Close Close Comment Creative Commons Donate Email Add Email Facebook Instagram Mastodon Facebook Messenger Mobile Nav Menu Podcast Print RSS Search Secure Twitter WhatsApp YouTube

BP Probation Officer Asks Judge to Revoke Probation, Citing ‘Criminal Negligence’

In a court filing, a federal probation officer said that BP acted negligently in the run-up to a 2009 spill—violating the terms of its probation for a spill in 2006.

A federal probation officer for BP filed a petition on Wednesday asking a judge in Alaska to revoke the company’s probation because of criminally negligent conduct, the Anchorage Daily News reported. If the judge agrees, BP could face more fines, extended probation, or increased requirements for its pipelines. (Read the petition.)

The court filing comes less than two weeks before probation for BP’s 2006 oil spill on Alaska’s North Slope was set to end. It alleges that the company acted negligently in the run-up to yet another spill from BP’s Alaska pipelines in 2009. Here’s what we have reported about that spill:

Then, in November 2009, ice built up in a 25-year-old pipeline to the Alaska division’s Lisburne Production Center—a facility so large that it dominates the horizon at the edge of the Arctic Ocean. The frozen line eventually split open, dumping nearly 46,000 gallons of crude oil, toxic wastewater and natural gas onto the frozen ground. BP had been warned by workers months before the spill that numerous problems at Lisburne were increasing the risk of such an accident.

In the settlement agreement BP reached with the government after a 212,000-gallon spill in 2006, BP plead guilty to a misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act, paid a $20 million fine, and agreed to three years of probation. (This settlement was criticized by former EPA criminal investigator Scott West, who told ProPublica that prosecutors should have sought felony charges against top officials.)

To get off probation, BP needed to make progress in replacing its corroded pipelines and improve its system for preventing and detecting spills.

But according to U.S. probation officer Mary Frances Barnes, the company’s 2009 spill—another Clean Water Act violation—was a violation of the terms of its probation. She also argued that the 2009 spill could have been prevented, but BP ignored early warnings.:

BPXA's conduct constitutes negligence under the meaning of the federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(l), 1311; and/or gross negligence under the meaning of Alaska Statute 11.81.900(a)(4). This is based on: (1) BPXA's failure to follow its own preventative measures following the 2001 line rupture and the relevance of these measures in potentially preventing the 2009 line rupture and (2) BPXA's lack of response to consistent low temperature alarm warnings during the summer and fall of 2009 when corrective actions could have been implemented to prevent the pipeline failure and discharge of oil to a water of the United States and/or prevent the pollution of Alaska lands.

BP spokesman Steve Rinehart disputed the probation officer’s findings and told the Anchorage Daily News that the company has "made measurable improvements in safety and reliability” and spent $500 million on replacing corroded transit pipelines.

We reported earlier this month, however, that BP’s internal maintenance reports show that the company’s Alaska pipelines continue to be plagued by severe corrosion. According to a document dated October 1, at least 148 pipelines earned an “F-rank” for corrosion. Rinehart told ProPublica that while the F-rankings were serious, pipelines receiving these rankings “can stay that way for some period of time as long as the situation is stabilized.”

Inform our investigations: Do you have information or expertise relevant to this story? Help us and journalists around the country by sharing your stories and experiences.

Latest Stories from ProPublica

Current site Current page