BP Consent Decree

This is my response to the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to the “Consent Decree” wherein BP is to pay a $25-million dollar fine for an oil spill on the North Slope of Alaska in 2006:

In reference to “United States v. BP Exploration(Alaska) Inc.”, please enter the following “comment” as allowed under section 102 of the Consent Decree, “Public Participation” and entered in accordance with 28 CFR 50.7:

Relief Requested: The fines and penalties assessed upon British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska) Inc., by and through the U.S. Department of Justice, appear excessive and should be decreased accordingly, based on similarly situated EPA violators, the area wherein the violation occurred, and the amount of discharge that warranted a criminal violation.

History: In April of 2010, a complaint was filed upon Pioneer Natural Resources(PNR), a Texas based oil exploration corporation, with respect to illegal discharging of “used”, not for resale and possibly contaminated propylene glycol. This occurred at PNR's Oooguruk exploration and production facility located in Harrison Bay, Colville River Delta, situated offshore in the Alaska North Slope Borough proper. It is noted that the BP Ombudsman's Program assisted the efforts to have this complaint taken seriously. The individual filing said complaint, at the time a direct PNR employee, had used the BP program in the past while performing contract work at a North Slope BP facility, so credibility and worthiness was already established. It is believed that it was the interest of the BP Ombudsman that promoted the PNR management to take the employee complaint seriously. PNR management did, by instigating an internal investigation upon the glycol discharge allegations. PNR also incorporated the expertise of an attorney well versed in dealing with environmental issues and crimes and familiar with the workings of the EPA. According to a report filed with the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission – the entity that maintains jurisdiction upon Area Injection Orders and is the local oversight for EPA rules and regulation, to what can be legally permitted and discharged underground – PNR denied all allegations and admitted “zero” discharges of glycol or any other EPA regulated wastes. This report was also forwarded to the Region 10 EPA director and to the Alaska Attorney general's Office, said again, denying all allegations of illegal discharges at the Oooguruk facility. Soon after that, the employee that filed the original complaint left said employment with PNR and provided more evidence to the contrary, be it the company's own “Daily Log Book” - a legally binding document - wherein there existed excerpts and entries that documented the illegal glycol discharges. Upon receiving this evidence wherein PNR could no longer deny the discharge allegations, the investigation team through its retained attorney amended the report to the AOGCC and admitted to the illegal discharge, without a permit, to 49,000 gallons of used glycol. Upon receiving this information, the AOGCC assessed a penalty and fine that was in no way shape or form a deterrent. The fine and penalty amounted too $10,000 dollars. First and foremost, PNR did not notify the EPA as required by law. Secondly, at the first clear chance to admit this occurrence did indeed happen, PNR denied all such allegations, making this known to the oversight agencies, as if allowing “closure” upon the allegations and complaint, making it appear that it was a complaint by a disgruntled employee. This inconsistent fine with respect to the size of the discharge was due the fact that the AOGCC could find through the evidence that the illegal discharges occurred as documented on only two occasions, assessing the maximum fine of $5000.00 per occurrence. There were many undocumented discharges throughout the summer of 2010 to get rid of the glycol when conditions warranted the availability of pipeline capacity to slipstream the “glycol” into the injection water line. This fine amounts to approximately 20-cents per gallon, for what is truly considered illegal activity. On the other hand, the BP pipeline rupture was an accident, not intentional. It may have been caused by lack of maintenance, but once again said, not intentional like the PNR discharges. At PNR, the operators were instructed to pump the glycol for no other apparent reason but to get rid of it, as it could not be sold, possibly due contamination. There was originally over 180,000 gallon of glycol at the site. Most of it was sold upon completion of the facility start-up. What could not be sold was “sham” recycled, without a permit to the underground strata not designed to handle this fluid. For BP's pipeline leak, the fines and penalties amounted to approximately $117-dollars per gallon, well over the AOGCC assessed PNR fines and penalties. The BP fine and penalty in comparison demonstrates a case of abuse and should be reduced to reflect what PNR was assessed. Any other action or inaction this request may be considered discrimination upon BP, for an accident in comparison to a non-accident resulting in an environmental crime of choice.

Respectfully Submitted, May 6^th, 2010