Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

Why Shell Prelude is such a risky gamble!

After all is said and done who would build a hotel and a heliport, and a dock, besides or within 100 metres of a hazardous substances plant. It would simply not be allowed on land. This is what makes Prelude so risky.

Comment from Bill Campbell on the article:

Shell’s ill-fated $14bn gamble on Titanic Prelude FLNG Barge

FLNG

If FLNG has a future remains to be seen. It is under any measure an outstanding technical achievement. My only concern is the misplaced statements by RDS and Shell Australia on the risks. Doomcaster and I are in agreement, there is and always will be during the commissioning and steady state operation a risk of leakage so we can say the probability side of the risk equation is well understood. Whether it be human failure or otherwise leaks are difficult to avoid. The best database for leaks in the World is the homogeneous population of over 200 North Sea installations covered in HSE data which confirms in 11 years of operation that leakage frequency has a mean time between failures of circa 3 days. My problem is with the huge inventory and congested space is that Shell seriously downplays the potential consequence side of the risk equation. Post Piper Alpha and post Seveso there are two principal risk reducers, reduced inventory (fuel) and lots of space seperating modules from each other, from human habitation, control rooms, admin blocks, and from storage tanks. After all is said and done who would build a hotel and a heliport, and a dock, besides or within 100 metres of a hazardous substances plant. It would simply not be allowed on land. This is what makes Prelude so risky.

BILL CAMPBELL, A RETIRED HSE GROUP AUDITOR OF SHELL INTERNATIONAL WARNED HIS SHELL BOSSES ABOUT THE SAFETY RISKS ON THE BRENT BRAVO PLATFORM BEFORE THE DREADFUL ACCIDENT THAT RESULTED IN THE PREVENTABLE DEATHS OF SHELL EMPLOYEES.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: