Gulf of Paria Underwater Welders Deaths: Lawsuits Filed

[sMASH]

Correct.
The cause is irrelevant, except if the companies/ministry want to improve the safety and protect against future incidents.


The rescue attempts is what killed the guys.

[PapyOne]

I brought up the issue of recovery. I am of the opinion that it was not as easy as letting family members jump back in the pipe to see what they could do. My concerns are how will a diver swim backwards in an oily pipe? Do we have divers trained to perform that rescue or are going to do it live for the first time? Plus there are the decompression issues that others cited.

Concerning this event it is known that unfortunately some MISTAKES were made during that dive that led to this dramatic incident, but the death of the four divers is really due to a very PISS-POOR POST INCIDENT MANEGEMENT that was conducted not only by the customer, but also by the diving company and the (rescue) divers. If these concerned people had reacted correctly, then some or maybe all the 4 divers could have been saved.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I brought up the issue of recovery. I am of the opinion that it was not as easy as letting family members jump back in the pipe to see what they could do. My concerns are how will a diver swim backwards in an oily pipe? Do we have divers trained to perform that rescue or are going to do it live for the first time? Plus there are the decompression issues that others cited.

Concerning this event it is known that unfortunately some MISTAKES were made during that dive that led to this dramatic incident, but the death of the four divers is really due to a very PISS-POOR POST INCIDENT MANEGEMENT that was conducted not only by the customer, but also by the diving company and the (rescue) divers. If these concerned people had reacted correctly, then some or maybe all the 4 divers could have been saved.

Not sure if you posted it before - but what could have been done to get them out the pipe?

[Val]

Y'all are arguing about the wrong thing IMHO. The cause is now irrelevant. The more important matter is that of the recovery attempt, and the treatment of the families who are left without their loved ones.

I am of the opinion that quiet compensation should've been paid long ago via extra-judiciary settlement, and there is still an opportunity to do so. If it goes to court, it will create precedent that I'm sure other employers may not want.

I think the cause is relevant. If LMCS went on a side quest mission rather than what Paria outlined, that will determine Paria’s culpability.

I brought up the issue of recovery. I am of the opinion that it was not as easy as letting family members jump back in the pipe to see what they could do. My concerns are how will a diver swim backwards in an oily pipe? Do we have divers trained to perform that rescue or are going to do it live for the first time? Plus there are the decompression issues that others cited.

Why should Paria be the first to compensate? What about LMCS’s insurance? What about LMCS commitment to its employees?

Ppl need to know that a CoE findings are not as binding as a court of law. This still has years of litigation remaining.

Read the report, it is well established that there was no "side quest". Paria is culpable, as is LMCS. Both owe compensation, and LMCS has started the process albeit to very low values their insurance allows and for only two families.

Paria (and LMCS defensively) have opted to pay large sums to Senior Counsel to represent them when these same sums could've been used to settle the matter. If I remember correctly, the COE came about because of public pressure, had the situation been calmed with settlement, it may not have happened.

I don't know if the men could've been rescued, and it's irrelevant now, since they weren't. The families could've been treated better by both employing parties, and much sooner.

We are all spinning top in mud, nothing will come out of this, probably not even a new diving standard.

[PapyOne]

I brought up the issue of recovery. I am of the opinion that it was not as easy as letting family members jump back in the pipe to see what they could do. My concerns are how will a diver swim backwards in an oily pipe? Do we have divers trained to perform that rescue or are going to do it live for the first time? Plus there are the decompression issues that others cited.

Concerning this event it is known that unfortunately some MISTAKES were made during that dive that led to this dramatic incident, but the death of the four divers is really due to a very PISS-POOR POST INCIDENT MANEGEMENT that was conducted not only by the customer, but also by the diving company and the (rescue) divers. If these concerned people had reacted correctly, then some or maybe all the 4 divers could have been saved.

Not sure if you posted it before - but what could have been done to get them out the pipe?

Hi Duane, I have already published what’s underneath in several commercial diving groups and it’s also in the comments on my YouTube video. That’s why to make it easier for me I just do a copy/paste of that long comment.

Hi, as I see that the comments go a little in all directions, to help you to have a better view of the real facts, I’ll give you here below a more precise information on the aftermath of this unfortunate accident.

Two years ago, five divers were sucked into a pipeline. One of the divers managed to get out of the pipe on his own, but unfortunately the other four died on the spot after a few hours because nothing was done to save them in time.
Here below you will find information on the aftermath of this unfortunate accident. The public hearings into the investigation of this incident that happened in Trinidad and Tobago in 2022 are now closed and the final report has now been made public.
Thanks to this report, the hearings as well as the numerous documents that were published on this occasion, it can be said that the main cause of this dramatic incident was due to ignorance by all the parties concerned (diving company/ divers/ customer) of this type of danger.
Nevertheless, in this investigation, a question remains unanswered as to whether these four divers could have been saved or not. It is of course not easy to answer this question, but by analysing the way the incident was handled after the return of the only survivor, the answer is definitely NO, and this for the simple and good reason that at no time did the people involved in this rescue worry about the depth of the water and the absolute pressure prevailing inside the pipeline as well as the time that was passing since the beginning of the incident.
Reminder of the course of events:
14h40: Four divers are working in a hyperbaric chamber placed over a 30” riser. The absolute pressure into the chamber is 1.45 bars.
14h43: A fifth diver arrives at the bottom of the chamber to bring a wrench to the team.
14h45: One of the divers deflates the plug that is present in the riser and the delta P occurs.
The 5 divers are violently sucked into the riser/pipeline.
14h46: End of suction.
14h5?: The rescue diver enters the hyperbaric chamber and finds that it is empty.
At that moment he also notes that the water height in the riser is equal to the lower level of the chamber (i.e. 4.5 m or 14,76 ft.).
The alert is given.
16h00: Bangs are heard in the pipeline.
16h25: One of the divers Christopher B has managed to come back to the surface in the riser but he cannot get out of the water. He taps and shouts to be heard.
16h45: Two rescue divers enter the hyperbaric chamber and help Christopher B to come out of the riser. The latter asks them if he has any decompression stops to make.

Without bothering to check the inner depth of the riser, the supervisor replied no, when in reality he had just spent between 100 to 105 minutes at 15.7 m (51,6 ft.) which in the 55 ft. table of the USN Manual rev 7 gives an air stop of 17 to 34 min at 6 m (20 ft.). The fact that Christopher did not get bend is probably due to the fact that he spent several long minutes in the riser at the pressure of 1.45 bars.
16h48: Christopher is recovered on the surface where he informs the team of the situation in the pipeline, emphasizing the fact that his 4 colleagues are injured but alive.
He describes that three of them are in a large air pocket (at around 210 m or 689 ft. in the video) and the fourth is waiting in a second, smaller air pocket closer to the riser elbow as he has been following C.B for some time.
17h??: Following the information given by the survivor, the surface team prepares the hookah.
17h45: Diver M.K assisted by divers C.C & R.R enters the riser and then progresses in the pipeline to the end of its hose, i.e. over a distance of about 3 m (10 ft.). As he encounters nobody, he comes back up (with an air tank).
18h??: After his return to the surface, the team puts in place a new dive plan which includes sending a tethered scuba diver in the pipeline with a diving bottle equipped with 2 regulators (at this time there is no commercial diving equipment available yet).
18h25: C.B assisted by M.K & R.R are back in the habitat and are ready to dive, but at the last moment the diver feels that his tender M.K was not in a condition to assist him properly, so he decides to abort the dive and wait for commercial diving equipment to arrive.
18h30: Another commercial diver (C.B's brother) arrives on site with his commercial gear and a 91 m (300 ft.) umbilical.

Another dive plan is redone in which it is planned to send a commercial diver down the pipe until he reaches a missing diver. He would then tie a rope to him and let the chamber attendants pull him. It is not specified how the injured diver was going to be supplied with air.
18h30: Bangs are heard near riser B5.
19h00: The client decrees a total ban on diving despite the arrival between 19h00 and 20h00 of two dive vessels with full commercial diving equipment. The reason given is that the client and the Incident Command Team (ICT) believe that another delta P could still occurs and so they want to first inspect the integrity of the pipeline with a ROV or a crawler before allowing divers in again.
20h00: Banging is again heard near riser B5.
20h30 – 22h00: Upon request from the dive company, the command team (ICT) authorizes divers to install the B6 upper riser extension to prevent possible filling of the riser and chamber in the event of a failure of the compressor.
22h10: A company is contacted to provide a crawler.
23h00: Removal of the blind flange from the habitat to allow access to the upper part of the B6 riser which is now out of the water. The removal of this cover has the effect of reducing the absolute pressure in the pipeline by +/- 0.2 bars, but also has the effect of no longer allowing the decompression stop to be made in the hyperbaric chamber.
02h30: (Saturday) bangs are heard for the last time near riser B5.
03h00: First intervention of the crawler from the B6 riser side. As it progresses, the crawler encounters a scuba tank at a distance of 50.6 m (166 ft.) from the top of the riser. The craft tries to push the bottle away, but ultimately can only move it over a distance of (5,8 m (19 ft.).
05h00: After several unsuccessful attempts and seeing that the crawler cannot advance further, the ICT decides to send the machine to the other side of the pipeline and authorizes the diving company to remove the B5 riser blind flange.
06h00: The blind flange of riser B5 is removed. Nobody seems to realize it, but the consequence of this act has the effect of lowering the water level by about 11 m in B6 riser and thus at the same time displace this mass of water in the pipeline, but also and above all to completely and quickly drop the pressure that reigned in the pipeline (+/- 2.3 bars) to atmospheric pressure.
Decompressing these poor four divers who had been confined to this pressure for about 14 hours, in less than an hour sealed their fate and from there nothing more could have been done to save them alive.
Question:
By removing this flange, did the ICT and the diving company knew what they were doing and what the consequences would be?
Answer:
Apparently not, because even a few hours later the ICT was still asking the dive company to draw up a new rescue dive plan.
Question:
Was the ICT correct by saying that a second delta P could still occur if the plug was not fully deflated?
Answer:
No

Here, in this incident, the delta P was related to the deflation of the obturator and occurred as soon as the pressure inside it became insufficient to hold it in place. Today we know that the plug open/close valve was torn off. This could have happened when the diver opened the said valve with his spanner or more likely because the valve got caught in the retaining chain at the start of the plug movement inside the riser.
In any case, in the real situation, it can be said that, as it moved through the pipeline, the plug quickly and completely emptied of its air due to the increasing pressure exerted downstream of it.
This means that at the end of the event which, let us remember, lasted about ninety seconds, this plug returned to its original shape, that is to say that of a cylinder of about 15 '' of diameter.
Obviously, at the time of the incident, no one knew the exact position of the open/close valve and therefore one could also imagine (although this is more than unlikely) that the diver just had time to close it when he realized that something was wrong.
This means that in this case, the plug would then have moved in the pipe without the air being able to escape. Could this have resulted in blocking it again? The answer is off course NO because even if the bag was still practically inflated when it started to slip, it would then have been subjected to a higher pressure (2.5 bars) than it had at the start (1.45 bars) and this would have resulted in a strong compression and deformation of its outer envelope and thus a reduction of its volume and its initial diameter. This means that in both cases (open valve or closed valve) the water could easily have circulated between the obturator and the wall of the pipe and therefore could not generate another delta P. Why the ICT (which also included a dive expert) has not come to the same conclusion remains a mystery, but it has resulted in many hours being lost in unnecessary dithering.
But let’s assume now that ICT has not banned rescue dives. Would that have changed the course of events?
Unfortunately, until 19h00 the potential rescue divers didn’t have the adequate commercial diving equipment.
We saw that after the hookah dive which did not yield anything, a second rescue dive, planned to send a scuba diver inside the pipeline with a diving bottle (12 l) equipped with 2 regulators (it is not said, but we can suppose the diver had also planned to take another diving bottle with him).
Under such stressful circumstances and due to the difficult progression in the pipeline (feet first travel / portion of pipeline partly without water / wall full of slippery crude oil), the rescue diver would have consumed much more air than in a normal situation which means that with its 2400 litres of air he would have had an autonomy of about 20 minutes, and that during this period of time he should have, if it had found someone, correctly tie the retrieval rope, then give (or place) a diving mask on the head and finally secure a scuba tank properly on his back (or on his stomach depending on the injuries) while making sure it would stay in position during the ascent of the diver in riser, and to finish, he had to guide and return to the riser with the diver.
Knowing these parameters, we can say that with a scuba equipment, this rescue would have been very RISKY if the injured diver was found more than +/- 45 m (150 ft.) from the elbow and the risk would have been even higher, as nothing had been planned with the assistants about the dive time and the maximum penetration length in the pipeline.
As consequence, it can be safely said that it was a VERY good thing to have aborted this dive.
Subsequently, another dive could have been made around 19h00 with this time a 300-foot umbilical. This length would have allowed a penetration of approximately 200 feet after the elbow and would likely have been sufficient to reach the diver which was following Christopher (provided the diver remained in place). The problem here is that once the diver was brought back into the chamber, he should have, after his long dive (> 255 min) at 55 ft. stay there for very long air decompression stop (313–432 minutes) (or 83-106 if O² was available), with the high possibility to face a severe decompression accident as this stop would have been made at a depth less than the depth of the table.
With the 55 feet table the maximum exposure time is 360 min (6 hours), and this duration was reached at 20h45. This means that from that time, the rescue of the divers would then have become more and more problematic because there was then no longer a decompression table available for such a dive time and therefore the risk of generating a severe or even more serious type 2 accident would have been inevitable (no decompression chamber available on the site).
It can therefore be said that, even if the dives had been authorized, the chances of success would have been extremely slim to recover more than one living diver, and even more if the upper extension of the B6 riser had also been installed since from that moment on, no decompression except decompression in the riser would have been possible.
Does this mean that whatever was done that day, these four unfortunate divers had very little chance of making it out alive? The answer is unfortunately NO.
What was fatal to the four divers was that as time passed they were increasingly saturated with inert gas (nitrogen) and after 20h45 any rescue attempts would more than likely have been doomed to failure.
Yet it would have taken very little for them, too, to more than likely be recovered alive from that pipeline.
What should have been done as soon as the only survivor returned, would have been to immediately look at the actual depth at which the other divers were confined because that would then have shown that there was going to be a decompression problem very quickly and that to avoid this, it was necessary to reduce the ambient pressure in the pipeline and in the air pockets as quickly as possible. And so the only way to do that without completely flooding the line was to lower the water level in riser B6.
This operation could easily have been done by lowering a submerged pump or even an airlift (at the start of the pumping phase) into the riser via the hyperbaric habitat and thus pumping out a certain amount of water (+/- 30 m³) so as to lower the water level in the riser until only about 3 m (10 ft.) of water remained in it, which would then have reduced the absolute pressure in the pipeline to (+ /_1.45 + 0.3) = 1.75 bar.
Doing so would not only have allowed the divers to already desaturate their tissues from the maximum pressure, but it would also have had the effect of increasing the volume of air in the pipeline.
As we can imagine, these rescue dives would not have been the easiest to do and before they could be done a certain number of points should have been adjusted in order to dive safely.
Among these were:
Launching and raising of divers:
Since a great part of the riser would have been drained out of its water, it would have been essential to install a lifting system in the chamber. This could have been done after the start of pumping during the waiting period for professional equipment.
Progress in the pipeline and travel distance:
After the incident, except some with some (easy) calculation with the Boyle’s law, no concrete element could say at what distance from the entrance to the riser the divers were. It was therefore essential that the umbilical’s had a sufficient length to at least exceed the central point of the pipeline by a few meters. After the arrival of rescue boats, several umbilicals of 91 m (300 feet) were available and they could easily have been connected to each other in order to have sufficient length. (To save time, these transformations could have already been done on the way to the site).
Another difficulty that should have been faced because of the limited space inside the pipe was the use of the bailout bottle. It would of course have been absolutely inconceivable to deprive the divers of this emergency gas supply, but in this case could it not have been replaced by a smaller bottle such as a pony bottle of 5 or 8 litres. The answer is obviously NO, because in case of problem an 8 litre at 200 bar (1600 l) would only have provided autonomy of about 10 minutes which would have been insufficient to return from the middle of the pipeline.
Therefore, for this rescue, it would have been preferable to leave the bailout bottle on the surface while providing the air to the band mask or helmet via a second hose taped to the main umbilical. This technique is frequently used in inshore diving when working in very confined areas where evolution is difficult. The advantage of this technique is that it increases the autonomy of the emergency air because the bailout bottle can then be replaced by a larger one.
On the other hand, it is obvious that this technique can only be implemented on condition that the risk analysis demonstrates that during the dive, nothing can fall on the umbilical or hinder it to the point of blocking it and that the only way out for the diver would then be to cut his line. In this incident, with the exception of the 4 scuba tanks (which should have been brought to the surface before progressing further forward), and the plug (which must have been ahead of the divers), no other large obstructions was in the pipeline and therefore the safety conditions were met to leave the emergency gas on the surface.
As one can imagine, these rescue dives would not have been easy because to facilitate the return or the recovery of the rescue diver in case of problem, it would have been necessary to progress with the feet first over probably a fairly long distance (+/- 200 m) in a slippery pipeline including also partially filled sections with water which would therefore contain a relatively toxic atmosphere to breathe. At first glance, a logical choice would thus have been to use a diving helmet because it is more waterproof than an 18/28 band mask (MOD-1 not available on the site). But given the type of progression (partially dry environment) it would seem that a band mask would have been preferable because it would have been much lighter and comfortable to move around.
With such a band mask, the risk of inhaling toxic gas fumes in the waterless sections would have been higher than with a helmet, but to avoid this, it would then have been sufficient to leave the free flow slightly open in such a way to have a continuous flow of fresh air under slight overpressure, as is the case with a hazmat helmet or mask.
Eventually, the use of continuous free flow would have had the effect of once again increasing the ambient pressure inside the pipeline and therefore also raising the water level in riser B6. Hence the needs to monitor and pump back the excess water in order to stay below the critical level.
On the site, no dry diving suit was apparently available. Therefore, to limit as much as possible the contact of the wetsuit and therefore the skin with crude oil, the rescue diver(s) would have had to wear protective clothing (Tyvek or overalls) and more or less waterproof gloves.
Finally, and contrary to what has been said by certain diving experts, in NO case could the umbilical have gotten stuck in the roundness of the riser elbow and therefore the immersion of a second diver at the bottom of the riser was ABSOLUTELY not recommended because in the event of a problem it would simply have been necessary to retrieve the diver by pulling on the umbilical rather than sending another rescue diver into the pipeline.
If these few suggestions had been followed, and if no divers had been found beyond 200 m, (656 ft.) then the upper extension of the B6 riser could have been installed. This would then have allowed the opening of the B5 riser without any risk of decompression sickness and would then also have permitted to do the rescue from that side.
Unfortunately, we see that following the accumulation of errors, things did not end in the right way.
RIP dear colleagues.

[sMASH]

That amount of errors by people with that much experience and paid large sums of money, means they need to be culpable.


It wasn't a cepep crew with cepep wages and cepep competency generating emergency procedures, approving those emergency procedures, and issuing work permits.



If that culture of systemic unsafe practice is not remedied here, u will get more incidents. And the more chances are taken the more likely the chance get to be fatal.

[Habit7]

This sounds familiar

[PapyOne]

Here is the judgement of another delta P accident that did happen to a commercial diver in Singapore 11 years ago.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/diving-firm-f ... 48477.html

[PapyOne]

During the commission hearings, some of the experts who have probably never set a foot into a hyperbaric habitat said that the divers should have worked with their diving gear on. I remind them that this isn’t the usual way to work inside a dry habitat. Here is a small video coming from one of my Belgians colleagues showing that they too remove their diving gear to work in a chamber.
P.S: don’t listen to the music.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/350843673945927

[PapyOne]

funny how this popped up today

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/hjHkqC ... tid=UalRPS

in the comments somebody mention paria too

I saw this a while before.

The issue is do we have commercial divers trained in rescuing ppl in a pipe. They are using an umbilical cord which we don’t know if they had access to during the incident. And it is easy going up and down but how are you swimming backwards on the lateral section of the pipe.

It is known that two dive vessels with full commercial diving equipment arrived between 19h00 and 20h00. As it can be seen in my animation, the divers were sucked at a relatively long distance from the B6 elbow but on the rescue boats, several umbilical’s of 91 m (300 feet) were available and they could easily have been connected to each other in order to have sufficient length. (To save time, these transformations could have already been done on the way to the site). Unfortunately even if the rescue divers had been allowed to dive with such an equipment the chances of success would have been extremely slim. As you can see in my video, at the end of the event, the pressure in the pipeline is equal to 2.57 bars which correspond to a water depth of 15.7 m (51.5 ft.). This means that to bring the divers back safely to the surface, they had to use a 55 feet decompression table. Unfortunately with that 55 feet table the maximum exposure time is 360 min (6 hours), and this duration was reached at 20h45. This means that from that time, the rescue of the divers would then have become more and more problematic because there was then no longer a decompression table available for such a dive time and therefore the risk of generating a severe or even more serious type 2 accident would have been inevitable (no decompression chamber available on the site).

This image of the divers diving profile will probably help you to better understand what I was saying about their decompression.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10 ... 7480964081

[K74T]

MEDIA RELEASE: Wednesday 27th March, 2024

Prime Minister Rowley Meets with Families of Divers

Today (Wednesday 27th March, 2024), Prime Minister Dr the Hon. Keith Rowley met with the families of the divers involved in the tragic incident which occurred in February 2022 at a facility owned by Paria Fuel Trading Company Limited (Paria). The meeting was held at Whitehall.

Minister of Energy and Energy Industries and Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister, the Hon. Stuart Young and Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Senator the Hon. Reginald Armour S.C. also accompanied the Prime Minister to the meeting.

1. The Prime Minister again expressed sincere sympathy on behalf of himself and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago for the unimaginable loss being experienced by each family.


2. The Prime Minister advised that it was not his wish, or that of his government, that the anguish being experienced by the families should be enhanced and/or prolonged by any protracted dispute over liability and compensation. Accordingly, insofar as he is permitted to, as Prime Minister, he has requested that the Board of Paria do all that it can do to address these issues as quickly, and as reasonably as possible.


3. The Prime Minister informed the families that Paria is properly insured for incidents such as that which occurred on February 25th 2022, and that despite the best of intentions, Paria, like any other insured, is required to take the advice and guidance of its insurers, in order to benefit from the coverage.

4. The shareholders of Paria, who are ultimately the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, would of course want this matter to be resolved quickly, but not in a manner that would be reckless, and affect insurance coverage specifically in place for this purpose. So, even if Paria were inclined to do so, it is simply not possible for a Board, to wholly ignore the fact that insurance coverage is in place, and that another party is involved, namely the contractor LMCS, and nevertheless proceed to settle the matter.

5. The Prime Minister has been advised that correspondence has been exchanged between attorneys for two of the families and Paria/insurers since February 2023 and correspondence was received last month from attorneys for one other family. The Prime Minister has been further advised that no figures have as yet been exchanged between the parties, and that Paria/Insurers have recently requested information from the initial two families which touch and concern details surrounding employment by LMCS and earnings. This information is crucial in arriving at a proposed figure for any without prejudice discussions with respect to settlement. That information is not yet forthcoming.


6. The Prime Minister made it clear that Paria has advice from its lawyers/insurers on the issue of liability. Notwithstanding that advice, Paria and its insurers are prepared to work closely with the contractor/employer LMCS in arriving at a joint proposal with respect to a “without prejudice” settlement of this matter.


7. Accordingly, the outcome of this matter insofar as any possible settlement is concerned is in the hands of the attorneys, insurers, and those who are to accept whatever proposal for settlement may be forthcoming as a result of discussions.


8. The Prime Minister repeated that while he cannot interfere in this process, he has made it clear to Paria that he wants it concluded quickly and fairly. The Prime Minister urged the families to similarly advise their lawyers that every attempt should be made to conclude the matter quickly and fairly, and in particular, the families should urge LMCS to collaborate with Paria to arrive at a joint without prejudice proposal that is reasonable.

[sMASH]

Boeing top brass gets axed for failures.
But paria and niquan have numerous incidents resulting in injury and deaths, stemming from systemic incompetence, but they still making money running the circuses

[wing]

Boeing top brass gets axed for failures.
But paria and niquan have numerous incidents resulting in injury and deaths, stemming from systemic incompetence, but they still making money running the circuses

The middle east (Hamas worshipping) thread really quiet. Go back and spew there please.

[bluefete]

Lemme tell allyuh something - plain talk, nasty manners:

ELECTIONS COMING!

You really feel the PM would have willingly met with those families after the horrible way both HE and Paria's board treated them.

Who want to take basket could take basket.

[The_Honourable]

Rowley basically... compensation is a process, can't do nothing much, and not firing the board


Why did it take 2 years to meet families of divers? - PM responds

Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley revealed on Wednesday that the delay in an offer of settlement being made to the family members of the four divers who lost their lives in the February 2022 tragedy at Paria Fuel Trading Company is due to a lack of information on the employment history of the divers.

On February 25, 2022, Fyzal Kurban, Rishi Nagassar, Kazim Ali Junior, Yusuff Henry and Christopher Boodram got sucked into a 36-inch pipeline while performing maintenance work at Paria. Boodram was the lone survivor.

Told there’s a perception in the public domain that Paria is dragging its feet on the issue of a settlement, Rowley said: “Well, I don’t agree with that, I explained to them (family members) the advice that I have. What is holding up an offer of settlement from Paria’s insurance to them is pertinent information about the employment history of the people who are the claimants, which is a normal requirement if you’re going to make an insurance claim of this nature. It cannot be said to be Paria.

Rowley, who was addressing the media at a post-Cabinet news conference at the Diplomatic Centre in St Ann’s, said during his meeting with the family members on Wednesday, they indicated to him that they would work with their lawyers in having that information made available.

Informed that the family members expressed disappointment with the outcome of their meeting with him, the PM said the disappointment is really based on an expectation, and it then begs the question, what exactly did they expect?

“I try to make it very clear that we’re dealing with an event and there’s a process to follow. Paria is a State company but the board doesn’t own it, the board acts on behalf of the taxpayers. Asking for intervention by the prime minister to circumvent the insurance and legitimate liability processes is not going to happen, I said so from this podium,” Rowley said.

He added: “So, if they came expecting me to use the Office of the Prime Minister to decree that A, B, C, D should happen, it’s not going to happen because that is not how it’s supposed to happen. I was at pains to explain to them the expressions of empathy and sympathy but I must tell you, it is a difficult meeting to have with people who are going through what they’re going through. But what we’re dealing with is not new.”

He noted that when the incident happened, the government’s first response was to get some technical people in there, see what happens and take control of it in that way but there was a big howl against that and there was a demand for a commission of enquiry.

“Once you trigger that process of a commission of enquiry, all the interested parties now have the potential for liability. And even as I speak to you now, those liabilities have not been settled. Paria is a participant but Paria has insurance to cover any such incidents. And therefore, if what they’re asking me to do is to deviate from that, disregard the processes of Paria’s insurance and Paria’s determined liabilities or accepted liabilities, I can’t do that.

“So, I’m sorry to hear that they thought it was a disappointment but I did benefit from the conversation because certain things were raised with us which require some kind of examination, and we will examine that because we don’t have all the information, and I did indicate to them that the government’s position to Paria, the minister’s (Energy Minister Stuart Young) position to Paria is to try and be as empathetic and as swift as possible. But if everybody has lawyered up and leave the issue to lawyers to apportion liabilities then you just have to be careful of what you do.”

Calling the incident, a horrible situation where there was loss of life and a demand for punitive action, the PM said he did indicate to the family members that the processes are still underway.

“We’re still having to determine the conclusion of this matter. It’s not concluded. There’s going to be accountability and that is what the commission of enquiry was about. And the recommendations, they spoke about how things could have been better, hindsight of course but we’re going to be guided by the recommendations as we’re guided by the insurance guidelines.”

He said it is not easy to tell that to people who have been through what the family members have been through but there’s no alternative that could be reasonably had. “And encouraging me to do something that I don’t think I have the authority to do and be acting properly, it’s not going to happen,” he added.

Asked why he choose to meet with the divers’ family some two years following the event, Rowley said: “Precisely because of what I just said. Because as prime minister, the Office of the Prime Minister has to be carefully used so that it is not ‘used’. I could not insert myself into that because as people sought to protect themselves and their interest, one of the best things that they could do is to hold other people.”

He said from day one when the incident became such a contentious issue, he was careful not to insert himself in the matter.

“They asked to see me and I saw them relatively promptly.”

Asked if he still has confidence in Paria’s board, he said the board was not directly involved in the incident and it wasn’t a board action. “I am more concerned about the failure of management and the culture that may have existed there. And as I said, we’re all in a treatment process and the process continues, it is not over.”

Probed again about his confidence in Paria’s board, the PM said, for the time being, yes. “Remember, Paria’s board is a board of volunteers. They’re volunteers doing public service and you have to be reasonable and I’m being reasonable. The demand for vengeance and punitive action, I’m not from that direction. If that is where they’re at, I am not there. If there’s action to be taken at the level of the board and management, those things will flow but it wouldn’t be done from me. As far as I’m concerned, I’m not the adjudicator for punitive actions at this time or what should happen to the management. These are decisions that will be made as things are settled,” Rowley said.

Asked if the issue of corporate manslaughter, as indicated in the commission report, will be acted on, Rowley said that brings into play serious legal interpretations. “Everybody is going to want to defend themselves and that is not for me to adjudicate upon. If anybody feels like there’s corporate manslaughter at play, there’s a place and time to deal with that.”

https://trinidadexpress.com/newsextra/w ... 5fc0e.html

[bluefete]

The biggest piece of bullchit i have read in a long long time.

Long story short - the PM is doing everything to cover the behind of the Chairman of Paria who just happens to be his lawyer.

Rowley basically... compensation is a process, can't do nothing much, and not firing the board


Why did it take 2 years to meet families of divers? - PM responds

Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley revealed on Wednesday that the delay in an offer of settlement being made to the family members of the four divers who lost their lives in the February 2022 tragedy at Paria Fuel Trading Company is due to a lack of information on the employment history of the divers.

On February 25, 2022, Fyzal Kurban, Rishi Nagassar, Kazim Ali Junior, Yusuff Henry and Christopher Boodram got sucked into a 36-inch pipeline while performing maintenance work at Paria. Boodram was the lone survivor.

Told there’s a perception in the public domain that Paria is dragging its feet on the issue of a settlement, Rowley said: “Well, I don’t agree with that, I explained to them (family members) the advice that I have. What is holding up an offer of settlement from Paria’s insurance to them is pertinent information about the employment history of the people who are the claimants, which is a normal requirement if you’re going to make an insurance claim of this nature. It cannot be said to be Paria.

Rowley, who was addressing the media at a post-Cabinet news conference at the Diplomatic Centre in St Ann’s, said during his meeting with the family members on Wednesday, they indicated to him that they would work with their lawyers in having that information made available.

Informed that the family members expressed disappointment with the outcome of their meeting with him, the PM said the disappointment is really based on an expectation, and it then begs the question, what exactly did they expect?

“I try to make it very clear that we’re dealing with an event and there’s a process to follow. Paria is a State company but the board doesn’t own it, the board acts on behalf of the taxpayers. (Seriously?)Asking for intervention by the prime minister to circumvent the insurance and legitimate liability processes is not going to happen, I said so from this podium,” Rowley said.

He added: “So, if they came expecting me to use the Office of the Prime Minister to decree that A, B, C, D should happen, it’s not going to happen because that is not how it’s supposed to happen. I was at pains to explain to them the expressions of empathy and sympathy but I must tell you, it is a difficult meeting to have with people who are going through what they’re going through. But what we’re dealing with is not new.”

He noted that when the incident happened, the government’s first response was to get some technical people in there, see what happens and take control of it in that way but there was a big howl against that and there was a demand for a commission of enquiry.

“Once you trigger that process of a commission of enquiry, all the interested parties now have the potential for liability. And even as I speak to you now, those liabilities have not been settled. Paria is a participant but Paria has insurance to cover any such incidents. And therefore, if what they’re asking me to do is to deviate from that, disregard the processes of Paria’s insurance and Paria’s determined liabilities or accepted liabilities, I can’t do that.

“So, I’m sorry to hear that they thought it was a disappointment but I did benefit from the conversation because certain things were raised with us which require some kind of examination, and we will examine that because we don’t have all the information, and I did indicate to them that the government’s position to Paria, the minister’s (Energy Minister Stuart Young) position to Paria is to try and be as empathetic and as swift as possible. But if everybody has lawyered up and leave the issue to lawyers to apportion liabilities then you just have to be careful of what you do.”

Calling the incident, a horrible situation where there was loss of life and a demand for punitive action, the PM said he did indicate to the family members that the processes are still underway.

“We’re still having to determine the conclusion of this matter. It’s not concluded. There’s going to be accountability and that is what the commission of enquiry was about. And the recommendations, they spoke about how things could have been better, hindsight of course but we’re going to be guided by the recommendations as we’re guided by the insurance guidelines.”

He said it is not easy to tell that to people who have been through what the family members have been through but there’s no alternative that could be reasonably had. “And encouraging me to do something that I don’t think I have the authority to do and be acting properly, it’s not going to happen,” he added.

Asked why he choose to meet with the divers’ family some two years following the event, Rowley said: “Precisely because of what I just said. Because as prime minister, the Office of the Prime Minister has to be carefully used so that it is not ‘used’. I could not insert myself into that because as people sought to protect themselves and their interest, one of the best things that they could do is to hold other people.”

He said from day one when the incident became such a contentious issue, he was careful not to insert himself in the matter.

“They asked to see me and I saw them relatively promptly.”

Asked if he still has confidence in Paria’s board, he said the board was not directly involved in the incident and it wasn’t a board action. “I am more concerned about the failure of management and the culture that may have existed there. And as I said, we’re all in a treatment process and the process continues, it is not over.”

Probed again about his confidence in Paria’s board, the PM said, for the time being, yes. “Remember, Paria’s board is a board of volunteers. They’re volunteers doing public service (Bullchit. They are extremely well compensated for being Board members. Volunteers my backside) and you have to be reasonable and I’m being reasonable. The demand for vengeance and punitive action, I’m not from that direction. (This from the man who said he put a Les Couteaux jumbie on Manning)If that is where they’re at, I am not there. If there’s action to be taken at the level of the board and management, those things will flow but it wouldn’t be done from me. As far as I’m concerned, I’m not the adjudicator for punitive actions at this time or what should happen to the management. These are decisions that will be made as things are settled,” Rowley said.

Asked if the issue of corporate manslaughter, as indicated in the commission report, will be acted on, Rowley said that brings into play serious legal interpretations. “Everybody is going to want to defend themselves and that is not for me to adjudicate upon. If anybody feels like there’s corporate manslaughter at play, there’s a place and time to deal with that.” (Short answer - NO)

https://trinidadexpress.com/newsextra/w ... 5fc0e.html

[pugboy]

that whole conversations with pm was fully staged
hilarious if i might add
how much do they pay those folks in the crowd ?

[Habit7]

The biggest piece of bullchit i have read in a long long time.

Long story short - the PM is doing everything to cover the behind of the Chairman of Paria who just happens to be his lawyer.

The chairman of Paria Trading is Newman George, a civil engineer.

The chairman of Trinidad Petroleum Holdings Limited is Michael Quamina, an attorney who has represented the PM.

[Mmoney607]

The biggest piece of bullchit i have read in a long long time.

Long story short - the PM is doing everything to cover the behind of the Chairman of Paria who just happens to be his lawyer.

The chairman of Paria Trading is Newman George, a civil engineer.

The chairman of Trinidad Petroleum Holdings Limited is Michael Quamina, an attorney who has represented the PM.

And amateur golfer

[ruskie]

volunteers? wtf?

[ruskie]

lack of.info4mation on employment history? What an absolute Rooster head.

[gastly369]

Cyat in bag sold to nation... Wait... There's more...

[bluefete]

My apologies there Habit7. I definitely got the 2 gentlemen mixed up. Thanks for the correction.

The biggest piece of bullchit i have read in a long long time.

Long story short - the PM is doing everything to cover the behind of the Chairman of Paria who just happens to be his lawyer.

The chairman of Paria Trading is Newman George, a civil engineer.

The chairman of Trinidad Petroleum Holdings Limited is Michael Quamina, an attorney who has represented the PM.

[shake d livin wake d dead]

3 face court over Paria diving tragedy

TWO officials from state-owned Paria Fuel Trading Company Ltd, as well as the head of Land and Marine and Construction Services (LMCS), Kazim Ali Snr, faced a San Fernando magistrate on July 10 charged in connection with the 2022 deaths of four divers, including Ali’s 36-year-old son, Kazim Ali Jr.

Paria’s general manager, Mushtaq Mohammed, and operations manager Colin Piper, as well as Ali, faced magistrate Alicia Chankar.

However, the criminal charges were not read at the virtual hearing after the attorneys representing Ali and his company objected to the charges being read in the courtroom.

Chankar adjourned the case to September 11, when the charges are expected to be read.

https://newsday.co.tt/2024/07/11/3-face ... g-tragedy/

Well it's a start

[pugboy]

pressure for daddy ali to get charged for his son death

[sMASH]

pressure for daddy ali to get charged for his son death

Should have thought about that when short cutting the procedure and half assing it.

[The_Honourable]

Paria: LMCS delaying compensation process

Paria Fuel Trading Company (Paria) has accused the management of Land and Marine Contracting Services (LMCS) for the delay in the processing of claims for compensation to the families of the four divers who died tragically in an incident on February 25, 2022.

The four-Kazim Ali Jnr, Fyzal Kurban, Yusuf Henry, and Rishi Nagassar-died after they were sucked into a 30-inch pipeline they were repairing at Paria's Pointe-a-Pierre facility.

A fifth diver, Christopher Boodram, was the lone survivor.

In a news release on Monday, Paria said its agents have been making efforts to process the claims for compensation but unfortunately, those efforts are being frustrated by lack of information from LMCS and the legal representatives of the affected families.

Paria said while its attorneys continue to exchange correspondence with those who have presented claims for compensation, the process requires a considered and balanced approach, taking into account all relevant stakeholders, including LMCS, the employer of the impacted divers, the terms of their employment and other key information.

“As has been previously stated, to deviate from this process will not assist any interested parties and would more likely than not lead to a delay in finding a resolution,” Paria said.

Giving the assurance that it remains committed to finding a way forward, Paria called on LMCS and the affected families to respond to the correspondence issued by the company and its agents in a constructive manner in order that all claims for compensation can be properly and expeditiously addressed.

https://trinidadexpress.com/newsextra/p ... 165d5.html

[The_Honourable]

Ramadhar tells Paria: Give families a figure, not 'legalism'

ATTORNEY Prakash Ramadhar yesterday dismissed statements by Paria Fuel Trading Company Ltd that its efforts to process claims for compensation to the family members of the four divers who died in an incident on February 25, 2022, were being frustrated by the legal representatives of the family members.

In a media release on Monday, Paria said its agents have been making efforts to process the claims for compensation to the families of Kazim Ali Jnr, Fyzal Kurban, Yusuf Henry and Rishi Nagassar, but unfortunately, those efforts are being frustrated by the lack of information from the Land and Marine Contracting Services (LMCS) and the legal representatives of the affected families.

The divers, who were all employed by LMCS, died after they were sucked into a 30inch pipeline they were repairing at Paria's Pointe-a-Pierre facility. A fifth diver, Christopher Boodram, survived.

Saying the matter was unprecedented in its very nature, unprecedented in terms of the pain and anguish and suffering of the conscience of the family members and of society, Ramadhar said Paria's release was now what he would consider to be inappropriate because it was running down a different track which he and his legal team were not on.

'So don't tell me about delays and being frustrated. You could be as frustrated as you want, what did you do to these men and their families? How did you treat them even after the incident? Not a dollar to anyone of them...you talking about being frustrated in your efforts to settle.

'Give me a response, which they have not, to our request for ex-gratia payment that has very little to do with the tabulated legalism,' Ramadhar said during a news conference at his San Fernando law chambers yesterday.

He said in a letter to Paria dated May 13, they expressed the view that the unprecedented nature of the tragedy demanded an ex-gratia payment.

He said as the legal representatives of Celisha Kurban, they requested an ex-gratia payment of $5 million as full and final settlement of all claims to be made by their client against LMCS and Paria.

He said the letter stated that the $5 million payment would serve as reasonable compensation for the horrific physical and mental pain and suffering endured by Kurban while he was trapped in the pipeline, compensation for loss of life, compensation for funeral expenses, compensation for loss of future earnings which may have been earned by Kurban, and the psychological distress caused to and endured by Kurban's family members, including his wife, and their three children.

He said the letter also indicated that Kurban's wife indicated a willingness to sign a release and a non-disclosure agreement to not divulge any details of her claim and settlement in the matter.

'We're asking for a global figure, you keep talking about tabulated legalism. This is not a legal issue, this is a moral and ethical one of responsibility and what is the right and decent thing to do,' he said.

Ramadhar added: 'They have not indicated that they have rejected any approach towards a global approach, ex-gratia payment. They keep asking for the details of which as if they're preparing for trial. If they're preparing for trial, we will go to trial.'

'It will shock the conscience of this nation to know that the courts in Trinidad and Tobago award for the loss of expectation of life is $25,000,' he said, citing two cases where the family of victims were awarded $25,000 for the loss of expectation of life.

To emphasise the disparity in the award of damages, he cited six cases of defamation where the court awarded damages from $300,000 to up to $1 million.

'Reputations are important, we preserve that. I'm just showing the disparity in terms of the value we put on human life. If this is the case that needs to fix it, this is the case that will go and fix it. This is not just about money, it is necessary for the upkeep and well-being of the families, but it's about sending a message. The court must be a last resort, not a first option.'

Ramadhar said if they are required to go the route of the courts, they will file action before the start of the new law term in September against Paria and LMCS in the name of each member of the Kurban family.

'This is not a matter for the lawyers. This is a matter for the conscience of the leadership of Paria to reflect what Trinidad and Tobago's society, our people, what we expect, what we want,' Ramadhar said.

'Sidestepping elephants in the room'

In response to Paria's release on Monday, LMCS said yesterday in a statement that while it preferred to refrain from commenting on the matters raised by Paria, in the hope that both parties would not become unnecessarily polarised and be able to work in the interest of the sole surviving diver and the deceased divers' families, it was constrained to point out that Paria's communique is patently self-serving.

'It is clearly attempting to deflect from its responsibility by sidestepping the elephants in the room, or public domain, its breach of its duty and overall legal culpability,' LMCS said.

It noted that Paria failed to mention 'without prejudice' correspondence to and from LMCS, together with several other issues at play.

'Following the Lynch report out of the Commission of Enquiry, pressing issues including, but not limited to, Workmen's Compensation claims (for LMCS' consideration), insurer's liability, OSHA complaints and criminal complaints remain pending.

'In any event, the 'without prejudice' stipulation, expressly introduced by Paria's attorneys, means that a certain privilege attaches to the contents of any negotiations which would encourage the parties to settle their differences rather than litigate them to a finish.

'This means the avoiding of a protracted legal battle, but also potential legal consequences that might follow from the Lynch report. In light of Paria's most recent communique, LMCS will now have to seek clarity from Paria's attorneys as to the bona fides of its 'without prejudice' correspondence,' it said.

https://trinidadexpress.com/newsextra/r ... 15716.html

[The_Honourable]

Criminal charges read in OSH violation case...

Paria execs PLEAD NOT GUILTY

Criminal charges were read against the managers of Paria Fuel Trading Company Ltd and the director of Land and Marine Contracting Services (LMCS) during a virtual court hearing yesterday.

Not-guilty pleas were entered to each of the 15 charges read by Senior Magistrate Alicia Chankar. The matters involved alleged breaches of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act.

Paria’s manager, Mushtaq Mohammed, faced four charges against him and also answered to the four charges laid against the company. Colin Piper, another of Paria’s managers, faced one charge. Senior counsel Gilbert Peterson appeared on their behalf.

LMCS’ director, Kazim Ali, had three charges read to him, and three charges were also read against the company. He was represented by attorney Dinesh Rambally.

The charges were laid by OSHA’s Chief Inspector, Franz Brisbane, under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, Chapter 88:08.

Senior counsel Pamela Elder prosecuted.

The charges against Mohammed alleged that he facilitated by neglect the commission of an offence by Paria of failing to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the safety and health of persons, failing to revise and prepare in consultation with worker representatives an emergency plan based on a risk assessment, and that he failed to ensure, as was reasonably practicable, that divers Christopher Boodram, Kazim Jeremiah Ali, Yusuf Henry, Fyzal Kurban and Rishi Nagassar were not exposed to risks to their safety or health. He pleaded not guilty.

Similar charges were also read against the company, Paria, and Mohammed also entered not-guilty pleas.

The charge against Piper alleged he facilitated by neglect the commission of an offence by Paria by failing to conduct its undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that the men were not exposed to risks to their safety or health.

Against Ali and LMCS, it was alleged that they failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the safety, health and welfare at work of employees Boodram, Ali, Henry, Kurban and Nagassar, and also failed to make a suitable and sufficient annual assessment of the risks to the safety and health of its employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work. It was further alleged that there was failure to provide information, instruction, training and supervision as were necessary to ensure so far as was reasonably practicable the safety and health, at work, of the men.

Call to join charges

A request was made by senior counsel Pamela Elder to have the charges joined for Mohammed and Paria, and also for Ali and LMCS, and this was agreed to by Peterson and Rambally. The defence attorneys, however, disagreed to all the matters being joined.

Rambally who is also appearing along with attorney Renuka Rambhajan, said it was not a case where they were co-defendants and share a common interest.

Even before the charges were read, as was done at the last hearing, Rambally asked that this not yet be done until disclosure had been made. He said the reading of the charges and having his client’s plea would be premature and that, under the OSH Act, they were entitled to have disclosure. He also said full disclosure was needed to allow for representation to be made to the chief inspector as to who it should proceed against, or at all, in the matter.

He also said that under the act, they could exercise their rights “to tell the chief inspector that you are not to proceed against us, you are to proceed against other parties”.

Rambally said they can make a complaint against another person whom they deem or alleged to be the actual offender. “Under 89:1 of the (OSH) Act, it is clear that it speaks to making complaints against any person who the employer alleges to be the actual offender...It could include any other persons charged, it can be read as wide as that,” Rambally said.

He later added that he wanted to be able to advise his clients as to “whether there is the need to use the language of the act, to put the blame on another party who is also charged with offences”.

Peterson raised issue over the limitation period of the proceedings, and spoke of a matter that is to be heard before the Privy Council.

Elder however said that issue had to do with an unrelated matter that involved the Industrial Court and did not involve these cases before Chankar.

This prompted Peterson to argue that OSHA had “double barrelled the system” and that the same charges were brought before both the Industrial Court and before Chankar at the district court. He called it an abuse of process.

This was however denied by Elder. She said it would have been a dereliction of duty should OSHA have waited on the Privy Council decision, and based on this decision, may not have been able to bring charges.

‘We want justice, too’

She said the time limitation for bringing summary proceedings after a commission of enquiry (CoE) report where an accident has occurred in an industrial establishment is six months, and this was complied with after the CoE. “The purpose of summary proceedings is to punish. The purpose of industrial court proceedings is compensation. OSHA is looking for punishment in the criminal courts,” she added.

Peterson maintained the limitation point is alive and that the decision of the Privy Council will impact on submissions, one way or the other. Rambally agreed with Peterson that there was merit in waiting on the Privy Council.

Chankar said there was nothing that suggested that once brought before one place, the matter could not be brought to another, “once it is separated and specific as to the outcome one is desirous of in these sorts of proceedings”.

Elder further asked for there to be a joinder of all complaints with Paria and LMCS. This was however not agreed to by Peterson and Rambally.

Peterson said he needed to see the summary of evidence and other disclosure, while Rambally said the disclosure was necessary for a decision to be made.

Rambally said, “OSHA is seeking justice. I can tell you that LMCS is seeking justice as well and justice is determined at the end of the day when parties are entitled to have due process... Let us have the summary of evidence for all of the parties that are being brought before the court. What could be wrong with that?

“If you want justice out of these matters and they all arise out of the same incident, or series of incidents, what could be possibly wrong with sharing that information that in so far as it relates to people associated with Paria and Paria’s entity and any individual, that it could be shared with us? We want justice, too. We would like to see justice done in this matter, so it doesn’t only apply to OSHA,” Rambally said.

Chankar directed that OSHA hand over the summaries of evidence for all the matters to Rambally.

Peterson indicated he had received about 11 attachments yesterday morning from the prosecution.

The matter was adjourned to January 16 for a status hearing.

Richard Mason appeared alongside Elder and they were instructed by Adanna Walker-Ramsaran. Gretel Baird appeared as instructing attorney to Peterson; while instructing attorney Kamini Persaud-Maraj appeared for LMCS. Deputy director, legal, at OSHA Petal John Beerens was also present in the matter.

https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/ ... f7047.html

[sMASH]

I want to think , is the lower levels would have to be changed cause they were in the decision making seats , and that such high-level.people were unaware and thus not culpable .

And because the wrong people were changed the.csse will get squashed .
Might jess end up paying the families a lil berevment settlement

In about 3 years time