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, September 19, 2025

In-Corr-Tech boss: Air-blowing caused condition for deadly Delta P incident

by

982 days ago
20230109

kevon.felmine@guardian.co.tt

In-Corr-Tech pres­i­dent Zaid Khan says Land and Ma­rine Con­tract­ing Ser­vices (LM­CS) air-blow­ing method of clear­ing oil from Paria Fu­el Trad­ing Com­pa­ny Ltd Sealine No.36 is one of the main fac­tors that caused the dead­ly Delta P event which con­tributed to the deaths of four divers.

Khan gave his ex­pert opin­ion on Tues­day to the Com­mis­sion of En­quiry (CoE) in­to the Paria/LM­CS tragedy at the In­ter­na­tion­al Wa­ter­front Cen­tre, Port-of-Spain,

He pre­sent­ed mod­els of Paria’s berths No.5 and No.6 in the Pointe-a-Pierre har­bour. Khan al­so showed sim­u­la­tions of the line clear­ing, in­stal­la­tion and re­moval of the in­flat­able plug, which trig­gered the Delta P event on Feb­ru­ary 25, 2022.

This event sucked LM­CS divers Christo­pher Boodram, Fyzal Kur­ban, Kaz­im Ali Jr, Yusuf Hen­ry and Rishi Na­gas­sar in­to the 30-inch pipeline.

The sim­u­la­tion al­so showed the vor­tex that lone sur­vivor Christo­pher Boodram pre­vi­ous­ly de­scribed. Khan added that the div­er who got sucked in first suf­fered a free fall down the 60ft ver­ti­cal part.

The CoE saw how a gaseous void in a line com­bined with the down­ward force on the plug and vac­u­um cre­at­ed be­hind the plug by the air-blow­ing method used for line clear­ing con­tributed to the in­ci­dent. Khan, a reg­is­tered en­gi­neer and Fail­ure Analy­sis Con­sul­tant au­thored a re­port for the Oc­cu­pa­tion­al Safe­ty and Health Au­thor­i­ty. In-Corr-Tech does in­spec­tions, met­al­lur­gi­cal de­sign and qual­i­ty con­trol en­gi­neer­ing ser­vices.

Khan ex­plained that when LM­CS used air-blow­ing from Berth No.5 to push the oil back to shore, it pumped air in­to the pipeline and cre­at­ed a pres­surised sys­tem when it in­stalled the flange.

While LM­CS sought to re­move enough oil to cre­ate a 35 foot clear­ance from where it cut the pipeline at Berth No.6, the pres­surised air at Berth No.5 held the liq­uid up, giv­ing the con­trac­tor a false read­ing of how much oil was in­side the pipeline. He found that the con­trac­tor re­moved too much con­tent from the pipe, leav­ing it ap­prox­i­mate­ly 80 per cent emp­ty.

He said LM­CS on­ly need­ed to re­move 40-60 bar­rels to achieve the cor­rect clear­ance. Even the 300 bar­rels men­tioned in the LM­CS Method State­ment were enough to cre­ate the gaseous void.

Khan said there was a way to cal­cu­late how many bar­rels of oil to re­move to reach the re­quired clear­ance. He said LM­CS could have mea­sured the lev­els at both berths af­ter drain­ing the ver­ti­cal top­side pipe to achieve the cor­rect lev­el.

He said LM­CS ini­tial­ly planned to pump the oil out of the line, which would have been the cor­rect method. He could not un­der­stand why they changed the method.

“High school stu­dents know that, so why en­gi­neers could not cal­cu­late that, I do not know,” Khan said. 

It cre­at­ed a la­tent Delta P haz­ard be­fore LM­CS in­stalled the hy­per­bar­ic cham­ber around the pipeline for the divers to be­gin work­ing. How­ev­er, when an­oth­er team opened the flange at Berth No.5 on Feb­ru­ary 25 to con­duct a car­ber test, it re­leased some of the pres­sure, caus­ing the oil lev­el in the pipeline to drop at Berth No.6.

LM­CS Man­ag­ing Di­rec­tor Kaz­im Ali Snr pre­vi­ous­ly said that the work­ers in­stalled the in­flat­able plug against a liq­uid sur­face. How­ev­er, when the oil lev­el in the pipe dropped at Berth No.6, it cre­at­ed a vac­u­um be­tween the in­flat­able plug and the re­main­ing liq­uid.

When the divers re­moved the in­flat­able plug, the vac­u­um sucked in the plug, along with wa­ter, equip­ment and the divers.

Khan main­tained and ex­plained why the pipe was sta­ble enough to res­cue the divers be­fore the lone sur­vivor, Christo­pher Boodram, es­caped the line that af­ter­noon.

On Mon­day, Off­shore Tech­nol­o­gy So­lu­tions Ltd (OT­SL) ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor An­to­nio Don­awa said there would have been more Delta P in the pipeline and was no way to de­ter­mine the sever­i­ty.

Khan ex­plained that Delta P ex­ists in many places, from fly­ing on an aero­plane to stand­ing next to a tank. He said some­thing must trig­ger a Delta P event, such as cre­at­ing a hole that pres­surised or de­pres­surised one area.

CoE coun­sel Ramesh Lawrence Ma­haraj asked if the pipeline was sta­ble and if divers en­ter­ing could have trig­gered an­oth­er Delta P event.

Khan said no, not­ing that an­oth­er div­er en­tered fol­low­ing the event.

How­ev­er, he said open­ing the flange at Berth No.5 or shut­ting down the com­pres­sor that sup­plied air to the hy­per­bar­ic cham­ber would be a trig­ger.

Khan agreed with Paria’s coun­sel, Ja­son Mootoo, that LM­CS should not have re­moved the in­flat­able plug on Feb­ru­ary 25 as no Per­mit-to-Work spec­i­fied that job. He said there should be a per­mit for all ma­jor work in the in­dus­try. 

CoE chair­man Jerome Lynch, asked Khan if Paria had called him on the night of the in­ci­dent and pro­vid­ed him with the de­tails if he would have known what had hap­pened. Khan said he would have known the men got sucked in­to the pipe be­cause of a Delta P event.

He al­so said he would have been able to ex­press whether there was a la­tent Delta P event in the pipeline. 

Mootoo said that be­cause Khan did not know the state of the plug, he could not de­ter­mine an­oth­er la­tent Delta P haz­ard, say­ing it could have lodged some­where.

Khan said that was im­pos­si­ble, and the plug trav­elled down the ver­ti­cal and through the el­bow. He said the line re­mained sta­t­ic for two hours, and if any­one asked on the night of the in­ci­dent, he could have told Paria of­fi­cials this.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored