Little is known (or at least has been released) about the actual failure of the Blowout Preventer on the Deepwater Horizon. However, a technical paper (2003) has surfaced that may be a “smoking gun” if it is found that maintenance was deferred on the BOP to reduce costs of drilling.
Here’s a link to the paper (Earl Shanks, Transocean, presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, 2003):
Here’s one of the “smoking gun” quotes:
“Because of the pressure on getting the equipment back to work, root cause analysis of the failure is generally not performed.”
Ah … a failure to perform root cause analysis to save time (and big bucks) during drilling.
Another quote:
“In general, operating reliability (of the BOP) is maintained on rigs mostly through regular maintenance intervals rather than specifying a reliability of a system or a component to minimize maintenance.”
The article also said:
“… this is a very expensive approach, and it is also an opportunity to introduce human error into the system.”
Most of the paper is about ways to improve the design and reliability of Blowout Preventers. But the vultures are circling. And the smoking gun quotes above will mean trouble if it is found that any maintenance was skipped or if the BOP had a poor reliability record.
If maintenance was skipped and/or if the BOP had a poor reliability record, you will hear the cry that BP is once again trading lives (as at the BP Texas City explosion) and the environment (as at the corrosion related oil leaks in their pipeline at Prudhoe Bay). Actually, many don’t need evidence. They will start saying it already!
More BOP reliability questioning in this article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/louisiana-oil-spill-didl-industry-ignore-problems-equipment/story?id=10561628
AWFUL lot of “IFs”, in there, partner. As for trading lives for profits: what’s new about that?
Why would the smoking gun come back to BP?
You just said that the document was transocean’s and the rig was transocean’s and that they didn’t want to maintain the BOP for cost. It sounds from what you’ve just said that Transocean cut corners and not BP as BP contracted Transocean to drill the well and did not operate it.
Why is BP more culpable for the BOP failure than Transocean?
Good point.
However, even though BP “contracts” the rig, they also direct how business is done on the rig. They have supervisory personnel on the rig to make sure that Transocean does what they want.
Saving money is done to save BP money. Transocean makes money every day the rig is drilling for BP.
Ultimately, BP is responsible for everything every contractor does on that rig.
Mark- what utter nonsense. Irrespective on the fact that if they did cut corners, they breached contract- pure and simple (gotta love the amount of cover the US firm at the centre of this disaster is getting), they had and have a responsibility to every man and woman who works on their rigs. They abjectly failed in that responsibility, so catastrophically that 11 workers died in the explosion (and two others in the cleanup).
That fact is frankly the first thing to remember in this- not the millions of gallons of oil (which should be remembered but secondary to the deaths), not the ecological effects present and in the future (which again should be remembered but secondary to the deaths). The truth is this fact has fallen into the background except when running off stats about the disaster. That’s a problem with US culture and the US media- money seems more important than human life, hence why corners are cut in the first place. A permissive culture of pursuing profit at the expense of everything else (More examples to labour the point- Enron, Sub-Prime Economic Crisis, WorldCom, etc, etc).
If anyone cut corners- BP, Transocean, Local & Federal Government- whoever, they need to be put against the wall. Really is that simple- not bet hedging, no mud slinging, no finger pointing- all culpable should pay the price of their hubris and greed.
Really don’t like supposition- it’s counter to the notion of Root Cause Analysis. What is interesting is how poisoned with anti-BP (Anti-British?) sentiment is clouding the pursuit of a fuller picture of what actually happened that deprived 11 families of their loved ones. Articles like this really don’t inform the case at all, merely muddy the waters with yet more rumour and innuendo. The problem is I don’t think that a court case will clear it up either.
Ian
You need to read the rest of the BP Deepwater posts to get the “Smoking Gun” article in context.
The reason this is a “smoking gun” paper is because BP and Transocean haven’t released much information and thus papers that shed light on the accident and that seem to point a finger back at BP and Transocean for cost cutting that compromises safety provide “the smoking gun” that “convicts” them of negligence.
Actually, I think the blowout preventer failure is just one of many Causal Factors that were a part of the sequence of events. So focusing on it to the exclusion of all else is just one of the many mistakes that some in the press are making.
Also, I don’t think the accident has anything to do about the nationalities of the people or companies involved. I’ve said that before and I’ll say it again. However, BP does have a history of serious accidents and cost cutting has been a common theme that was highlighted by independent investigations.
Finally, I agree that the fatalities are the most serious impact of the accidents. Let’s hope that people remember those that died.
Best Regards,
Mark
G’Day! Taproot,
Maybe a little off topic, however, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is typically associated with operational activities, but there is no reason that the practices that make this tool so effective in getting at the root cause of operational problems can’t be used to determine the cause of a project problem. The Root Cause Analysis method, when properly used, gives the project manager the ability to diagnose a problem that negatively impacted the project and remove it when it is first noticed. Lessons Learned is a similar tool, but is not designed to address one specific problem, nor is it designed to be used on the spot. RCA is one of a family of tools I’ll call “continuous improvement” tools because their purpose is to improve project performance and they can be used over and over.
Thx.
Julia,
Excellent point. Here are a few articles that point to the same direction. so definitely not off track.
http://www.taproot.com/wordpress/archives/27318
http://www.taproot.com/wordpress/archives/2090
You may be interested in attending our Quality Course in February:
TapRooT® Quality/Six Sigma/Lean Advanced Root Cause Analysis Training
http://www.taproot.com/courses.php?d=42
Julia
Completely agree.
Mark