Report: Deepwater Horizon rig was reportedly not equipped with a shutoff switch

[seafan]

.....because the U. S. "regulations" don't require them.


W T F



Updates, April 29, 2010:


Washington Post

.....

Doug Suttles, BP's chief operating officer, said in a "Today" show interview Thursday that the company welcomes the offer of U.S. military help. He did not, however, specify what type of help might be coming.

On Wednesday, the Coast Guard said the company corralled the thickest areas of the oil slick inside fireproof booms, lighted it late in the afternoon and burned it for 28 minutes. By burning off several thousand gallons of oil, the Coast Guard said, it could limit damage to coastal areas.

The unusual strategy has been used for damaged tankers in World War II, in an oil spill off Britain and in rare cases on inland waters in Louisiana and Texas. But a burn off U.S. shores and the prospect of oil landing on the gulf coastline could become powerful symbols of the perils of offshore drilling, just as President Obama and Congress appear set to open new areas to offshore oil and gas exploration.

.....

At its current rate, the spill could surpass by next week the size of the 1969 Santa Barbara spill that helped lead to the far-reaching moratorium on oil and gas drilling off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, a ban that Obama recently said he wants to modify. It would take about 260 days for this incident to exceed the size of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska, but it took several weeks for a similar oil well blowout to be brought under control off the coast of Australia last year.

.....

A BP official said controlled burns can get rid of 50 to 99 percent of oil within a limited area, but Robert Bea, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley who worked on controlling the damage of the Santa Barbara spill, warned that in open seas, companies have generally captured less than 10 percent of oil spilled.

"It's premature to say this is catastrophic," said Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry. "I will say that this is very serious."

(Pardon us for noticing, but this Coast Guard official has not inspired confidence in her assessments.)




ABC News:

With five times more oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico than originally estimated and the price tag for last week's explosion predicted at $8 billion, questions about BP's response and level of responsibility are mounting.
Doug Suttles, the energy company's chief operating officer, admitted some responsibility for the disaster "because we're the lease holder," but assigning blame, he said, should come after the cleanup.

.....

The new leak estimate is about 5,000 barrels a day, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

.....

The Deepwater Horizon rig was reportedly not equipped with a shutoff switch that could have been used to try to close the well. Such switches are not required in the United States, but are used in other countries such as Norway and Brazil.

But Suttles said the rig was equipped with some safety devices that should have prevented this kind of spill.
"They didn't do that, we don't know why they didn't do that and ultimately we will find out," he said.

Suttles was quick to point out that another company was operating the rig at the time of the explosion, not London-based BP.

"I can say that we had equipment required by the regulations," he said. "We don't know why, when the accident occurred, and I should probably clarify, the lease we are drilling on is owed by BP and a few other companies."

.....

Oil from the area is called sweet crude, but LSU's Overton said the name is deceptive. It contains heavy compounds, called asphaltenes, that do not burn easily or evaporate, even in the warm climate off Louisiana.
"When you've got a spill like this," said Overton, "there are three things you can do. You can burn it, scoop it up out of the water, or use chemical dispersants to break it up. This oil is not particularly good with any of those three."

"With light crude," he said, "you could burn most of it -- 70 or 80 percent. With heavy crude, I don't know. I'm not optimistic."

These are the questions I want answered at this point:


1. Who are the other companies in addition to BP that own this lease?

2. Which company was operating this rig at the time of the explosion?

3. Why does the U. S. not require the use of shutoff switches to close these wells, as is required in Norway and Brazil? What year did that regulation fall by the wayside?

4. How many oil rigs off our shores are not equipped with shut off switches?



When we obtain answers to these questions, we will be a good distance down the trail of responsibility for this ecological disaster.



(This is a cross-post from this thread.)

[Are_grits_groceries]

1. Nope. They weren't.

I heard that on GMA this am. If I start really thinking about it, I will stroke out. I had to put my hair out because it caught on fire.

There are soooooooooooooooo many people to blame, including me. I should have made a hell of a lot more noise about going green.

[sui generis]

2. the appropriate journalistic line here is

What methods does an oil rig use BESIDES magical shut off switches to manage catastrophic oil flow?

The economic reality is that oil rigs cost crap loads of money and cleanup and assignation costs even more. I don't believe that any rig would just be maverick about it for any number of reasons. We want to blame incompetence and people when their processes and backup plans may have simply failed to work as expected.

If I were a journalist, I would stop focusing on the HORROR and DEVASTATION of this incident and start asking what other oil platforms have the same backup measures in place and how much at risk are other installations for the same kind of incident if nothing is different elsewhere?

The other question I would ask is, would a "shut off switch" have made any difference in this situation? How do they work? Is there more than one kind? Generally speaking how is the process supposed to have worked?

[Arctic Dave]

3. Utter Bullshit! If BP is leasing the rig they are ultimately responsible for it.

It is BP's responsibilty to make sure equipment is operational and personnell are trained during any operation.

I am not sure exactely what switch he is refering to but BOPs are a part of any drilling apperatus.

Trying to deflect blame. Nail his ass to the wall.

[pocoloco]

4. WTF

How could you get hands for any rig without a BOP?

No company would risk rig and platform!

It may have failed but you can bet it had one!!

[Evasporque]

5. "Drill baby drill"

Spill baby spill...

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. The "acoustic switch" is what they lacked.

The Deepwater Horizon oil rig that exploded last week was not outfitted with a safety device that might have prevented the massive oil spill now nearing the U.S. Gulf Coast. The device, known as an acoustic switch, is a last-resort protection against underwater spills, and is required by regulators in Norway and Brazil. Unfortunately, the U.S. has no such regulation for oil wells operating off of its shores.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, an acoustic switch is a remote control device that a crew can use in an attempt to trigger an underwater valve that shuts down a well that’s damaged. The switch is meant as a last resort, as the primary shut-off systems almost always work on wells when they are out of control. It can be triggered from a lifeboat if an oil platform has to be evacuated.

According to the Journal, U.S regulators did consider requiring the acoustic switch on offshore wells, but drilling companies resisted because of its cost, and questions about its effectiveness. To be fair, the switches have never been tested in real-world situations, only simulations. U.S. regulators also maintain they are prone to causing unnecessary shutdowns.

Still, while U.S. regulators and some oil producers have doubts about the acoustic switch, a spokesperson for Norway’s Petroleum Safety Authority told the Journal the switches have a good track record in the North Sea. In addition to mandates in Norway and Brazil, some oil producers, including Royal Dutch Shell PLC and France’s Total SA, sometimes use the device even when it’s not required, the Journal said.

Industry critics cite the lack of the device as a sign U.S. drilling policy has been too lax, and say it shows the oil industry has too much say in what regulations are adopted here.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Minerals Management Service told the Journal that the agency ultimately decided against requiring acoustic switches because it determined most rigs already had back-up systems of some kind.
http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/19959

There were backup systems, but not this one.

[seafan]

8. Great information, thanks. Once again, what Big Oil wanted, prevailed.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. I can answer question #3

Back in 2000 the Minerals Management Service issued a notice stating a backup shutoff system is an essential component of deepwater drilling system. This was after a drilling ship experienced a leak.

The method considered at the time was the acoustic switch, which is the one you're referring to. The International Association of Drilling Contractors argued in a report issued in 2001 that "significant doubts remain in regard to the ability of this type of system to provide a reliable emergency back-up control system during an actual well flowing incident."

In 2003 it was decided by US regulators that the remote controlled (acoustic switch) needed more study. And since there were other - less expensive - safeguards in place they dropped the issue. I'd like to point out the other safeguards consist of the deadman switch and the remote subs which have both failed in this case.

[seafan]

9. It all just comes down to money, rather than safety. It's beyond unacceptable. It's criminal.

From here:

.....

Among the worst U.S. disasters, a rig 80 miles off the Louisiana coast suffered a blowout in 1964 that resulted in 21 deaths. In 1989, seven workers died when a natural-gas platform exploded. Last year, a helicopter carrying workers to a Shell Oil Co. rig crashed, killing eight.

.....

Oilfield work, including both offshore and on land, isn't nearly as risky as commercial fishing and is somewhat less dangerous than coal mining, according to federal statistics on fatalities per hours worked. But the more than 30,000 workers in the Gulf of Mexico aren't nearly the safest among the world's offshore work forces.

In comparison, here's Norway's track record, with their use of acoustic shut off switches:

.....

Norwegian offshore drillers keep as many as 9,000 workers on duty in waters that include the treacherous North Sea. There were six deaths from 1999 through 2008 and no deaths during five years of that period.

Magne Ognedal, director general of Norway's Petroleum Safety Authority, said industry and regulators coordinate more closely with workers than their U.S. counterparts do to prevent deaths, fires, explosion and spills.

"It's one complexity," Ognedal said. "When I use the term ‘safety,' I mean protection of people, protection of the external environment, and protection of the economic values."

.....

It is criminal, what Big Oil is getting away with.



From the WSJ:


April 29, 2010

The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have a remote-control shut-off switch used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.

The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig, hired by oil giant BP PLC, last week.

.....

Industry critics cite the lack of the remote control as a sign U.S. drilling policy has been too lax. "What we see, going back two decades, is an oil industry that has had way too much sway with federal regulations," said Dan McLaughlin, a spokesman for Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson. "We are seeing our worst nightmare coming true."

U.S. regulators have considered mandating the use of remote-control acoustic switches or other back-up equipment at least since 2000. After a drilling ship accidentally released oil, the Minerals Management Service issued a safety notice that said a back-up system is "an essential component of a deepwater drilling system."

The industry argued against the acoustic systems. A 2001 report from the International Association of Drilling Contractors said "significant doubts remain in regard to the ability of this type of system to provide a reliable emergency back-up control system during an actual well flowing incident."

By 2003, U.S. regulators decided remote-controlled safeguards needed more study. A report commissioned by the Minerals Management Service said "acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly."

I wonder whether this was one of the items on Dick Cheney's secretive Energy Task Force agenda in early 2001 that, to this day, has been hidden from the American people, with help from buddies on the Supreme Court.



So, this 2003 decision to flush acoustic switches on oil rigs was decided during George W. Bush's reign...


We will find that those years will be a resurgent cancer on this nation for many years to come.

[SidDithers]

10. I wouldn't hold Norway up as a shining example...

A Norweigian platform, drilling the Ekofisk field in the North Sea, suffered a blowout in 1977, and dumped more than 200,000 bbl (8.5 million gallons) of oil before it was capped.

All oil companies have had major incidents, and no one is any better or worse than another.

Sid

[AnArmyVeteran]

11. Business Priority: Quick term big gains always trump long term modest ones.

I wonder what the cost of an acoustic switch is and how much it would cost to have them installed on all oil rigs. Would it be less than the 8 billion estimate to clean up the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico?

The airline industry fought long and hard to prevent the cabin doors on planes to be reinforced. They said it would increase the cost of planes. Then the attacks on 9/11 happened when reinforced doors could have prevented the takeover of the planes by terrorists. The short sighted, reckless disregard for the safety of passengers and our country by irresponsible airline companies led to a massive loss of wealth and the demise of many airlines, which went bankrupt.

Why do businesses always only want short term big gains, rather than act responsibly and just strive for long term modest gains? And conservatives want less and less regulation. If we lived in a regulation-free country we would soon look like a combination between Haiti and Somalia, two libertarian paradises.

[seafan]

12. One acoustic switch costs $500,000, compared with $6 million a day to fight this disaster.

See this link for details.

[AnArmyVeteran]

13. That's 16,000 acoustic switches they could have bought...

If the 8 billion dollar estimate is accurate then 16,000 acoustic switches could have been bought and installed on offshore oil rigs. The wreckless and irresponsible behavior of businesses never ceases to amaze me.

[Doctor_J]

14. BBC Radio this AM: BP lobbyists fought regulation

they're in charge of the clean-up now.

[MisterP]

15. echoes of Piper Alpha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Alpha

in the late 70s, grand malaise under Labour let Thatcher come in and blame the government and the wicked, hateful unions for everything; state-led developmentalism was "debunked" from China to Poland and Tanzania to Mexico and the Dominican Republic. Anthony Burgess embarrased himself with the screed 1985. as part of the 80s' grand neoliberal wave ("Reaganomics" in the 80s, unquestioned founding belief in the 00s and 10s), everything was privatized and deregulated: economies collapsed around the world. Thousands were, and are being, killed, and billions moved into prole or sub-prole jobs. furthermore, what I just wrote is verboten to those hailing the magical power of cash to "create jobs," as though money was some supernatural force that existed before even the earth formed.