Feature 6 | SAFETY


Critical safety issues overlooked on Deepwater Horizon


As the latest effort to cap the stream of oil from the Macondo Well serving the Deepwater Horizon rig appears to have worked – at least for the time being – attention has turned to what could have caused the explosion in the first place.


world has woken up to news of daily efforts to cap the heavy stream of oil polluting the Gulf of Mexico and investigations into the cause of the deadly explosion. Aſter what could be described as ‘finger


S


pointing’ from all parties involved in the operation and ownership of the rig the latest US federal hearings have heard accounts of alarm systems being switched off, computer crashes and concerns over the blowout preventer (BOP). Transocean’s chief electronics technician,


Michael Williams testified at a joint hearing of the US Coast Guard (USCG) and the US Department of the Interior (US DoT) on 23 June that the emergency alarms onboard Deepwater Horizon were disabled weeks before it exploded, killing 11 workers and leaking 4 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. If this evidence proves to be correct it would elude to safety compromises onboard the oil rig and imply that the levels of maintenance on the rig were perhaps less than satisfactory. It appears that the hearings conducted by the


federal panel of investigators from the USCG and US DoT have already uncovered incidents of apparent safety irregularities that leave both BP – the oil giant working the Macondo Well, and Transocean – the owner of the oil rig that was operating under contract to BP, in very uncomfortable territory. Williams made suggestions that a litany of


problems contributed to the explosion, from the switching off of critical alarm systems to soſtware that was so faulty that the rig’s computer systems – critical for the monitoring of key safety equipment – regularly crashed. At an earlier briefing a BP manager who had


been onboard the rig five days before the blast argued that he had been warned by contractor Halliburton that the rig’s BOP could be faulty. Te contractor pointed out that as gas could be leaking out of the device it would suggest


ince that fateful day on 20 April 2010 when 11 crewmen were killed whilst drilling at the Macondo Prospect, the


Deepwater Horizon oil rig after the explosion on 20 April 2010. Platform supply vessels and anchor handlers can be seen here helping to put out the flames (Credit: US Coast Guard/ US Department of Homeland Security).


that it was not fulfilling its role as the last line of defence against a possible blowout of oil or gas. Te BP manager maintained that he informed his bosses at BP’s Houston headquarters, but they did not appear to have passed on the information to federal authorities – as they were obliged. During the three months since the explosion


most of the attention has been placed on how BP has conducted itself before and aſter the explosion. Relatively little focus has been placed on Transocean’s part in all of this, as the operator is trying to limit its liabilities to a ceiling of US$27 million. In the long run, it appears that the federal


authorities will have to consider whether a culture of compromised safety and corner cutting has spread across the business of offshore oil drilling. US Federal records have been investigated and findings are starting to emerge that in numerous cases the operators of oil rigs have bypassed safety systems in order to press ahead with drilling. In similar terms, the Energy and Commerce


Committee of the US Congress has accused BP of scrimping on safety measures in order to meet tight drilling schedules. Te committee’s chairman, Henry Waxman, said in May 2010


Offshore Marine Technology 3rd Quarter 2010


that “time after time, it appears BP made decisions that increased the risk of a blowout to save the company time or expense”. BP has announced on its website


that it is fully committed to the Gulf of Mexico clear-up and in order to pay for the US$200 billion claims fund has announced the “suspension of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Quarter 2010 interim dividends, which is a significant reduction in capital expenditure, as well as acceleration in its divestment programme”. At the time of writing it was announced


that the chief executive officer of BP, Tony Hayward, would be stepping down and replaced by Bob Dudley who will succeed him on 1 October 2010. Te investigations are currently ongoing and


to date no formal, documented explanation has been given as to the causes of the explosion. Te initial hearings that are documented here are only the first step towards understanding the cause of the oil spill. Te Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the largest


offshore oil spill in United States history and it is understood that – like with the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989 – litigation is being discussed in terms of a 20-year timescale. OMT


47


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52