: »

Will they be fined? Surely cost of gas would be big enough disincentive and secondly, do we want to fine industrial users for choosing the safe option in an emergency.

I am not arguing for no fine, just interested to know why a fine is justified in these non - normal.

I'd justify a fine (either from the HSA or EPA) on the basis that their risk management was inadequate. Given how long it took to resume service, their warning and management systems don't look suitable. That they would take the safe option of burning in an emergency is a given; the fine would be for letting the situation develop in the first place.

I don't think the cost of gas would be any issue, and Shell don't care about reputational damage given their history at the site.

Needles73

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

I'd justify a fine (either from the HSA or EPA) on the basis that their risk management was inadequate. Given how long it took to resume service, their warning and management systems don't look suitable. That they would take the safe option of burning in an emergency is a given; the fine would be for letting the situation develop in the first place.

I don't think the cost of gas would be any issue, and Shell don't care about reputational damage given their history at the site.

HSA hasn't got jurisdiction as it falls under CER.