Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deepwater Horizon

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ombugge
    replied
    The below is lifted from :
    DAILY COLLECTION OF MARITIME PRESS CLIPPINGS 2011 – 115

    Companies, Crews and Regulators Share Blame in Coast Guard Report on Oil Spill
    The Coast Guard reported Friday that poor maintenance, inadequate training and a lax safety culture at Transocean contributed to the lethal explosion and sinking of the company’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig a year ago. The Coast Guard’s harshly worded 288-page study also declared that the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the mobile offshore drilling rig’s flag state, had failed in its regulatory duties. And the study faulted the Coast Guard itself for failing to ensure that large, complex offshore drilling units registered in foreign nations but operating in United States waters were properly maintained, staffed and inspected. “Although the events leading to the sinking of Deepwater Horizon were set into motion by the failure to prevent a well blowout,” the report states, “the investigation revealed numerous systems deficiencies, and acts and omissions by Transocean and its Deepwater Horizon crew, that had an adverse impact on the ability to prevent or limit the magnitude of the disaster.” The April 20, 2010, explosion and fire aboard the rig killed 11 men and injured 16 others. The resulting oil spill poured nearly five million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Transocean was under contract to BP to drill the Macondo well in 5,000 feet of water in the gulf off the coast of Louisiana. Since the fatal accident, BP, Transocean and another major contractor, Halliburton, have engaged in recriminations and lawsuits, with each accusing the others of negligence. Friday’s report will certainly become a factor in the resulting litigation and will most likely be read closely by Justice Department criminal and civil investigators. Transocean’s failures included the “inhibiting” of automatic safety warning systems, a lack of drills for an emergency evacuation, the installation of electrical equipment in places where it could ignite gases, a lack of barriers to protect crew members from a blast or fire, and a history of safety violations that were not addressed, according to the study. The rig also did not comply with regulations regarding the integrity of internal watertight compartments, and the crew did not have proper training or knowledge of onboard safety systems, the Coast Guard found. “The investigation revealed that Deepwater Horizon and its owner, Transocean, had serious safety management system failures and a poor safety culture,” the report said. Transocean disputed some of the central conclusions of the report, including assertions that it had failed safety inspections and did not have adequate fire prevention equipment on board. “We strongly disagree with, and documentary evidence in the Coast Guard’s possession refutes, key findings in this report,” Lou Colasuonno, a Transocean spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement Friday afternoon. “The Coast Guard inspected the Deepwater Horizon just seven months before the Macondo incident and certified the rig as being fully compliant with all applicable U.S. and international marine safety compliance standards, including those associated with fire and gas detection systems. Further, at the time of the accident the Deepwater Horizon possessed all required valid documents verifying compliance with all international and Coast Guard requirements.” The government of the Marshall Islands, in a statement, criticized the Coast Guard report as based on “conjecture and speculation.” Bill Gallagher, the islands’ senior deputy commissioner of maritime affairs, said his government was conducting its own investigation and complained that the islands were not allowed to review or comment on the Coast Guard report. He also said the Coast Guard should have waited until the investigation was complete before delivering its verdict. The Coast Guard and the Interior Department conducted 25 days of public hearings and have spent much of the past year interviewing witnesses and reviewing documents from the companies involved in the accident. Because the drilling rig is classified as a ship, its operations fall under Coast Guard jurisdiction. Six current or retired Coast Guard officers oversaw its part of the investigation, although only three are named in the report. The report does not address the role of the other parties in the disaster. A separate study of the causes of the well failure is being prepared by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, the federal regulatory agency that oversees offshore drilling. That report is due in July. Numerous other investigations, including one by a panel appointed by President Obama, have found that BP’s drilling practices, Halliburton’s cement work and Transocean’s operation of the rig all contributed to the accident.

    ALSO INTERESTED IN THIS FREE MARITIME NEWSCLIPPINGS ? PLEASE VISIT THE WEBSITE :WWW.MAASMONDMARITIME.COM AND REGISTER FOR FREE !
    The blame game is on. This report is obviously written with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and with limited considerations (or knowledge?) of the reality BEFORE this accident.

    Nearly ALL deepwater rigs working in the Gulf of Mexico are foreign flag and foreign built. Even homegrown American companies that owns and manage most of them have their "official" HQ outside the US, but their Operational office in Houston, or other places in the US.

    This is to avoid/minimize US Taxation and because US flag vessels has to be US built. Most of the new Drillships are built in Korea, while DP Semi-submersibles are built in Korea, Singapore and now in China, but with design, machinery and equipment, (incl. drilling equipment) mostly from Europe.

    Why is that?? Because the facilities and technology to do so is not available in the US any more. There are only TWO US yards left that can build rigs and then only Jack-ups for shallow water. (<130 m./425 ft) One of those are owned by Keppel FELS in Singapore.

    The perseption that the USCG has stricter rules for MODUs than regulatory bodies in other countries is also a misconception. (In fact that honour goes to NMD in Norway)

    Internationally IMO MODU Code applies to all Mobile Offshore Drilling Units and other Offshore Vessels and Barges, regardless of Ownership, flag or area of operation. USCG has juristiction only over MODUs under US Flag, or units working within US EEZ.
    (The Jones Act limit foreign flag vessels from working inside US territorial waters, but not within the US EEZ)

    It is true that the control with MODUs working in US waters have been lax, both for US and foreign flag units, and USCG have been one of the culpits.

    The point about lack of formal training of peronnel is the most important item here, beside the lax safety culture that exists in the US Offshore Industry domestically. Once they operate outside the US, with stronger regulatory regimes, they have to comply with international standard.

    My opinion of the so called Safety Programmes that applies in most Companies is stated in post #110 above and several other posts in this thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Steve.B View Post
    But i have to agree, either way, the lawyers are going to be living off this meal ticket for a very long time to come.
    The lawyers ,ultimately, will be the only ones to see any "benefit" from this whole debacle.

    And it will be a media circus. Ah, well...we need something to fill up the news after the Royal Wedding and before the Presidential Election..........................

    Sad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve.B
    replied
    I think it will be interesting to see how the media will react to this, if at all. Will it be seen as another opportunity to do some BP bashing, making out that the horrible BP are now trying to blame anyone but themselves for this incident? Or, will it show the world in general that BP were not the only culprits regarding the disaster? Because i think at this moment in time, if a survey was taken of the general public, then maybe 85/100 would believe BP were the only guilty ones in this case. And that would be down to the manner in which the media have slated BP right from the start. And i include the British media, they are as guilty as anyone else when it comes to this.

    But i have to agree, either way, the lawyers are going to be living off this meal ticket for a very long time to come.

    Leave a comment:


  • ombugge
    replied
    Originally posted by Steve.B View Post
    Looks like BP does not want to take all the blame lying down. They have just started to take legal action against Haliburton, Transocean and Cameron. Reports suggest that they are looking for $42bn and above from each of the companies.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bp-...MW_latest_news

    http://af.reuters.com/article/energy...27646720110421
    Ohh, the Lawyers will have a never ending meal ticket here. They will dig into every aspects of the incident and ask irrelevant questions to throw witnesses off track. (I know, I have been Expert Witness in a few Arbitration cases and at the receiving end of that treatment)

    To get anything to stick on Camron will be hard, as the BOP stack had been in use for years. The manufacturer is not responsible for maintenance and testing, the Owner (Transocean) is.

    Halliburton would have a tougher time as they were responsible for the cement job that appears to have been the first direct cause of the blow out.
    But the BP Companyman and the Transocean Rig Manager (OIM) approved the procedure and test result so , again, that will be a hard sell.

    Now, the one party who is likely to get some of the blame is obviously Transocean, since they were the main Contractor and ultimately responsible for maintenance of the rig and the BOP stack. The OIM has final word on both the way the Plug and Abandon operation and the leak-off test was done. That he deferred to the Companyman is another matter.

    What indemnities there may have been in the contracts between BP and the Driilling Contractor and/or the various sub-contractors is not known to me, but it is likely to be one of the arguing points.

    The ones that will have the toughest time to "wash their hands" of any responsibilities here will likely be the partners in the venture, Anerdoko and Mitsui Oil.
    Unless they can PROVE that BP was acting unlawfully and with gross negligence, they are responsible for their share of the cost according to their share in the venture.

    Well, those who live long enough will see the end result, but by than it will probably be so far back in history that it has little interest to anybody.
    Last edited by ombugge; April 22nd, 2011, 06:46.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve.B
    replied
    BP to sue Haliburton, Transocean and Cameron over the spill.

    Looks like BP does not want to take all the blame lying down. They have just started to take legal action against Haliburton, Transocean and Cameron. Reports suggest that they are looking for $42bn and above from each of the companies.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bp-...MW_latest_news

    http://af.reuters.com/article/energy...27646720110421

    Leave a comment:


  • Remarc
    replied
    I thought the "Safety Bonuses" were ridiculous and a slap in the face to those that lost loved ones in the accident, but now it seems good will come from these bonuses. I just hope this is of good will and not PR.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/05/gul...ex.html?hpt=T2

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve.B
    replied
    So i have browsed through the reports, and i underline only browsed. One hell of a lot of information to digest, especially if like me you know very little about how the industry works.

    But, i guess i must ask the obvious question, does this report mean that in future all new BOP's will have a different design of blind sheer ram fitted?, and will existing BOP's be fitted with a redesigned BSR? Obviously there were reasons why the pipe buckled in the first place (which is where it gets a little bit too involved for me), but what is obvious from the report, is that the bottom BSR could not do it's job because the drill pipe had buckled, and therefore missed the cutting edges of the BSR.

    So i am guessing that when these type of BSR's were designed, nobody ever gave thought to what would happen if the drill pipe was way off centre? - like rammed right over to one side like in this case? Maybe they thought that such a thing could never happen? But now they know it can happen, will they redesign the BSR's and fit them in future?

    Again, obviously a lot more was involved in the incident, but this little part of the report is something i can understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • ombugge
    replied
    Originally posted by Remarc View Post
    Bonuses, Did someone say bonuses?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12949637
    Surprised are you??

    Safety means wearing FULL PPE, especially Safety Glasses and write at least one "Stop Card" every day.
    Catastrophes like the Deepwater Horizon falls outside the scope of the Safety Programs of most Drilling Contractors. As long as nobody miss a day of work from minor injuries the aims of the Safety Program is met.

    REAL safety cost money!!!

    PS> 11 men died in the Deepwater Horizon "incident", but at least they died with all their fingers and toes intact. Now THAT IS SAFETY.
    Last edited by ombugge; April 5th, 2011, 08:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • Remarc
    replied
    Bonuses, Did someone say bonuses?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12949637

    Leave a comment:


  • bigboatbill
    replied
    So what do think Ombugge, Do you feel that out current method of deep water drilling the best we could do??
    I know that the chances of a spill like this are very low, but it is still very dangerous. I feel that much more should be done to find other methods. There must be more oil in the oceans, than in all of the Middle East.
    Or, we can find a different way to produce energy. Until the tsunami in Japan I felt our best bet was with nuclear power. (Just my opinion)
    Thanks for all of the information Ombugge, the 36 years that you put in really shows. I wish our local paper could have explained it as well as you did.
    Last edited by bigboatbill; March 25th, 2011, 04:52. Reason: thank Ombugge

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve.B
    replied
    Thank you for the links Ombugge, i look forward to reading through the report.

    Leave a comment:


  • ombugge
    replied
    The forensic report on the BOP is out: http://www.oilonline.com/default.asp...do+BOP+results

    Leave a comment:


  • ombugge
    replied
    The Presidential Commission has come with their draft report on this "Incident" (I wonder if anybody prepared an "Accident, Incident and Near-miss Report per ISM requirement???)

    It comes as no surprise to me that the blame isn't only BP's, as I have insinuated in earlier posts.

    The conclusion was that all parties involved had failed in following the routines and applying good judgement. It doesn't appear that Transocean's "Management of Change" policy was followed either. Changes to, or rather bypass of, the prepared procedures appears to have made in the good old way, not according to ISM requirements.

    I haven't read the draft report, only seen what has been reported in the media, which is probably abstracts to suite an agenda in any case. I noticed that the commission did not find any indication that somebody had ordered rules to be bent to save money, nor that there had been a deliberate decision made on board to that affect. Yet, what came on BBC World News was that saving money was one of the reasons for the incident.

    I don't think anybody in their right mind would deliberately take unacceptable risk, especially on board the rig, to save money for BP, nor that any responsible person within BP, or Transocean, would order such action against better knowledge.

    What is the reason that such actions were allowed then??? Lack of understanding of the risks involved, which may be because of lack of formal training and experience on part of the person(s) who held the ultimate responsibility for the way all operations are conducted.

    Legally, that is the OIM, but in too many cases he gets "over ruled" by the Companyman, or by shore based personnel within his own organization. If he shuts down the rig, or hold up the operation, thus avoiding a possible major accident, this may be seen as "unreasonable" demands. (No accident occurred, what was all the fuss about?) The Operator (BP in this case) may request him replaced according to standard IADC Drilling Contract. NOTE: I DO NOT IMPLY THAT THIS WAS THE CASE HERE.

    Never mind that there is a "Stop Work" policy, saying that anybody has the right to shut down the operation, if they feel that it is conducted in an unsafe manner.
    This appears to apply only to small things/small jobs, minor infringements of safety, or a "slip, trip and fall" risk etc., not to the actual drilling operation.

    How to avoid such accidents in the future??
    - Clear lines of command, authority and responsibility on board all drilling rigs, and between Drilling Contractors and Operators, incl. their Service Companies.
    - Better formal education, training and certification of senior personnel on drilling rigs.
    - Better regulations and control from the authorities side. (Not just more of the same)
    - Better safety equipment and protective equipment to avoid that such incidents become catastrophes.

    There have been a lot of talk about the oil spill, but the eleven men that lost their life has hardly been mentioned, except for the first few days. The oil can be removed, or nature will take care of it over time, but those who lost their life will not come back.

    I'm waiting to see the draft report. The Final Report will only be issued after it has been picked over by parties with special interests, (like the US Gov.) and will not be as important to understanding this event as the present one.

    Maybe I'm and old cynic, but I been working in the Oil Industry for 36 years, both on the rigs and in shore based management.

    Leave a comment:


  • ombugge
    replied
    For those of you who has spent hours watching ROVs at work in the GOM, here is one "dry":


    And the Manipulator Arms that you have seen working with such great precision:


    Actually, precision is very much up to the skill of the Operator and his 3D perceptions of a 2D picture on a flickering screen.

    Young people, who have grown up playing Computer Games, appears to have the best perception, but not necessarily the technical understanding that is also required to be a good ROV "Pilot".

    Leave a comment:


  • wherrygirl
    replied
    UK Radio 4 Today programme announced recently that the state of Louisiana is suing Transocean for damages from the oil spill. I don't seem to have heard any thunderings from the White House supporting the action!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X