Deepwater Horizon supervisor confirms leaks in blowout preventer, lack of certification

[maddezmom]

Source: NOLA.com

A top Transocean official acknowledged the failed blowout preventer on the Deepwater Horizon was not certified in accordance with federal regulations because the certification process would require full disassembly and more than 90 days of downtime.


And the company's engineer in charge of maintaining critical safety equipment on the rig testified before a federal investigative panel in Houston on Wednesday that he and other rig officials weren't concerned about three hydraulic leaks in the massive stack of valves and pistons that was supposed to close in the well that blew out April 20, triggering the massive Gulf oil spill.

Billy Stringfellow, the Transocean shore-side official known as the subsea superintendent, said he didn't hear about the leaks before the incident and left it up to rig workers to determine if they were significant enough to report.

Stringfellow and Mark Hay, the subsea supervisor on the Deepwater Horizon, acknowledged that the blowout preventer had not gone through a recertification every three to five years, as set by federal regulations. Stringfellow brushed that aside, however, saying Transocean considered it sufficient to simply monitor the device's condition while it was in use, rather than having to bring it to dry dock to get a full certification.


Read more: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/08/deepwater_horizon_supervisor_c.html

[dkf]

1. So it was the crews fault? No pressure from bp or rig?

[Frisbee]

2. somebody is going to be paid quite well...

for taking the fall on this.

[dipsydoodle]

3. From what is in that report that doesn't follow.

This is evidence which will be taken into consideration with other evidence.

Overall there seems to be 2 seperate issues :

What , aside from the blowout which exceeded its rating which was 20,000 lbs/sq" max, caused the BOP to fail leading to the death of 11 crew members.

What actually caused the rig to sink, tearing the pipe apart, allowing the oil to escape into the Gulf.

The evidence here only has bearing on the former and doubtless other eveidence will accompany it. Its good that it has been reported by a reputable source and not a blog written by someone with only half a brain.

[dkf]

4. But the BOP only works on one pipe and it sounds like it couldn't handle

The amount it was being given. Or am I reading this wrong?

[dipsydoodle]

5. One of the issues

is/was the magnitude of the gas blowout which far far exceeded the rating of the BOP. The BOP was the heaviest duty one in existence so its not that an alternative could have been used. However - following the blowout its not yet apparent what else the rams whatever were supposed to do assuming they were undamaged. I understand that the BOP is being / will be raised from the sea bed for inspection and only when that is done will more become clear.

As an aside - I don't know if the rig will also be raised. Apparently Transocean have already been paid by their insurers for its loss and at that time there was no intention of recovering it. That implies that the insurers may have allowed them to retain title to the rig based on cost of recovery beimng uneconomic.

I'm not trying to defend anyone here. I just believe that much much more has yet to reach the light of day with regard to repsonsabilities in this case.

:hi:

[bherrera]

10. This is good news for BP, of course

it is evident that under the contractual arrangement, the maintenance of the equipment belonging to a contractor is the responsibility of the contractor. It is also evident BP does not benefit by pressuring the contractor to carry out required maintenance on a piece of equipment. The contractor should offer a price which allows for this equipment to be maintained, and to be replaced while it is being maintained by a fully capable replacement, this is done in industry all the time. If the Horizon owner did not bid this contract to cover the cost of this maintenance, then it was very ambitious to obtain more profits.

I suspect this is a case where BP and the Horizon owner were both trying to increase their profits by decreasing costs. But if the rig owner is partially responsible, then the BP responsibility is shared. BP, of course, is responsible because it hired a contractor performing with a lower level than required by the government regulators. The government regulators are also guilty because they failed to audit this maintenance record properly.

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. "Stringfellow brushed that aside, however, saying Transocean considered

it sufficient to simply monitor the device's condition while it was in use, rather than having to bring it to dry dock to get a full certification."

Familiar now with the transcendental presumption of the oil industry, I was half-expecting to read:
"Stringfellow added: 'Rules are for the guidance of the wise and the obedience of fools.'"

[Thor_MN]

7. See, Industries CAN self-regulate!!!

Makes much more sense to let industry regulate itself. Businesses will always make the correct decisions. :crazy:

[Strelnikov_]

19. Atlas shrugged n/t

[Nihil]

8. Facts? Who needs 'em?

> A top Transocean official acknowledged the failed blowout preventer on the
> Deepwater Horizon was not certified in accordance with federal regulations
> because the certification process would require full disassembly and more
> than 90 days of downtime.

> And the company's engineer in charge of maintaining critical safety equipment
> on the rig testified before a federal investigative panel in Houston on Wednesday
> that he and other rig officials weren't concerned about three hydraulic leaks
> in the massive stack of valves and pistons that was supposed to close in the
> well that blew out April 20, triggering the massive Gulf oil spill.


Hmmm ... do I hear any retractions of the anti-BP vitriol from the last couple
of months? Or do I just hear more denial, fingers being inserted into ears and
many choruses of "La-la-la I made up my mind in April and I'm not changing it
for any damn evidence to the contrary!"?


(Quick edit for typo)

[Trajan]

14. FUCK BP ....

And their supporters ...

I dont care how many subcontracts exist ... BP has a social responsibility for assuring all safety requirements were being met ...

I reject any notion that BP can avoid responsibility by pointing to it's subcontracts ...

[Nihil]

15. Looks like my second guess was correct. (n/t)

[Lightning Count]

16. Let's say you hire someone to mow your lawn.

They haven't properly maintained their lawnmower and have done some dangerous modifications on it without your knowledge. While mowing the lawn the lawnmower explodes and flying debris kills a child playing next door. Who's responsibility is it?

[Downwinder]

17. There is enough blame to spread around.

When you are down to depending on the BOP to save your ass, you are already in an emergence condition. There were multiple mechanical and decision failures necessary to reach that point.

[Nihil]

18. Now *that* is true enough. (n/t)

[Downwinder]

9. Is there competency at any level of BP or Transocean?

Does this disprove Rand and verify Dr. Laurence Johnston Peter?

[dkf]

11. Is the government capable of making sure companies follow regulations?

Who was supposed to check that transocean followed regulations?

[Downwinder]

12. The boys in blue sure seem to enforce their regulations out here on the street.

I would say the capability is there if the desire is also present.

[Lightning Count]

13. So will BP be off the hook for the 20 Billion now? nt