ISLAND Energy staff resisted attempts to implement UK standards for gas safety and dismissed a lack of compliance as “the Jersey way”, while the company failed to meet recognised standards, a former manager has said.
Giving evidence at the ongoing Haut du Mont explosion trial yesterday, the gas company’s former asset delivery manager Mark Wheeldon, told jurors that Island Energy, which denies two alleged breaches of Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989, did not adhere to a set of UK-based procedures known as the Safe Control of Operations (SCO).
Mr Wheeldon further contended that the company did not even comply with their own version of the SCO procedures adapted for Jersey.
The witness, who began working for the company in August 2021 after moving from the UK, said that he had identified “quite a long list” of processes for review near the beginning of his tenure at Island Energy.
Advocate Mark Boothman, representing John Wright (60) – who is charged alongside Neil Armstrong (58) and Lee Ward (59) with ten counts of gross negligence manslaughter – cross-examined Mr Wheeldon about the “culture” at Island Energy prior to the Haut du Mont explosion on 10 December 2022.
He reminded Mr Wheeldon of evidence given in his police interview, during which he stated that experience in the role was often seen to be synonymous with competence.
“Yes, it seemed to be that way,” Mr Wheeldon said. “I was always told, ‘it was the Jersey way’ it seemed to be a common saying in the business.
“That was there before [the explosion] and there was some of it after the explosion as well when we were trying to change the culture.”
He continued: “A number of people said it to me, it was a common saying in the business.
“If I was to turn up on site to do, for instance, a safety audit – and I found something wrong – they’d just say it was the Jersey way, we don’t do it that way in Jersey.
“My response was that you will going forward, because that’s the way we do it in the UK.”
Advocate Mike Preston, representing Island Energy, put to Mr Wheeldon that he “must have known” that Island Energy were not following SCO procedures before the explosion.
He replied that he had asked head of network operations James Cherry if the company were “fully compliant” with the procedures, who had told him that they were.
“I had very little interaction with network operations,” he explained. “Admittedly, I didn’t ask the right questions, but I assumed that they were compliant and working within the principles of UK SCO.”
Island Energy defendants broke the “golden rule” of gas safety
Mr Wheeldon was asked about the events of 9 December, which involved the three defendants working to “decommission” the gas supply to Haut du Mont.
The witness stated that the men failed to “prepare” for the disconnection of the relevant gas pipe, which resulted in the pipe being cut in the wrong place.
He added that, when they decided to reconnect the pipe, the team omitted to conduct a crucial “pressure test” which would have identified the gas leak that led to the explosion.
Jurors have previously heard that Mr Armstrong proceeded to lie on two different occasions about completing the test.
Advocate Preston argued that “no procedure” implemented by Island Energy could have legislated for the actions of the three men.
“It’s not even part of the SCO training,” Mr Wheeldon agreed. “It is the golden rule in the gas business [to conduct a pressure test]”
“Even though procedures were not followed, if they had just done the thing – which was a pressure test – before they had reconnected that pipe, we wouldn’t be having this discussion now.
“It would have indicated straight away that there was a problem with the integrity of the pipe.”
“They chose not to follow procedures”
Advocate Boothman, for Mr Wright, asked the witness about his client and Mr Ward’s power, as team leaders, to challenge their supervisor Mr Armstrong on how the work was carried out.
“I don’t believe they had the confidence to do that,” Mr Wheeldon told the jury. “But I do believe that they knew that they were doing. They chose not to follow procedures, rather than being ignorant of them.”
Mr Wheeldon added later: “I don’t think any of the team leaders, or the manager, were incompetent.
“I think they understood what they should be doing and a conscious decision was made not to follow the procedures.”
Jurors heard him speculate that Mr Wright “would not have had the confidence to challenge” Mr Armstrong, but “certainly would have known that what he was doing wasn’t to the procedures”.
He explained that, had a pressure test been conducted, the reconnection work would have taken the men “at least” three days, due to the length of pipe that needed to be tested.
Representing Mr Armstrong, Advocate Rui Tremoceiro argued that it should have been “apparent” to his client’s line manager Mr Cherry that reconnecting the supply in a matter of hours was not safe.
“If it was you that had received confirmation at 6.45pm that evening that the test had been done, would you have raised an eyebrow?,” the lawyer asked.
“Yes”, Mr Wheeldon replied.
“Would you, in fact, be alarmed?’, Advocate Tremoceiro continued.
“Yes,”, he repeated, adding: “They wouldn’t have put the pressure test on [had I been asked]. I would not have allowed it.”
Commissioner Andrew Oldland is presiding.
The trial continues.
