The battle over Coral: Safety, claims and documents

Source: Nidaa Al Watan

For weeks, a growing debate has surrounded Coral and its project to develop an oil derivatives storage facility in Bourj Hammoud, with discussions spreading across social media and some media platforms.

The controversy has included accusations, speculation, videos raising safety concerns, and repeated references to the August 4 Beirut port explosion, with some attempts to draw parallels between the two cases.

To examine the claims surrounding the project, Nidaa Al Watan reviewed available official documents and records, focusing on the information contained in regulatory files and technical reports.

A property dispute at the center of the controversy

The information reviewed suggests that the dispute surrounding the facility began not with a documented safety incident, but with a conflict involving a neighboring property owner.

According to information obtained by Nidaa Al Watan, the property owner requested that Coral purchase the adjacent land at a price significantly above its estimated market value.

After the company rejected the request, a campaign criticizing the project gained momentum, gradually shifting from a property dispute into broader public concerns about safety.

Questions regarding the safety of industrial facilities remain legitimate, and communities have the right to request information about the measures in place to protect residents and workers.

However, the documents reviewed indicate that the current debate also includes elements linked to a separate commercial and real estate disagreement.

The August 4 Beirut port explosion has become a central reference point in discussions surrounding the facility. Critics have drawn comparisons between the two situations, given Coral’s proximity to the port area.

However, the circumstances differ. While the surroundings of Beirut port were heavily damaged by the 2020 explosion, Coral’s facilities, located near the blast site, remained operational and no leaks, fires, or damage to stored materials were reported following the explosion.

The incident therefore provided an unplanned real-world test of the facility’s ability to withstand a major external shock, although it does not replace the need for continued safety assessments and regulatory oversight.

1,000 employees, one safety question

Coral employs more than 1,000 people who work daily inside its facilities, in addition to company owners, employees, visitors, customers and suppliers who access the site regularly.

Many of these employees’ families live near the facilities or spend long hours in their vicinity every day.

This raises a basic question: would a company operating for nearly a century risk its own future, the safety of its employees and the livelihoods of more than 1,000 families simply to avoid investing in safety measures?

The documents reviewed point to a different picture.

During 2026 alone, Coral’s facilities underwent a series of inspections and audits by independent local and international entities. According to the company’s records, the scope of these reviews was broader than that conducted at other oil facilities in Lebanon.

Among the assessments reviewed were the General Directorate of Civil Defense, which conducted a comprehensive field inspection on February 13, 2026, and concluded that the facility had an integrated public safety and firefighting system; a monitoring company operating under Saybolt International, which prepared 31 periodic reports over a seven-year period; a company operating under International Cargo Surveyors, which issued a report accompanied by 28 technical documents totaling approximately 470 pages; an inspection conducted under the JIG program and the international EI/JIG 1530 standard by BP Ltd, which classified the facility as “good,” the highest category within the program; and an audit by Bureau Veritas according to the international ISO 45001:2018 standard, resulting in an international certification in occupational health and safety management.

According to the information reviewed, relevant Lebanese state authorities hold a comprehensive file on Coral containing more than 1,000 pages of investigations and documentation.

One senior state official contacted regarding the case described the company’s file as possibly one of the few files reviewed over more than two decades that contained no significant issues, adding that questions surrounding the dispute should be directed toward the neighboring parties rather than the company itself.

A senior executive from a long-established Lebanese oil company competing with Coral was also contacted. The executive reportedly said that there were no concerns regarding Coral’s regulatory file and that the dispute was “purely real estate and personal in nature.”

The company has also relied on a fully buried liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) storage tank system, a technology widely used internationally. According to available information, similar facilities using this type of storage system have not recorded incidents over decades of operation since the technology was introduced.

What do industry experts say?

As part of its investigation, Nidaa Al Watan contacted a Lebanese consultant specializing in oil facility safety, who requested anonymity to avoid being portrayed as supporting the company.

The consultant was asked whether those leading the campaign against Coral had inspected other oil facilities in Lebanon, including state-owned facilities in the north or south, before raising safety concerns.

The response was negative.

According to the consultant, anyone genuinely concerned about industrial safety should begin by examining all facilities operating in the country.

Regarding Coral specifically, the consultant said that the facility is considered among the safest of its kind, not only in Lebanon but across the region.

The consultant added that the company itself avoids publicly emphasizing this assessment, fearing that such statements could be interpreted as an attempt to influence public opinion. However, according to the consultant, this is the view held by those familiar with the technical details of the case.

Administrative procedures completed through official channels

The documents reviewed show that the facility’s development project was not carried out outside state oversight.

Since 2018, the project has gone through approvals and reviews involving more than five ministries and official administrations.

Customs officials are permanently present at the facility due to the nature of its operations, while security agencies conduct regular inspections as part of their routine duties.

On the judicial level, opposing parties submitted a challenge before the Shura Council. On February 26, 2026, the council issued a precautionary decision suspending implementation for four months pending completion of documents and consultation with relevant administrations.

After reviewing the file in detail, the council reversed the suspension decision on June 4, 2026, after documents indicated that the company had met the required conditions and safety measures.

When a new request was later submitted to suspend implementation, the council rejected it again on July 30, 2026.

A report by a major company used outside its intended context

One of the documents widely circulated on social media was a report attributed to Socotec, presented as an independent assessment of Coral’s safety standards.

However, a review of the available documents shows a different picture.

According to an official statement from Socotec’s parent company, the Lebanese branch had prepared a simulation based exclusively on data and assumptions provided by the party requesting the study, under that party’s full responsibility.

The company stated that the document did not represent an actual safety assessment of Coral’s facilities.

Socotec formally objected to the use of the document, requesting that it be withdrawn and that its use, publication or alteration of its content be stopped. It also assigned legal representatives to follow up with parties that had misused the document.

In other words, the document was a simulation based on information that had not been independently verified by the issuing entity itself, yet it was presented publicly as a definitive scientific assessment of an imminent risk — an interpretation that Socotec rejected.

Between claims driven by public concern and documents containing technical assessments, dates and official records, Nidaa Al Watan reviewed the available documentation surrounding Coral’s facilities.

The documents indicate that the facility underwent multiple independent local and international audits and inspections. These reviews addressed technical, regulatory and safety standards, with findings that the company had met the requirements established by the relevant authorities and international standards.

The remaining dispute appears to center largely around a real estate conflict between neighboring parties, which later expanded into a broader public debate over safety concerns.

The public has the right to ask questions and seek verification, while companies must be assessed based on documented facts rather than assumptions.

The available records provide one part of the picture; continued oversight and transparency remain essential in any industrial facility involving hazardous materials.