Incident Report

Subject:                     Buncefield damage 'could have been foreseen'

Date of Email reporting Incident:   Fri 25/07/2008

Report Detail:

Total UK has backed down again as it prepares to fight £1bn in claims over Britain's biggest peacetime explosion

Total UK is to admit Today at the High Court that damage caused by the Buncefield explosion could have been foreseen Alex Spence Total UK, one of Britain’s biggest oil companies, will admit tomorrow that much of the damage caused by the Buncefield oil fire could have been foreseen - potentially opening itself to a payout of hundreds of millions of pounds.

At the final pre-trial hearing at the High Court, Total will admit that damage caused to properties within 450 metres of the blast could have been predicted - a significant concession on a key pillar of its defence.

Nevertheless, hundreds of families and businesses whose properties were destroyed by Britain’s biggest peacetime explosion still face a long and costly legal fight for compensation.

Total and fellow oil giant Chevron are facing lawsuits amounting to almost £1 billion brought by oil companies, insurers and property owners over the 2005 explosion at the facility - operated by Hertfordshire Oil Storage Limited (HOSL), a joint venture between Total and Chevron.

A trial scheduled to begin in the High Court on October 1 will determine which company, if any, was liable for the explosion.
Total has already backed down once during the build-up to the trial, admitting in May that the explosion was partly the result of negligence by the duty supervisor at the time.

er English law, in order to show liability a claimant must demonstrate that damage caused by an act of negligence was foreseeable. Until now, although Total admitted there had been negligence, it denied that the consequences could have been predicted.
The oil company confirmed in a statement today that it had changed its tack on foreseeability on the basis of an expert witness report. The report, submitted to the court on June 8, concluded that based on the weather and other conditions at the time damage to buildings could have occurred "up to a maximum of 451m from the pump area of the depot". Damage tanks, plant and equipment could have occurred at a range of 50 metres.

Lawyers close to the case said that Total’s concessions made it increasingly likely that it would end up paying damages to at least some claimants. However, for complicated legal reasons it does not mean a straightforward end to the case.
Claimants that owned property within 450 metres of the blast — estimated to be worth £240 million — will still be required to prove their losses in court; while other claimants, such as BP and Shell, whose operations within the Buncefield plant were disrupted, were not covered by the admission of forseeability.

Total will also continue fighting claims by around 280 families whose homes were damaged as they were further than 450 metres from the explosion.

The fire began at an HOSL facility within the Buncefield compound at 6am on December 11, 2005. Forty-three people were injured. A report in 2006 by an independent investigation board did not apportion blame, but found that human error and faulty safety equipment were responsible.

Source: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4392873.ece