❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice investigates gas leaks at the Yulleroo 2 well, focusing on the Department of Mines and Petroleum's (DMP) oversight, Buru Energy's actions, and reporting discrepancies. The Minister acknowledges an omission in previous answers.
AnsweredQoN 4424Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) With regard to the gas leak at Yulleroo 2 in January 2015, did the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) officers either take readings of the leak with a gas meter themselves or witness Buru Energy or others take readings? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) If the DMP took or witnessed readings, what were they measured at? (4) The Minister has stated (Question on notice 3173) that there was a leak at Yulleroo 2 in 2013, what was the: (a) cause of the leak; and (b) action taken by Buru Energy to rectify it? (5) Was there an incident report for the 2013 gas leak at Yulleroo 2? (6) If no to (5), why not? (7) If yes to (5), will the Minister table the incident report? (8) If no to (7), why not? (9) Did TKM Wellhead Services fix the leak? (10) When did the DMP inspect the Yulleroo 2 well after the gas leak that was reported in 2013? (11) How many inspections have been carried out at Yulleroo 2 since the well was drilled? (12) Will the Minister table the inspection reports? (13) If no to (12), why not? (14) How many incident reports have been received since the Yulleroo 2 well was drilled? (15) Will the Minister table the incident reports? (16) If no to (15), why not? (17) Was an incident report received from Buru Energy in late 2013? (18) If yes to (17), what was the incident about? (19) If yes to (17) will the Minister table the incident report? (20) If no to (19), why not? (21) The Minister has stated (Question on Notice 3173) that the gas leak at Yulleroo 2 in 2013 was reported by Buru Energy on 18 April, 2013. Is the Minister aware that the leak was reported to the DMP by an Environment Officer – Industry Regulation, Department of Environment and Conservation on the 17 April, 2013? (22) If no to (21), why not? (23) If yes to (21), why did the Minister not state this in his answer to Question on Notice 3173? (24) Is the Minister aware that the Department of Environment and Conservation officer who reported the Yulleroo 2 leak to the DMP on 17 April 2013 could hear a hissing noise and smell a methane gas like odour? (25) Did DMP officers inspect the gas leak at Yulleroo 2 in April 2013? (26) If no to (25), why not? (27) Were readings of the leak at Yulleroo 2 in April 2013 taken? (28) If no to (27), why not? (29) If yes to (27) what were the readings? (30) Is the Minister aware that Schlumberger undertook work on Yulleroo 2 in May 2013? (31) If no to (30), why not? (32) What was the nature of the work Schlumberger undertook in May 2013 on Yulleroo 2? (33) Will the Minister table all the reports associated with Schlumberger’s work in May 2013 on Yulleroo 2? (34) If no to (33), why not? (35) Has the Minister ruled out the potential for the gas leak at Yulleroo 2 in 2015 to have been caused by Buru Energy or contractors? (36) If yes to (35), on what evidence is this based on?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
15 November 2016
Responded by
Attorney General representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
35 days
The Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) advises:
(1) DMP officers witnessed Buru Energy taking the reading. Buru Energy personnel utilised a certified gas detector, in the presence of a DMP inspector.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) The detector indicated no gas present at various distances approaching and at the wellhead until the damaged valve was manipulated when minor readings were noted, these readings are detailed in the tabled investigation report.
(4)(a) A grease nipple connected to the annulus pressure gauge was found to have a very slight intermittent leak. This was due to hardened grease stopping a check valve within the nipple closing and preventing the leakage of gas to the environment.
(b) A new grease nipple was installed.
(5) Yes.
(6) Not applicable.
(7) Yes. [See table paper no A].
(8) Not applicable.
(9) Yes.
(10) 7 January 2015.
(11) Three.
(12) Yes. [See table paper no B and C].
(13) Not applicable.
(14) Two.
(15) Yes. [See table paper no A and C].
(16) Not applicable.
(17) Yes.
(18) Issues raised by the Department of Environment and Conservation on the Yulleroo 2 and Yulleroo 4 well sites and Buru Energy’s investigation results.
(19) Yes. [See table paper no A].
(20) Not applicable.
(21) No. The Minister was not aware of this notification.
(22) This was an omission by DMP.
(23) Not applicable.
(24) Yes. [See table paper no A].
(25) No.
(26) Please refer to Legislative Council Questions on Notice 3173.
(27) No.
(28) Buru Energy personnel identified the small intermittent leak with soapy water not a gas detector.
(29) Not applicable.
(30) Yes.
(31) Not applicable.
(32) [See table paper no C].
(33) Yes. [See table paper no C].
(34) Not applicable.
(35) There was no direct evidence available to determine who caused the damage or when it was done.
(36) Not applicable.
(1) DMP officers witnessed Buru Energy taking the reading. Buru Energy personnel utilised a certified gas detector, in the presence of a DMP inspector.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) The detector indicated no gas present at various distances approaching and at the wellhead until the damaged valve was manipulated when minor readings were noted, these readings are detailed in the tabled investigation report.
(4)(a) A grease nipple connected to the annulus pressure gauge was found to have a very slight intermittent leak. This was due to hardened grease stopping a check valve within the nipple closing and preventing the leakage of gas to the environment.
(b) A new grease nipple was installed.
(5) Yes.
(6) Not applicable.
(7) Yes. [See table paper no A].
(8) Not applicable.
(9) Yes.
(10) 7 January 2015.
(11) Three.
(12) Yes. [See table paper no B and C].
(13) Not applicable.
(14) Two.
(15) Yes. [See table paper no A and C].
(16) Not applicable.
(17) Yes.
(18) Issues raised by the Department of Environment and Conservation on the Yulleroo 2 and Yulleroo 4 well sites and Buru Energy’s investigation results.
(19) Yes. [See table paper no A].
(20) Not applicable.
(21) No. The Minister was not aware of this notification.
(22) This was an omission by DMP.
(23) Not applicable.
(24) Yes. [See table paper no A].
(25) No.
(26) Please refer to Legislative Council Questions on Notice 3173.
(27) No.
(28) Buru Energy personnel identified the small intermittent leak with soapy water not a gas detector.
(29) Not applicable.
(30) Yes.
(31) Not applicable.
(32) [See table paper no C].
(33) Yes. [See table paper no C].
(34) Not applicable.
(35) There was no direct evidence available to determine who caused the damage or when it was done.
(36) Not applicable.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.