Printable View
The Great Lakes States are on board with Canada.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
To those states that survive only by river reservoirs and irrigation, life is a bitch, you're screwed.
We have had rivers stop flowing in Minn., we are not going to be more miserable to they do not have to.
[quote="Mark in Oshawa"]
That is not only a lie, but a damned lie; all it took was for the Obama administration to follow, rather than waiver, the law and do the test, then
it would not have happened.
Remember not too long before this, the Obama administration was bragging up BP as the best of oil companies.
BP has to pay, but if any one is tried, it should be people from the Obama Administration.
Bob if you think Dubya was standing over BP threatening to shut them down for shady practices, you are dreaming in technicolor. Listen, I have no time for Obama, but lets cut to the chase. This is a failure and indictment of the US government regulatory structure as a whole. The political will to crack the whip on big oil wasn't there with Bush or Clinton, and it wasn't there with Obama either. No one pays attention to this stuff apparnetly until the oil hits the water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Obama got a lot of money from BP? Great, anyone naive enough to think Bush wasn't getting a lot donations from Big oil? You really want to go down THAT road?
Listen, this is no different than the SEC not cracking the whip on Wall Street. The US government is there to regulate industry, and enforce the law. They didn't before, and didn't this time, and while politcal games and interference make the water murkier, the fact is the bureaucracy in Washington has been allowed to look the other way for years.. Both Parties have a role to play in this, and that is why the Tea Party movement goes after Republicans at times too. People down there are rightfully pissed that government cannot even do the job it is designed to do....
There is no whip to crack. GThe LAST thing needed is Washington with more authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Back when oil was ten dollars a barrel and thousands of oil workers were out work causing a financial and labor crisis, DC gave oil companies a needed break.
Oil prices came back up but now people want to talk out of both side of their mouths, ignoring why oil companies got the tax laws they did.
What happened to Fannie and Freddie makes this supposed big oil collusion lie, as important as a zit on a gnats ass.
That was a problem caused by both parties of the Fed. government, THIS is strictly OBAMA, giving a waiver that would have prevented this disaster, and now trying to blame anyone but themselves for it.
BP owes he money, Washington should be prosecuted.
The loathing for big oil is based on jealous vengence more than anything.
Good post. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Unfortunately, there are more than a few Americans who (blindly) see things the way that Rep. Joe Barton of Texas does. Hopefully after apologizing to Hayward a couple of days ago, Barton then took Tony out to one of those Korean massage parlors that populate D.C. and treated him to a good rub & tug. Heck, he gave Hayward a rub & tug on the House floor. Might as well pay for him to get another session (with a woman this time) later that evening.
You know another guy whose life has been ruined? Bernie Madoff! Him in jail for life and his poor wife, Ruthie, now has to get permission from the government before she can even buy a new Mercedes! :bigcry: Damn gubment!!!
It'll be interesting to see what the (true) root cause of this blow out was. Were corners cut? Was the issue just on this rig, with whomever was managing this particular project, or is this a systemic problem within BP? Who knew what and when? And as many of us well know, the concept of plausible deniability is the spare ammo that all executives have at their disposal. So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out, as far as BP is concerned... and as far as the failings of our regulatory bodies are concerned.
The valve was not tested due to a government waiver, and it failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
End of story.
Instead of imitating Eki and posting Madoff bs, that is not related to the thread, try keeping up with the dozens of news stories on the net, you will probably learn a little more.
It will be interesting to see how Obama tries to change the truth to cover his incompetence, but then he did campaign on change.
This is one I can't help you with, Bob. And it's for the same reason that I didn't accept just everyone who applied to take my Six Sigma classes years ago. When you can understand what root cause analysis is... and more importantly, what it is NOT, come back and we'll discuss this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Until then, please continue humoring us with the "theory" that not inspecting something CAUSES it to malfunction. It's the same sort of backward thinking that's caused more than a few manufacturers to think that increasing inspection steps brings about higher quality. :rolleyes: The system for drilling and capturing this oil was not robust. The question is, "why wasn't it?" And some outside party (even Obama's evil, socialist, fascist gubment) not telling you to do something is not a reason for a system failing.
My experience with Root Cause Analysis (The latest trend in the industrial biz about 6 years ago. If you didn't have an RCFA team up and ready to go, you weren't on the cutting edge of Team Work and Manufacturing Work Systems.) is that RCFA results can be just as wrong as any other method, depending on the integrity of the team. Kind of like a big NASCAR team with heavy oil company sponsorship explaining the cause of their DNF as an ignition failure but not mentioning that after their engine siezed, it blew a chunck of engine block through the ignition module. Some times it what you don't say.
I have a buddy that worked on that rig. His rotation was onshore when the explosion happened. He is still being paid by the company and they have been told to expect to go back to work in August. He and I are both I/E Techs. Prior to Sep 2008, we worked on the same jobsite for 10 years. The "I" portion of the job title stands for instrumentation, i.e., all of the devices and computer systems that create and allow an automated process control. This includes pressure and temperature transmitters, automatic valves, density transmitters, level transmitters, and various detectors.
In any production business, production is king and anything else is secondary. There is nothing unusual about having a system fault "cured" by an I/E through the use of a hard wire jumper (permissive shunt) or going into the software program to install a "force" (a bogus true or not true condition) or a compromise varible that will allow production to continue. This is something an I/E will not do on his own, ever. That decision is made by management and the engineers. This may sound evil but it isn't always so. There are hundreds of control loops that are not critical or may be for information only, without controlling anything. As a general rule, all forces are logged and tagged and are repaired when the parts come in or when that section goes down for routine maintenance. On a critical loop, every I/E I've ever worked with has never been too job scared to let management know that they're playing with fire if they "force" a certain loop. Some, myself included, get them to sign off personally in our Day Timer notebooks before they'll force a critical loop. Sometimes that will stop them in their tracks.
I don't know what caused the blow out but based upon industrial experience my guesses would be:
A geological condition that has not been encountered before.
A navigational or GPS error that allowed the rig to get too far out of position causing the line to bend, raising pressures, and preventing a valve from seating.
Equipment failure in the nature of an automatic valve failing or being unable to seal off due to higher than expected pressures.
Control room personnel refusing to believe they have a process problem and insisting it is a failed instrument. Happens all the time. On land, you can prove quickly that the instrument is ok.
Too many "forces" in control and or cascade loops.
One thing I am sure of without ever having been out there is that management and engineers were warned about (and chose to ignore) dangerous and "iffy" conditions by the guys out there on their tools and doing the work.
You must work in quality control, some where, the attitude of "If I do not test it to see if it will fail, will guarantee it will work" has infested too many companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Hmmm, not them telling to do something that is required by law to be done once a month, not a reason for it failing.
Shizzam, that was why Obama, as usual did not have the faintest idea, that it might fail, he did not have it tested, which was supposed to be done once a month.
Why your hero, Obama, whose administration had this opinon of that rig:
Since January 2005, inspectors issued just one minor infraction for the rig. That strong track record led the agency last year to herald the Deepwater Horizon as an industry model for safety.
Now as your rhetoric is back to flatulation as usual, the valve failed a test a few hours before the explosion and here is why it was not checked, even though your fearless leader Obama, flaps his lips about change, his talk is cheap as all he does is talk.
From the AP:
LOS ANGELES — The federal agency responsible for ensuring that the Deepwater Horizon was operating safely before it exploded last month fell well short of its own policy that the rig be inspected at least once per month, an Associated Press investigation shows.
In fact, the agency's inspection frequency on the Deepwater Horizon fell dramatically over the past five years, according to federal Minerals Management Service records. The rig blew up April 20, killing 11 people before sinking and triggering a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Since January 2005, inspectors issued just one minor infraction for the rig. That strong track record led the agency last year to herald the Deepwater Horizon as an industry model for safety.
The inspection gaps are the latest in a series of questions raised about the agency's oversight of the oil drilling industry. Members of Congress and President Barack Obama have criticized what they call the cozy relationship between regulators and oil companies and vowed to reform MMS, which both regulates the industry and collects billions in royalties from it.
Earlier AP investigations have shown that the doomed rig was allowed to operate without safety documentation required by MMS regulations for the exact disaster scenario that occurred; that the cutoff valve which failed has repeatedly broken down at other wells in the years since regulators weakened testing requirements; and that regulation is so lax that some key safety aspects on rigs are decided almost entirely by the companies doing the work.
Obama your fearless leader, Mr. Change- Obama, who reads a good teleprompter, had over a year, during which time he did take time to kill oil leases, to make sure there were no waivers and that all tests be done.
Now he can blame it on George Bush, but wait, there were over twelve tests that were not done on his watch, buy hey, why pick-nits?
But NOOOO, he did not have the valve tested in the past year , that one did fail a test, five hours before the explosion, failed again, killing people, but hey why should Obama worry about that, it probably was not on one of the teleprompters he was reading.
" accept just everyone who applied to take my Six Sigma classes years ago. When you can understand what root cause analysis is... and more importantly, what it is NOT, come back and we'll discuss this."
God help your students.
Instead of living in the world of- If a tree falls in a forest, but no one hears it, does it make any sound?-- pixie dust land, try reading the news.
In simplest terms, failure to perform a test or check does not CAUSE a malfunction within a (robust) system. What a foolish thing to suggest. Whether trying to score points against Obama, Bush or anybody else, that's just three shades of stupid. Something in a system fails, and a test or check may (or may not) detect an imminent failure. But all a system check tells you is that the system is properly functioning AT THE TIME THE TEST IS PERFORMED. But since there are similar systems, with similar components in oil rigs around the world, rather than just act the dufus, fully understanding the nature of this failure (and mapping out this failure mode) is the proper way to go. And no matter what BP has done (or not done) up to this point, I'd say there are people on the case now who will do exactly that. At these depths, is enough known about how these BOP's work over time? From what I've read, apparently not. So should checks be done more often on similar rigs RIGHT NOW, should there be a redesign of certain components, should, should, should...?
But the bottom line is, until this failure mode is fully understood, the appropriate corrective action can't be determined.
Places I have been had their emergency valves checked, at the very least, weekly. Some "dump and divert" valves were checked daily. Checks on emergency valves that couldn't be done but twice a year were supplemented with emergency area evacuation drills, done weekly but at different times, and if you didn't take them seriously, you'd be looking for a job.
Things fail. The valve in question may have failed to close completely and against the 5000 psi I read about somewhere, the valve gate and seal would have been eroded away in no time at all. Just like your dripping faucet at home gets worse as the water erodes the hole larger and larger. You can go into any business and find violations. Sometimes you get by with it, sometimes you don't.
Ultimately, I think this will come down to a
"production first" type of accident. They were doing things they had done before and gotten away with it. It wouldn't surprise me if what was being done is a sort of industry standard.
No I don't, BOB. I did however work with Steven Chu's brother for 22 years he's the head of a big law firm in LA. They are a brilliant family and I hope Steven is as cool as his brother based on his position in government these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Prevention has squat to do with it--" that the cutoff valve which failed has repeatedly broken down at other wells"-- THEY KNEW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
They had all the warning they needed, to nor do all the tests borders on criminal negligence-- especially by the government.
No wait, all those other valves failing-- that means they got a government gold star, last year, on their merit badge-- BRILLIANT!
The fact is the US Government has failed its people on this one. Once again, while private industry is motivated by profit, you would think regulators and inspectors with the US Government would be motivated to protect the public. Yet somewhere in the bureaucracy, BP was allowed to not be inspected on this rig. IN light of all of what I have read about BP, and how there was some issue with their operating procedures, I find this very troubling.
Deep sea oil exploration has been safe for the most part for years BUT one accident creates a catastrophe. Even if BP didn't do the right thing, I would expect my government to. If I was an American, I would be pissed and wonder why Obama can justify he can do healthcare better than the private sector when his department of Energy cant even inspect deep sea oil rigs on schedule?
I think the part that's perplexing to me is that BP has admitted to knowing about issues with the BOP just hours before the accident, as it failed a pressure test that very day. And then BP's Senior VP for the Gulf, James Dupree, stated that "tests before the blast showed discrepancies in pressure levels." And recently I read that the valve had been modified in "unexpected ways".
As I've stated already, whether this had happened under Bush or Obama, I don't give the government a pass on its failing. But in light of what was known and/or suspected, what sort of people were running and managing that rig???
For anyone here who has ever been in a manufacturing facility of any size, you would know that OSHA's failure to perform an inspection does not give the facility carte blanche to ignore KNOWN, unsafe conditions. I'm happy and proud to say that even the most p!ss poor companies I've done work for would not knowingly put an employee in a life threatening situation. Most companies these days actually put safety first. Not because they really give a crap about the employees, but because once you have a reportable/lost time accident, your insurance rates skyrocket. So the best way to enhance profits (or minimize losses) is to correct known, unsafe MAJOR conditions. I've watched a few of Hayward's interviews. And if a dufus like him being able to become CEO is any indication of the brainpower at BP, maybe that explains why the rig management thought that doing something so incredibly stupid was OK. I don't know.
But to Mark's point about why bureaucrats at these various agencies (SEC, Dept. of Energy, OSHA, NHTSA, HUD, etc.) often can't seem to find their azz with both hands tied behind their backs... if you make the right connections, as long as you can convince yourself that what you find won't blow up in your face (pun intended), you can easily go from being a $60K/year agency grunt to a $200K/year consultant with a company you had been regulating. It's that common characteristic of human nature that's so obvious, yet so many people refuse to acknowledge it.
IMO, those on the left who believe that (JUST) increasing the size of an ineffective government agency is the answer, are off the mark. And by the same token, those on the right who believe that (JUST) shrinking the size of an ineffective government agency is the answer, are equally off the mark. Whether it's a system or an agency, when it's obvious that the system is flawed, its size has nothing to do with it. Whether its bigger or smaller, the job still isn't going to get done.
Maybe sooner or later we'll have a party and a President who (fully) understands that. But I doubt it. Just in reading some of the posts on this thread, I don't think that's what many people want or expect. As long as they get their own personal slice of pork, they just want something to whine or talk about, whether it be from the left or the right. Different sides of the same coin. Or as a pal of mine used to say, "different day... same pile of ###." Pretty sharp guy. I think he finally got on with Toyota. He should have gotten on with NHTSA first and I bet Toyota would have given him a much bigger signing bonus. :dozey:
This brings me back to a process control problem. There are automatic control loops out there that will run for damn near forever and others that fail far more often than they should. The high failure rates are generally caused by environment, not using the best device for the job, improper installation, and poor range selection or any combination of those reasons. Ultimately, the root cause is economics. This unit is cheaper, it would cost too much to locate it elsewhere, etc. Most smart instrumentation can be set up to go to it's lower range value or it's upper range value and stay there when it fails.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Just for fun let's assume the cut off valve is activated by an automatic control loop. There are three pressure transmitters on the loop. All three are calibrated at 0-4500 psi. One of them uses a pressure cell mounted in the side of the pipe. One uses differential pressure through an orifice plate and the third uses a sensor mounted in the process flow. Due to surges in the process flow, transmitter 3 frequently jumps to over range and alarms. Transmitters 1 & 2 show spikes, but do not go over range. The #3 transmitter is immediately suspect of being defective and not to be trusted. Each time 3 alarms the entire process shuts down. Expensive and annoying. Especially for the operators who have to put down the crosswords and internet and restart the process. Finally, #3 burns it's electronics out from going over range too much and stays in the high alarm state. For any one of a dozen good reasons it cannot be replaced right now so it is "no-opped" and taken out of the loop. Not a problem because we still have 2 working transmitters in the loop. But there is a problem. Transmitter #1 was installed too far back from the pipe wall and there is now a plug of hardened process between the pressure cell and the actual process flow. It is going to read what it is reading until the plug is cleared. That's why it never registered any of the surges. Transmitter #2 reads differential pressure through an orifice plate. Unfortunately and against the manufacturer's recommendations, it has been installed in an area where there is a high amount of turbulence in the flow so it is not accurate either. In addition to everything else and to stop these pesky and expensive shutdowns, with a few strokes on the laptop the loop has been changed to a polling loop where 2 or more transmitters have to show high pressure at the same time before the valve closes. Boom.
I can easily see the scenario above being done with operations and management honestly feeling like they had stopped an expensive problem without compromising rig safety at all.
It seems to me most of the posts here are anrgy at the cause of the accident. Here in America once the cause has been esstablished its formally swept under the rug. BP isn't going in head first and admitting anything of importance to the people its effected. OH right they gave 30% of the fishermen a job cleaning up yhier disaster and then slapping them in the face making them sign a waiver that they cannot sue later.BP ruined more lives than all of the casualties of the gulf war for Briton and the US combined and sit back go Yachting and haveing gtea while the people effected go without next months morgage payment.
Get your head out of your ars. WE don't care that they can't say mechanical error or workers error,or even natural disaster. WE want cleanup&repaymentment for what they destroyed,and what WE may never have again. Then WE want your stinking rigs the heck outta here. If you can't control the problum you caused by your own negligence and greed and admit you messed alot more up than your oil output then get the he!! out and don't come F#@&in back.JMO
Sincerly JOE BLOE American Citizen.
OK to all those I've offended by my strong language and capital letters I sincerly apololige and hope for your forgivness. Its not your fault and I'm sure noone here has any connection with the higher ups that run either Washington nor Britsh Protolleum.
Again I apologize for losing my cool about a land mass in the US that has had one struggle after another for the last 12 years, Just to be cast aside by some lobbiest and corporate big shots.
I'll nbever be this contemptible again-About this subject.
I don't know what America you live in but in the Real America BP is being reamed big time by both the media and the Politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by swoop
BP has also be strong armed into paying $20 billion to the US to pay. Including paying for things that they had noting to do with.
Nobody is, or perhaps will be. The only thing I'm glad about this is that this happened on Obama's watch, not Bush's - otherwise we'd never hear the end of it from our distant cousins in other countries, much less the American media.Quote:
Originally Posted by swoop
I believe it when I see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
It will be over $20 billion when it is all done.Quote:
Originally Posted by AAReagles
Chicago politician, Chicago politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
OH yes, the Obama wants them to pay for the workers he has put out of work by preventing drilling operations.
I wonder if at night Pres. Obama looks at a mirror and chants- mirror, mirror, on the wall....
It may be just a false leak to distract the media from Obama, but it was said to day that Rhambo may be on his way out.
It sounds like you've worked around these rigs and seem to know about these systems, so I'm directing this to you: according to this, about 45% of these BOP's are prone to failure. Is it because of lack of funding or lack of technology that the failure rate is so high? And should we not assume that it's not a question of if, but when, another deepwater well is going to pop?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
Details Emerge on Weakness in Well DesignQuote:
Last year, Transocean commissioned a “strictly confidential” study of the reliability of blowout preventers used by deepwater rigs.
Using the world’s most authoritative database of oil rig accidents, a Norwegian company, Det Norske Veritas, focused on some 15,000 wells drilled off North America and in the North Sea from 1980 to 2006.
It found 11 cases where crews on deepwater rigs had lost control of their wells and then activated blowout preventers to prevent a spill. In only six of those cases were the wells brought under control, leading the researchers to conclude that in actual practice, blowout preventers used by deepwater rigs had a “failure” rate of 45 percent.
Sorry Jag, I don't have a simple answer. There really is no one cause root failure. In my experience in petro-chem and other industrial production related industries, I can only offer my opinions based upon experience.
Because Mother Nature guards her hand so well there will always be a card she hasn't played yet that makes "when" a constant probability in any business that fools around with geology. Obviously, the more extreme the environment, the more difficult the remedy.
The biggest problems I see nowadays are as follows, also bearing in mind that the failure of one BOP or ESP device doesn't necessarily have to end in catastrophe. In addition, product testing can create a false sense of security. Prior to WW II the US and Germany both developed magnetic proximity warheads for their torpedoes. All the tests were hugely successful and very expensive so the testing was stopped and the weapons were put into production. In the field the weapons failed miserably when the war started. Amongst other things, the tests failed to take into account that the strength of the earth's magnetic field varies in different areas. OK:
Cost Cost Cost. Big business got to be big business by not spending any more money on production than they absolutely have to. When the salesman says this would be the minimum you need to do the job but we recommend you upgrade to this, the company will always go with the minimum. Always. Later on they might bite the bullet and upgrade the device but most just struggle along cursing the maintenance headache it has become.
Too much emphasis on paper trails. Managers trained for administration and bean counting with little actual hands-on experience with what they have been tasked to manage. They don't really know what is going on and have to rely on the advice of subordinates, some of whom may be in the cya mode.
Communication between the various shifts of operating personnel. They don't pass new developments on to each other or quickly forget them if they do. Yes there is a log book and sometimes they read it, but forget anyway.
Promotions to the control room based upon seniority rather than ability. Some control room operators can lose 2/3rds of their automatic control loops and still fly the thing by the "seat of their pants" just by watching their before and after information only loop data. Others can't run a pencil sharpener unless it is in automatic.
Routine. The operations crews have set routines of duties during their shifts. Once those are completed and barring any emergencies, they have the rest of the shift to hide out and nap, play cards, read, fool around on the internet, and watch movies on small dvd players. Except for napping and card playing, it's the same in the control room. When a panel alarms the operator will look up, check the nature of the alarm, cancel and reset it, and go back to his crossword. In short, the job is now interfering with their personal time.
Always blame the instrument, The lying transmitter. If operations doesn't like the numbers they're being shown, it's an instrument problem and never a process or product problem until proven otherwise.
Engineering. They have plenty of mechanical, chemical, and electrical engineers but very few, if any, process control engineers. As a result automatic measuring and control devices are selected based upon cost and installed where they can't accurately measure the process anyway. Like being too close to a 90 degree bend in the pipe. Some of these gunfighters are fresh out of school and eager to make a name for themselves by cutting costs and raising production.
An example. I got a call one night from the control room that I had a lying level transmitter on a vessel that was "swinging up and down" and causing a high alarm every 5 minutes. It had to be the transmitter because the measured flow into and out of the vessel remained the same. In this case a pressure transmitter was being used for a level transmitter which is not uncommon and ok to do in many applications. After looking at the loop on my laptop I went out to the vessel and hooked a communicator up to the transmitter. Sure enough, it was swinging. I continued to ponder the situation while cursing the annoying cloud of steam that came out of the process drain about every 5 minutes fogging everything up. Every 5 minutes...Hmmmm. I realized every time the steam cloud happened the indicated level also dropped. The only vent open on the vessel was a 4" pipe running from the top of the vessel down to the process drain. The added steam pressure was making the level look higher than it was. When the steam vented off, the indicated level dropped again. Ok, but why after ten years did this just start happening. I called the control room and asked if any changes had been made in how the product was handled before it was sent to us. Nope. Ok, I told the shift manager he had steam build up in the vessel and if he would send an operator out to open a top vent the level swing would stop. He did and it did. I then called an other area and asked if there had been a change in how they handled the product. They said there had been a change. There was no need to allow the product as much cool-down time so it was being sent, still hot, through the system. All the change forms had been filled out and approved and memos had been sent to the affected areas. I called my control room back and told them the news and after 10 minutes of rooting around, they found the memo. The next 2 nights I got the same call from my control room about the same problem (they had already forgot) and I told them to open a top vent. I made sure all the I/Es were in on the joke. I soon got a visit from the area electrical engineer who stated they couldn't leave that top vent open due to rain and other contamination. He wanted to raise the alarm level on the loop by changing the upper range value. I told him that would stop the bogus alarms but would not stop two very expensive automatic control valves from constantly wearing themselves out responding to bogus level changes. You might want to consider going to a capacitance or sonar level transmitter mounted on top of the vessel, that would be the proper thing to do. Nope, don't want to spend the money. Final solution and still there when I left 2 years later...operations went out on top of the vessel and built a tent frame out of broomsticks and duct tape and lashed it to the vent pipe flange. Then they took the top half of 4 rain suits and duct taped them together and tied the whole mess to their tent frame.
This one incident I have related has most of what I listed. It is a true story. Stuff like this is done everyday at manufacturing plants all over the country. We will continue to have accidents until the purse gets opened a little wider and human nature as far as job performance goes improves.
So you think it's primarily cost, but also something to do with lacking the technology? That sounds reasonable. I had the good fortune to work with a former employer's aerospace division years ago (military contractor). Dude, it was like being Danica Patrick at a sponsor party. I can't swear to it, but I think even the carpets were made from shredded $100 bills. With government contracts (especially military), you create your profit margin when you write the proposal... and you'll easily get at least that level of profit (and probably more). My sense with oil, and most other industries, is that there is more unknown risk (for profit). But still, reading that TransOcean's study showing a roughly 45% failure rate of BOP's was pretty shocking. What's worse is that BP apparently modified this BOP in a way that wasn't kosher. So they took something that only worked about half the time anyway and really FUBAR'ed it. I heard something yesterday about some "shear mechanisms" that some BOP's have and some don't. I'm going to try to find a good illustration on those as soon as I get time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
IMO, deepwater drilling is an important sector. But clearly we've let the industry drift too far off on its own. It's not an area I've paid much attention to, outside of reading the odd Popular Science article over the years. But we've expended many more resources trying to understand space, and only a fraction of that amount understanding the deep sea. Since we need these rigs to function properly, and most of these various "green technologies" are still in their infancy, now is the time to devote more resources to developing whatever technologies are need to get BOP failure rates (well) below 45%... or maybe developing alternative safety measures.
I'm also saying there may be better, higher quality, more appropriate BOP devices out there that are far superior to what was used, but at a higher cost. The devices on the BP rig may have only met the minimum "as designed" specifications and therefore were ok for use. Kind of like the Titanic. The Titanic actually had more lifeboat space than was required by the minimum standards of the day.
As far as the real story on industrial safety and short cuts taken in the field goes, you'll have to spend a few years out there on your tools before you know and understand the truth. You'd be amazed to know how often a leaking, spewing pipe has a chunk of pointed broomstick handle driven into it and then secured with a duct tape wrap to plug or slow down the leak. Maybe they'll shut down and fix it and maybe they'll start looking for a wider broomstick.
Strongarmed 20 billion wont ever come close to restoring the jobs perminitly lost and the industries habitat that made them; those will never recover.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Being reamed big time but allowed to continue there stalling and destruction of the gulf and its surrounding states, Allowed to continue to drill in the future in the gulf, and in the ocean.
Let someone else clean up thier mess and send them the tab for everything when its all back to normal, until then stay out of the gulf and out of our country.How many chances would you give someone who destroyed your surroundings and way of life before you stoppeed them permenitly.
Money doesn't cover nor replace what they destroyed in the gulf.
And I'm only speaking of what BP did with this latest disaster and how they handled the after effects.Scapgoating,stalling and passing the buck.
I'm sure this will help us all to hide away in memory all the things that happened to poor old Georgy Porgy Boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by AAReagles
That wasn't my point and reguardless how you feel about Obama he too should have and could have done more. Only difference between George's Katrina and Obama's BP is Obama still has time to do the right thing.
I believe Obama is indeed trying to do the 'right thing' whatever that may be his hands are really tied with lack of options I believe. But if this had happened on Georgy Porgy's watch it would have been a grand cover up for all his buddies in BP and Halliburton, at least to the best of his ability to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by swoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by swoop
Still has time? When is the statute of limitations up on that Swoop? When the oil is in Key West? How about on the beach in Clearwater? How about South Padre??
Good god, the guy has done nothing but dither about what his role should be other than riding BP. Great, give them hell all you want, but don't tie up the US Corp in Engineers in a waiting game in putting out booms. Don't keep enforcing the Jones act, which stops foreign flagged ships from helping boom duty in domestic waters. Don't stop and tie up with studies the effects of putting up berms as Gov. Jindal wanted on the Louisana barrier beaches.
In short, He has talked a good game...but I think he is spending more time trying to figure out how to use this for his own political gain in getting cap and trade going then actually stopping the oil from coming ashore in the Gulf.
Bush was being burned at the stake 2 DAYS after Katrina....and the only reason that mess was as bad as it was because the brain dead governor of Louisana at the time, and that idiot Ray Nagin didn't make sure people LEFT New Orleans....
I agree whit that this however am Very perplexed by the BP people walking around so smugly waiting for the broom to push everything under the rug.Quote:
Originally Posted by BT46B
Notice I stated the BP people and not the British. Lets not get the two confused.
I love how people want to drag Dubya and Halliburton into this. This is BP's doing..period. What happens now the oil is leaking is BP's and Obama's resposibility to deal with. Obama is dropping his ball, and BP is dropping theirs.....
Could we be regaled with your academic record, please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
It is odd that many people on the right who preach personal responsibility, believe in the superiority of an unfettered private sector and dislike the interference of the state are so quick to insist that the state must become involved in a crisis which is entirely the making of a private sector company and are critical when it fails to clean up said company's mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Unfortunately, the arguments between government control and free market and socialism and capitalism frequently go from one extreme to another. Due mainly to the often heated debates on this forum, I have come to the conclusion there are valid arguments for each and that the various philosophies can work together. It's merely a question of balance. Nobody will get all they want. In applying your paragraph above to the BP incident, there are conditions that need to be taken into account. Firstly, the BP rig is on an area that is claimed, controlled, and the responsibility of the United States Federal Government. Secondly, by our law, the Feds have the responsibility to police and protect the environment in the area, regardless of who makes the mess. That doesn't mean BP doesn't have to try to clean it up but it does mean that the Feds have a duty and a responsibility to make every effort to contain and control the spill. Thirdly, apparently the rig met and was operated under, at the very least, the minimum operational standards required by the Feds to drill in that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The criticism of the Fed's handling of the BP blow out is justified to a large extent. They have environmental responsibility in an area they want to control being used by an industry that must operate under the controls, standards, and regulations of the Federal Government.
All very good points, and most eloquently put.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
I am going to first off say Fiero put it a little better than I did. What I am pointing out merely is that there are a lot of people wanting to blame this on Halliburton (they were involved in the consultation in the drilling of the well but advised against the BOP BP used) and Bush (just because that is the fashionable thing to do).Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Ben, I know I may not always make this as clear as I should, but I can also say a number of times I have preached government is there to regulate and make sure the law is followed. Companies should be personally responsbile, but it is government that has to protect the public. Where I take issue with this situation is the sheer fact that now the oil is spilling, Obama and his various minions have at times gotten in the way of protecting the shore from damage, and have more or less let BP muck about without any firm idea of what they are doing.
In short, it is a mess...and there is a lot of blame to go around on this one. No easy or simple solutions for sure, but the best thing the government can do is cut the red tape....
This is a good, and based upon experience, I'd say accurate initial account of the problems on the rig. I might also note this is an accurate portrayal of how the heavy industry still in the US has been operating for the last 12 years. Maintenance is performed on items that are convenient to work on or may be taken off line for short periods of time without affecting production. Maintenance on items that directly affect production simply isn't done. Run it until it breaks, jump in and fix it or jerry rig it to run awhile longer, and roll. Safety is usually pretty good if it can be addressed at the local level without corporate getting involved. Like I've said in earlier posts, if you think you know how these things run and really believe that safety is the number 1 priority all the time you're actually clueless and don't know sh!t. You have to spend 3-4 years in the field on your tools to understand how the game is played. I'd bet I could even guess the brand names of the equipment that gave them the most trouble. Those items have bad reps in field use. Why are they used? Because they work real good in static demonstrations and in the lab. They meet the minimum requirements. They are high tech and engineers love them them so in they go.
Round up the usual suspects. The production guys ignored the warnings of the guys in the field doing the work and something went boom. Nothing new.
I forgot the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us...nted=1&_r=1&hp