Investigative Report: How the BP Oil Rig Blowout Happened // Current

How horribly ironic. It is the humans of engineering brilliance who develop the technology to drill this deep, but as soon as non-technical managers take control, they ignore the profoundly important advice of the engineers that made the whole thing possible.

It seems to Loozerio that this falls into the more general context of right wing negation of science. Is it envy that causes the mediocre minds of the right wing to belittle science? Do these mediocre minds, being of wealth and power by being ruthless bean-counters, use that higher socio-economic rank to punish the brilliant minds? Just asking.

Did the engineers have to sign off on the plans or did management just make the decisions and the engineers carry them out. Engineering ethic's main requirement is "To protect the public" while management is concerned with politics and making money.

In the case of the Challenger, the decision whether to launch was the responsibility of Bob Lund, the vice president of engineering for Morton Thiokol. On the advice of his engineers, he recommended against the launch.

However, Jerald Mason, the general manager of Morton Thiokol, called a meeting to discuss the decision. He asked Bob Lund to "Take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat." He was asking Lund, in effect, to put aside his engineering ethics and weigh the very unlikely possibility of an accident against the public relations benefits of launching on schedule. Apparently, that argument worked as Lund approved the launch, despite the fact that the predicted launch temperature was outside of the operational specifications. At 59 seconds into the launch, the O-rings failed and the rocket exploded, plunging the Challenger into the ocean and killing all seven astronauts. It was the worst disaster in the U.S. space program's history and it was ultimately a result of a failure of ethics.

Managers who cause disasters by overriding engineer's decisions or engineers who let them or who ignore engineering ethics should be financially and criminally liable for the disaster. However, in the Challenger disaster, the one who suffered the most was the whistle-blower who not only adamantly recommended against the launch but told the truth about the errors, not on the ones who made the errors.

BK

You want to know how it happened? See the Totally Obfuscated Dumpsite (TOD) at my column.

The seven quotes from the article shown below brings into sharp focus just how complacent MMS had become to their own procedures and regulations. It also shows BPs total disregard for safety not only for the rig but the public and environment as well.

1. The Deepwater Horizon disaster resulted from many human and technical failings in a risk-taking corporation that operated in an industry with ineffective regulatory oversight.

2. Robert Bea, an engineering professor at the university of California–Berkeley. "It was a chain of important errors made by people in critical situations involving complex technological and organization systems."

3. In fact, neither BP nor any of its competitors had "proven equipment or technology" or any backup plan for a catastrophic failure at great depth.

4. Robert Bea adds: "Because BP and the MMS believed that the potential consequences were ‘insignificant,' they were not prepared for the failures associated with the Deepwater Horizon's operations, both in prevention and containment."

5. Gordon Aaker Jr., a failure analysis consultant with the firm Engineering Services, told the House committee investigating the blowout that it was "unheard of" not to perform this routine test on a single casing well. He called BP's decision to skip the cement bond log "horribly negligent."

6. Transocean documents show that when it bought this particular BOP in 2001, the company identified 260 separate ways it could fail. During a Congressional hearing, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., asked: "How can a device that has 260 failure modes be considered fail-safe?"

7. But worst of all, says Ford Brett, president of Oil and Gas Consultants International, the blowout "wasn't an accident in the traditional sense, like when someone just hits your car. It was an accident that was totally preventable."

Item #3 above is the most disturbing to me. How can the government permit these wells if the people requesting the permit can not show any plans for control and containment in the event of a deep water catastrophe?

Item #6 proves that Transocean management is educated beyond their collective intelligence and has the aggregate IQ of a stone. Would you buy a car that had 260 known failure modes then take your family for a ride? I don’t think you would, why, because you are smarter than that.

Fast forward the BOP failed (no surprises there they knew it would), the well exploded and killed 11 and injured 17, Macondo well spewed oil in excess of 400,000 barrels into the Gulf of Mexico, BP ignored the Coast Guard and sprayed over 200,000 gallons of Corexit to disperse the oil knowing that Narco the makers of Corexit in their MSDS state not to be broadcast on open water. BP funds a survey then tells the public the Gulf is safe, the fisheries are opened and the fish and shell fish are declared safe to eat. And within days the oyster beds are showing a die off of between 80 and 90%. Some one pass me the shrimp (not). Roflmao

The irony is item #7 this whole fiasco didn't have to happen!!!!!

I'm concerned that BP is not finishing the relief well. What will happen if there is a hurricane in the gulf before they permanently plug it. I mean, if they can - I'm even beginning to have doubts about that. Why are they procrastinating?