The Calamity at the Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal - Case Study Example

Buncefield Oil Study Introduction: The calamity at the Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal of 2005 has certainly been deeply entrenched in the mindsets of people around the world due to its immensely catastrophic nature, which according to many resulted from a series of explosions early on the morning of the 11th of December 2005. [1] This workstation which is known popularly as the Buncefield Depot is basically an oil storage facility which is situated at the edge of the Hemel Hempsted in Hertfordshire, England; which is in close proximity to the M1 motorway. According to different news reports, this was the biggest incident that took place of its specific genre since the advent of peacetime Europe. The fire that ablaze on the 11th of December 2005 was finally extinguished on the afternoon of the 13th of December 2005. This was despite the fact that there was a separate incident of the ignition of a fuel storage tank; which was left by the fire-fighters ablaze as opposed to undertake measures to prevent it. [2] Probable Causes: Given the rather precarious political situation in England at that point in time, the police issued a statement which said that the treatment of the incident was along the lines of an accident as opposed to a terrorist attack. Rumour mongers claimed that the rather emphatic noise that was heard at the beginning of this ordeal was indicative of a deliberate terrorist activity along the lines of the September 11 attacks in the U.S. whereby an aerial vehicle had been purposefully crashed in the storage site. There might have been some truth to these rumours given the somewhat close propinquity between this site at the Luton airport and also the fact that numerous flights crossed paths with each other at the time of incident but these rumours were subsequently proven to be just that: rumours. [3] Despite these notions, a TV channel which was broadcast from Italy showcased its opinion on the morning of the catastrophe as being a possible terrorist activity, even going to the extent of displaying footage of the recent July 2005 London bombings in a bid to ascertain a correlation between the two events. Their claims were further corroborated by the fact that there were speculations regarding the alleged release of a videotaped message from Al-Qaeda that had been released four days prior to the eventual attack which stated that the next probable targets for any terrorist activity would be on oil depots and refineries which contained as they quote ‘oil stolen from Muslim countries’. Despite these facts, the actual causes of the blast have remained unknown till the release of a full investigation report on the entire catastrophe. [4] In the aftermath of the event, an oil industry specialist also came up with a theory for the probable cause of the blast where he claimed on BBC news that a vapour leak could have been the reason behind the explosion as the leak could have built up to explosive intensities due largely to the ground frost in the area that was ascertaining the vapour intensity at the ground level. The increase in the intensity of the vapours could have resulted in a fuel-air explosion. However, there are some loopholes to this theory as for it to be true, there must have been a leakage in the system which was not detected by the leak detection system; which would come as a conflict to prevalent industry norms whereby fully functioning leakage systems must be put in place in order to determine any leaks in the system. [5] BBC News 24 conducted an interview with a petrol tanker driver in the aftermath of this event who told them that around the time that he was getting ready to load his tanker, which too place at around 6am in the morning of the fire claimed that the tank farm area behind the loading docks had a cloud of mist hovering above it. During this time, all the electric lights in the depot were turned off and the drivers were told to evacuate the facility on foot. As this specific driver was evacuating the area, the first blast occurred which threw him off his feet and onto the ground. In a separate interview with a security guard that had been stationed at a building which was in close proximity to the depot claimed that he had smelled an inordinate smell of petrol inside the building that he was stationed in. In addition, the Hertfordshire police department reported that they had interrogated a driver who was apprehensive that the explosion may have been caused by the switching of the engine cut-off that was placed on his tanker. [6] Effects to the environment: The clouds of black smoke that had formed over the depot which were easily decipherable from satellite imagery floated at high altitudes of some 9000 feet which would approximate to around 2700 meters towards the vicinity of Reading and Swindon, and could be easily noticed from anywhere around the South East part of Great Britain. The small particles that were part of the smoke contained hydrocarbons which could be an irritant for the people who came in contact with it but had rather low levels of toxicity and were not expected to produce a long term defects of the people who came into contact with it. However, the Met Office issued a warning to the general public that the smoke in the air could come down on the ground via the rainfall that accured during the night of the 11th of December, 2005. [7] During the 11th and the 12th of December, 2005 i.e. the first two days of the explosion, the immensely high level of thermal energy in the air was the major reason behind the increased buoyancy of the smoke cloud. This, in addition to the settled weather conditions at the time of the incident enabled the cloud to rise to greater heights with losing its concentration potency by cross-mixing with the clean atmosphere. When the firefighters were able to control the raging fire to a certain extent, it was reported that there was a distinct possibility of the smoke cloud losing its buoyancy which would lead to increased levels of ground level smoke concentrations which could have cataclysmic effect of on the health of the people in the area. [8] HEC inquiry: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Environmental Agency collaborated on a government inquiry in a bid to ascertain the reasons behind the explosion; however, the calls that had been made in close quarters and by the general public that a full disclosure public enquiry should have taken place were declined by the government due to obvious reasons. The Board which was handling this matter included Lord Newton, Professor Douglas Drysdale and Dr. Peter Baxter. Staff from the both the commissions who were jointly working on the project were also involved. The basic aim of the task force was to ascertain the basic reasons behind the catastrophic explosion which took place rather then to initiate a blame game vis-à-vis the deficiencies that led to this disaster; all in a bid to prevent prejudiced opinions of the public with regards to a certain section related to the depot. The Major Incidents Investigations Board submitted a first draft of its report on the 21st of February 2006 did not exactly go into the details of the reasons behind the explosion but rather focused on the reactions of the emergency servies that arrived on the spot. The second draft of the report that was published on the 11th of April, 2006 overlook the major environmental aspects of the explosion. [9] [10] Due to the immense degree of the damage that had occurred at the site, it was almost impossible if not entirely impossible to determine the exact source of the ignition which led to the fire, but the major candidates that had been ascertained by this enquiry included the emergency generator that had been placed inside the facility and the depot’s fire pump system. The investigators, however, did not believe that the ignition was caused neither by the driver of the fuel tanker had many had previously speculated nor by any at the depot using a cellular phone. It was also determined rather unlikely that the explosion would have an extensive impact on the quality of air at the ground level. [11] [12] Conclusion: Management Failure When we look at the whole event in hindsight, it is rather difficult to distance oneself from the opinion that the factors inside the depot were more to blame for this catastrophe than those that prevailed outside. The HEC report claimed the major culprits for the explosion to be the emergency generator or the fire pump systems that were placed inside the depot. Therefore, one had to conclude that even though the actual reason behind the ignition which led to the fire is difficult to ascertain, it is a largely accepted notion that mishandling of any of the equipment inside the depot was the most likely reason for the ignition which has to be directly attributed to a somewhat callous attitude on the part of the management towards the handling and running of the depot. Bibliography: 1. "Buncefield tank 'was overflowing'", BBC News. Retrieved on 11th June 2009. 2. British Geological Survey. "EXPL-HEMEL HEMPSTEAD". Retrieved on 11th June 2009. 3. FRSonline. "High Volume Pumps at Buncefield". Retrieved on 11th June 2009. 4. Natural Environment Research Council. "Oil depot explosion". Retrieved on 11th June 2009 5. Natural Environment Research Council. "Oil depot explosion - update". Retrieved on 11th June 2009. 6. Hertfordshire County Council. "Buncefield Depot Explosion – services affected". Retrieved on 11th June 2009. 7. "Oil fire leads to plane pitstops", BBC News. Retrieved on 11th June 2009. 8. "Report on the Buncefield Investigation reports of May 06". Hemelhempstead Today (2007-05). Retrieved on 11th June 2009. 9. "Questions still unanswered in Buncefield probe", Edie News Center (2006-02-22). Retrieved on 11th June 2009. 10. Robert Willcox. "Vapour Explosions" (PDF). Retrieved on 11th June 2009 11. Alex Spence and Michael Herman (2008-05-23). "Total negligent over blast at Buncefield", The Times. Retrieved on 11th June 2009. 12. Jeff Charlton, (2005) ‘Buncefield Oil Storage Disaster’ Disaster Advice Ltd, Read More