Twentytwo13

Putra Heights gas pipeline explosion – a little logic goes a long way

Some of the houses that were damaged following the gas leak explosion at Putra Heights, Subang Jaya on April 1, 2025.

The horrific events of April 1 at Putra Heights and the suffering it caused need no re-telling. Twenty days on, victims are already grappling with uncertainties that may haunt them for years to come.

A ‘Highland Towers effect’ has taken root. Psychologically-scarred homeowners wishing to move may now face the injustice of being unable to sell their properties at a fair price.

Elsewhere, house owners may also begin to wonder if unseen dangers lurk in their own neighbourhoods. What were — or are — the regulatory frameworks meant to safeguard us as buyers and residents? If ‘the system’ failed Putra Heights, how might it fail me and my family?

Putra Heights was once an oil palm plantation — part of the Seafield Estate — when a gas pipeline was constructed through it between 1988 and 1990. This was phase II of the Peninsular Gas Utilisation (PGU) project, the ‘longest pipeline in Malaysia’, originating in Terengganu in the early 1980s.

Those were heady days in Malaysia’s hydrocarbon development. As an oil industry executive at the time (albeit not with Petronas), I shared in the pride of these groundbreaking achievements.

But over the years, as I transitioned into research and environmental activism, I began to question a few things.

The Petroleum Development Act, passed in 1974, gave birth to Petronas. First oil flowed from offshore Terengganu in 1978. The Petroleum (Safety Measures) Act, however, only came about in 1984, followed by the Transportation of Petroleum by Pipelines Regulations in 1985 — by which time the PGU project was already well underway.

But passing laws and gazetting regulations don’t instantly create effective oversight. It takes years to build up the capacity of public servants, refine administrative practices, and establish functioning regulatory bodies.

Perhaps inevitably, Petronas pushed ahead in ‘self-regulating’ mode while still absorbing technology from foreign partners. While Petronas has generally been diligent, did the government realise the need for regulators to catch up and truly complement Petronas, rather than simply rubber-stamping approvals?

A fresh pair of eyes was — and still is — needed to spot things that fall through the cracks, especially when public safety is at stake.

The Environmental Quality Act (EQA) also dates back to 1974, the same year as the Petroleum Development Act. But it only got its first real teeth with regard to Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) via the Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities) (EIA) Order, 1987 — just before the pipeline was laid through the Seafield Estate.

Clause 12(b) of the Order prescribed EIA for “construction of offshore and onshore pipelines in excess of 50 kilometres in length”.

Was an EIA done?

Thus far, public statements have not addressed this crucial question. The fact that the land was an oil palm plantation at the time should not — and does not — exempt it from the EIA requirement.

Evidence suggests that the area had already been earmarked for housing development.

Even if the PGU approvals predated the EIA requirement, Sime Darby launched its 727-hectare Putra Heights development a decade later. By then, the EIA process had matured, and a gazetted Structure Plan for Petaling and part of Klang District was in effect.

Clause 7 of the same Order requires EIA for “housing development covering an area of 50 hectares or more”.

Again, there’s been no mention of whether an EIA was done — or if any consideration was given to the proximity of the gas pipeline by Sime Darby or the Subang Jaya City Council.

A hydrocarbon pipeline is a key national energy security asset, and its design is based on lifecycle management. This includes not just its physical structure and route, but also how it is to be safeguarded during all foreseeable activities — such as ground excavations — along with inspections and maintenance over its lifespan.

Governments should be most concerned with those aspects of reliability that protect people and the environment.

In the United States, for instance, authority over such matters lies with the Department of Transportation (DOT), which has a dedicated pipeline safety administration. It is legally required to respond to recommendations from another independent federal body that investigates transportation-related incidents.

Here in Malaysia, current debates on ‘jurisdiction’ are muddled further by the fact that the ‘minister in charge of petroleum’ — as defined in our legislation — is the Prime Minister himself!

Does this point to the need for a clearer, more effective chain of authority?

Beyond laws and regulations, the role of an informed, vigilant, and proactive community cannot be overstated. As seen in its annual reports, Petronas Gas Bhd actively engages with communities near its plants. This is likely driven by the public outreach requirements of the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1996.

Regardless of whether the law mandates it, public engagement must be conducted in a careful and measured way — to reassure those living along pipeline routes and restore broader public confidence.

I hope Petronas’ upcoming responses include this, along with a willingness to review past oversights — not just damage control, PR management, or worrying about its share price on the KLSE.

As for the long-term impact of the Putra Heights incident on planning laws, building codes, and ultimately the value of properties near pipelines — it’s still early days.

Only time will tell.

Peter Leong took an interest in environmental conservation and urban sustainability issues after retiring from an engineering career in the petroleum industry.

The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of Twentytwo13.