BP Ignored Safety Software In Setting Up Oil Well
from the no-surprise-there dept
Slashdot points us to the news about how BP blatantly ignored the advice of safety software that it was using in setting up the oil well at the center of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster. Apparently, much of this information slipped out accidentally. The Oil Spill Commission accidentally revealed the following slide, which it had not meant to post, which highlights many of the “risky” steps taken by BP, Halliburton and Transocean in an effort to cut corners and save time:
“Who cares, it’s done, end of story, we’ll probably be fine.”
Ah, yes. Now there’s an email someone now wishes they had not written.
Filed Under: safety software
Companies: bp, halliburton, transocean
Comments on “BP Ignored Safety Software In Setting Up Oil Well”
Famous last words together with “Hey! look”
OH dear. That should NOT end well.
But we knoe it will. I suspect ’tis time for a revolution, America.
Re: Re:
“…end well” FTW!
Accidentally?
This would be the goverment established Oil Spill Commission? From the same government that started using the catchphrase “british petroleum” ad-nauseam to distance itself from any possible responsibility or american link in the problem despite the fact that bp is almost 50% american, and hasn’t been “british petroleum” for many many years – not since it bought Amoco, an american company.
Pardon me if I question the “accidental” nature of the leak (and it’s interesting that leaks seem just fine when they are in the government’s interest…) and indeed question the impartiality of the source.
Before the flames start, I’m not defending bp – they f*ucked up big-style – but there’s plenty or blame to go around and an awful lot of bullsh*t being moved to try and hand it off.
Re: Accidentally?
Amusingly, this didn’t stop certain British newspapers demanding that the British government step in on behalf of BP’s behalf for reasons of national prestige.
One wonders how they would have reacted if BP’s habit of cutting safety corners had come back to bite them on the arse aboard a rig off the coast of Scotland, not in the Gulf of Mexico.
Re: Re: Accidentally?
Hey, nobody said america had the monopoly on pointless rhetoric…. And I think you might find that at least one of the papers in question is kind of equivalent to your senator Lieberman if it was the one I think.
Actually the entirely valid reason the british government should have stepped in and told Mr. O to stop being such a grandstanding asshole is that it screws the entire UK economy and especially pensions, which are in a state already.. and doesn’t do much for the the US economy either – taking down bp (which may or may not have been the aim, if not was serious brinkmanship) would have screwed the US economy to the tune of around 150,000 jobs plus many other knock-on effects.
Not really that simple. For a variety of reasons, it’s far less likely to have happened in the North Sea. For a start the Gulf is cutting edge technology in drilling, which not only directly increases risk but also increases economic pressure on it. The North Sea isn’t – practices there have had many years for refinement. There is also the (to put it delicately) rather different cultural and administation response regarding “health and safety” between the 2 countries that comes into play not just for bp but in general.
In answer to your hypothetical though, I’d hope that in that case the UK government would beat the crap out of them make them clean it up (which they would and did do anyway) and pehaps make them pay for a full and (properly) independant audit of their rigs and facilities to ensure similar f*ck-ups weren’t endemic. I would also hope that the supposedly famous british reserve would stop it short of ridiculous hyberbole, chest-beating, shirt-rending and vitriol that seems to come as natural as breathing to the average US politician and (no offense, but it’s how it looks from outside) mostly be bought into hook, line, sinker, rod and copy of angling times by the US public at large. At the very least I think we could count on the UK goverment to add at least a little enlightened self interest over going for whipping up a mass-hysteria response.
Re: Re: Re: Accidentally?
Actually the entirely valid reason the british government should have stepped in and told Mr. O to stop being such a grandstanding asshole is that it screws the entire UK economy and especially pensions, which are in a state already.. and doesn’t do much for the the US economy either – taking down bp (which may or may not have been the aim, if not was serious brinkmanship)
Theoretically the point was not to help the US economy or take down BP, but to make the responsible party clean up the mess. Which I doubt is what’s actually happening. From what I’ve heard, there’s a huge quantity of oil all over the bottom of the gulf, and BP isn’t cleaning it up. I hope I’m wrong though.
Re: Re: Re:2 Accidentally?
If that’s theoretically true then he’s an even bigger fool than I took him for! If the 40 or 50 times they pledged to do exactly that weren’t enough, then he did damn near kill the company with what he did and you can’t get much out of a dead horse not to mention screwing much of the very population that the spill hit since the first thing to have gone would be the various industries supporting oil working along that coast. That seems an odd-ish thing to do if your aim is cleaning up and fixing things….
No, you’re probably not wrong – I’d expect they’ll clean up all their own oil but for each spill found they’ll likely test it, determine the origin (oil is unique to a well) and no doubt leave it alone if it’s not theirs. There was loads out there before the disaster from ALL the wells in the Gulf. I suppose it’s possible the US government will get all rambo’d up again and make them clean up everyone elses mess too – after all “British Petroleum” (whoever they are) are evil aren’t they? No one else can possibly be even slightly to blame.
Re: Re: Re:3 Accidentally?
If that’s theoretically true then he’s an even bigger fool than I took him for! If the 40 or 50 times they pledged to do exactly that weren’t enough, then he did damn near kill the company…
Well I did say theoretically. In reality the administration’s goal was probably more political. Be seen to do something about the problem, look like he’s holding BP’s feet to the fire, etc.
No, you’re probably not wrong – I’d expect they’ll clean up all their own oil…
Was it really not obvious I was talking about the oil from this spill?
Re: Re: Re:4 Accidentally?
Which was part of my point – it seems an odd-ish thing to do to go for this kind of brinkmanship with a serious risk of doing even greater harm than had already been done simply for the sake of “politics”. I suspect as much as anything else the media frenzy was deliberately whipped to divert any possible blame coming the administration’s way. Bear in mind at the time there were no real facts other than the failure and spill and deep water is a ludicrously difficult and dangerous place to drill and it was the government stood up and signed the licenses and signed off the (published if not followed!) safety procedures and mechanisms and I also seem to remember the president saying how great a victory it was for US energy independence
Not that the UK did any better… I was particularly impressed when David Cameron masterfully alternated waffling with saying nothing in a desperate attempt to not shoot himself in the foot while trying to stay sucked-up to the US government. “I’d like to buy a failure please”, “Oh! I’m sorry sir we only have epic ones left.”, “Splendid! I’ll take a dozen….”. I think “unready for the job” is probably an understatement and with it the BBC was going along with the party line with some of the most partisan and misleading reporting I’ve seen this side of Fox news. I got pretty sick of that damn pelican too…. resilient b*gger though.
“Apparently, much of this information slipped out accidentally.”
Whoever leaked this information should be tried for treason and executed. We can not have our corporations being held accountable for their actions, it is a matter of national security.
/sarcasm (JIC)
Captain Renault...
…is shocked, shocked! to find that BP personnel put profits ahead of safety…the environment…best practices…established procedure…sound engineering…responsible operation…expert recommendations…regulatory requirements…experienced judgment…
Re: Captain Renault...
…and profits.
While I hope the US government keeps up with their threat to make BP pay for all of it, I would not be surprised if they didn’t. Even if they don’t, that’s still got to be a big hit to their bottom line.
Re: Re: Captain Renault...
it will be ruled that BP is too big to fail and the taxpayers both in the US and Europe will be footing the cost…
Re: Re: Re: Captain Renault...
If it does fail we will foot the bill both sides of the Atlantic and it’s likely to be bigger than the cost of propping it up. Besides, if either government did prop it up there’s an argument to be made that if you’re going to make bp to clean up its’ own mess, perhaps governments might be held to the same standard. If it failed all by itself as a result of its’ own c*ckups that’d be one thing – that’s what the free market is supposedly for – to drive it under for the sake of political grandstanding and blame shifting is quite another.
Re: Re: Re:2 Captain Renault...
I wonder if it would work to seize and sell off BP’s assets to cover the cleanup costs if they fail to do it themselves. Not sure if there’s any legal process to allow that but it seems likely through some kind of bankruptcy proceeding.
Re: Re: Re:3 Captain Renault...
Well I’m sure that Mr. O would love nothing more but even he’s not that stupid. A/ you could only sieze the assets in the states anyway B/ That’d be even more legally dodgy than most of the tenuous justifications for siezures recently and C/ You’d almost certainly not get enough money to fix everything – the only way you get that is with a living company paying constantly, which by the way is what bp said they were doing and going to do all along long before the rabid gnashing of teeth started.
Oh, by the way, another fact-ette – not all the oil floating around the gulf and washed up on beaches is bp’s. There was tons of the stuff there before hand and always has been since drilling started in the gulf. Disasterous though it was let’s not pretend that it hasn’t happened before. For a start 1 of the clips they used on the news during the spill was from the Exxon Valdiz (remember that?) and oil companies in general including US ones don’t exactly have a great rep for cleaning up around the world – Nigeria for example. I think it was Exxon Mobil there that’s still dragging it’s feet over any compensation at all.
Or as usual does it only count as a disaster when it affects americans?
Re: Re: Re:4 Captain Renault...
Well I’m sure that Mr. O would love nothing more but even he’s not that stupid.
You think Obama is stupid? I can understand a lot of valid criticism of him, but calling him stupid is not on that list.
That’d be even more legally dodgy than most of the tenuous justifications for siezures recently
The scenario I’m thinking of is that the government gets some kind of order (via EPA? courts? not sure) requiring BP to clean up. Assuming that is legitimate, and I hope they do have that power, then from there assume BP fails to do so, or declares bankruptcy due to inability to pay. Certainly in the bankruptcy case, liquidation could be an option. In the failure to pay case, I could imagine seizure of assets being a last ditch penalty.
Maybe it wouldn’t pay for everything, but it would pay for more than a company that isn’t paying for anything. Not that BP is doing that, I really don’t know. I would like to see them foot the entire bill. Pretty sure that’s not going to happen though.
Oh, by the way, another fact-ette – not all the oil floating around the gulf and washed up on beaches is bp’s. There was tons of the stuff there before hand and always has been since drilling started in the gulf.
I don’t think anyone was claiming otherwise.
Or as usual does it only count as a disaster when it affects americans?
Are you really that ignorant, or do you just get a kick out of insulting Americans?
Re: Re: Re:5 Captain Renault...
*shrug* it’s a short summing up word – I suppose I could have said “apparantly woefully inept at looking at the bigger picture, far too interested in TV soundbites and grandstanding and looking pretty naive on the world stage” but it wouldn’t have scanned as well.
Well I haven’t seen anything to suggest that they won’t follow through as promised and the money is being put there as agreed so if they don’t the US government could certainly use that itself to do what it can. Do you have any particular reason to believe they won’t? I’ll admit I wouldn’t be massively suprised to see a major corporation weasel out of a deal, but in this case it seems more in their interest to follow through – if not they could just have declared bancruptcy in the states and continued trading elsewhere, or perhaps sold of their US assets and pulled out. Arguably in the short term they might even have been better off doing so.
No, but I have a different perspective. Perhaps I should have said “american interests” rather than “americans”. I might be wrong but I think if you asked around the planet, other nations might say that the america will leap in all guns blazing where it’s directly in their interest, but where it’s not they appear to be curiously absent.
It wasn’t intended as an insult – at least not in that sense. Each nation has it’s own faults. To my mind one of america’s is the arrogance of youth – thinking you (as a nation) are right all the time and refusing to learn from history because you do, lashing out when upset and sulking when you don’t get your own way.
Having worked with and known other people who have to work with, US companies or other parts of the same company in the US, it is suprising how many times you hear that they (the americans) are difficult to deal with because they simply assume that the “way it works” in america is the way it works in, for example, europe and that’s simply not the case. This to the point that a collegue during 1 project basically became an apologist for the US project team to smooth over all the faux-pas they’d made in dealing with the rest of Europe. America is great at many things, adapting to work well with others simply doesn’t seem to be one of them.
Britain on the other hand perhaps has the arrogance of the “upper class gentleman” – being sure one is right because one has seen it all before don’t you know? Resting on laurels, thinking the world owes one a living because one got there first, perhaps appearing all too snobbish to others, carping when others don’t do things the “right” way.
Both of those weaknesses have a flip-side of strengths but neither is ideal. Of course it could be worse – if I were to point at a nation with the arrogance of the truely barking mad megalonaniac, I’m sure you could guess who I mean.
Re: Re: Re:6 Captain Renault...
it’s a short summing up word – I suppose I could have said “apparantly woefully inept at looking at the bigger picture, far too interested in TV soundbites and grandstanding and looking pretty naive on the world stage” but it wouldn’t have scanned as well.
Sure, but… “stupid” doesn’t sum those things up. Oh well.
other nations might say that the america will leap in all guns blazing where it’s directly in their interest, but where it’s not they appear to be curiously absent.
They might say that, but I think responses to things like the Haitian earthquake and the tsunami in Indonesia indicate otherwise.
Each nation has it’s own faults.
Of course. But I don’t think ignoring others’ disasters is one of the US’s faults.
if I were to point at a nation with the arrogance of the truely barking mad megalonaniac, I’m sure you could guess who I mean.
New Zealand. Obviously.
Re: Re: Re:7 Captain Renault...
no?
I’d say I was describing poor decisions and careless mistakes, aluding to him showing a lack of care, perhaps even being slow to understand the situation. Seems to sum up faily nicely to me but I guess words are what you read into them. I didn’t mean it in the sense I thought him unintelligent if that’s what you thought.
A matter of perception certainly but again I think you may find the perception differs outside the US whatever the truth may or may not be. Outside of that my own perception travelling to the US and for example watching US news portrays a very insular nation in general – foreign events that would be reported in europe seem barely get a soundbite mention on the “international news” in the US.
Got it in one…. 🙂 you wanna watch them Kiwis.. that’s where the next global domination attempt is coming form you mark my words… powerhouse economy, millions of soldiers, god complex…..
Re: Re: Captain Renault...
Oh I am sure they will make BP pay….well pay this congressman and this one and this one over here, oh that one in the back too. That way these poor public servants can “get their lives back too” after all the complaining of their constituents and from having to spend all that energy blustering about the tragedy for votes.
I Can't Remember All
the times I have seen men die with a six dollar six shooter in their hands and a twenty dollar Stetson on their heads. Anything to look good and save a couple of bucks. Better as always most people and corporations never seem to learn its better not to look so good and live not so well but live to see another day.
Capt Hindsight
Capt Hindsight says they shouldn’t have sent that email and they shouldn’t have posted that info.
Before jumping to conclusions and decrying that the table and email show a lack of concern for safety, it should be borne in mind that software is not infallible (witness GPS directions that some people have followed slavishly to their detriment). The people from the various companies are not rookies. They have done this countless times, so it seems fair to say they have experience that may have counseled in favor of pursuing a different course of action.
This is not to suggest that no critical mistakes were made, but only that some of the noted decisions may have been made with good reason based upon longstanding experience with drilling operations.
I certainly do not diminish the terrible toll associated with what happened, and especially the loss of the lives of 11 persons on the drilling rig. But in my view the jury is still out on what actions were material and proximate factors that led to the failure of the systems in place.
Reports to date seem to suggest that the likely culprit was a mechanical defect within the blowout preventor that was supposed to close the well when excess gas pressure was detected. It is my understanding that this device is undergoing close inspection to identify why it did not work as it was supposed to do.
One key area of inquiry that has not as yet (to my knowledge) been examined in detail concerns oil containment systems that should have been available for immediate deployment.
Re: Re:
If the justification is “we’ll probably be fine”, then I would say no, it’s not based on all that experience-y stuff and good reasons you mentioned.
Funny, in my experience usually these companies will ensure (intentionally) that they do not have software that will explain their deficiencies so that they do not get caught having been informed ahead of time. Somehow people think this is better.
Re: Re:
Funny, in my experience usually these companies will ensure (intentionally) that they do not have software that will explain their deficiencies so that they do not get caught having been informed ahead of time.
This was Halliburton’s software indicating problems with BP’s well, not Halliburton’s own product. Big difference.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think you understood crade’s post. “Have” means possess, not create. Or maybe the confusion is elsewhere, I’m not sure. BP possessed (and used) software that pointed out a problem, which they then ignored. crade claims that companies generally ensure that they do not possess any such software, so that they can cut safety corners and claim later not to have known better, because they were not warned.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think you understood crade’s post. “Have” means possess, not create.
BP did not “have” the software in either sense. Halliburton “possessed” the software and used it to analyze BP’s well and provide recommendations as it related to the cement job before Halliburton commenced with the job. Halliburton basically said “We’ve done a software analysis of this well that you want us to cement and our analysis indicates that more centralizers should installed beforehand in order to obtain a reliable seal.” BP basically said “Piss off. It’s our well and we’ll do it our way. Just shut up and put the cement down the hole or we’ll find someone else who will.”
US. Govt
I blame the U.S Government for this, they are so afraid of pollution in the environment they ban drilling in shallow areas. So the oil companies go to deeper areas where it’s less safe to drill and the same government has the nerve to act surprised when an accident occurs. Thus we get worse polluting. Had this same accident occurred in a shallow area they could have had the leak plugged a lot sooner.
Re: US. Govt
lol
Think before you email. It kills me when emails like this are exposed. Why even send it?
Re: Re:
Really, you would rather this was still a secret? I think it’s far better that everyone knows about it.
It seems to me its time to modify the laws that hold companies responsible to shareholders (to do everything possible to make profit). Accountability is good, but the accountability must be balanced to all: society at large, the countries where businesses have a presence and/or where they have impact, as well as to shareholders to make money. Right now it is way to heavily weighted towards shareholders (clearly).
Re: Re:
Yes, BP is laughing all the way to the bank now. Just think of all the money they made off of . . . wait, what?
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, BP is laughing all the way to the bank now. Just think of all the money they made off of . . . wait, what?
Off all their other risky wells that they got lucky on and *didn’t* blowout, that’s what, ignoramus.
They play the odds on safety vs. risk to maximize profits. That game is based on a faith that when one of those gambles looses (blows out) that the loss (fines, etc.) won’t be so great as to wipe out the profits from the other ones that didn’t blowout. It appears that BP’s faith in that was well founded.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trust me, BP is not thinking “HAHAHAHA! Our plan worked flawlessly! Our investors will be pleased!”
Shit happens, and oil rigs will never be completely safe. As long as companies are held accountable for any damages they cause (BP wasn’t, by the by. The law caps their total liability in related damage to $75 million. How’s that for “regulation”?) they will learn from their mistakes right quick.
You do realize that the other oil companies scrambled, in the wake of the BP spill, to shore up all of their rigs too, right?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Trust me…
To be trusted, you need to have credibility. You previous comments have pretty much eliminated that.
BP is not thinking “HAHAHAHA! Our plan worked flawlessly! Our investors will be pleased!
BP’s policies have made it very profitable. If you don’t think that pleases investors, it just further illustrates why you have so little credibility.
“Ah, yes. Now there’s an email someone now wishes they had not written.”
Depending on the source of the email, this could be more appropriately worded as:
Ah, yes. Now there’s an email someone wishes that they could wish that they had not written
It was not safety software - but cementing modelling analysis software
Thats right all it does is analyse cement under different condition.
It does not determine ‘safety’ of anything, and is itself not capable of determining safe conditions, but can only give an estimation of what can be expected assuming known properties of the cement, and the conditions which it is under.
You post a list of safety issues as if that was identified by some all powerfull safety software..
And that is just not true, only one item on that list has anything to do with cement, and an analysis of cement is not an analysis of the well safety..
But it makes for a better flame headline for mike to get more hits if you can be a shock jock.
We would prefer accuracy Mike, really we would..
Why wernt you honest and say MODELLING software, instead of lie and say safety software ?
Re: It was not safety software - but cementing modelling analysis software
*sigh* AGAIN???
It’s a QUOTE from the original linked story you muppet. You know.. actual accurate reporting of what someone else said? You should try it sometime and stop the pointless semantic personal attacks on Mike’s writing – it’s getting old.
Re: Re: It was not safety software - but cementing modelling analysis software
oh so mike does not have to check sources, or make sure his reporting on other reporters is accurate.
Sure he just quoted from another article, and they are both wrong..
So if the original article is wrong, should Mike just parrot that incorrect statement ? or should he be responsible, and check what he is posting on his web site is at least accurate, and factual.
Saying the other ‘reporter’ did it, does not make it ok for mike to be the same..
If Mike cannot determine by himself what is fact and what is fiction, but has to rely on other bloggers to tell Mike what reality actually IS..
that is sad..
And yes, it might be “typical darryl” if you mean that when I see bullshit, and lies I call out those who make those statements.
Its not my fault that Mike is a furtile source of bullshit and lies.
But according to you, its ok for Mike to be wrong, as long as he is wrong by copying someone else who is equally wrong..
Saves Mike a hell of alot of thinking I guess.
Re: It was not safety software - but cementing modelling analysis software
Typical darryl…
Listen, you government-monopoly-loving doofus, it’s called safety software because it assists in the safe sealing of wells. Tools that are used to enhance safety are often called “safety” tools.
Re: Re: It was not safety software - but cementing modelling analysis software
moron, ok, name some ‘safety’ tools that are called “safety” tools.
You joke, its clear you dont have a clue, when was the last time you heard someone refer to autocad as ‘safety’ software ?
What about SPICE ?
these are physical modelling tools, they simulate what happens physically, inside a computer.
You use them to design things, none of this is considered ‘safety’ software.
Its design and engineering software, software cannot determine ‘safety’, the software can determine stresses, values, requirement, weights, wind loading ect. But it cannot determine what is ‘safe’ or not.
That requires a person to determine the parameters that would be safe or not, the software can just tell you if you simulation meets those requirements.
All that concrete modelling software does is tell you what strengths and conditions that will occur if they do certain starting things. And again, it does not in any way determine ‘safety’.
You would be a fool to think that somehow software or some form of “tools” are going to ensure some level of ‘safety’.
Ofcourse they ensure the design is sound, and that the design works (or should work) in the real world.
But if you use autocad, and SPICE electronics analysis software to build a cruise missile then that software will not flag anything that is ‘unsafe’.
Same if you design a tall building, and you do not design it strong enough, it might fall down in the simulation, but at no point will the software “TELL” you it is ‘unsafe’.
That is up to people, to work out..
So yes, its typical darryl, calling out bullshit when I see it..
At least im not a Anonymous Coward, with nothing better to do that to troll, and make weak one line statements..
Typical AC