At the usual notice of about two days a meeting was announced that may determine the future face of Nevis. Prior to the meeting the Administration had informed us that it was in discussions with a company named Canadian Global Investments (CGI) with a view to setting up an oil storage depot at a cost of US$400 million at Pembroke Estate in the South of Nevis.
The CGI investors were named. I asked a leading figure in Canadian business for his comments. He replied ‘I can find no one who knows these people. Are you sure they are the major principals in the matter? There is nothing that demonstrates that they have access to the necessary money. They must be fronting for someone’.
Curious to learn more I went to the meeting. My thought was that if we are to have such a facility we must be really sure what we are getting in to before we commit ourselves. The CGI participants, investors, front men whatever their capacity sat at a table at the front. A white man with a pink shirt and scruffy shoes – some say you can always tell people by their shoes – was a main speaker. He told us that CGI had a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the NIA. He did not give any details to tell us what actually had been agreed.
A MOU is not normally binding, but it should give basics of what will then, after further negotiation and legal work, form a binding contract between the Parties.
He told us of the benefits for the island, including 200 construction jobs, 150 permanent jobs, that CGI was not asking Government for any money, and was bringing all money and investment, and that a training school would be set up at CGI’s expense. Free basic medical care would be available to all Nevisians at the facility they would set up for their work force, and that the project would enhance tourism (I found this a preposterous statement) and bring more tourists and commerce to the island. Further CGI would help to supply our electricity grid at a lower cost, and could retrofit our diesel power station to run on LPG.
A ‘win win’ situation for both CGI and the NIA. The storage tanks would be set up in two phases, six million barrels each phase. There are 42 gallons of crude oil per barrel, so the eventual size of the facility will be 252 million gallons. It will occupy 200 acres. Instead of US$400 million we were now told that the investment would be of US$680 million. There would be no jetty on shore (presumably our waters are too shallow) but tankers would discharge and receive via submarine pipeline from 1 – 1½ miles off shore. The tanks would have 5” steel walls and floating roofs, which float with the product, Everything would be state of the art computerized.
Government will get more than 2½% of the sales. He or another speaker said that there had been no recent accidents at fuel storage sites, and that spills were basically ‘minor’. When questioned ‘What if you do have a spillage?’ the CGI man said ‘We are talking very small amounts because it can only happen at the connectivity phase’. We were told that there would be a bund wall around each tank that could contain 110% of the product in case of a spill.
A brief search of the Internet reveals that accidents and spillages are a serious risk factor, so much so that it would be accurate to classify CGI’s categorization of the risks as demonstrably, absolutely and outrageously false. It is difficult to know where to start. There have been so many accidents over the years. First we should note that the United Nations Environment Programme in its Global Chemicals Outlook stated, ‘Poor management of chemicals is incurring multibillion dollar costs worldwide – most of which are not borne by manufacturers or others along the supply chain, but instead by social welfare systems or individuals’. What this report is saying to us, is that the chances are Nevis will have to bear the cost of any damage itself.
How far have we gone into this project? A question was put ‘Is it a done deal?. CGI would not answer. The questioner was advised to ask the NIA and then told that if he had been there at the beginning of the meeting he would have known that a MOU had been signed. The answer was evasive and disingenuous. We need to know. Questions were raised about an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). We were told, to our surprise, that the meeting was a part of the process.
Knowing that for large developments, the common practise is for the developer to produce his own EIA and then fund the State or whoever has the land, so that the developer’s EIA can be assessed by experts whom the State will have chosen as its own independent experts, I asked CGI if it would be prepared to do so for the NIA. The answer I received was essentially ‘No, that is not necessary, it is an ongoing process and we are doing what the NIA requires’. That is not satisfactory.
We need in writing and on line an EIA and its expert written critique so that there can be an informed debate throughout the island before irrevocable decisions are hastily made on our behalf. Simply put, we need a say in something which could have a profound effect on our future. So far we have heard solely the CGI sales pitch, pure Blarney, or some other less polite word, and our Premier saying that:
1. He was satisfied that the project would not jeopardise tourism
2. The Administration is ‘looking to make sure that it does not affect in any way the water around us, that the waters and the area are not contaminated in any way.
3. He (and his colleagues) had looked at the situation in our neighbouring island St. Eustatius. It has a similar facility and we see no contamination. All the safety measures and all the check and balances would be put in place.
As to 1. above, we need to know the considered views of the island’s existing tourism investors, especially those of Four Seasons,and the new Newfound Pinneys investors after the properly critiqued EIA has been made available.
As to 2. How Nevis can be free of the risks of spillage, over filling, fire and explosion, that have caused so many accidents elsewhere was not explained.
As to 3. above. I will set out in a follow up article different opinions on the situation regarding the Statia Storage Tank Facility. Meantime I quote a Mr. Cuvalay of Statia ‘We are just a dirty isle with a stinking oil establishment’.
Pembroke Estate is, and others will know better than me, a long thin Estate running from Brown Hill to the sea. It would seem therefore that some tanks would be pretty close to Brown Hill Village.
The Premier and CGI said that all safety measures and checks and balances would be put in place. How do we know? What code of safety practise do we have? Who can enforce it? When the wind and the currents are from the South East would oil from a spill at sea not arrive at Pinneys?
It is valuable to look at the records kept by the US. According to data provided by the Federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the leading causes 2001 – 2011 of pipeline spills in Texas were as follows. I have taken the figures from a chart. They are accurate to +/- 2% I believe.
Material/Welding/Equipment failure 130
Corrosion 128
Excavation damage 50
All other causes 40
Incorrect operation 20
Other outside force damage 14
Natural force damage 10
Total: 392
In 2011 Texas had 42 significant leaks of hazardous materials. A significant leak is over 2100 gallons.
A 2005 Academic paper reviews 242 accidents involving storage tanks over the previous 40 years:
74% were in petrol refineries, oil terminals or storage facilities
85% involved fire (145) and explosion (61)
80 accidents were caused by lightening
72 accidents were caused by human errors, including poor operations and maintenance.
[ However technologically advanced the facility human error can never be eliminated ]
Other causes were equipment failure, sabotage, crack and rupture, leak and line rupture, static electricity and open flames.
As examples here briefly are three accidents – more to follow in the next article.
1983 New Jersey
An overfilling of a floating roof tank (the kind proposed for Nevis) spilled 1300 barrels of gasoline into the tank dyke, ie the protective walled off area surrounding it. This spill created a vapour cloud which was carried by wind to a nearby incinerator where it ignited. The resulting explosion destroyed two adjacent tanks and the terminal. I note that the Long Point Dump sometimes catches fire and is not far from the tank site.
1985 Naples, Italy.
24 of the 32 tanks at a marine petroleum products terminal were destroyed by fire that began with a tank overfill. Explosion caused complete destruction of terminal buildings and nearby industrial and residential structures.
2005 Buncefield UK
This accident took place at an oil storage terminal having capacity of 1.5 million barrels, ie eight time smaller than the 12 million barrels proposed for Nevis. The first and largest explosion took place at tank 912. This lead to further explosions which eventually overwhelmed 20 large storage tanks. The cause appears to have been a fuel/air or vapour cloud explosion. The explosion was heard 125 miles away. Shock waves were felt 28 miles away. The smoke cloud was visible 70 miles away and from space. A huge fire fighting effort involving 150 professional fire fighters was mounted.
What happened was this: On the evening of December 10th 2005 the filling of tank 912 began. Normally gauges monitor the level of fuel in the tank as it fills. At about 3.00 am the level gauge for tank 912 started to indicate an unchanging fuel level despite the continuation of the filling process at 550 cubic metres per hour. Calculations show that the tank would have overflowed at about 5.20 am. Evidence suggests that a high level switch which should have detected that the tank was full and shut off the supply, failed to operate.
The switch failure itself should have triggered an alarm, but it also failed. By 6.00 am about 300 tons of petrol would have spilled down the side of the tank through the roof vents on to the ground inside the ‘protective’ bund wall. An overflow such as this results in the rapid formation of a rich and potentially explosive fuel and air vapour. It was described as the largest explosion in Europe since the Second World War.
To be continued next week.
*************************
DISCLAIMER
This article was posted in its entirety as received by SKNVibes.com. This media house does not correct any spelling or grammatical error within press releases and commentaries. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of SKNVibes.com, its sponsors or advertisers
