Slashdot Mirror
BP's Gulf Spill Report Shows String of Failures
eldavojohn writes "News is out of
BP's report on the gulf spill that shifts some of the blame on to other companies like Transocean that worked with BP in erecting the Deepwater Horizon rig. If you were affected by the spill, you might find the video, executive summary and 193-page report an interesting read. The summary outlines six or seven major failures in safety and engineering that all built up to the deaths of eleven workers and widespread contamination of the gulf. From incorrectly using seawater instead of drilling fluid to misinterpreting pressure test results, this report is just BP's side of the story as the blowout preventer has been pulled up and is still on its way to NASA where it will be analyzed by government investigators who will be able to compile their own report."
The link points directly to an error page. I mean, it actually points to securityerrorpageredirect.jsp!
It is the same with aviation accidents. Sometimes it's just an individual screwing up, but that's the exception. Usually there are multiple causes as well as contributing factors. Unfortunately that doesn't mix well with the mainstream media, which wants a three-word expanation so that they can print in big letters on page one. I have learnt that if I want to know something about a mishap in a complex environment, either I read the whole 196-page document, or it's better if I don't learn anything at all.
Of course it was a string of failures. I don't care if it's an oil rig or a software bug, it usually takes more than one failure before a problem actually surfaces. It's usually a combination of physical defects, human error, and process failures ... but it takes the entire sequence to fail before something goes wrong.
The longer it takes for a problem to be discovered, the more failures probably exist in the chain. Honestly, I'd be more scared if only a couple things went wrong.
There is nothing surprising about an entity shifting the blame onto others to try and save their own asses, human nature. "From incorrectly using seawater instead of drilling fluid" I can't even imagine how dumb one must be to substitute one fluid for the other. That would be like a mechanic using gasoline instead of wiper fluid, something that you just don't do or think about, period. Even if heads roll, are oil companies going to change?
Tired of my customary (Score:1)
You know, the sex and other perks that bought off the regulators?
Or the part where they pencilled in the report forms on behalf of the inspectors, who would then trace them over in pen?
I can see how that would slip their minds.
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea
SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS!
Who died in an oil spill because of BP
SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS!
Only upside for BP for going forward. All the partners have refused to take any responsibility and I think BP will only gain as more evidence points towards other than just at themeselves.
Don't be a moron, libertarians don't support corporations.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
No surprise, Transocean finds fault with the report, as does Halliburton.
"From incorrectly using seawater instead of drilling fluid" I can't even imagine how dumb one must be to substitute one fluid for the other. That would be like a mechanic using gasoline instead of wiper fluid, something that you just don't do or think about, period. Even if heads roll, are oil companies going to change?
I'm no drilling expert. I read the articles (but not the whole report) and, as the submitter, I guess I failed to explain that the articles seem to imply that at some point it's okay to switch from drilling fluid to seawater when the rig is recognized as very stable. You take readings and measurements to determine when this is safe. Apparently there were a lot of misjudgments from both Transocean and BP. You would think they would be a lot better at this by now. Sure you can outline all the pressures both companies had to make this thing that was behind schedule run flawlessly but personally I'm happy that six or seven things had to go wrong to lead to this ... I'm unhappy that it seems to be companies just pushing the process further by ignoring/misreading warning signs. Do they switch to seawater to save money?
According to the article, if they had stuck with drilling fluid instead of switching to the lighter seawater, a blowout would have been prevented. Instead they made history. Perhaps next time their gamble will be in favor of their worker's lives and the environment?
My work here is dung.
"But Ma, everybody did it."
BP, you're still getting a spanking. you're supposed to set an example, not lead a gang.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
It's company policy to forgo safety for increased profits. History is full of this. They took a gamble and got beat by a pair of deuces. But they have accountants to take care of it all. The main issue hasn't changed, and we'll be speculating on the the next disaster soon enough.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
The report can be found here:
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9034902&contentId=7064891
The link in the article, http://www.bp.com/securityerrorpageredirect.jsp, is an error page.
See that "Preview" button?
My comment is hindsight, but does anyone think the damage done would have been less if we utilized a tactical nuke at the site of the spill?
Sure they do. Don't question my straw man.
Big corporations are the product of government interference, they wouldn't exist at all if they weren't being assisted with subsidies, the ability to hurt people without consequences, and regulations/copyrights/patents to make sure that no one else can enter the market. Any Libertarian who supports that is a moron.
Until people go to jail for the deaths what point or purpose does any of this mean? Wealth clearly puts a person above the law and above manslaughter charges. It's that simple. Arguing the fingerpointing is wasted energy since, regardless of the fault, no one will be held accountable. The government will take a bribe in the form of a penalty\fine and all the PEOPLE who lead to the deaths will walk free. The only time the wealthy suffer consequences is when they harm other wealthy people.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Since when has ocean drilling even a part of space exploration? Or any drilling for that matter?
One of the anticipated problems of future space missions is that humans will need to find resources outside of the Earth environment. The amount of energy required to lift materials out of the gravity well of our planet is huge, so it makes sense to explore other options. NASA has researched laser drilling, deep drilling Mars for water, Moon drilling, low energy mobile drilling etc. NASA's remit is not just shooting satellites into orbit, it is also to conduct early stage R&D for exactly this kind of stuff.
And why the FUCK is NASA the only expert around to be able to help the stranded miners?
NASA employs many experts with the skills to do detailed drilling, modelling and geologic and seismic analysis.
Why does NASA have not only the desire, expertise, or the capability to test a BOP?
Who would you rather have test it? Deep sea drilling is a tight-knit industry. I would be surprised if there were any independent testing labs for this technology.
"They" aren't that smart. The only real conspiracy is the conspiracy to get people to believe that somewhere out there, there are human beings smart enough to pull off a real conspiracy. It makes people feel better to think that someone, even someone evil, has a grasp on things and is in control. Ego likes to feel that it is possible for Ego to be in control. It is not possible.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The libertarian principle is more like giving the least trust to those with the greatest power. It's not in support of anything except personal freedom. It just happens that you get the worst of both worlds when you introduce regulation as the government selects "qualified" individuals, such as former CEO's of industry leaders, to give regulatory power to in their given field. I wouldn't want them selecting unqualified individuals, but the qualified ones have a history of personal investment and are likely quite partial. They don't make for impartial regulators.
Such as Michael Taylor, former VP of Public Policy at Monsanto Corp. and Monsanto lobbyist, appointed to senior FDA food safety adviser. Or Roger Beachy, former president of the Danforth Plant Science Center, another branch of the Monsanto Corp., is now heading the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
You don't trust corporations, but you refuse to realize that regulation just supports more corporatism?
Your government only gives you the illusion of protection and safety. You are really on your own in this world. We'd just like to have the government acknowledge that fact.
I'm not sure about that. Huge crime organizations exist and they aren't a product of government interference.. they exist in spite of it.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
From the Libertarian party's website:
Sure looks to me like they support them.
Free Martian Whores!
Who did what which led up to the leak is not the major issue in most people's minds, I think. Accidents can and will happen. This same type of accident will happen again sooner or later. Whether anyone involved was negligent in the construction or if it was unknown factors leading up to the explosion and leak is immaterial.
What is upsetting about the issue is that the responsibility of the response (or lack thereof) falls into the laps of both BP and the Obama administration. Here is the list of problems I see:
* The rig operator (BP?) is supposed to have rapid response plans and technology in place should an event occur
* BP execs sat with their thumbs up their asses trying to save money by serializing plugging attempts, instead of readying the efforts in parallel so in the event that one attempt fails the next could be engaged within hours rather than weeks
* BP was allowed to use dispersants which take 50,000 years to break down, just to minimize the appearance of the leak. BP took advantage and released tens of thousands more gallons per day than allowed, and refused to cut back even after the EPA told them to cut back. If they had not used dispersants, the oil would have been more likely to form tarballs sooner, and bacteria/fungus that feeds on hyrocarbon compounds would have started to break it down more quickly. They ought to have let nature take its course rather than allow it to disperse and spread much faster. Now the fish in that region are going to be contaminated and who the hell knows what that will do to offspring - and children who eat that fish.
* They fought against press coverage tooth and nail, even though photographic and video footage would help to ascertain the extent of the damage and assist in planning the next response action
* the United States government turned it into a total clusterfuck by refusing help from the Netherlands (who have extensive experience responding rapidly to this sort of thing), refused to proactively clean the spill before it reached shore, and actively blocked the state of Louisiana from taking action. They also did much to shield BP and Haliburton by enforcing no-fly zones and restricting access by boats and to contaminated shoreline
Now, people love to slam Bush for not letting the fed jump in when Katrina hit - what they refuse to accept is that Federal law prohibits the federal government from interfering in such cases unless assistance is first requested and a state of emergency is declared, or the local government becomes incapacitated. Where Louisiana (New Orleans in particular) refused assistance, the Bush administration could hardly be blamed for not interfering. Eventually commons sense overruled the red tape and the feds stepped in even as the mayor and governor insisting they could handle it (uh, right. They blew it.). And yet, Bush is slammed for "hating black people" even though he was paralyzed by federal law and could not legally act even though the fed was mobilized to do so.
The Obama administration had jurisdiction to handle anything offshore and could have taken many steps to protect the shoreline: accept help from European nations, immediately order BP to commission more ships, at BP cost, to deploy booms and to hire skimmers, and to allow the Louisiana government to act since they were prepared to mobilize to protect their own interests. They failed at every turn and it was not a case of nonfeasance, or failing to act as the law requires, but malfeasance. The Fed went out of its way to slow down response, seemingly to protect BP and Haliburton, which greatly increased contamination. The Obama administration actively blocked action at every turn, and yet is praised for how it handled/is handling the situation? Had we accepted help from European nations, and had we allowed Louisiana to act locally, much of the shallow water marine life would have been spared this contamination.
I don't take issue with the accident, although if it is due to negligence I believe
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Huge crime organizations exist because they take advantage of government interference. The Prohibition effectively created the market Al Capone made millions serving.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
His name is Harry T uttle!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Clearly its time to revoke BPs corporate charter!!
of a big hand point blame to someone else.
Personally I am waiting for Halibuton and Transocean's reports to see how many pages they can draw point fingers on.
Whichever one is longest wins.
Suppose you need some lumber cut on a construction project. If you hire "Lefty" as the sawman because he's slightly cheaper, stand behind him yelling faster, faster the whole time and "suggest" that sawmen who remain employed by you remove the guards to make things move faster, whose fault is it when there's an accident on the site?
Usually in discussions with people on /. the libertarians are moderated down, I wouldn't be surprised to see your comment go down to -1 Troll for no reason other than you have some principles and the moderators hate them.
You can't handle the truth.
The problem is not big government, its distant government.
An effective democracy of citizen councils and trade unions is what our corporate rulers fear most. For the corporate powers could be rendered obsolete overnight if there is common popular struggle and solidarity.
Socialism without jails!! And the people will not be content until the Pentagon is dismantled and there is universal healthcare for all!! If the Empire crumbles, so be it. The world will be better off for it.
Not entirely. Many (Most? All?) huge crime organizations make money by supplying illegal goods. These goods would not be illegal if not for government involvement. The classic American mafia-type organizations would not exist if not for prohibition. Drug cartels would not exist if not for the illegal drug trade.
Of course, that position is also self-contradictory. You can't support the right to form corporations (which are distinguished by the shield against personal liability which is a public subsidy to the owners of the corporation) while opposing government subsidies to business.
The corporate form itself is a government subsidy to business.
Huh? I was with you until I read this statement. Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? I'm not trolling, I just fail to see what you're getting at.
The examples you give are clear failings of the current regulatory system, but what are the alternatives to some sort of regulation? Without any sort of oversight on companies, they will almost always seek out the path that minimizes direct costs, without any regard to long-term indirect costs to society.
How do you propose holding companies to any standards absent any external third party (ie, regulators)? Again, I'm not trolling, I just fail to see how such a system could work.
Who would you rather have test it? Deep sea drilling is a tight-knit industry. I would be surprised if there were any independent testing labs for this technology
I'll assume you don't work in the oilfield. However, pressure control equipment is subject to a variety of tests (operational and periodic.) Generally, certification is handled by an organisation like Bureau Veritas or the American Bureau of Shipping. Deep sea drilling is no more tight-knit than any other heavy engineering industry.
Sure they do. Don't lie to us. We can hear their Rand-ian rhetoric for ourselves. ...of course you could do the Lenningrad 2-step and claim that most libertarians aren't really libertarians or some such nonsense.
Rand-ians are Objectivists. They happen to take some libertarian positions.
One cannot support the non-aggression principle while supporting the corporate form by government - it's logically inconsistent. People can call themselves whatever they want.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Libertarian party
Yeah, the people who ran Bob Barr, drug warrior and anti-flag burner, as their candidate.
I could start, say, a Christian Party and say whatever I wanted, but I wouldn't be therefore representing Christians by doing so.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
You must have missed this part:
It just happens that you get the worst of both worlds when you introduce regulation as the government selects "qualified" individuals, such as former CEO's of industry leaders, to give regulatory power to in their given field.
Which is exactly how regulators are chosen today.
If the people writing the laws (congress generally gets these people to write the laws, then the congressmen enact them) and enforcing the laws are former corporate executives, who but corporations do you expect to benefit from regulation?
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Huh?
How would eliminating government subsidies to businesses eliminate the right to form corporations? There are many reasons to form corporations, most of them legal. Eliminating tax breaks for corporations will not change those reasons, it simply removes one of the reasons for forming a corporation. It also in no way eliminates the ability to create a corporation.
Government subsidies are not essential for the creation of a corporation, nor does creating a corporation necessitate a government subsidy.
Do you even understand what a subsidy and a corporation are?
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Sorry, but here I have to object to what you say.
Your point is well-taken about having former CEOs, etc. in positions to oversee their former industries, but should we throw out the whole system simply because there is some abuse of power? Industry people hate regulators. Full stop. I have never read an account of any corporation cherishing the regulations laid down by the government. Instead, they complain about too much cost, etc.
In my mind, that means that there are a whole host of regulations that don't directly benefit corporations, which makes your statement that "regulation just supports more corporatism" pretty questionable.
You also fail to address my question - what do you think will happen if there is no regulation? What will stop companies from engaging in unsafe practices, like what happened with BP? Why will any factory install expensive systems to clean their waste instead of just dumping it in the river? Why will any company disclose all of their ingredients if they don't have to?
The libertarian argument is that the consumers will demand it, but I doubt that this can happen. Do you know where the plastic in your keyboard came from? Do you have any idea where in the world all of your food is grown? The world is too complicated for each consumer to fully research every shopping decision and come to a final conclusion that carefully balances the needs of everybody.
The only solution that I see is some external regulating body. It doesn't have to be the government per se (and examples like ISO show that some privately run regulations can work), but I totally fail to see how a lack of any regulation benefits anybody other than the companies.
Nerds frequently like things to be well ordered so anarchists annoy them.
You also fail to address my question - what do you think will happen if there is no regulation? What will stop companies from engaging in unsafe practices, like what happened with BP? Why will any factory install expensive systems to clean their waste instead of just dumping it in the river? Why will any company disclose all of their ingredients if they don't have to?
The difference between Libertarians and anarchists in general is that Libertarians want the government to protect people from other people, with no artificial limits on liability. In other words, if fixing the oil spill would cost more money than BP has, then they'll still be required to pay every last cent of it until the problem is fixed or BP has no assets left to sell. What do you think would do more to make corporations play safe, regulations or the threat that a mistake could cost them everything? And the ones that don't play it safe go out of business. I guess you could say it's a different kind of regulation. The government is still making people play by the rules; the difference is that the rules are simpler (don't break other people's stuff) and individuals (or individual companies) get to decide how best to follow that.
The only solution that I see is some external regulating body. It doesn't have to be the government per se (and examples like ISO show that some privately run regulations can work), but I totally fail to see how a lack of any regulation benefits anybody other than the companies.
The idea I'm most familiar with is that insurance companies would tend to fill this niche. Back to my first point, people in charge of companies aren't going to want to go out of business if something goes wrong, so they'll get insurance, but insurance companies don't want risky clients. The insurance companies would set down their own rules, and companies could choose what rules they're willing to follow and what they're willing to pay for insurance. The primary difference between this and government regulation is that the rules come from multiple sources and evolve based on what works. The insurance companies would also presumably be hiring people based on their knowledge of the subject, rather than their position on gay marriage (when's the last time someone was elected based on their knowledge of food safety?). An insurance company with rules that are too strict won't have any customers, and one with rules that aren't strict enough will go out of business.
There are already companies that do research on products and recommend them (Consumer Reports for example). In the absence of government institutions to do this, I think consumers would pay more attention to other groups. Also, at least some stores would pay attention. For example, grocery stores would likely require their suppliers to meet certain standards. No one wants to be known as the grocery store that makes everyone sick. My guess is that there would be stores with lower standards, but that's always a choice. Better to be able to buy low-quality food than none at all.
The libertarian argument is that the consumers will demand it, but I doubt that this can happen. Do you know where the plastic in your keyboard came from? Do you have any idea where in the world all of your food is grown? The world is too complicated for each consumer to fully research every shopping decision and come to a final conclusion that carefully balances the needs of everybody.
I agree, this is probably the most complicated part. Like I said before, in many cases stores will do this for you, or consumer groups will get things changed (no government regulation is forcing Nestle to stop using palm oil), but it's not perfect, but it's not like the government does anything to help this now anyway.
Usually in discussions with people on /. the libertarians are moderated down, I wouldn't be surprised to see your comment go down to -1 Troll for no reason other than you have some principles and the moderators hate them.
Except when a post quickly follows and claims that the parent post will be modded down, in which case the parent post will be modded up.
But ... but ... it's in the constitution!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Here is an idea that I think we all need to embrace. In fact, I would even extend this to a more aggressive stance, that says that the government should hold companies accountable for all the indirect costs of what they do.
Of course, to play devil's advocate, I can easily imagine that companies will find ways around these kinds of policies. For example, if a mining company wanted to do a very dirty (and cheap) extraction that would poison a nearby stream, which resulted in severe health issues for those downstream, they could potentially establish some kind of temporary company which assumes all liability. Then, when the shit comes crashing down on their heads, they could just fold up the small company, declaring bankruptcy and walking away.
Yes, it may be possible to track down the responsible people and prosecute them, but that would take (potentially) years and years of lawsuits and legal wrangling. Furthermore, in cases like this, the wealthy parent company would be capable of spending a lot more resources in court than would any of the (presumably) less well off people that would be harmed by the mining, which may practically prevent any accountability.
In the end, wouldn't it just be simpler (and prevent less suffering) if there was (in addition to the unlimited liability) a set of rules (ie, regulations) that could prevent this whole ugly situation in the first place?
What about the regulations on food package labeling? Isn't that a big help? What about all of the regulations on food safety?
I think it is very disingenuous of you to claim that government does nothing to help you here. Look at all the issues of food safety in China absent any regulations.
Generally speaking, we enjoy a very safe food supply, thanks in large part to the government regulations. If you chucked out all those regulations, the system of checks and balances may kick in to eventually reach some kind of stable equilibrium, but in the meantime, a lot of people will get sick and die from bad food.
Isn't it simpler to try to prevent this in the first place?
Corporations are artificial juridical persons created by government as a means of extending special benefits (principally, protection from personal liability for debts incurred by the new entity) to the shareholders of the new corporation.
Combinations by free contract to engage in business without special benefits extended by government are standard partnerships.
Yes, receiving a benefit extended by government is legal. But that it is legal does not mean that supporting government continuing to provide the benefit is consistent with opposing government subsidizing business.
I'm not talking about tax breaks given to corporations, I'm talking about the special benefit that is the corporate form itself, which subsidizes the owners (shareholders) of the corporation at the expense of the rest of society by protecting those shareholders from legal liability from the debts incurred by the business operation they combine to create. You know, the whole "problem" with un-subsidized partnerships that businesses lobbied government to create the corporate form in order to solve -- that if they racked up more debts than the business operation could pay, the owners ended up having to pay out of their own pocket beyond the amount they were willing to risk in investment.
Incorrect. The corporate form is, in and of itself, a government subsidy. Government subsidies aren't required to form a business, if the form of that business is a standard partnership or sole proprietorship. A corporation (or any of the newer limited-liability forms, like an LLP, LLLP, or LLC) is at its heart a government subsidy to the owners of the business.
Yes, do you?
Of course, to play devil's advocate, I can easily imagine that companies will find ways around these kinds of policies. For example, if a mining company wanted to do a very dirty (and cheap) extraction that would poison a nearby stream, which resulted in severe health issues for those downstream, they could potentially establish some kind of temporary company which assumes all liability. Then, when the shit comes crashing down on their heads, they could just fold up the small company, declaring bankruptcy and walking away.
I haven't really had much time to think about this situation, but the first thing that comes to mind is having it work like this:
1. Insurance company agrees to pay a certain amount in cases where their customers are liable for something.
2. This doesn't actually get their customers off the hook, it just adds an additional source of money in case something goes wrong.
So if the insurance company doesn't have the money to cover something, the company that made the mistake has to cover the difference. It also adds an interesting effect where the insurance companies customers would have an incentive to police the insurance companies, just like the insurance companies would be policing their customers.
What about the regulations on food package labeling? Isn't that a big help? What about all of the regulations on food safety?
I was referring to where you were talking about "where does your plastic come from" or "where does your food come from", not food safety. I did write a section on food safety though. The line you quoted here was a response to what I thought was a ethics/sustainability question ("Where does your food/plastic come from?"). If it's not a question of ethics, then the answer is "I don't care". If the food tastes good and doesn't make me sick, I don't care where it's from. I assume you'll find a lot of Libertarians who will take that position. Personally, I am interested in where things come from, but that's why I shop at a grocery store that labels where everything is from (sometimes a bit too much). I wouldn't have a problem with the government enforcing truth in advertising.
If you chucked out all those regulations, the system of checks and balances may kick in to eventually reach some kind of stable equilibrium, but in the meantime, a lot of people will get sick and die from bad food.
My point (in the section you ignored) was that this system already exists, and the consumers don't necessarily need to know about it. How many stores are willing to be known as "the store that makes everyone sick"?