PEMEX Refinery Incidents in Mexico Case Study Discussion

  write an introduction and conclusion for the paper.POST

“The Mexican government relies on the oil industry for 35 percent of total government revenues, including taxes and direct payments from Pemex, the state oil company. Mexico is the third-largest foreign crude oil supplier to the United States. However, with declining production and rising demand, Mexico could become a net oil importer in the coming decade. President Calderón pushed for energy sector reform in Mexico, but more reforms will be needed for Mexico to reverse its current path toward importer status.”

1
Abstract
Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) is a National Oil Company located in Mexico, Latin America, and
was established in 1938. PEMEX has a long history of disasters, particularly fire and explosions.
The multiple incidents have adversely impacted many communities regarding their
environmental and economic aspects. Therefore, studying the company’s history a subject of
interest to disaster management managers, especially when it comes to protecting lives,
environment, and properties. This paper briefly describes some incidents related to the PEMEX
company in order to find out common themes that connect different incidents. Also, it explains
the concept of disaster justice by discussing how human wrongdoings and bad decisions
contribute to making disasters and affecting humans’ lives and the environment. This paper also
discusses how was the response of the 2012 refinery explosion incident, and it shows how the
response could be made by adhering to the eight-step disaster management process. Also, it
presents some of the adverse effects on occupational safety, public health, and the environment
that followed the 2012 incident. Finally, it is concluded by recommending what needs to be done
by PEMEX leaders to achieve safety work behavior that prevents or decreases the chance of
future incidents.
2
The 2012 PEMEX Refinery Explosion in Mexico
Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) is a National Oil Company located in Mexico, Latin
America, and was established in 1938 (Whitehead, 2011). This company has a crucial role in the
Mexican economy, and energy trade is a major component to the U.S.-Mexico relationship.
PEMEX has a long history of disasters, particularly fires and explosions. The multiple incidents
have adversely impacted many communities regarding their environmental and economic
aspects.
Some of the PEMEX Company Incidents Throughout History
PEMEX Company has experienced multiple hazardous chemical incidents. There is no
doubt that PEMEX considered one of the most important companies that provide valuable
services to the government and citizens of Mexico. But, since the early eighties until the present,
PEMEX Company has contributed to huge loss of lives, environment, and property in Mexico.
For instance, according to Statista Research Department (2020), between the years 1984 and
2017, there were more than 600 deaths from eight incidents related to PEMEX Company. Some
of these incidents include the 1984 explosion of Liquid Petroleum Gas LPG terminal, the 1992
Guadalajara city explosion and the 2019 pipeline explosion that occurred due to gas stealing.
The Liquid Petroleum Gas terminal explosion
In November 1984, a catastrophic event occurred in San Juan, a small town 20km from
Mexico City, due to dozens of explosions in the Liquid Petroleum Gas storage LPG owned by
PEMEX (Arturson,1987). The disaster started when excessive pressure in the pipelines resulted
in pipe rupture and gas leakage, consequently, a vapor cloud built up and ignited resulting in
multiple explosions and fires (Arturson,1987). Unfortunately, the storage did not have a gas
detection system and there was no understanding of potential hazards (Health and safety
3
executive, 2009). Obviously, the poor safety system and the delayed response were the most
important factors that caused the disaster. The incident caused one of the largest rescue efforts in
history represented in the participation of more than four thousand responders providing rescue
and treatment (Arturson,1987). According to Arturson (1987), the death toll was about 600 and
injuries were nearly 7000 people. Here, the importance of safety systems for saving lives and
property is evident, especially in the field of hazardous materials.
Guadalajara city explosion
Another disaster happened in Guadalajara city in April 22, 1992 when a huge explosion
occurred due to pipes corrosion that led to gas leakage in the sewer system (Corrosion doctors,
n.d). Three days before the disaster, many people complained about a gasoline smell and fumes
coming out from the sewer. The city investigator examined the situation and announced there
was no need for evacuation (Eisner, 1992). Later, a massive explosion happened and killed at
least 200 people and injured more than a thousand (Eisner, 1992). Investigations found that the
weak surveillance (e.g. bad installation of the gas lines and weak gas pipeline maintenance), and
the absence of gas detectors were responsible for the disaster among other factors (Corrosion
doctors, n.d). Thus, four officials of PEMEX were charged with negligence that led to a disaster
(Eisner, 1992). That tells us the absence of a safety system may lead to disasters as well as poor
management decisions.
The 2019 pipeline explosion
Another hazardous chemical incident occurred in early 2019, related to a dangerous
community behavior; gas theft from PEMEX’s pipelines. A massive explosion happened after a
pipeline owned by PEMEX was breached illegally by thieves to get free gas (Elliott, 2019). The
explosion resulted in about 80 deaths and nearly 70 people were injured (Elliott, 2019). The
4
explosion was one of the worst incident in Mexico in recent history. In the last decade, PEMEX
suffered more than 12,000 attempts to steal gas from pipes in very dangerous ways, and the 2012
Reynosa incident was one of them (Elliott, 2019).
Together, common themes that exist between the three separate incidents can be
summarized in what Ness (2015), calls the “Swiss Cheese Model.” Experts usually use this
model to understand the possible causes of failure in the chemical industries that could result in
disasters. They look at each protection layer as a slice/piece of Swiss cheese, and each hole in the
slice as a vulnerability in protection. According to Ness (2015), disasters could result from
human wrongdoing, poor decisions, single-point equipment malfunctions, poor management
system, for instance, failure to do hazard analyses, and failure to recognize and manage the
change. Many of these causes can be seen in the three incidents. First, the poor management
decisions in 1984, as there was no protection system. Second, the failure to recognize and
manage the hazard in 1992 when the officials did not order an evacuation. Finally, the failure of
analyzing and preventing the risk as there was no protection around the pipelines in 2019.
Pemex and Disaster Justice
The long history of disaster connected Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) illustrates the
concept of disaster as a purely human construct. Disasters occur because of the decisions humansociety makes. If a society historically supports marginalization of certain people, the
devaluation of natural resources, the exploitation of the environment and people to create profit,
then it is the marginalized people and the natural environment that will share the unjust burden of
disaster.
The concept of disaster justice is built around the idea that disasters are not random acts
of nature or a vengeful deity, rather that disasters are consequences of how humans chose to live:
5
the resources exploited, the location and manner in which people live, the political and economic
choices society makes, people, habitats. and ecosystems deemed disposable. The culmination of
the choices that are made and the impact that has on the people living in a society are what
define disaster. For example, if beach front property is deemed desirable and society creates
value in a built environment on wetlands and dunes that provide protection from flooding and
storms. Is it a random act of nature or God that creates devastating flooding? Or is the flooding
the consequence of human choices? If the argument is accepted that disasters are social human
phenomenon, the question should then be posed who is responsible? Are the beach-front
property owners responsible for the destruction not only their property but also the deadly
consequences beach front erosion has on the rest of the population? Or is the local jurisdiction
responsible? Or the nation that allows it? Or the global community that tolerates it? If those
questions are too thorny, the answer seems to be that the entire human society will just pick-up
the tab. But should all people have to pick-up an equal share?
It is inherently unjust that the people who benefit the least from the wealth and power
generated by the exploitation and destruction of the natural environment, bear the heaviest
burden of the result of that exploitation and destruction. The disasters, like the ones associated
with Mexico’s national oil company, PEMEX, are the result of corrupt management practices
and deep disparities in the socioeconomic status of Mexico’s population. “The Ministry of Public
Service (of Mexico) states that PEMEX is the most corrupt entity of the federal government.”
According to Parthasarathy et al. (2018), “In addressing disasters in an anthropocene
world, it is argued that the most vulnerable are also subjected to the most abject living conditions
that make them vulnerable to disaster and exclude them from forms of disaster justice.” It is not
usually the most privileged and wealthy that risk their lives to rescue and protect others in
6
disaster. As disaster emergency professionals move to prepare, respond, recover, and mitigate,
they would be well advised to examine the concept of justice in disaster.
The 2012 PEMEX Refinery Explosion
The 2012 PEMEX Refinery Explosion was a landmark event in the history of gas and oil
industries. The explosion spread through PEMEX (Petroleos Mexicanos) gas pipeline in
Northeastern Mexico and claimed the lives of almost thirty workers (Auken, 2012). The majority
of those who perished were private contractor employees doing maintenance at the facility.
Twenty-five of the victims were private workers, while the remaining five were state employees.
The fire caused explosion that triggered flames and smoke columns over the PEMEX facility, a
center for gas distribution only around seven miles from the U.S. border in Texas (Navarro,
2012). The president noted that the army personnel and firefighter’s quick response that helped
prevent a more catastrophic incident had the fire reached a nearby gas processing facility.
The Adverse Impacts of the 2012 PEMEX Explosion
Pemex is a government-owned Oil Company that houses a big percentage of Mexico’s
energy and economic power. The company has employed many workforces; skilled, semiskilled
and even unskilled. In September 2012, PEMEX Company suffered the worst event ever since its
establishment. The event happened as a result of a gas explosion. This was a very unusual accident
to ever happen in the state corporation. Until today, no information from the primary investigations
on what caused the deadly disaster. However, it is encouraging that the emergency response was
quite fast and tried much in saving the situation (Mexicanos, Gálvez, & Piso, 2018). Through a
press statement from President Calderon indicated that the plant had been done before the
explosion minimizing the doubt that the event may have happened due to negligence from the state
officials.
7
In the press statement, he further thanked the emergency response team for containing the
situation quickly before spreading to other places within the corporation and outside. The disasters
have been happening over time. Although the conclusive investigation results have not been made
public, the event has been largely blamed on thieves who were after tapping the pipelines to steal
petrol for domestic and commercial purposes.
The interlinking of health, safety, and the environment is a complex, though usually
neglected topic. The safety concerns are attributed to the industrial use of hazardous materials that
could severely affect the workers. These materials could cause harm, ill-health or injury to workers
as they are occupationally-related. Hazardous materials have a considerable impact on public
health as a result of improper handling as it was the case for the 2012 PEMEX Explosion (Reuters,
2016). The environment encompasses both work and physical environments that comprise
upstream work hazards that present downstream communities with risks. Hazardous chemicals are
based on the degree and type of intrinsic physical and health hazards. Hazardous materials, in this
case, leaked petrochemical that caused the Pemex explosion are a threat to industrial safety and
have occupational, environmental, and public health implications.
Public Health Implications
Chemical safety has been a notable aspect of industrial safety over the years since work
commenced in the occupational safety and health field. The progress in management of chemicals
and regulation, is attributed to efforts by employers, workers, and the government to reduce the
negative impacts regarding the use of hazardous substances. Moreover, severe incidents continue
to occur, and the negative impacts on the environment and human health still prevail. Workers are
directly exposed to hazardous materials, yet they have the right to work in a healthy and safe
environment (Tjalvin et al., 2015). The workers are not well trained and protected, hence the
8
significant concern in the tasks that are performed. Although there are efforts to address particular
situations as a result of the varying degree of quantity and exposure, there is no exceptional sector,
including industrial, that has an approach to control and prevent hazardous substances (Zareei et
al., 2016) A notable example is the use of chemicals in nail and hair salons; most of them are
hazardous since they are used without significant protective and preventive measures. These
measures encompass protective equipment, worker training, and proper ventilation.
Although consumers or other parties are also exposed to such facilities, this is inconsistent
and usually for a short period compared to the workers that are exposed the entire day, every day.
Hazardous materials are harmful to every part of the human body, and chemicals in physical form
allow entry into the body easily. These have sufficient detrimental effects on the functioning of
the body (Cutchin et al., 2008). Moreover, chemicals in industries have acute effects such as
fatality and poisoning, even from a single exposure. The significant impact on an individual that
has developed a chronic illness as a result of exposure to hazardous chemicals is incalculable.
Notably, the victims are unable to work and support their families. The effects are severe and
interfere with the quality of life, including the ability to maintain routine tasks (Reuters, 2016).
The victims of chemical exposure eventually die, and the families are mandated to deal with the
loss, which implies a loss of stability and economic wellbeing. Enterprises also encounter losses
as a result of absenteeism, lost productivity, and compensation initiatives.
Environmental Health Implications
Industrialization has had massive positive contributions to health, including greater social
and personal wealth. It has also improved education services, communication, and health.
Nonetheless, it has had adverse implications on health not only for the workforce but also for the
environment and occupation. The implications are attributed to the exposure of harmful agents as
9
well as safety hazards or indirectly by the degradation of the environment. Environmental health
implications entail occupational health impacts that could be biological, biomechanical, physical,
or chemical (Cutchin et al., 2008). These are the conventional hazards related to poor sheltering
and sanitation, including industrial and agricultural contamination of water, land, and air. The
hazardous materials in industries have resulted in a host of health implications that include
chemical poisoning, catastrophic effects, and chronic illnesses. Environmental health implications,
therefore, comprise indirect effects associated with industrial disruption of sufficient housing and
food and the degradation of global systems that the earth’s health is dependent on.
Occupational health implications relate to environmental implications in the workplace
since the source of hazardous materials is similar. For example, the choice of chemical
technologies that are meant for production needs to focus on an acceptable outcome consisting of
a less toxic chemical that can either eliminate or reduce the risk (Tjalvin et al., 2015).
Environmental solutions can entail choices of water-based paints as safer materials than paints
with organic solvents with high toxicity. Accordingly, environmental and occupational health
implications can be eliminated through scientific training and knowledge. The goal is to control
and assess environmental-based hazards, which could require a similar set of knowledge and skills
as occupational health hazards. The Pemex gas explosion could have been contained if the
management did not only acknowledge there was a leak but also found a way to fix it to avert the
disaster that caused massive harm to workers (Reuters, 2016). The process of risk management
and assessment is also similar in identifying hazards, categorizing risks, assessing exposures, and
estimating risks.
Occupational Health Implications
10
Occupational health implications resulting from hazardous materials are strongly linked by
popular methodologies, especially exposure control and health assessment. Notably, occupational
diseases interfere with the wellbeing of individual workers at home and in the community (Reuters,
2016). As such, it is less likely the workers at Pemex plant will be productive at work, which
eventually results in poor performance, discontinuity of operations, and loss of economic stability.
The health problems resulting from occupational hazards are severe, especially in areas where
hazard control is less likely to be viable due to the unawareness of hazards. Other contributing
factors are a low priority among political elites regarding environmental and health matters, limited
resources, and lack of suitable environmental and occupational management in health systems.
Consequently, a lack of necessary training is a considerable impediment to the control of
environmental health hazards. Moreover, the shortage of staff in occupational health necessitates
urgent recruitment and training of staff on environmental disasters (Zareei et al., 2016).
Furthermore, training is a considerable element in the promotion of human health by adopting
sustainable development.
Limited resources make it challenging to maintain training initiatives that ensure a group
of individuals take responsibility for health concerns in the workplace (Cutchin et al., 2008). The
trends to ensure efficient utilization of resources through training and hiring environmental and
occupational health professionals are widespread globally. Industries, as in the case of Pemex, are
compelled to find ways that manage and monitor affairs efficiently and logically within societal
frameworks of law, financial policy, and duty (Reuters, 2016). Occupational health implications
necessitate broad environmental concerns that ensure workplace designs and decisions regarding
strategies related to industrial hygiene control are incorporated. For example, the substitution of a
less toxic substance for more toxic material is crucial in dealing with occupational health
11
implications. An understanding of the health effects associated with several hazardous exposures
has been a priority of the workplace (Zareei et a., 2016). However, public health effect on
environmental exposures to the same agents has been a considerable force that stimulates cleanup initiates in the workplace and even the surrounding community. While occupational exposures
remain much higher than can be withstood by the surrounding environment, adequate measures in
the handling of hazardous materials and prioritizing industrial safety may guarantee better health
outcomes.
Lessons Learned
From the effects and implications of the event, many lessons were learned coupled with
drastic outcomes. Socially, more than thirty-three people died and more than one hundred and
thirty injured. Through these deaths, many children were left orphans and hundreds of dependents
left languishing in poverty (Vázquez-Luna, 2012). This poverty further led to the growth of street
children and the rise of crimes. This affected the social livelihoods of many by changing the family
structure as young children were forced to work for their younger siblings. Also, levels of stress
and depression rose in society.
The event eroded the levels of trust among the citizens to the ruling class. Until today there
is still speculation whether the event was an accident or not. Besides, this the investigations were
not done conclusively to offer tangible evidence on what caused the incident. What scared the
community is how the fire spread as if it was controlled. Besides, the administration was reluctant
in explaining how the event occurred which was termed as a form of sabotage as questions were
not answered. A commission was set up to address the victims of the incident to offer facts and
subject them to post-trauma which never worked but only worsened the situation (Roberts, 2013).
12
The event further increased the frustration levels, the productivity of the state corporation
maintained drastic losses. Since then, the government has been gaining very little from the state
corporation to finance day to day operations. Studies from professional monitoring and evaluation
experts have indicated that the state cooperation chances of operating the way it used to operate
are very minimal. The state corporation has been the pride of the state for long and has been the
largest company in Latin America (Vázquez-Luna, 2012).
It is important to understand that the event brought about a culture of suspicion whereby
people would not feel the need to question or even speculate any catastrophe. This boosted the
levels of ignorance of the citizens further eroding both accountability and transparency levels in
the state. For instance, a full report was not given in time to account for the occurrence of the
event, how it could be solved and the best way to curb the occurrence of other related incidences.
Also, the event led to the destruction of both individual and state property (Sullivan, & Bunker,
2019). Millions worth of properties and fuel were lost in the fire incident. This led to the reduction
of profit margins and the overall fall of the economy. Many people were rendered homeless.
It is, however, important to understand that the 2012 PEMEX refinery event, in the long
run, made an incredible revolutionary in the history of catastrophes in Mexico. This is because,
despite the negative occurrences, it challenged the status quo of society. After the incidence, the
community later used social media platforms which further sparked a radical movement situation
(Mexicanos, Gálvez, & Piso, 2018). People started feeling obliged to challenge the political class
and challenged them to offer a report on the occurrence. This was a great step in the fight towards
transparency and accountability by the people who were responsible. This has helped in mitigating
the occurrence of more disasters which were very common in the state.
13
Conclusively, the 2012 PEMEX refinery event did better than bad in the sense that the
community could question the authority on issues affecting them (Sullivan, & Bunker, 2019). In
the initial disasters witnessed in 1984 and 1992, the government together with the authorities went
unpunished without giving any updates or detailed reports to the citizens. However, the 2012
PEMEX refinery event report was released although not timely through social media campaigns
and revolutionary movements. The 2012 PEMEX refinery event will forever be in Mexico’s history
where citizens questioned the prevailing status quo by demanding transparency and accountability
from the state.
Using the Eight-Step Process to Respond to this Incident
The personnel handling responding to the 2012 PEMEX Refinery Explosion was quick,
effective, and thorough. The response to such this event and any hazardous material incidents
would be handled effectively when responders use the eight-step process, a tool for tactical
management of incidents comprising hazardous materials. The tool allows responders to move
from the shallow focus on planning and preparedness to the provision of an effective solution for
responding to incidences. The eight steps, according to Noll et al. (2014), are:
1- Site Management and Control.
2- Identifying the Problem.
3- Hazard Assessment and Risk Evaluation.
4- Select Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment (PPE).
5- Information Management and Resource.
6- Coordination Implement Response Objective.
7- Decontamination and Clean-Up Operations.
8- Incident Termination.
14
The first step is site management and control, which requires personnel to exercise
control of the site and evacuate people, which is precisely what the Mexican staff did (Noll et al.,
2014). After taking command of the scene, firefighters and military personnel evacuated
residents from ranches and homes near the facility to avoid chaos, panic, and the risk of
triggering a bigger explosion (Navarro, 2012). The next step, according to the eight-step process
tool, is identifying the problem. This step required the Mexican personnel handling the incident
to evaluate potential hazards and identify risks involved. The third process is an assessment of
hazard and evaluation of risks, which conducted to reduce risk to personnel, residents, and the
environment. Some of the critical tasks the Mexican responders were supposed to obverse
include collecting hazard information, predicting outcomes, and developing response objectives.
The fourth process is rather straightforward. Responders must wear protective gear and
protective equipment to avoid contact with harmful substances. Protective gears are an integral
part of any safety program because they facilitate efficient and risk-free handling of substances
(Noll et al., 2014). In the case of 2012 PEMEX Refinery Explosion, clothing and equipment
capable of preventing contact with hazardous materials as well as resisting the impact of heat on
the responder were required. Suitable clothes for handling the explosion disaster include
structural firefighting gears to protect from extreme temperatures, hot water, steam, and hot
substances. High-temperature clothing could have been used against high temperatures, such as
proximity to fire entry points.
The next process involves the management of information and the coordination of
resources. At first, PEMEX officers deliberately refused to provide the number of the dead and
insisted that tight control of the explosion had been achieved (Auken, 2012). This action shows
that the way information is collected and managed affects public attitude towards a disastrous
15
incidence. It is thus crucial for any industrial facility to have a knowledgeable public information
officer (PIO) when it comes to communicating with the public and media during a disaster. After
collecting and managing data, responders should focus on achieving the objectives of the
response, which is the sixth process. The most strategic solution and objective is determined to
help achieve the best outcome. This process is followed by decontamination, which involves
decontaminating equipment, responders, and the environment to ensure it is safe for people and
the environment (Noll et al., 2014). This simple process considers hazards, contaminants, and
people’s behavior under stressful conditions. The eighth and last process is incidence
termination. It is essential to let the public know the incidence has been resolved by formally
terminating through formal procedures.
Training standards of PEMEX
This refinery requires sector-specific training that align with general working habits as
well as cover the numerous considerations to be had about any HAZMAT related operation.
Training in such areas as event reporting, human factors, and environmental standards are critical
to PEMEX training. One critical focus should be to have a safety culture that is centered around
human factors. This may require a safety culture assessment be produced. The leading indicators
of safety culture regarding human factors will be the designated communication used in training,
which is set in standard during the training. Additionally, training initiatives which seek
compliance and transformation in the organization towards new industry standards must be
emphasized in order to truly have comprehensive training (Brown, 2014).
The safety program and safety managers must be trained according to how fault might be
determined, so the procedures of investigation must also be designed not only according to the
information needs of the organization, but also the actual work procedures and work habits of the
16
personnel involve in the major processes of the organization. Such a training should give an
analytical capacity to the safety managers and the safety team to recognize the trajectory of the
workforce and their habits regarding overall safety. They should be trained to recognize and
react to a situation where they notice a poorly placed material safety data sheet, for example, or
document an unsafe divergence from written work procedures (Marchitto, 2005).
Industry benchmarks that standardize training and HAZMAT
The PEMEX refinery should be referring to safety review panels and other industrybased reports that can inform process safety performance indicators. Understanding the
indicators that are proven through the industry and using refinery data that is applicable to the
facility from throughout the industry will offer indispensable benefits to the organization’s safety
performance. Informing the safety program according to criteria such as this allows the training
to be planned in a manner that not only is adapted to the organization, but to all the industry’s
organization, forming a standard based on the performance of safety procedures in other
organizations under similar conditions (Pasman, 2012).
There are a number of program elements that can be used to assist operators in
compliance and the reduction of risk while ensuring quality in performance through integrated
management and programmatic elements. Programmatic elements enable the organization to take
on a planning procedure that is delivered as a standard of quality, and that can be implemented
into the organization as a strategic template for meeting the highest standards of the industry.
Similarly, such planning device can be implemented into safety training with an administrative
integration with safety management to ensure organization-scale enforcement guides the
transitional process (Holdsworth, 2003).
17
There will still need to be an organizational climate that translates safety knowledge into
safety performance efficiently. Safe work behaviors can be achieved through historical safety
data, behavior work safety data, and other knowledge that relates to safe work behavior in this
industry. The organizational culture and climate must be strategically focused, therefore (Smith‐
Crowe, Burke, & Landis, 2003).
Conclusion
PEMEX Company has experienced many different disasters in recent decades.
.
18
References
Arturson, G. (1987). The tragedy of San Juanico—the most severe LPG disaster in history.Burns,
13(2), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4179(87)90096-9
Auken, B. V. (2012). Mexican gas plant explosion kills some 30 workers. Retrieved April 4,
2020, from https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/09/peme-s20.html
Brown Jr, E. G. (2014). Improving Public and Worker Safety at Oil Refineries. State of
California, USA.
Corrosion doctors. (n.d). Guadalajara sewer explosion due to corrosion. Retrieved from
https://corrosion-doctors.org/Forms-pitting/sewer.htm
Cutchin, M. P., Martin, K. R., Owen, S. V., & Goodwin, J. S. (2008). Concern about
Petrochemical Health Risk Before and After a Refinery Explosion. Risk Analysis: An
International Journal, 28(3), 589-601.
Elliott, K. J. (2019). Mexico pipeline explosion. Global news. Retrieved from

Mexico pipeline explosion that killed 79 is an ‘example’ for fuel thieves, officials say

Eisner, P. (1992). Mexico reels from explosion. The tech. Retrieved from
http://tech.mit.edu/V112/N22/mexico.22w.html
Health and safety executive. 2009: PEMEX LPG Terminal, Mexico City, Mexico. 19th
November 1984. Retrieved from
http://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/sragtech/casepemex84.htm
Holdsworth, R. (2003). Practical applications approach to design, development and
implementation of an integrated management system. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 104(1-3), 193-205.
19
Marchitto, M. (2005, September). Safety culture assessment as crucial phase for tailoring human
factors training: the case of an Italian refinery. In Proceedings of the 2005 annual
conference on European association of cognitive ergonomics (pp. 35-42).
Mexicanos, C. P., Gálvez, R. G., & Piso, T. E. (2018). Petroleos Mexicanos. Notes, 9(4).
Navarro, C. (2012). Fatal explosion at the natural-gas plant in Tamaulipas exposes safety,
staffing problems for state-run oil company PEMEX.
https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/sourcemex/5924
Ness, A. (2015). Lessons learned from recent process safety incidents. American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, 23-24. Retrieved from
http://energycongress.org/sites/default/files/cep/20150323.pdf
Noll, G. G., Hildebrand, M. S., Schnepp, R., & Rudner, G. D. (2014). Hazardous materials:
managing the incident. Bartlett Publishers.
Pasman, H. J. (2012). Process safety performance indicators. Transactions of the VSB-Technical
University of Ostrava, Safety Engineering Series, 7(2), 27-35.
Parthasarathy, D., Miller, M., & Douglass, M. (2018). Inequality, uncertainty, and vulnerability:
Rethinking governance from a disaster justice perspective. Environment and Planning E:
Nature and Space, 1(3), 422–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618802554
Roberts, R. S. (2013). Risk Management of Oil Spills Onshore, case analysis.
Reuters. (2016). Mexico: What Caused the Massive Pemex Blast? Retrieved from
https://www.newsweek.com/pemex-explosion-13-dead-petrochemical-veracruzinvestigation-chlorinate-3-451024
Smith‐Crowe, K., Burke, M. J., & Landis, R. S. (2003). Organizational climate as a moderator of
safety knowledge–safety performance relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior:
20
The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology
and Behavior, 24(7), 861-876.
Statista Research Department. (2020). Death toll of selected Pemex accidents from 1984 to
2017.Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/539345/death-toll-of-selectedpemex-accidents/
Sullivan, J. P., & Bunker, R. J. (2019). Mexican Cartel Strategic Note No. 27: Confronting the
State—Explosive Artifacts, Threats, Huachicoleros, and Cartel Competition in
Guanajuato, MX. Small Wars Journal, 14.
Tjalvin, G., Lygre, S. H. L., Hollund, B. E., Moen, B. E., & Bråtveit, M. (2015). Health
Complaints After a Malodorous Chemical Explosion: A Longitudinal
Study. Occupational Medicine, 65(3), 202-209.
Vázquez-Luna, D. (2012). Environmental bases on the exploitation of crude oil in
Mexico. Crude oil exploration in the world.
Verchick, R. (2012). Disaster justice: The geography of human capability. Duke Environmental
Law & Policy Forum, 23(1), 23.
Weibgen, A. A. (2014). The right to be rescued: disability justice in an age of disaster. Yale Law
Journal, 124, 2406.
Whitehead, L. (2011). Coping with Adversity in the Mexican Oil Industry: Como Pemex no hay
dos.