Replies

Mr Charles Hammel has a long history with the oil companies here in Alaska (lawsuits, lots of letters to board members, etc) and many residents consider him a gadfly. Others see him as anti-development, and thus a threat to local jobs. Some union concerns come into play depending on the company/issue.

Others see him as a crusader:

From counterpunch.org
Take the case of Charles Hammel. Back in the late 1980s, pipeline workers and inspectors began feeding Hammel information problems with the pipeline and with Alyeska's reckless cost-cutting and mismanagement. Hammel, an independent oil broker, took these concerns to congress and Alyeska was forced to spend millions of dollars to repair corrosion along the line.

The company, and the oil corporations behind it, didn't like this one bit, so they went after Hammel with a vengeance. In 1990, they hired the Wackenhut Corporation dig up dirt on Hammel. They rummaged through his trash, ran credit reports on him, set up a fake enviro group to trick him into giving them information and even hired a hooker to try to seduce him. Hammel sued the company for invasion of privacy and won a $5 million settlement.

From the oildrum.com
I caught CNBC early this morning. They had a guy on there named Charles Hammel. Hammel is an advocate for BP workers in Alaska. Hammel said he warned BP in 2004 that there were serious corrosion problems with the pipeline. He said BP workers reported this problem to him. He said there is about 1000 miles of "flow-line" in Alaska. He said the entire flow-line is like Swiss cheese. He said BP responded by trying to figure out who was talking to him

The truth, I suppose as is the case of events such as these, is somewhere in between.

SO pretty much take anything/everything said by the oil companies - and Mr Hammel et al, with a grain of salt. The real truth lies somewhere in between the extremes.

I have actually heard rumblings for years within the oil support (corrosion) industry. System failures occur often, however this was a critical infrastructure failure that brought BPs dirty laundry to the forefront.

We have heard of water mains "wearing out", buildings exploding from gas line leaks, and concrete replacement in coastal and northern locations. These are typical local problems that do not receive national attention. Nevertheless these are "corrosion" related issues, but are not critical to national security. It happens regularly.

The BP issue is a national security problem. There are regulations on the books that should have been applied, however the DOT OPS is not known for enforecement prior to failure.