Kuwait Energy
EL-12-211107
Overall, the site did not look inherently unsafe and there were no complaints from
the staff about lack of safety measures.
Except at one of the well sites inspected there was no sign of oil spillage. At the
site where spillage was observed, GCA was advised that this was from very
recent work-over activity and the area would be cleaned up very soon (no specific
time frame was given). Though not verified by sight, it was understood that
produced water was being drained to an evaporation pond: this could pose an
environmental concern depending on the composition of the separated water.
Also, a remediation plan of the evaporation pond should be developed and
published for inspection and agreement with the relevant statutory authorities.
GCA understood that studies were on-going to establish the best treatment of
produced water including investigation into possible water flooding or just disposal
by injection (it was not part of GCA’s scope of work to review these studies).
AI.1.4.2 Plant and Equipment
Oil is produced from 11 wells each with its own control panel, power generating
unit and pressure gauge. Only two of the well sites were visited. All wellhead
equipment was in satisfactory working order and seemed fit for purpose. There
was a defunct generator at one site, a fairly common occurrence across the field
where defunct equipment has not been removed.
At the time of the visit, the existing production facilities were in poor condition and
in need of replacement. KEE has subsequently almost completed installation of
new facilities, including:
Four storage tanks with total capacity of 10,000 Bbl
Two gas boots;
Two electric motor pumps with capacity of 10,000 bpd each for oil export;
New 6-inch diameter pipeline of 26 km length for oil export from BEA to El
Hamra processing station (in service since September, 2013);
Lined drain pit with dimensions of 100×60 m with produced water treatment
plant;
Storage tank of 5,000 Bbl capacity at El Hamra (awaiting partner approval);
New firefighting facilities at BEA (in progress); and
New accommodation camp and refurbishment of the existing villa.
At the time of the visit, Petromaint, an Alexandria based company, had been
contracted to supply and install the new equipment. The contracts with
Petromaint were not available for inspection nor were design parameters, layout
drawings or specifications provided. Some plant layout drawings and copies of
the Service Agreements between the Operator and Petromaint covering new
pipeline and tank construction at BEA were supplied subsequent to the visit.
These were in the form of a statement of requirements, with the detailed design
being left to the contractor (Petromaint); GCA considered this to be adequate
given that the items in question were relatively standard.
Notwithstanding the belated submission of relevant documentation, the overall
impression obtained by GCA was that project planning and organization needed
improvement, although GCA accepted that some elements were beyond KEE’s
control due to the structure of the JV.
