By Sue-Ann Wayow
PARIA Fuel Trading Company Ltd is contending that at no point the company was not willing to allow a rescue dive operation to save the four underwater divers who died following an accident at its berth in February.
However, any dive operation had to be conducted in a safe and humane manner.
On Thursday, Paria’s attorney Jason Mootoo questioned LMCS dive supervisor Andrew Farrah, concerning his risk assessment that was done after the four LMCS’s employees disappeared.
By February 27, two days after the divers were sucked into the pipeline at Paria’s berth #6, a risk assessment was done by Farrah with knowledge that there may be obstructions in the pipe – scuba tanks – which first needed to be removed.
Chairman of the Commission Jerone Lynch, KC, asked Farrah to give more information relating to the risk assessment.
Farrah said, “At that point in time, Paria’s main concern for us not to dive in the pipeline was because there was obstructions in the pipeline so they told us to do a risk assessment… methodology to retrieve the bottles that were obstructing us from doing the dive which is what we did.”
Lynch asked for what purpose.
Farrah responded that a camera could be inserted in the pipe which would have been able to go further than the obstructions encountered.
Lynch for clarification, asked if the assessment was provided to send divers into the pipe to retrieve bottles (scuba tanks) to which Farrah responded, “correct” which was to eventually provide further access to the pipe.
Mootoo said both LMCS and Paria were at that time of the view that lives had been lost, to which Farrah said, “Definitely not.”
Directing a question to Mootoo, Lynch then asked, “Can I be clear Mr Mootoo, is the suggestion that Paria were prepared to allow divers to go into the pipe to retrieve bottles but not men?… You are saying that your instructions are that this assessment was designed to allow men to go into this pipe to retrieve three bottles..”
Mootoo said, “ My instructions are that LMCS were repeatedly at that point in time asking for permission to go into the pipe because one, they were of the view that lives had been lost, and two, that the bodies had to be retrieved and in order to retrieve those bodies in a humane manner, the obstructions had to be removed and Kazim Ali (Sr) was of that view.”
The attorney said, “Paria’s position is not that they were not sending men into the pipe but Paria’s position is that at all times it was open to entertaining any risk assessment or any plan anyone had in relation to the pipe.”
But, he said, “ They were not prepared to allow anyone to go in there in a way which was unsafe so they were open to hearing all possibilities, but they wanted it properly documented.”
Mootoo maintained that Paria wanted to be as humane as possible given the circumstances.
Lynch told him he can make a speech later on but he wanted to understand if Paria was willing to entertain a diver or divers going into the pipeline on February 27 (Sunday) to retrieve the bottles “so that it wouldn’t interfere with the bodies they believed were now dead being removed from the pipe being damaged in any way.”
Mootoo said, “I think that is a subset of the general position. Paria at all times was prepared to entertain persons going into the pipe provided it could be shown it could be done in a safe manner for whatever purpose.”
