Oil spills, finger pointing and politics

A benefit of working in heavy industry most of my life has provided myself and others like me, a useful tool called root cause analysis. This tool is used in many companies to pin-point the cause of failure of equipment, accident investigation and generally get to the bottom of a complex problem.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is certainly a big problem, at least for BP, Transocean, the Department of the Interior (through it's Mineral Management Service (MMS)) and the people along the shore caught in the middle (pun intended).

A true root cause analysis can take days, weeks, or even longer, I plan to do mine in the space of this blog.

All oil drilling rigs have a blowout preventer installed, which is designed to stop the flow of oil in the event of an accident. The blowout preventer on the Deepwater Horizon failed and oil continues to flow from the well. In 2004, the MMS had a report which suggested the reliability of the blowout preventers may not be reliable. Because these devices could fail, other countries, such as Norway and Brazil require a backup device, know as a remote-controlled shut off switch, which wasn't used or required on this well.

Many companies in the real world employ backup devices on a daily basis, probably the best example you are probably familar with are the TWO engines (or more) on the passenger jet you flew to Orlando for vacation. If one engine fails, the back up allows the plane to continue to fly and land the plane safely.

So, who determines if a remote-controlled shut off switch must be used? MMS or better yet, the Department of the Interior (DoI), i.e. the Federal Government. Through the permitting process, the DoI receives a request to drill, looks at the company's environment impact statement and if they agree, issue a permit to drill.

So had the DoI required BP to install the remote-controlled shut off switch, they would have been required to do so and this whole problem might have been avoided. So why didn't they require the device? Did the Doi expect BP to regulate themselves and install a device that costs roughly $500,000? News flash, generally no company will spend any additional capital on safety or environmental devices unless required to do so by a law or regulation. Which is why we have OSHA, MSHA, EPA and all the other regulatory groups and laws in our government.

So the DoI didn't require a backup device, did they require BP to have a plan in place to stop or minimize the effects of a spill if one were to happen? No, they didn't.

Does the DoI have an oil spill plan in place? I mean after the Exxon Valdez, you would think the government would come up with some sort of response plan wouldn't you? Well, they don't, unless you consider "burning of the oil" as a plan. Seriously, if you aren't going to require the drilling company to have backup devices and an oil spill clean up plan, shouldn't the Department of the government that is charged with the "protection and management of the Nation's natural resources" have a plan in place, you know, just in case?

Shocking to no one, both political parties are trying to use this disaster for political gain, and personally I think both parties should avoid throwing rocks in a glass house. The Democrats, Robert F. Kennedy via Huffingtonpost.com have said it is the fault of the Bush Administration. But he seems to forget, the Deepwater Horizon was completely permitted during the Obama Administration, and at any point the DOI could have required BP to use the devices but didn't. In fact, the DOI granted BP a waiver from doing a detailed environmental analysis. The Republicans are calling it Obama's Katrina, but seem to forget the requirement for the devices disappeared during the Bush Administration.