[THS] !!!! Insider Info: BP Alaska Plagued By Major Safety Issues

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

http://www.truth-out.org/documents-employees-reveal-bps-alaska-oilfield-plagued-by-major-safety-issues60470

[Good stuff from TruthOut. Btw - if you've a notion to donate a few bob to a worthy cause, both TruthOut and my other principal source, ICH, are both worthy to receive your largesse. Without these sources we'd be far more in the dark concerning our world.]

XCLUSIVE: New Documents, Employees Reveal BP's Alaska Oilfield Plagued By Major
Safety Issues

Tuesday 15 June 2010

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Investigative Report

photo
(Photo: abmatic)

Nearly 5,000 miles from the oil-spill catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, BP and its
culture of cost-cutting are contributing to another environmental mess.

According to internal BP documents obtained by Truthout, and after interviewing
more than a dozen employees over the past month, the Prudhoe Bay oil field, in a
remote corner of North America on Alaska's north shore, is in danger.

After two serious oil spills and other mishaps, the BP employees fingered a long list of
safety issues that have not been adequately addressed, making the Prudhoe Bay
oilfield vulnerable to a devastating accident that potentially could rival the havoc in
the Gulf.

"The condition of the [Prudhoe Bay] field is a lot worse and in my opinion a lot more
dangerous," said Marc Kovac, who has worked for BP on Alaska's North Slope for
more than three decades. "We still have hundreds of miles of rotting pipe ready to
break that needs to be replaced. We are totally unprepared for a large spill."

Kovac, a mechanic and welder who is the steward of the United Steelworkers union
local 4959, said a lot of employees share his feelings, but "don't want to risk their jobs
for speaking out." Kovac said he was willing to take the risk because BP has been
slow to deal with the Prudhoe Bay problems and that "many lives are at stake."

Some of the employees, speaking anonymously, said BP follows an "operate to
failure" attitude.

Kovac said that means BP Alaska avoids spending money on "upkeep" and instead
runs the equipment until it breaks down.

Typical of these problems, the employees said, was an oil spill that was discovered on
Nov. 29, 2009, when a BP Alaska employee performing a routine check discovered oil
pouring out from a two-foot long gash on the bottom of a 25-year-old pipeline at BP's
Lisburne facility.

"The spill was from an 18-inch three-phase common line carrying a mixture of crude
oil, produced water, and natural gas," according to an incident report from the
Alaska Department of Environment and Conservation's (ADEC) Division of Spill and
Response.

BP Alaska's "preliminary estimate for the total volume of oily material released is
45,828 gallons (1,091 barrels)," the report said.

The circumstances behind the spill are now the subject of a criminal and civil
investigation by the FBI, the Environmental Protection Agency and Alaska state
authorities. BP blamed the rupture on ice plugs that built up inside the pipeline,
which caused increased pressure and finally the rupture.

In a January 27 letter to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), which has not been
previously released, BP Alaska President John Minge said the "overpressure rupture"
was the result of looping the 18-inch pipeline with a 24-inch one as a way of
minimizing "backpressure in the individual pipelines. ...

"The two critical factors that led to the overpressure rupture of the pipeline were this
looped configuration in combination with inadequate temperature monitoring
locations" that were "physically located on the pipelines" inside the production facility
"and not outside," according to a copy of the letter Minge sent to Murkowski in
response to her queries about the spill.

The pipeline rupture at Lisburne is another example of BP Alaska failing to learn from
its past mistakes. On February 19, 2001, a pipeline ruptured under similar
circumstances. In that case, temperature monitors alos were placed on the pipeline
inside the building, but BP told the State of Alaska and the ADEC that it would rectify
the issue in the future by moving the monitors on all of its pipes outside of the facility
so it could accurately check the temperature. The company, it would appear,
apparently never fulfilled its promise.

A person who works closely with BP and reviewed Minge's letter to Murkowski said
Minge's letter "presents the specific facts of the event," but does not contain the
necessary context.

"When he indicates that the temperature sensors were located inside the buildings -
obviously this shows a lack of attention to monitoring the pipelines," said this person,
who requested anonymity. "It is not just a mistake in placement of the monitors. The
letter shows that they knew the line had a low flow rate and would go to the path of
least resistance.

"Therefore, knowing that this field is located well above the Arctic Circle - you don't
need a temperature sensor to know that by early November there will be sub-zero
temperatures in place, he continued. "So, a basic risk assessment should have
identified this possibility well before you needed a temperature sensor to tell you
what the temperature in the line would be."

A top BP Prudhoe Bay official, who has grown "disillusioned" with the company's
management style over the past year, agreed.

"Someone was clearly not paying attention to the flow," said the official, who also
requested anonymity because he feared retaliation for discussing internal matters.
"The temperature dropped and the line froze. This shouldn't have happened. I
equate this with a lack of operating discipline and place the blame squarely on
leadership."

Kovac said what Minge did not disclose to Murkowski is that BP failed to take
precautionary measures to “freeze protect” the pipeline when it was last inspected in
2008. He said cold temperatures causes pipelines to expand, making them more
fragile.

"BP's decision to not adhere to standard industry practice and freeze protect the 18
inch line from [Lisburne] resulted in the line freezing, expanding and breaking,
spilling product onto the tundra," said Kovac, who does not work at Lisburne, but
speaks to employees who do. "It was stretched too many times and broke. There are
hundreds of pipelines flowing in this condition. BP chose to save money. They
thought [the pipeline] was open to a parallel flowing line and guessing and hoping
that line would stay thawed out."

Rinehart said freeze-protection "would typically be done if a line was to be taken out
of service for a period."

"In this case, the line was in operation, but had a flow obstruction," he said. "We
were working to assess the blockage and determine how to restore the line to
operation when the leak happened. Ice had formed inside the line. This may have
occurred because low-flow or slow-flow allowed water to accumulate in certain
sections of the pipe.

"The line transported a mixture of oil, water and natural gas from well sites to the
Lisburne Processing Center. Typically, the liquid in this mixture was about 25 percent
oil and 75 percent water."

"This was an unused line," Kovac said. BP "tried to avoid the cost of freeze protecting
it. They were hoping operators would be able to respond if something happened."

A person familiar with BP's Alaska operations said Rinehart's statement is incorrect
and is only half the story.

"The Lisburne line was empty (no oil)," this person said. "All oil has water in it until its
processed. The water in the unused line froze (water was the obstruction). The water
kept accumulating and expanded (ice) which caused the rupture as I understand it."

Two weeks after the spill, a "red flag" e-mail sent by BP's Prudhoe Bay Operations
Manager to officials and employees on the oilfield advised employees of the
"importance of adhering to established processes that ensure freeze prevention in
flow lines, as well as, appropriate responses when freezing occurs."

This kind of investigation isn't possible without the support of our readers. Please
make a tax-deductible donation to keep Truthout strong.

Smoking Gun?

But there may have been other factors at play that led to the pipeline rupture at
Lisburne, some of which appear to suggest poor management and cutbacks on
safety.

Underscoring that point is an email sent to BP officials in Alaska last January from an
employee who works at the Lisburne Production Center. The author of the email,
whose name was redacted, said Lisburne is "operating in [an] unsafe condition."

The employee listed more than a dozen pieces of crucial production equipment that
he claims were not working or were out of service at Lisburne during the time of the
spill, thereby "leaving no back-up to running equipment and equipment out of
service which should be on-line as per the system requirements to run the plant."

"With minimum manning in maintenance and operations we are basically running a
broken plant with too few people to address the problems in a timely and safe
manner," the employee said. "Operations can not rely on Management to provide
them with a safe and reliable plant to work in. The management of our maintenance
at [Lisburne Production Center] simply is not working to maintain a safe operation.
This gap in maintenance management causes problems that increase the overall risk
of plant integrity and personnel safety."

Jeanne Pascal, the former debarment counsel at the EPA's Seattle office who worked
on BP cases for a decade, said in addition to the louvers at Lisburne, the turbines at
the facility have not been working properly for about 10 years.

"The EPA air inspector in 2003 also told me the turbines were a problem," Pascal said
in an interview. "BP Alaska has known they were a problem for at least 10 years. BP
does not operated safely or they would not have the worst health, safety and
environmental record of any other company in the US."

One of the most critical safety issues the employee raised in the Libsurne employee's
email that undercuts BP's commitment to "integrity management" has to do with
"louvers" that he said fail to seal, an issue that has allegedly persisted for years.
Louvers are connected to the production facility's fire and gas suppression systems
and are supposed to remain closed to trap a halon discharge in the event of fire or a
gas buildup. Halon is a chemical that prevents explosions by depleting oxygen in the
air.

An employee who works at the facility said, "Simply put, if those louvers don't seal
and there is a fire or gas is released, people could die."

In fact, according to a top BP official who works on the North Slope, six Prudhoe Bay
employees were told by BP's fire and gas technical authorities that it is likely that, if
BP were to test all of the louvers at North Slope facilities, they would fail to seal and
the fire and gas suppression systems would be ineffective, which means workers are
presently in imminent danger in the event of a gas buildup, explosion or fire.

Moreover, internal BP documents indicated that as of April 11, a week before the
explosion on Deepwater Horizon, the louvers were not operating, and will not be
dealt with until December 31. It's unclear if the Gulf disaster and the financial
resources being poured into the cleanup will further delay the repairs.

The Alaska State Fire Marshal, who would be responsible for inspecting the louvers
and other fire and gas-related equipment to ensure it works properly, did not return
a call for comment.

Steve Rinehart, a spokesman for BP Alaska, said the issues the employee addressed
in the email were immediately dealt with.

"We will not operate facilities unsafely," Rinehart said. "We take this kind of info from
employees very seriously. In this case, line leadership started meeting with the
employees who raised these issues at Lisburne as soon as they received the list. We
have made very good progress. Half the items have been closed out, some of the
rest are virtually complete and all are being worked and tracked."

Rinehart did not comment on the current state of the louvers. And employees who
work at Lisburne said they do not believe the safety issues addressed in the email
have been adequately dealt with.

Two BP management officials, who requested anonymity because they were not
authorized to discuss internal matters, said budget cuts were largely the reason
equipment was not upgraded or repaired, and indicated that much of it has yet to be
addressed. BP's Alaska budget for 2010 is $1 billion, compared with $1.1 billion in
2009 and $1.3 billion in 2008.

Moreover, according to two BP Alaska officials, projects related to "safety and
integrity" have been cut by 30 percent this year and BP’s senior managers receive
bonuses for not using funds from BP’s designated maintenance budget, a company
wide policy implemented by Hayward. Documents show that Hayward also
implemented a cost-cutting directive following the oil spills in 2006 in Prudhoe Bay.

However, a document BP sent to the House Energy and Commerce Committee before
the Gulf disaster said budget cuts have not impacted projects that need to be funded
at Prudhoe Bay. The company said the fear by employees that budget cuts would
impact "integrity investment" was likely due to "dramatic changes in oil prices and
economic uncertainty in late 2008 and continuing into 2009."

"This perception was likely heightened by [BP Alaska's] challenge to its contractors in
early 2009 to deliver cost efficiencies," the budget document sent to the House
Energy Committee said. "Our commitment to safety as the top priority, continuous
risk reduction and bottoms-up planning. Our commitment is to activities that reduce
risk - we target efficiency improvements to complete these activities at lower cost."

The document indicates BP deferred or "re-paced" some projects, but the company
said it "risk-assessed each of the activities and identified mitigative measures to
reduce any risk to safe operations." Deferral of maintenance projects was determined
to be the same issue that contributed to the oil spills in 2006, according to a
congressional investigation.

Rinehart said BP is "committed to integrity management and safe, reliable operations.
Those projects are priority. The BPXA capital spending plans for 2010 are down about
from roughly $1 billion in 2009 to about $850 mil in 2010."

One senior BP official asked, in response to Rinehart's statement: "At what point is
credibility stretched too far not to realize you cannot reduce the budget as has been
done and not have an impact?"

The employee's email, Truthout has learned, is now in the hands of criminal
investigators and BP's probation officer, Mary Frances Barnes, who are scrutinizing
the employee's claims to determine if it had any bearing on the pipeline rupture last
November and whether it would amount to a probation violation for the company. BP
pleaded guilty and paid a $20 million fine in October 2007 to a criminal misdemeanor
violation of the Clean Water Act, resulting from two oil spills on the North Slope in
2006, which was blamed on severely corroded pipelines that the company failed to
upkeep. BP was placed on probation for three years.

Tyler Amon is the special agent-in-charge at the EPA's Criminal Investigation Division
probing the circumstances behind last November's oil spill. He did not return calls for
comment, nor did Barnes or a spokesperson for the FBI. The email has also been
sent to Congressman Henry Waxman, the chairman of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee. Waxman's office did not return several calls for comment.

As of June 5, Lisburne was shut down for planned maintenance. It's unknown if BP
intends to address any of the maintenance and operational issues described in the
email.

"Hopping"

Kovac and other employees who confirmed his claims also raised red flags about a
newly constructed pipeline currently in use, which feeds directly into pump station 1,
the beginning of the Trans Alaska Pipeline, that he said was poorly designed. This
was a portion of the pipeline that was severely corroded and ruptured in 2006,
spilling more than 200,000 gallons of oil across the frozen tundra, which resulted in
the largest oil spill on the North Slope.

Eight employees said the two-mile long rebuilt pipeline has experienced "severe
hopping up and down on the vertical support members," due to wind induced
vibration, a phenomenon that was discovered when the oilfield was developed more
than 30 years ago. But it does not appear that BP learned the lessons of the past
when it designed the new pipeline. That "hopping," Kovac said, has caused stress on
the "pipewall" and weld joints on sections connected to the vertical support
members.

"The harmonics in [the pipeline] allowed it to bounce up and down," Kovac said. "BP
rectified the problem by placing timbers under the line between the vertical support
members [which is not unusual] about two months ago. As far as I know, there isn't
a plan in place to fix the problem."

Rinehart, the BP Alaska spokesman, acknowledged that "a section of the new transit
line has experienced wind-induced vibration." But he said the company is addressing
the matter

"The vibration was not such that it would be expected to damage the line, and was a
factor considered in the design," Rinehart said. "Just the same, we have decided to
fit wind-susceptible sections of the line with wind dampeners, scheduled to be done
before the end of this year. In the meantime, as a precaution, we put timber
'cribbing' underneath wind-susceptible locations, to limit movement. We also checked
all the welds in those locations; no damage was found. This has all been
communicated to the US Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, our lead federal pipeline regulator."

But Kovac and other employees added that there are other pipelines that are
corroded that should have been replaced three years ago, but which haven't been,
and a spill detection system still hasn't been installed. He said the matter is urgent in
light of a high-pressure artificial lift natural gas pipeline that ruptured and separated
in September 2008, whipped around like a snake, and released natural gas into the
atmosphere, all due to external corrosion that BP failed to address for nearly a
decade. Had their been an ignition source, employees who were working nearby
would have been killed. When the line separated, the force was so powerful, pieces
of pipe snapped off, one of which rocketed through the air and was never found.

The corrosion built up as a result of water that accumulated under the insulation that
surrounds the line. The insulation was never replaced when it was peeled away
following an inspection more than 10 years ago. BP had told state environmental
investigators that heavy snowfall in 2003 prevented the company from inspecting the
portion of the line that separated. But BP did not re-inspect the line when the snow
melted.

According to a February 20, 2009, letter sent to Tony Brock, BP Alaska's senior vice
president and technical director from the Alaska's Department of Natural Resources,
which is investigating the incident, "Had the high pressure gas pipeline failure
occurred under slightly different circumstances, the results would have been
catastrophic, potentially with the loss of life."

Recently, the House Energy Committee asked John Minge to provide the panel with
the results of an internal investigation into the rupture, which he did in late February.
The committee has not released the details of BP's own probe into the incident.

Kovac points out that the safety and maintenance issues currently plaguing Prudhoe
Bay contradict a promise then-BP President Robert Malone made to Congress in
September 2006.

“We recognize that there has been a series of troubling problems that are
unacceptable to us and contrary to our values,” Malone said, referring to revelations
following the largest oil spill on Alaska’s North Slope, that the conglomerate, among
other things, failed for more than a decade to inspect its pipelines for corrosion and
retaliated against employees who raised safety concerns. “I commit to members of
Congress that I have been given the authority, the resources and the people to
assure you that BP America will overcome and ultimately be strengthened by this
challenge.”

Overworked

One of the other major issues, according to Kovac and other employees that may also
have been a contributing factor in the two most recent oil spills and has been
identified in internal company documents as an "imminent safety risk," is 16-18 hour
work shifts, due in large part to a shortage of trained personnel.

BP's own internal studies have shown that employees who work more than 16 hours
during a 24-hour time period can lack the mental capacity to make sound and timely
decisions. Yet during 2009, 16-plus hour work shifts were routine at Prudhoe Bay,
with employees working beyond 16 hours about 200-400 times per month, 75
percent of which represented 18 hour work shifts, according to internal BP
documents.

Another internal BP document, dated September 8, 2009, shows that a BP employee
worked 36 consecutive days of 16 and 18 hour shifts in 2009, in violation of several of
BP's own policies.

According to Pascal, the EPA's former debarment counsel, BP told her 10 years ago
that the company intended to come up with a plan to "fix" the 16-18 hour work
shifts.

"John Minge himself told me that the issue of overtime had not been corrected or
settled," Pascal said. "This has been a problem since 2000 when employees started
complaining to me about it and management intended to fix it. Clearly, it's still not
fixed."

BP employees who work at Prudhoe Bay are supposed to work 12-hour shifts for two
weeks, and then receive two weeks off. Employees who work beyond 12 hours
receive overtime pay. Kovac said the overtime issue has been ongoing for several
years and, despite complaints dating back more than a decade, BP has only recently
addressed the issue because of a fear employees would publicize it.

He said some employees are "happy" to work beyond 12 hours because BP pays very
well and workers can earn a hefty salary in overtime alone. But, he said, it's "not a
healthy situation and creates a dangerous environment."

"It's not a good idea," Kovac said. "Working more than 12 hours during a shift affects
decision making and response time and can cause disasters. People have to take
catnaps while operating large volumes of hydrocarbons under high pressure. We will
have accidents as a result of it."

BP has addressed the issue by hiring technicians, but even that has not solved the
problem, as it takes three to four years, Kovac said, for a trainee to be fully prepared
to work on the North Slope.

"The number of new technicians sent to the operating facilities since 2006 and the
slower-than-expected pace of newly-hired technician training has not kept pace with
'leavers,' new work activities requiring substantial facility/field production technician
support, and support for external commitments made and BP initiatives," according
to an October 2009 internal BP document discussing overtime concerns and its
impact on the safe operations of Prudhoe Bay.

"Additionally, the facility and field-production-authorized complements are insufficient
relative to the quantity of absences that occur continuously; thus, the combination of
vacancies, not-fully qualified technicians, and absences results in 'open positions' for
facility staffing that must be filled by 18 hour work shifts.

Currently, as much as 50 percent of the 16-plus hour work shifts result from 'open
positions' filled to cover vacancies and absences to staff facilities and field production
positions to the level we established through [Process Hazard Analysis] for safe
operation."

"Thirty to forty-five percent of the 16-plus hour work shifts are caused by work
activities associated with commitments made to deliver against targets established for
external commitments or performance contracts," the BP document says. "Five to 15
percent of 16-plus hour work shifts are caused by work activities directly associated
with production. Wellpad operators are being consistently scheduled for 16-plus hour
work shifts (primarily 18 hour work shifts) in order to fill 'open positions.'"

In 2009, there were 652 instances in which wellpad and drillsite operators worked in
excess of 16 hours.

"Since wellpad operators are designated professional drivers, the scheduling
represents a deliberate non-conformance to BP Group Standard for Driving Safety
and [the BP Exploration Alaska] Driving Safety Policy," said the October 2009 memo
sent to BP's Alaska officials.

"Rather than hire more people who are rested, [BP} would rather work tired workers
with too much to do for 18 hours in an environment that handles hazardous and
explosive materials," Pascal said in an interview. "Why hasn't Congress and the
[Occupational Safety and Health Administration] weighed in on this chronic problem
that is just another symptom of chronic cost-cutting?"

An OSHA spokesperson did not return calls for comment and an Energy Committee
investigator said Waxman is "looking into it."

The document advised BP's management in Alaska to immediately intervene in order
to reduce the 16-plus hour work shifts, and if that did not happen, an explanation
must be given to employees, BP's corporate officials, Congress and others for why BP
Alaska is willing to accept the "current condition of risk for a number of years until
accelerated hiring has an eventual impact."

"Allowing the continuation of the 16-plus hour work shifts would be seen by internal
and external stakeholders as putting production ahead of safety," the document said.

In a letter dated February 3, 2010, prepared for BP Alaska President John Minge, BP's
Ombudsman, former CIA General Counsel and retired judge Stanley Sporkin, said his
office has been "engaged in oversight of the overtime and staffing issues that
continue to be raised by employees."

"As a result of these concerns, [BP Alaska] changed its overtime policies to limit the
number of hours of overtime that can be worked continuously," said Sporkin's letter,
which was prepared for Minge in response to recent congressional inquiries about
Prudhoe Bay. "In addition, it is taking a more comprehensive approach to hiring and
training technicians and operators so that there is more availability of personnel and
less need for overtime by the current workforce. These changes will take a while to
implement."

Lingering Safety Issue

Back in 2001, Kovac and several other BP employees and management officials
prepared an Operations Integrity Review report identifying safety and maintenance
issues the company needed to address to protect the welfare of its workers. One of
the items employees identified that was in dire need of upgrading was the fire and
gas systems at the North Slope facilities, a project estimated to cost about $1 billion
that should have been completed, depending on who you speak to, by 2003 or 2005.

After the massive oil spills in March and August 2006, many of the same employees,
along with a top BP Prudhoe Bay official, conducted a re-review of the 2001 report to
determine what projects BP still needed to tackle. Nearly a decade later, the fire and
gas systems have yet to be fully upgraded, largely due to budget cuts, a fact that
Rinehart denies.

According to a document prepared for the House Energy and Commerce Committee
earlier this year describing the status of BP's Fire and Gas Renewal Program, BP
admitted that the project "did not proceed as quickly as we had anticipated," but the
company claims the "slower pace did not reflect a change in our level of
commitment, but rather was a conscientious adjustment during 2008 that we
undertook for technical reasons as we learned more about the scale and complexities
of the project."

BP claims it invested twice as much money in 2009 than it did in 2008 - $49 million -
and, as of February, was set to spend another $60 million on the project. But while
that may sound like quite a bit of money, it means that, if spending at that pace
continues, it will take BP more than a decade to complete the upgrades - twenty
years after employees identified it as a major safety issue.
BP denied to Congress that budget cuts have or will play a part in 2010. But that was
before the disaster in the Gulf.

"You asked us what impact any proposed 'budget cuts' would have on fire and gas
upgrade plans, and the answer is simple: we have not reduced our financial
commitment for the fire and gas upgrade plan because of 'budget cuts,'" the
document said. "The 2008 re-assessment described above was focused on technical
considerations, not financial concerns." Kovac said the fact that BP performed a
"reassessment in 2008 is a self-indictment."

"They were supposed to do something years ago," he said. "And seven years pass
and you still haven't finished. When is the issue going to be resolved? It's a very
simple question. How many facilities are obsolete that need fire and prevention
system upgrades? This is not that complicated. How many? BP won't say."

"First, understand the facilities are safe, and the fire and gas detection/alarm systems
are functional," said Rinehart, the BP Alaska spokesman. "The upgrade is an
ongoing, substantial project; more than $90 million invested since 2006. We have not
reduced our work plan or commitment to this project as a result of any budget
pressures. The work is being carefully staged. Other work has been done at the
processing centers, and several more projects are being done this year, while
planning continues looking ahead."

Regarding Rinehart's statement that BP Alaska has spent $90 million since 2006, a
senior BP official said, "it's not terribly remarkable."

"Do the math on a per year spend," he said. "There's no mention of total potential
spend as well as completion year."

Mischaracterizing the Facts

Since the 2006 oil spills, Congress has stepped up its oversight of BP, mainly in the
form of writing letters to company officials, requesting documents about the status of
various projects, and inquiring about other matters brought to the attention of
lawmakers by employees working at Prudhoe Bay.

In January, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-California), the chairman of the House Energy
Committee, and Bart Stupak (D-Michigan), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, did just that when they sent a letter to Minge, BP's
Alaska president, seeking information about how BP was managing its Prudhoe Bay
operations, as well as seeking internal reports about the circumstances behind five
serious incidents at Prudhoe Bay dating back to September 2008, one of which
ended in tragedy.

In addition, the lawmakers sought information from the ombudsman's office
regarding the "number and type of concerns received and the actions the company
has taken in response." The ombudsman's office was set up in 2006 in the aftermath
of the oil spills, and investigates concerns raised by employees about a wide range of
issues, such as safety, maintenance, retaliation and harassment.

Minge wrote to Sporkin, the ombudsman, asking him to provide him with a report to
turn over to Waxman's committee. Sporkin drafted a six-page letter, a copy of which
was obtained by Truthout. He said that, since 2006, the office has registered 202
employee concerns, more than half of which generated from Alaska.

Sporkin also said his office "had the opportunity to address concerns at two off-shore
platforms, including a case that came in on Christmas Eve 2006 regarding potential
safety issues in an operation planned for over the holiday." It's unknown what was
the substance of the incident involving offshore drilling platforms Sporkin was
referring to.

The Office of the Ombudsman, according to Sporkin's letter, places employee
concerns into three categories: Level 1 represents "system integrity or safety issues"
and is the most serious; issues that could impact safety are classified as level 2, and
human resources issues are identified as level 3. The ombudsman's office is currently
conducting 57 investigations. In explaining how successful he felt the ombudsman
program has been, Sporkin cited a level 1 safety incident that took place during the
summer of 2008, "involving a high pressure gas line that runs across the field,
including in close proximity to several North Slope housing camps and critical
facilities."

"The Concerned Individual identified that the line, which was scheduled for 'smart'
pigging [a device used for cleaning and identifying corrosion], was not going to be
pigged in 2008 as a result of deferred work necessary to enable the pigging
operation," Sporkin wrote. "As a result of the Ombudsman's intervention, and
management support, [BP Alaska] undertook substantial compensatory actions
through alternative testing to assure that those parts of the line that presented
potential a safety risk to people or facilities were evaluated. Indeed, several areas of
risk identified and repaired during the operation, and other areas were more closely
monitored. The level of effort undertaken throughout the winter season was
extraordinary, and the line was successfully pigged in 2009, with additional repairs
ongoing. This is an example of the value from our intervention activities."

There was just one problem with Sporkin's explanation prepared for Congress: it
wasn't entirely true. Employees said BP management did not immediately deal with
the issue involving the natural gas injection line, nor was it originally brought to the
attention of Sporkin in 2008 as he indicated in his letter. In fact, the issue surfaced
three years earlier when Stuart Sneed, a contract employee with a stellar safety
record, brought the matter to the attention of Paul Flaherty, an external investigator
who, since 2002, has provided a confidential avenue for BP Alaska employees to raise
concerns.

Flaherty also works with Sporkin.

In an interview, Flaherty confirmed employees' accounts that Sneed brought the
corrosion issue to his attention in late 2005. Flaherty said he looked into the matter
and found enough evidence to prove the allegations were true, and that a large
number of "ultrasonic external corrosion inspections" indicated the integrity of the
line was a major concern that needed immediate attention.

Flaherty said he raised the issue with BP's officials in Alaska, and was given
assurances that they would take action to correct the corrosion. Flaherty said he
monitored the progress roughly every six months, and became concerned that
corrective measures on this line were not being implemented on a timely basis.

In late spring of 2008, Flaherty discovered BP Alaska had made little progress
repairing the line. During this time, he started working with Sporkin and shared the
issue with the Ombudsman Office, and together they characterized the issue as a
level 1, "potential for imminent danger."

Flaherty said Sporkin's involvement, with support of Robert Malone, got the attention
of BP's Alaska management. He says that without Sporkin's support and intervention,
serious risks and potential harm to the slope and its workers were possible.

Interestingly, Malone unexpectedly retired from BP in early 2009, which, according to
two BP Alaska officials, appeared to be the result of differences he had with Chief
Executive Tony Hayward and Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles. These differences
included Malone's support of the Office of the Ombudsman, set up in 2006 as a
clearinghouse for employee concerns, and between others within BP that wanted to
close this office.

According to Pascal, BP's primary goal in negotiations with EPA in February on a
settlement related to debarment was to get rid of Sporkin's office and replace it with
a BP employee, so BP could control the outcome and information being divulged to
the government. Pascal said she was "adamant" in opposing this. Sporkin's February
3 letter to Minge said that Lamar McKay, the president and chairman of BP America,
has extended the ombudsman's contract until June 30, 2011.

Is our work important to you? Truthout is funded almost exclusively by its readers.
Click here now to make a donation.

Sneed, who employees were interviewed by Flaherty during the course of a separate
investigation he conducted into safety issues Sneed raised, said he, "was likely to be
the most careful technician on the Slope," and was "considered by his peers to be a
very thorough and competent inspector." Sneed became the subject of retaliation by
the company under contract to BP, Acuren, for reporting a number of issues on
safety and retaliation both through internal BP-sanctioned safety programs, and to
Flaherty.

He was eventually fired in 2007, and waged an unsuccessful and costly legal battle
against Acuren. Sneed noted that he felt BP management supported Acuren's action
of retaliation against him through "passive support of Acuren and no intervention on
his behalf even though his efforts were exactly as BP indicates it wants people to
behave."

"In my opinion, Stuart was blacklisted and is without a job since 2007 because of his
willingness to raise integrity and safety issues," Flaherty said. "In addition to the pain
Sneed has experienced for doing the right thing," Flaherty expressed "a deep
concern that other workers may not raise safety and other issues to management
that need attention, because they are well aware of what happened to Stuart
Sneed."

Flaherty said he did not know why Sporkin's letter contained incorrect information.
He said he didn't see it until after it was sent to Congress, but he advised Sporkin
that the facts surrounding the 2008 case in his letter were incorrect. According to an
investigator on the Energy Committee, Sporkin never did contact them with
corrections.

Kovac and other BP employees said they don't believe BP has the wherewithal to
tackle the issues plaguing Prudhoe Bay.

"This company seems incapable of managing its assets safely," Kovac said.