Impact of Petroleum Exploration, Extraction and Transport - Coursework Example

 Impact of Petroleum Exploration, Extraction and Transport Introduction The Buncefield disaster occurred in December 2005 at the Burchfield Oil depot, which is located at Hertfordshire. In this disaster, a huge fire engulfed a large part of the site after which 40 people were injured. Moreover, the Buncefield disaster led to the damage of residential and commercial properties that were in the vicinity. The security measures that followed this disaster were the evacuation of individuals within the area. The fire burned for several days in which it completely destroyed the site and led to air pollution due to the emission of black smoke into the air (Allen 2011). This report will indicate mitigation and disaster preparedness measures as well as the impacts of the Buncefield disaster. Discussion Mitigation measures The disaster that happened in Buncefield could have been avoided through mitigation measures from the municipality within the locality in which the incident occurred. Mitigation measures entail activities that are put in place with the intent of minimizing impacts of a disaster. Activities concerned with mitigation cover economic, social and the physical effects of the disaster to a population. In case a disaster such as the one witnessed at Buncefield was adequately prepared for, the widespread effects that resulted from the disaster could have been mitigated. Mitigation of the effects that emanate from disasters takes various angles and aspects depending on the location and preparedness of the local authorities such as the municipalities. Mitigation measures can be classified into non-structural and structural measures. Moreover, the measures are also classified under passive or active measures (Bradley, Makhviladze, & Molkov 2011). The government and the local authorities should play a major role in handling the occurrence of disasters. The situation at Buncefield could have been averted if there were policies and plans for preparing and managing disasters. The government should play a part in ensuring that the public and relevant organizations are educated. Rome (2010), indicates that the government and the local authority have the responsibility of ensuring that warning systems are in place and are serviced regularly. The Buncefield disaster escalated due to poor planning which saw uncontrollable fires making it hard for ambulance vehicles to navigate their way to the scene of the disaster (Sceptre Education 2006). After the occurrence of the disaster, planning is of major important in order to facilitate activities such as evacuation, rescue, psychiatric and medical assistance relief provisions, and provision of shelter to the victims among others. The public and private sectors, the government and the local authority have a major task in formulating measures for addressing disasters upon their occurrence and training staff that are responsible for managing and planning for disasters (Great Britain: Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service 2006). In order to avoid the occurrence of the incident as the one witnessed at Buncefield, the operators of the sites such as the one at Buncefield should thoroughly examine the emergency arrangements. This helps in catering for all foreseeable scenarios that arise from hazard incidents of the scale such as the explosion of vapor clouds and tank fires (Turner 2008). Such scenarios were not considered credible before the Buncefield disaster. The local authority has a huge role to play in ensuring that emergency arrangement is examined. Moreover, the authority has the role of reviewing the guidelines that pertains to the preparation of emergency plans. The operators of the facility should set tank margins properly in order to allow enough time to react to an over-fill before contents spill over as was the case in Buncefield. The operators at such a facility should also maintain an oversight of pipeline transfers in order to ensure that pipeline transfers are scheduled and planned effectively with pre-transfer checks that are necessary to ensure that there is enough capacity. Moreover, the operators at a petroleum facility should put the site in total control to end a transfer or shut down operations in case of an emergency (The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport(UK) 2007). In addition, the operators of the facility should come up, with effective means of monitoring and gauging fuel levels through the help of trained staff who can adequately respond to the development of an emergency. Installation of control and valves is also important in ensuring that tank contents are isolated. The use of valves that shut-off in the event of a fire helps in limiting major spillages and escalation of fire. Furthermore, through formulation of inspection programs that are effective, maintenance and testing of systems that protect overfills can be attained (Gay 2006). Disaster preparedness measures The review of places within the site where explosions may occur is of major importance. This entails the evaluation of the specific site and the protection of facilities that help when responding to emergencies. Moreover, in preparing for petroleum disasters, there is the need for operators to assess the methods that are important in detection of flammable vapors which are emitted during tank overfills. Detectors of flammable gas are also reliable in facilitating the shutdown of emergencies (Charlton 2005). In preventing the occurrence of a chemical disaster, preparation is of great importance. The vulnerability of a community is the balance between resources and risks and this balance should be made more favorable during the onset of disasters. According to Rome (2010), studies of communities highlighted that communities with plans aimed at preparing for disaster, even if they were defective, were able to respond to a chemical disaster in a more effective and coordinated way than communities that did not have plans. Moreover, communities with plans to prepare for disaster were able to prevent minor incidents from turning into catastrophes (Rome 2010). The local authority, public and private sectors and other individuals concerned with mitigation of disasters have the responsibility of collecting information and using it while they formulate ways of working together in order to create comprehensive disaster plans. These plans include plans to control chemical from causing damage to the environment, training individuals who respond to the disasters immediately, establish warning systems, evacuate the scene and protect the residents from threats of such a magnitude. The organizations that should be involved at such a stage include private and public agencies that are devoted to responding to emergencies. These organizations include departments such as police and fire department, relief agencies, the civil defense and hospitals. Government executives are also important in ensuring that the aforementioned operations are carried out effectively (Alcraft 2000). In preparing for a disaster, a high degree of cooperation and coordination among the aforementioned agencies is required. The first step involves the assessment of the probability of the community experiencing a chemical disaster. This is done through establishing the amount of chemicals that the community possesses and the nature of those chemicals. The Buncefield disaster occurred due to a lack of assessment. This disaster and other disasters that have occurred in history have been because of difficulties in collection of information from disposers and transporters in chemical companies. Moreover, companies are not aware of the risks their storage and manufacturing facilities offer to the residents in the facilities where they are located (Waugh 2000). Among the disaster preparedness measures is the formulation of legislative and directives, which establish commissions necessary for planning and make it a requirement for chemical companies to notify authorities concerned with regulation about the existence of substances that are above the specified amounts and share with organizations that exist locally information about risks (Guertin & Neville 2011). The impact of the Buncefield disaster in comparison with the Kuwait disaster Business closures and evacuation of civilians were among the main impacts of Buncefield disaster. Following the explosion that occurred at Buncefield, many homes were destroyed with thousands of people being compelled to seek accommodation elsewhere. The organizations that were conducting evacuation services asked the individuals residing in the area to close doors and windows. The disaster also led to the closure of libraries, schools and other public facilities around the affected region (Bradley, Makhviladze, & Molkov 2011). Business was severely disrupted after the Buncefield disaster. Commercial buildings such as Fujifilm were badly damaged to an extent that they could not facilitate their normal operations. The Fujifilm building was destroyed after it was rendered unusable. Other buildings such as the Keystone building and the Catherine house were damaged. In general, many commercial buildings that existed within the area were demolished and other required repairs prior to reoccupation. The destruction of these buildings was coupled with severe destruction of vital equipment and websites, which were rendered inaccessible. Furthermore, some companies within the area were unable to use their premises despite their premises being largely unaffected (Drysdale 2011). Pollution of ground water was another major impact of the Buncefield disaster. According to Reniers (2010), bioaccumulative and other toxic substances were detected in water bodies close to where the disaster had occurred. This led to intervention by the inspector of drinking water who announced that the water was being treated in order to avoid health risks. Similar to the Buncefield disaster, the Kuwait disaster, which occurred in 1991, had widespread environmental ramifications. Apart from pollution of underground water, the air quality decreased significantly after this disaster, which led to the emergence of respiratory problems for residents of Kuwait. The disaster had major impact on the environment due to the formation of oil wells, which contaminated the desert sand and earth. The vegetation in Kuwait was also damaged with its recovery beginning in 1995. Furthermore, dry climate that resulted from the disaster led to the solidification of the lakes (Al-Damkhi & Mohamed 2007). The Buncefield and the Kuwait disasters highlight how vulnerable the residents of an area where there is a petroleum refining facility are. The slow nature in which the communities adapted to the disasters at Kuwait and the United Kingdom shows that mitigation and disaster preparedness measures are often ignored despite the danger posed by facilities concerned with petroleum refining (Al-Damkhi & Mohamed 2007). Conclusion In summary, the Buncefield disaster, which occurred in 2005, had widespread effects. Apart from causing a disruption of transport activities, the disaster rendered most of the businesses around the area inoperable due to destruction of equipment and infrastructure necessary for business undertakings. Similar to the disaster in Kuwait, the Buncefield disaster caused the pollution of underground water and severe pollution of the surrounding environment. This report has recommended several mitigation measures that are necessary for alleviating and limiting the occurrence of a Buncefield-like disaster. Moreover, this report has highlighted disaster preparedness measures to be taken in order to address a potential disaster. Communication is a very important aspect and a good measure of mitigating and preparing for disaster. References Alcraft, R. 2000. Oil Disasters, Heinemann/Raintree, Chicago. Al-Damkhi, & Mohamed, A. 2007. ‘Risk Management Behind Kuwait's Firefighting Emergency Plan.’ Human & Ecological Risk Assessment , vol. 13. no. 2, 449-456. Allen, B. 2011, July 08. Buncefield: Britain’s £1 billion disaster. Available from: [5 June 2012]. Bradley, D., Makhviladze, G., & Molkov, V. 2011. Fire and Explosion Hazards: Proceedings of the Sixth International Seminar11-16 April 2010, Weetwood Hall Conference Centre and Hotel, Leeds, UK, Research Publishing Service, Hardingstone. Charlton, J. 2005, December 14. Buncefield Oil Storage Disaster. Available from: [ 5 June 2012]. Drysdale, D. 2011. An Introduction to Fire Dynamics. London: John Wiley and Sons. Gay, P. 2006. Buncefield's communication breakdown. Computing & Control Engineering, vol. 17. no. 3, 10-15. Great Britain: Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service. 2006. Buncefield: Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service's Review of the Fire Response, The Stationery Office, Norwich. Guertin, L., & Neville, S. 2011. Utilizing Google Earth to Teach Students about Global Oil Spill Disasters. Science Activities, vol. 48. no. 1, 1–8. Reniers, G. L. 2010. Multi-Plant Safety and Security Management in the Chemical and Process Industries, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Rome, E. 2010. Critical Information Infrastructures Security: 4th International Workshop Critis 2009, Bonn, Germany, September 30 - October 2, 2009, Revised Papers, Springer, London. Sceptre Education. 2006. The Buncefield Explosion: A Compilation by Sceptre Fundraising Team, Sceptre Education, Bedfordshire. The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport(UK). 2007. Recovering from the Buncefield disaster. Logistics & Transport Focus , vol. 9. no. 4, 24-26. Turner, M. 2008. ‘Play with Fire and You’ll Get Burnt: Hazardous Industrial Installations, Residential Communities, and Lessons from the Buncefield Disaster,’ Local Economy , vol. 23. no. 3, 241–246. Waugh, W. L. 2000. Living With Hazards, Dealing With Disasters: An Introduction to Emergency Management, M.E. Sharpe, New York. Read More