JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Friday, July 18, 2025

Petrotrin acts on oil spill report: Workers suspended

by

20140106

Sev­er­al Petrotrin em­ploy­ees have been sus­pend­ed in con­nec­tion with their in­volve­ment in the first oil spill on De­cem­ber 17 near the com­pa­ny's Pointe-a-Pierre port.Cor­po­rate com­mu­ni­ca­tions man­ag­er Gillian Fri­day con­firmed that dur­ing a press con­fer­ence at Petrotrin's Learn­ing Re­source Cen­tre, Pointe-a-Pierre, yes­ter­day.There have been a to­tal of 11 oil spills over the past three weeks, ad­verse­ly af­fect­ing res­i­dents and the en­vi­ron­ment along the south­west­ern penin­su­la.The com­pa­ny has claimed that some of the spills were acts of sab­o­tage.Re­spond­ing to a ques­tion on re­ports that eight em­ploy­ees were ei­ther sus­pend­ed or fired in con­nec­tion with the oil spills, Fri­day said sev­er­al work­ers were sus­pend­ed yes­ter­day af­ter­noon, but she could not say how many.

How­ev­er, she said, those work­ers were on du­ty at the port and ma­rine sec­tion in Pointe-a-Pierre when the first oil spill took place."I can't give you num­bers be­cause it is on­go­ing but they were work­ing in the area of the port and ma­rine at Pointe-a-Pierre, load­ing and re­ceiv­ing fu­el on­to the barge."How­ev­er, se­nior man­ag­er, mar­ket­ing and trad­ing Er­rol Baldeo said so far their in­ves­ti­ga­tions had not un­earthed any ev­i­dence of sab­o­tage re­gard­ing the first spill.Asked then on what grounds the work­ers were sus­pend­ed, he ex­plained that there was a process to fol­low."Ac­tion may be tak­en to sus­pend per­sons who may have been on du­ty at the time, so that there is no chance that in­for­ma­tion can be in­ter­fered with. The oth­er form of sus­pen­sion is if some­one is found cul­pa­ble but that is at the end of an in­ves­ti­ga­tion," Baldeo said.Fri­day made it clear that the work­ers were not sus­pend­ed be­cause they were found li­able but to fa­cil­i­tate the in­ves­ti­ga­tion.

Mean­while, Petrotrin has not yet iden­ti­fied the source or sources of the spills.Stephen Awah, se­nior man­ag­er, pro­duc­tion op­er­a­tions, said so far 2,000 bar­rels of oil had been col­lect­ed dur­ing clean up op­er­a­tions along the south­west­ern penin­su­la.In an im­me­di­ate re­sponse yes­ter­day, Oil­fields Work­ers' Trade Union pres­i­dent gen­er­al An­cel Ro­get said the sus­pend­ed work­ers were be­ing used as scape­goats.In a tele­phone in­ter­view, he said he did not have the full de­tails on the mat­ter.The T&T Guardian was al­so giv­en a fig­ure of six em­ploy­ees, but while Ro­get could not con­firm that, he said he un­der­stood "low­er lev­el" em­ploy­ees were sus­pend­ed.He added: "It is the union po­si­tion that the com­pa­ny is still pro­tect­ing those per­sons in high­er man­age­ment that are re­spon­si­ble. If any­body is to be sus­pend­ed it has to be the su­per­in­ten­dents and those per­sons in charge of the ports."All the re­ports and rec­om­men­da­tions sug­gest that the lines ought to have been changed out. Those em­ploy­ees are not in charge of bud­get­ing and chang­ing out lines, those in man­age­ment are re­spon­si­ble for that."They are just scape­goats to cov­er their (man­age­ment) own slack in­ef­fi­cien­cy at the lev­el of man­age­ment. We await with bat­ed breath to see when they will be­gin to sus­pend the right per­sons."He said the com­pa­ny was try­ing to pro­tect man­age­ment.

Protests af­fect clean-up

Fri­day al­so yes­ter­day ap­pealed to La Brea res­i­dents and fish­er­men not to en­gage in protest ac­tion. She said a re­cent three-day protest ac­tion by res­i­dents had caused a set­back in clean-up op­er­a­tions in the area. Fri­day ap­pealed to res­i­dents to have di­a­logue with Petrotrin in­stead of protest­ing.Awah said work along beach­es in Ce­dros had been com­plet­ed and clean-up op­er­a­tions in La Brea was about 80 per cent com­plete.De­scrib­ing the sit­u­a­tion as a cri­sis, Fri­day said it was a na­tion­al prob­lem and Petrotrin's re­sponse team was on the ground work­ing 24/7. She said the team had to be con­grat­u­lat­ed for the work it was do­ing.Re­spond­ing to re­ports that res­i­dents were un­able to send their chil­dren to school yes­ter­day be­cause some were ill and their par­ents were un­able to earn a liv­ing over the past two weeks, Fri­day said last Fri­day the com­pa­ny had giv­en out school­bags, lunch bags, school­books and snacks to 100 chil­dren.She said a med­ical team was al­so sta­tioned at the com­mu­ni­ty cen­tre and res­i­dents could al­so vis­it Petrotrin's med­ical fa­cil­i­ty. Told that res­i­dents claimed they were be­ing turned away at the med­ical fa­cil­i­ty, Awah said he al­so re­ceived that re­port and an in­ves­ti­ga­tion has been launched.Thus far, Fri­day said, over 115 res­i­dents had been hired to as­sist in clean-up op­er­a­tions.In ad­di­tion, she said the com­pa­ny had signed off on com­pen­sa­tion for some fish­er­folk, while ne­go­ti­a­tions were on­go­ing for oth­ers.Re­gard­ing the im­pact on the Ota­heite man­grove and the wildlife, Awah said the com­pa­ny was work­ing with En­vi­ron­men­tal Man­age­ment Au­thor­i­ty (EMA) on a com­pre­hen­sive plan in terms of re­ha­bil­i­ta­tion.

Re­port in­cor­rect

A pre­lim­i­nary re­port fol­low­ing an in­ves­ti­ga­tion com­mis­sioned by state-owned Petrotrin, which stat­ed that a failed pipeline was be­hind the De­cem­ber 17 oil leak at Pointe-a-Pierre, as it may not have un­der­gone ma­jor in­spec­tions for over 17 years, is er­ro­neous, Fri­day al­so said yes­ter­day.The re­port, which was con­duct­ed by a pan­el of Petrotrin em­ploy­ees, was sub­mit­ted to Petrotrin of­fi­cials on De­cem­ber 24 and one of its con­clu­sions was that poor main­te­nence pro­to­col may have led to the de­te­ri­o­ra­tion of the line.But com­ment­ing on the con­clu­sion in re­spect of the pipeline yes­ter­day, Fri­day said "that state­ment was in­ac­cu­rate."Baldeo said the line in ques­tion, #10, was in­spect­ed in 2006 and 2009 and ad­di­tion­al work was done in 2011 and 2013."In fact, we do reg­u­lar su­per­vi­so­ry work on those lines to check those lines so that in­for­ma­tion is in­cor­rect."Fri­day said the pur­pose of the in­ves­ti­ga­tion was to gath­er ev­i­dence, adding the re­port was priv­i­leged and con­fi­den­tial.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored