 |
| Blog |
 |
| Archive |
|
|
|
|
| Blog |
| To find an archived article, simply click on Index and scroll the subject titles, or do a Ctrl-F search |
Opinion & Analysis |
Friday, July 2, 2010 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ignorance winning out over expertise in Gulf blowout Political grandstanding is distracting from efforts to solve the environmental mess caused by BP oil leak, writes TONY ALLWRIGHT UNDOUBTEDLY THE uncontrolled blowout of oil and gas from the 5,500m-deep Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, while being drilled by BP in 1,522m of water, is among the worst disasters in the history of the hydrocarbon industry. Only very dedicated and skilful human ingenuity and engineering grunt, without regard to cost, will bring it back under control and make it permanently safe. But, despite what “experts” such as White House energy adviser Carol Browner and her boss have told us, it is certainly not the worst such catastrophe, at least not yet. Eleven men were killed – a never-ending tragedy for each of their families. But when the North Sea’s Piper Alpha platformexploded (twice) in 1988, the death toll was 167. We are similarly misinformed that Macondo represents America’s worst environmental disaster, worse even than the Exxon Valdez calamity in 1989, which spilled 250,000 barrels of heavy viscous crude into the sea. But no one knows the Macondo flow rate because there is no way to measure it. Every figure being bandied about, from 2,000 to 80,000 barrels per day or more, is based on nothing other than humans eyeballing the flow as depicted by underwater TV cameras. In any case what is relevant is the environmental damage. The Exxon Valdez ran aground and spewed its treacly load just 4km (2.4 miles) from Bligh Island and 15km from the Alaskan mainland, so all the wildlife and beaches were instantly devastated. By contrast, Macondo is 80km offshore and its crude is lighter and more volatile. Much of it is simply evaporating in the balmy Gulf of Mexico weather, being biodegraded by wave action and spreading out thinly as it makes its leisurely way towards land or further out to sea. That is, the oil that has escaped BP’s clever ruse of applying dispersant at the seabed. On top of that, BP has contracted an armada, largely from local fishing fleets, of 1,400 vessels and 20,000 people to boom and skim and scoop the oil to keep it from the coastline. Consequently, our TV screens are not depicting the mile upon mile of blackened beaches and tens of thousands of oil-covered birds and animals that were such a shocking feature of the Valdez calamity. As for the total amount of oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, Macondo is a long way from the record of the Ixtoc blowout of 1979 in which 3.3 million barrels of oil leaked for nine months despoiling some 260km of mainly Texas coastline, and killing up to 80 per cent of marine life. It is instructive, however, that thanks to rigorous clean-up and nature’s own recovery mechanisms, neither the Valdez nor Ixtoc caused lasting damage to the environment. Likewise, we can be sure BP is big and rich enough to fulfil its promise to make good all its mess, eventually. Just as public figures have failed to put perspective on the Macondo blowout, they have displayed similar ignorance concerning the extraordinary technological efforts BP has been applying in reducing the flow until such time as the two relief wells reach their target. The company has had up to 20 surface ships in close proximity, each held in position by satellite-centred dynamic positioning. In the cold, pressurised, lightless, hostile environment 1,522m underwater, BP has been using some 14 unmanned submarines to conduct a series of intricate manoeuvres such as shoving, tugging, manipulating, cutting, grinding, positioning, connecting, observing. But because few understand the engineering and it cannot be seen, interest in this astounding activity is scant. BP has systematically been applying one imaginative potential solution after another, each one carefully thought through with failures and back-ups factored in. No organisation could be tackling this massive challenge more professionally than BP and every attempt to distract it reduces its chances of success. Nevertheless, BP’s approach to the problem it has created does stand in stark contrast to the events leading up to it, which indeed are highly questionable. A lot of evidence suggest disgraceful, last-minute, cost-reducing short cuts. A couple of weeks ago, the day after the US administration subjected BP chief executive Tony Hayward and the company to a $20 billion (€16 million) “shakedown” (Congressman Joe Barton’s word), Hayward appeared before a congressional committee to be grilled on prime-time TV, ostensibly about these events. Some days earlier, the committee had sent him a 14-page letter detailing five technical areas where BP had arguably cut corners. It was superbly crafted, meticulous, leaving very little wriggle-room for Hayward. Yet when it came to the hearing, the search for the truth of what caused the blowout was overwhelmed by committee members’ overweening desire to demonstrate their toughness. Once the real questioning began, the aggressive tone continued, yet the questions singularly failed to delve into the acute technical issues so adeptly exposed in the letter. In turn this allowed Hayward to repeat his mantra that BP was still investigating; he wasn’t a technical expert; action would be taken – and other evasions. You would think that not just for BP, but for the US administration and the general public, the most important issue right now is to kill that damn well, make it permanently safe and clean up any damage. Yet the US administration seems to apportion greater priority not to winning this gargantuan battle against nature but to launching inquiries, belligerent “kick-ass” blather and criminal investigations. This is the behaviour of ignorance. Once Macondo is solved – and it will be – there will be decades for anger, recrimination, lawsuits, inquiries, compensation, prison terms, sanctions or whatever. The future is a long time. Meantime, ignorance seems to hold sway. © 2010 The Irish Times
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
More on this subject in a blog post entitled “Ignorance Rules Reaction to Macondo Blowout” |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
| Online Comments 11 Comments » 2nd July 2010, 09:30:58 However heroic the cleanup attempts, the fact that the culture in BP where quick and easy profit was more important than safety which led directly to the Gulf disaster should not be forgotten. And the use of examples of other oil related events as if to say 'well, at least we are not as bad as them' is a cheap cover for what is still a major environmental catastrophe. 2nd July 2010, 10:13:19
Marcas O'Duinn 2nd July 2010, 10:50:14
Brian Murphy BP is where it is today because of its own hubris, its inability to recognise its own limitations and an inability or an unwillingness to carry out proper risk assessments on its operations. This is why refineries and oil rigs explode – because a company fails to understand the risks and fails to install appropriate preventive measures. Incidentally, BP’s Tony Hayward claims he has this plaque on his desk:, "If you knew you could not fail, what would you try?". While I’m sure he feels this is terribly motivational, to anyone who has any experience of risk assessment or hazard evaluation, that statement is truly terrifying because it’s very easy to re-write it as “If you thought you could not fail, what wouldn’t you risk?”. Or maybe BP just thought it meant “If you knew you could not fail (to escape financial responsibility), what would you try (to get away with)?” As for Mr. Allwright’s dig at those who don’t understand engineering, he might like to consider that he himself is a little over-enamoured with some of the discipline’s shiny toys. “20 surface ships in close proximity, each held in position by satellite-centred dynamic positioning” might sound very cool, but what exactly are they doing? And if those unmanned submarines where such a good idea, why are these only being deployed now after the “Top Hat”, “Top Kill”, “Junk Shot” and other low tech solutions? Ah yes, because “BP has systematically been applying one imaginative potential solution after another.” Too bad none of them work, eh? Which brings me back to my earlier point – if BP had done its risk assessments at the start, it would have identified a dull-but-efficient real solution (e.g. ensure that a functioning blow-out preventer was installed) instead of scrambling desperately after the fact for an imaginative potential one. That’s good engineering but it’s not what BP did and Mr. Allwright should be ashamed of himself for defending their actions. 2nd July 2010, 11:52:43
Rush
O'Limbaugh 2nd July 2010, 20:03:50
Bert
Hornback Mr. Obama hasn't done anything but make noise: true. On day one he should have called out all the military's heavy earth-moving rigs, and all those owned by highway construction companies, and started protecting wildlife refuges, swamp land, oyster beds, and beaches. On day two he should have had tankers out siphoning up oil out of the water. And instead of doing important presidential "fly-overs"--which cost about 4 million euros each--he should have been putting money in the pockets of shrimp fishermen and others put out of work. But Obama's dithering and posturing doesn't lessen BP's crime--or the correctness of Obama's insistence that BP will pay for their negligence and greed as well as for all the harm they have done. 3rd July 2010, 10:40:26
Tony
Allwright The thrust of my latest article, however, is that the professionalism and expertise with which BP has been tackling the problem it (admittedly) created is largely unrecognized because outside this specialised industry (ie drilling deep, high-pressure oil and gas wells in very deep water and then bringing them into production), people have no idea of what BP is doing so far underwater. So, like Mr Murphy, they assume they are talking sense when they think “junk shot”, “top kill” etc are low-tech solutions (presumably because the names sound silly). But nothing done in 1500 metres of water while trying to control high pressure gas and oil is low tech, any more than thinking that because you cannot see or understand the micro-circuitry, an electronic chip must be “low-tech”. Likewise Mr Murphy thinks he knows the cause – a malfunctioning blowout preventer – but this shows he doesn’t. There is no evidence yet that it was malfunctioning, but in any case the battle was pretty much lost at a much earlier stage of proceedings when very questionable operational decisions were taken. Finally, as mentioned this is a highly specialised industry. Only a few companies have the necessary full package of expertise, and they are all major international Western oil companies (Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP etc), and perhaps Petrobras. They do not include contractors such as Transocean, Halliburton, Cameron, Schlumberger, who have fantastic expertise but only in they own particular roles, not in the integrated whole. Neither do the smaller oil companies nor the huge national oil companies have the whole package, either because they’re too small to sustain million-dollar-day drilling operations or too protectionist. Nor do any regulatory bodies, whose expertise is in “regulating” which is very different from “doing”. Even the major oilcos are heavily dependent on but a small cadre of employees who have learnt their arcade trade through engineering study and decades of practical experience. Therefore only a major like BP can fix the problem, and only those who happen to have specialist knowledge (includes me) can have a proper appreciation of what they’re doing. Prof Bert Hornback says I “have it all wrong”. I would have expected a distinguished professor to provide evidence before making such statements. If interested, the full version of my article is available on my Tallrite Blog: http://tinyurl.ie/g0 3rd July 2010, 14:57:47 Joe
There may be a high cost in humans lives yet to be realised. From CNN. Almost All Exxon Valdez Cleanup Crew Dead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRrbqBEGxiw. The dispersants may be
highly toxic. 3rd July 2010, 20:31:03
Enda Bates
4th July 2010, 12:10:15
Robert Browne Why would you drill a well that could wipe out the company? Some of the chemicals being used are up to six times more toxic than the oil they are dispersing to the bottom of the sea. The geniuses that decided this well was a good idea are now telling us to believe them and their plans. Sorry but it is already too late. No, I am sorry the whole thing from start to finish has been anything but professional. Obviously, the risks were assessed but the "drill baby drill" guys said "that type of disaster has a miniscule chance and will never happen". It did. I think BP made a profit of 6bn in their last financial year. The damage here is 40bn plus and rising all the time 6 x 7 is 42. So on that figure alone the next 7 years 'profits' are wiped out. No wonder the share price has halved. 5th July 2010, 01:24:55
Brian Murphy So, apparently we should all stop whinging and should instead stand in awe as BP deploys all manner of technological wonders (or “witchcraft” as some of us insist on calling it) and join in Mr. Allwright’s cheerleading of BP’s heroic efforts to control its self-made disaster. Quite why the paper of record chose to provide a platform for this “Proles – know your place!” lecture is, perhaps, a question for another day. For my part, in spite of Mr. Allwright’s best efforts to the contrary, I’ve decided to remain unimpressed by BP’s as-yet unsuccessful efforts to plug its hole in the ocean floor. If they were half as smart as the author thinks they are, they never would have found themselves in this position in the first place. And if Mr. Allwright is looking for a victim of oppression to stand up for, he might take time to consider that BP, with its billions in annual profits and a track record of terrible corporate citizenship, is hardly the most deserving of causes. One last thing – seeing as Mother Nature is the one currently getting it in the neck in the Gulf of Mexico, it seems a little harsh to describe the current situation as a “gargantuan battle against nature”. But maybe this just reflects the author’s worldview in which clever-clever men like Mr. Allwright are the good guys while nature/the proles need to be kept in their place. 5th July 2010, 17:24:15 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other Reaction The “Sovereign Independent”, which is an Irish news service, takes issue with me with an article entitled “Irish Times Slick Deception to Rig the Real Story by ‘Oil Expert’”, accompanied by four ten-minute Youtube videos, and lays a kind of challenge to me to respond. The editor, Neil Foster, tells me that
This is my response, which I have asked Mr Foster to add to his site alongside the article to which it refers. ++++++++++++++++++++++ I have read the article, “Irish Times Slick Deception to Rig the Real Story by ‘Oil Expert’” in The Sovereign Independent and sat through twenty minutes of video, ie the first two, before eventually the general looniness coupled with turgid style of the presenter Paul Joseph Watson became too much for my delicate digestive system. As a first response, let me refer you to
These items address some of the points touched on by
Mr Watson. It is preposterous to pretend that the blowout was the result of a premeditated sabotage. Apart from the shear complexity of the operation and the knowledge of which bits you would have to do right and which wrong, it would require an army of skilled and professional employees across a range of major international companies to be party to the conspiracy. To think that all would co-operate in a venture that runs counter to every fibre of their training and ambitions, and that none would blab is, frankly, beyond the beyond. I think Mr Watson even thinks President Obama was a party to it, as well as John Haywood. Let me tell you, the training of neither (one a lawyer, the other a geologist) remotely equips him to understand how wells are drilled to the extent of appreciating how to sabotage one, especially in such a complex manner as propounded. Mr Watson rabbits on about Halliburton pumping a “watery fluid” to “seal the casing” instead of “heavy mud”. This is gibberish. Apart from the fact that this would be the decision of BP not Halliburton, you can't seal casing with either watery fluid or mud. You need cement. Cement that is mixed and pumped according to a careful recipe and process precisely designed for the particular casing in the particular well.
Try convincing any drilling manager to do that with Mr Watson's “watery fluid” or “heavy mud”. Mr Watson quotes a Deepwater Horizon crew member to support his claims about downhole shenanigans. But the man he consults is, I think he said, a rig mechanic. Let me tell you, rig mechanics have absolutely no clue what is going on downhole and on the seabed because that is not their jobs. They are invaluable in keeping the rig machinery running safely and smoothly 24/7/365. Others are responsible for the hole. Mr Watson seems to have allowed himself to be led by the nose! So Halliburton bought Boots & Coots last April. So what? It and its competitors are always buying companies that might enable them to extend their range of services. And Boots & Coots is anyway not an oil-spill clean-up company. Its speciality is helping to control wild wells, particularly on land, such as the ones Saddam set fire to when Bush Senior chased him out of Kuwait in 1991. B&C was started by two guys who used to do the same work for Red Adair - you may remember the 1968 John Wayne movie “Hellfighters” about Red Adair. BP may well be using B&C for advice for Macondo, but they will not be making a whole load of money out of this because B&C are in no position to run the operation they way they would if it were on land. I would agree that Obama could be more helpful in not stymieing foreign assistance with clean-up etc, but on the other hand he is such an incompetent that the further away he stays from Macondo the less harm he will cause. Finally, let me sum up the points I have tried to make in my IT articles.
Declaration:
[On 4th July I requested that Mr Foster publish this reply alongside the original post, but since it hadn't appeared two days later, I added it myself as a comment.] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
| From: George McNulty Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 3:01 PM To: Tony Allwright via opinion@irishtimes.com Subject: irishtimes.com:Ignorance winning out over expertise in Gulf blowout bonjour, nice try tony, but you will not get a job with them with this self serving article. George McNulty ================== Thanks for your amusing comment, Mr McNulty. bonjour tony, thank you for your comments. one point re the ignorance of the average person re this disaster. the congress commitee questions put to bp ,not just the md, were incisive and most technical, no doubt by advisers with as much experience as your good self, and also viewed by millions of concerned non technical people so please do not underestimate sharp, short ,angry comments or write them off as ill informed . i read an article recently where they were considering an underwater bomb to solve the problem! a deep sea red adair!! i doubt that this will be all over in august as bp are wishfully predicting, mainly to placate the money end of this nasty business! regards george mcnulty, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other links to this article at:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gift Idea |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Good to report that as at
FREED AT LAST, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
BLOGROLL
Atlantic Blog (defunct) Blog-Irish (defunct)
Jihad
Religion
Iona Institute
Leisure
Blog Directory
My Columns in the
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What I've recently
But it's not
entirely honest in its subtle pro-Palestinian bias, and therefore needs
to be read in conjunction with an antidote, such as See detailed review +++++
BP's ambitious CEO John Browne expanded it through adventurous acquisitions, aggressive offshore exploration, and relentless cost-reduction that trumped everything else, even safety and long-term technical sustainability. Thus mistakes accumulated, leading to terrifying and deadly accidents in refineries, pipelines and offshore operations, and business disaster in Russia. The Macondo blowout was but an inevitable outcome of a BP culture that had become poisonous and incompetent. However the book is gravely compromised by a litany of over 40 technical and stupid errors that display the author's ignorance and carelessness. It would be better to wait for the second (properly edited) edition before buying. As for BP, only a wholesale rebuilding of a new, professional, ethical culture will prevent further such tragedies and the eventual destruction of a once mighty corporation with a long and generally honourable history. Note: I wrote
my own reports on Macondo +++++
A horrific account of:
More details on my blog here. +++++
After recounting a childhood of convention and simple pleasures in working-class Aberdeen, Mr Urquhart is conscripted within days of Chamberlain declaring war on Germany in 1939. From then until the Japanese are deservedly nuked into surrendering six years later, Mr Urquhart’s tale is one of first discomfort but then following the fall of Singapore of ever-increasing, unmitigated horror. After a wretched journey Eastward, he finds himself part of Singapore’s big but useless garrison. Taken prisoner when Singapore falls in 1941, he is, successively,
Chronically ill, distraught and traumatised on return to Aberdeen yet disdained by the British Army, he slowly reconstructs a life. Only in his late 80s is he able finally to recount his dreadful experiences in this unputdownable book. There are very few first-person eye-witness accounts of the the horrors of Japanese brutality during WW2. As such this book is an invaluable historical document. +++++
This is a rattling good tale of the web of corruption within which the American president and his cronies operate. It's written by blogger Michele Malkin who, because she's both a woman and half-Asian, is curiously immune to the charges of racism and sexism this book would provoke if written by a typical Republican WASP. With 75 page of notes to back up - in best blogger tradition - every shocking and in most cases money-grubbing allegation, she excoriates one Obama crony after another, starting with the incumbent himself and his equally tricky wife. Joe Biden, Rahm Emmanuel, Valerie Jarett, Tim Geithner, Lawrence Summers, Steven Rattner, both Clintons, Chris Dodd: they all star as crooks in this venomous but credible book. ACORN, Mr Obama's favourite community organising outfit, is also exposed for the crooked vote-rigging machine it is. +++++
It is really just a collation of amusing little tales about surprising human (and occasionally animal) behaviour and situations. For example:
The book has no real message other than don't be surprised how humans sometimes behave and try to look for simple rather than complex solutions. And with a final anecdote (monkeys, cash and sex), the book suddenly just stops dead in its tracks. Weird. ++++++
It's chapters are organised around provocative questions such as
It's central thesis is that economic development continues to be impeded in different countries for different historical reasons, even when the original rationale for those impediments no longer obtains. For instance:
The author writes in a very chatty, light-hearted matter which makes the book easy to digest. However it would benefit from a few charts to illustrate some of the many quantitative points put forward, as well as sub-chaptering every few pages to provide natural break-points for the reader. +++++
The author was a member of Britain's V Force, a forerunner of the SAS. Its remit was to harass Japanese lines of command, patrol their occupied territory, carryout sabotage and provide intelligence, with the overall objective of keeping the enemy out of India. Irwin is admirably yet brutally frank, in his descriptions of deathly battles with the Japs, his execution of a prisoner, dodging falling bags of rice dropped by the RAF, or collapsing in floods of tears through accumulated stress, fear and loneliness. He also provides some fascinating insights into the mentality of Japanese soldiery and why it failed against the flexibility and devolved authority of the British. The book amounts to a very human and exhilarating tale. Oh, and Irwin describes the death in 1943 of his colleague my uncle, Major PF Brennan. +++++ Other books here |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
After
48
crackling, compelling, captivating games, the new World Champions are,
deservedly,
England get the Silver,
No-one can argue with
Over the competition, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
