[By our guest columnist, 'Thiophilos']
The bright yellow element that many of Sulphur’s readers produce, trade, use or are otherwise involved in is as safe a commodity as many. Certainly it burns, but so does good wood that supports the green canopies of our forests that absorb nasty carbon dioxide. Certainly it corrodes, but so does salt sea water that comprises the essential seas and oceans of our watery planet. It can be made to explode, but it needs to be finely divided like the flour that we use to make the bread we eat to survive. So by many measures it is a relatively safe commodity that should not generate unusual exposure to liability for direct damages.
But, in this day and age of maximization of retribution for damages suffered, it is arguably unwise for the Loss Prevention Office of any organisation to be lax in attention to the details of prevention of and protection against liability incurred in corporate involvement with even safe elemental sulphur - directly or indirectly! It is this indirect and often less obvious liability linkage that should be the focus of the Loss Prevention Office and/or liability protection exercise.
While elemental sulphur may be a relatively benign material it is closely related to two very unpleasant, hazardous and toxic products into which it can be easily converted.
Hydrogen sulphide <-(reduction)- elemental sulphur –(oxidation)-> sulphur dioxide
Since the main source of commercial elemental sulphur has become its recovery from petroleum via reduction to hydrogen sulphide and then oxidation to elemental sulphur (via the Claus process), the presence of residues of toxic hydrogen sulphide in the product sulphur has become commonplace. Hence the need for so called ‘de-gassing’ of petroleum sourced sulphur to reduce (but not necessarily eliminate) the creation of fugitive hydrogen sulphide from bulk sulphur, especially in its liquid form. If this happens when the bulk sulphur is enclosed in a container, generation of toxic levels of hydrogen sulphide create a liability hazard that can have very expensive consequences – even if they are not lethal. A tankful of rotten eggs can generate a very good argument for an aggressive counsellor! And sometimes the hydrogen sulphide in the liquid sulphur can be ‘hiding’ there, chemically combined with the host sulphur in the form of hydrogen polysulphide. If it stayed that way it would be relatively non-toxic. But it doesn’t. The polysulfide slowly decomposes back to sulphur and hydrogen sulphide which is release to atmosphere as a fugitive toxic emission when it is least expected. Check that your sulphur has been thoroughly degassed. It may be an indirect consequence but it can prevent a lot of expensive liability.
Sulphur burns. Indeed its common name of ‘brimstone’ is a corruption of the old form ‘bremstane’ or the “burning stone”. While the sulphur flame is a ‘cool’ one and unlikely to cause much flame damage, it is hot enough to melt the solid sulphur in to its liquid state. When that liquid sulphur re-solidifies on human skin at 120C it stays in place and scalds at temperatures hotter than boiling water, and retains the heat due to its low thermal conductivity. Gruesome is a kind word to describe the result. Another example of indirect but no less potent liability.
The direct combustion of sulphur needs oxygen. The more readily oxygen is available the faster the oxidation. The faster the oxidation the more explosive the reaction. Not a direct linkage between cause and effect but a chain of circumstances that all adds up to a liability. Have you checked sources of oxygen around your sulphur?
An even more indirect liability of the burning of elemental sulphur is the toxic nature of the resulting sulphur dioxide combustion product. Its high toxicity is different from that of hydrogen sulphide but it is no less lethal. The oxidation that happens when elemental sulphur burns in air yields sulphur dioxide and it, in turn, creates acidic conditions that effect human airways and plant tissue and corrodes metals. These properties then become the basis for indirect but effective environmental impact. How many supposed liability insurance cover against Errors and Omissions carry clauses that invalidate the protection if changes in emissions are involved? Even if you think you have protection, think again. The wording can be crucial!
So, all of you dealers in the “stone that burns” - have you done a recent inventory of your “thio-liability” and your protection against it? The financial officer regularly reviews the corporate budget balance. The safety office regularly reviews the health and safety practices. Operations maintains close supervision of the production equipment. It is good policy to keep a close eye on the “thio-liability” balance of all sulphur operations, especially the indirect ones. These are the ones most likely to trip up the unwary. It can be an expensive fall.
‘Thiophilos’
Friday 16 July 2010
Murky waters
The fallout from the fatal explosion on board the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20th has not been limited to eleven lives lost and a sea full of oil. President Obama and Anglo-American oil giant BP are both fighting for their lives, and the future of deep water drilling itself is now seriously under question. Although a Louisiana court has ruled that Obama’s 6-month moratorium on offshore deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is illegal, the White House is appealing the decision. Meanwhile the European Union is now placing deep water drilling in the North Sea under intense scrutiny, and Canada is looking again at the drilling planned of its eastern seaboard. In Brazil, the Petrobras flotation has been delayed. Even OPEC has weighed into the debate, with its secretary general Abdullah al-Badri pleading with EU energy ministers not to “jump to conclusions” and urging the US to “look again” at its ban on offshore drilling.
The offshore oil and gas industry generally has a good safety record. But it can only take one accident to change things forever, especially when that accident is now America’s worst environmental disaster, with anywhere between 20 – 40 million barrels of oil released, and no end in sight before August at the earliest, even with hurricanes permitting. By comparison, the Exxon Valdez spilled ‘only’ 11 million barrels.
However, where this particular decision goes is of crucial importance to all of us, because the bald truth is; deep water is where a lot of the remaining oil is. Peter Vosser, CEO of Royal Dutch/Shell said as much at a conference in South Africa recently, and other oil companies have been lining up to say the same thing. This has led many analysts to assume that pressure from the oil lobby will ultimately win out in corridors of power around the world. In spite of the disaster, Libya has granted BP the right to drill offshore, with the head of the country’s National Oil Company commenting: “you do not ban flying because of one crash”. Well, no, but then again, most air crashes don’t demolish livelihoods across a huge swathe of a major nation and wipe half the value off the world’s third largest oil company. That kind of level of risk is enough to give insurers nightmares and might make even the largest oil majors think twice about the potential downsides. At the very least, regulation and safety concerns are likely to push up costs and push out completion dates. In a world where we may be approaching Peak Oil production, this can have a major effect on oil prices.
But there are more fundamental questions at stake here for the oil and gas industry. BP’s own annual Statistical Review of World Energy, published earlier in June, shows proved global oil reserves of 1.3 trillion barrels; about 45 years at current consumption rates. But it does not show how much of it is in difficult areas; difficult politically, or difficult technically. Deep water, small fields with complex geology, highly sour, maybe shales or oil sands with environmental risks attached… the job of being an oil producer is getting ever more difficult, more complex, and more expensive.
For Big Oil this has actually been a plus point; their technology and expertise therefore remain a marketable commodity even after national oil companies in the developing world have gained sufficient expertise to conduct ordinary operations by themselves. But as the Deepwater Horizon disaster has shown, it also lays them open to much bigger risks. No more is this so than where it comes to handling some of the corollaries of the sourer and more challenging oil and gas fields that are under development, namely sulphur and its compounds. A blowout at a sour gas well could potentially have even more catastrophic consequences than one 10,000 feet below sea level. Thiophilos’ comments in this issue’s Last Words are especially pertinent to this: everyone needs to consider their thio-liability these days.
The offshore oil and gas industry generally has a good safety record. But it can only take one accident to change things forever, especially when that accident is now America’s worst environmental disaster, with anywhere between 20 – 40 million barrels of oil released, and no end in sight before August at the earliest, even with hurricanes permitting. By comparison, the Exxon Valdez spilled ‘only’ 11 million barrels.
However, where this particular decision goes is of crucial importance to all of us, because the bald truth is; deep water is where a lot of the remaining oil is. Peter Vosser, CEO of Royal Dutch/Shell said as much at a conference in South Africa recently, and other oil companies have been lining up to say the same thing. This has led many analysts to assume that pressure from the oil lobby will ultimately win out in corridors of power around the world. In spite of the disaster, Libya has granted BP the right to drill offshore, with the head of the country’s National Oil Company commenting: “you do not ban flying because of one crash”. Well, no, but then again, most air crashes don’t demolish livelihoods across a huge swathe of a major nation and wipe half the value off the world’s third largest oil company. That kind of level of risk is enough to give insurers nightmares and might make even the largest oil majors think twice about the potential downsides. At the very least, regulation and safety concerns are likely to push up costs and push out completion dates. In a world where we may be approaching Peak Oil production, this can have a major effect on oil prices.
But there are more fundamental questions at stake here for the oil and gas industry. BP’s own annual Statistical Review of World Energy, published earlier in June, shows proved global oil reserves of 1.3 trillion barrels; about 45 years at current consumption rates. But it does not show how much of it is in difficult areas; difficult politically, or difficult technically. Deep water, small fields with complex geology, highly sour, maybe shales or oil sands with environmental risks attached… the job of being an oil producer is getting ever more difficult, more complex, and more expensive.
For Big Oil this has actually been a plus point; their technology and expertise therefore remain a marketable commodity even after national oil companies in the developing world have gained sufficient expertise to conduct ordinary operations by themselves. But as the Deepwater Horizon disaster has shown, it also lays them open to much bigger risks. No more is this so than where it comes to handling some of the corollaries of the sourer and more challenging oil and gas fields that are under development, namely sulphur and its compounds. A blowout at a sour gas well could potentially have even more catastrophic consequences than one 10,000 feet below sea level. Thiophilos’ comments in this issue’s Last Words are especially pertinent to this: everyone needs to consider their thio-liability these days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
