Oil leak is threat to Shell hope in Arctic

All four of the field’s platforms – Alpha, Bravo, Charlie and Delta – stopped producing oil and gas in January after a chunk of protective railing plunged into the ocean as a result of “metal fatigue”.

About 100 workers were evacuated from Bravo – the site of an accident killing two workers in 2003, which an inquiry later ruled could have been avoided if Shell had properly repaired a hole in a corroding pipeline.

Production at Bravo and Alpha only restarted last week, with Delta shortly to follow.

However, all is still not well at the Charlie platform, which was issued with a rare prohibition notice by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) ordering a closure on July 1.

The Daily Telegraph has learned the incident behind this shutdown was an “uncontrolled release of flammable substances” – the latest in a long line of gas “kicks” causing concern for safety regulators.

In documents leaked to oil publication Upstream, the HSE described ignition of gas at the platform as “almost inevitable” with the potential for a catastrophe.

Engineers believe gas has been periodically shooting up one of the platform’s legs, in a process called a “glug”. The field will now be shut until next year, while Shell carries out a plan that will involve introducing the controversial practice of “flaring” to get rid of the excess gas.

Just two weeks earlier, the same Brent Charlie platform was the site of the first death on a North Sea installation for five years.

A maintenance worker, Lee Bertram, employed by oil services company BIS Salamis, was killed in June, after a rope he was suspended from gave way.

Police are still investigating how this happened. Since this accident and a near-miss rope accident on another company’s rig, oil producers have imposed new restrictions and, in some cases, temporary bans on abseiling in the North Sea.

Experts warn that incidents such as the oil leak and equipment failures are likely to occur more often as such platforms, many built in the 1970s, get older, having corroded and being less cared for by oil majors with more profitable projects in other parts of the world.

Last year, the HSE warned that only one in 30 of Britain’s North Sea oil platforms is in good physical condition and expressed concern that companies are neglecting workers’ day-to-day safety.

More than 96pc of installations in the North Sea were found to need improvements during inspections over the past three years, with 20pc showing “major failings”.

Mr Caley points out that Shell has already spent $1.6bn (£0.97bn) on “rejuvenating” its UK operations. But maintenance costs are increasing and problems multiplying.

Regulators elsewhere in the world will no doubt be keeping an eye on Shell’s ability to look after its assets, especially since green groups and ethical investors have already seized on the Gannet leak as evidence of an environmental lapse.

US authorities last week gave Shell a crucial permit to proceed with Arctic drilling in July 2012. However, it needs further permissions before work can begin and the latest spill has emphasised the difficulty of cleaning up environmental damage in hostile weather conditions.

Louisa Rouse, campaign director of FairPensions, which promotes responsible investment, has already urged fund managers to take Shell’s UK spill into account, saying “a spill in the comparatively safe and highly regulated North Sea [should be regarded] as a litmus test for operating in highly sensitive areas such as the Arctic”.

It seems that although Shell is now dealing with a trickle of one barrel per day, its fight to convince its critics about its safety and environmental record may be only just be starting up again.

SOURCE ARTICLE