No preferred outcome (Part 1)

published 24 Nov 2007

Alfonso Javier Reyes, corporate spokesman of Ayala Land Inc., walks into the conference room carrying his laptop. He is eager to show me some slides and a video. You must have shown these to many people already, I tell him. Not really, he says. Just to those who care to ask. We don’t go all over town making this presentation.

More than a month has passed since an explosion rocked Glorietta 2, killing eleven people, injuring scores of others and putting the operations of numerous businesses at a standstill. Why, after all this time, do the findings remain inconclusive?

Earlier this week, the Philippine National Police said it needed two to three more weeks to collect evidence before charges were filed against Ayala Land. Authorities, who found no bomb components whatsoever, claimed a deadly mix of methane and diesel fuel probably caused the blast.

In the meantime, many are puzzled by the apparent silence of the blue chip company. After having stated that the cause of the explosion could not have been methane, and could not have been diesel, the firm refrains from taking the logical next step: What, then, caused the blast? Why isn’t Ayala offering any theories, venturing any guesses?

***

We just don’t want to speculate, because we don’t know what the truth is yet, Reyes says.

If it doesn’t know what the cause of the blast is, Ayala is trying, little by little, to establish what the cause isn’t. Through this process of elimination, it hopes the answers—verifiable and hence credible— will soon surface. They should never be mere conjectures or suggestions. Reyes says his traditionally low-profile, prudent and conservative company deems it better to acknowledge not having answers —yet—than make unsubstantiated proclamations for public relations’ sake.

The company’s Web site (www.ayalaland.com.ph) makes available its official statement with regard to the explosion. The most recent update, posted on Nov. 4, details the scientific basis for the company’s rejection of the Police’s methane-cum-diesel theory.

To make a convincing rebuttal, Ayala engaged the professional opinion of internationally acclaimed experts. The initial reaction to this is incredulity, for how can any investigation claim to be independent if it was commissioned by one of the interested parties?

But it is this or nothing. The experts are perceived as so credible that they are not inclined to risk their reputation just to patronize Ayala.

For example, it was Dr. Stephen Etheridge, a British national with a PhD in environmental chemical engineering and a member of various international professional societies, who concluded that it was highly unlikely that methane would be produced in the Glorietta 2 sump pits. The conditions for the production of biogas (65 percent methane and 35 per cent carbon dioxide, with trace amounts of other compounds including hydrogen sulfide) in substantial quantities was not present.

Foremost, contrary to reports, there were no septic tanks in the said basement. What were present were sump pits that, owing to the nature of materials from the mall’s comfort rooms, were 98 percent liquid waste. Methane is generated from solid waste.

Second, even if there were solid waste in the sump pits, microorganisms that generate biogas take eight to ten days in an undisturbed condition to multiply to sufficient quantities. On the contrary, water in the sump pits was discharged, through the submersible pumps or, in the event these may be not working at any point, through manual draining, several times a day.

Etheridge also concluded that accumulation of biogas in the basement was not possible. There were no doors in the basement, and there was in fact an open stairwell from the basement that led to the delivery bay, which opened to the street. (The video I was shown was in fact a simulation of the basement’s premises.)

Last, the hydrogen sulfide component of the biogas would have physical effects on people. At very low concentrations, there would have been at least an offensive odor similar to rotten eggs. Higher concentrations would yield other symptoms such as headache, nausea, throat and eye irritations and even eye injury. On October 19 or the days preceding it, however, no such symptoms were observed by the various delivery, maintenance and security personnel in the area.

***

The other expert that looked into the matter was Burgoynes, “a pre-eminent practice of consulting scientists and engineers specializing in the forensic investigation of fires, explosions, engineering failures and other incidents (www.burgoynes.com).” The company also provides expert witness services to the legal, insurance and commercial sectors. It has been around for 39 years.

Police have concluded the blast was a gas explosion even as it says, in the same breath, that its final report is yet to be released. Investigations have not yet been capped and the premises remain cordoned off.

Witnesses recall that the explosion was so loud and powerful; experts have estimated the force to be at 270 tons. However, the diesel tank, said to have been the source of the explosion, sustained secondary damages only (the roof of tank was deformed and torn along a weld). Surely, if the explosion originated from this, there would have been total destruction of the facility. A major oil company who asked not to be named tested the diesel fuel in the day tank and found it to be at 76 degrees Celsius. This was a normal temperature level.

Ayala Land’s official statement thus says that while there may have been an internal overpressure in the diesel tank, it could not have been strong enough to cause the extent of damage reports said it did.

So what was it?

Is there a balm for impatience and desperation? Can justice wait?

The rest on Monday.