« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

BP: Observations and Ruminations

BP was safe, like an old lady driving 45 mph on the interstate.

I’m no apologist for Big Oil. As a resident of South Louisiana, I’ve seen the mess that was left behind when they left for greener pastures. The simmering animosity between the “majors” and us “independents” goes back generations. They also have enough dough to carry their own water; they don’t need the help of a small fish blogger like me.

That being said, the press has not used the phrase “Rush to Judgment” a single time in the last 60 days.

And apparently Toyota now manufactures nothing but perfectly safe cars. I haven’t seen a Toyota headline in, oh, about 62 days.

The government’s case against BP was summarized in Congress’s letter to Tony Hayward, “inviting” him to testify before the House Subcommittee last Thursday. Bearing in mind that we are looking at what amounts to the plaintiff’s complaint in a lawsuit, I’d prefer not to be on the side defending BP.

The two decisions that BP made that probably contributed most directly to a hazardous situation were: 1) the decision to run a long string of casing, instead of a liner with subsequent tieback; and 2) the decision to proceed with cementing the casing against Halliburton’s recommendation, despite continued returns of gas cut mud and lots of indications of a low expectation of a good cement job.

There were a number of other warning signs and decisions made because “it has worked before; we’ll probably get away with it”. Having guessed wrong on the casing and the cement, when the dominoes started toppling, it was impossible to stop them.

I can’t emphasize enough the degree to which safety culture pervades all the major oil companies, not just BP. On my recent visit to D.C., I remarked about the stark difference in culture. If a major oil company would have been holding that hearing, with +/- 75 people crammed in a relatively small space, the meeting would have started with a safety briefing informing all attendees as to means of egress in the event of a fire, etc. Avenues of exit from that building are poorly marked. Big Oil, I concluded, is much safer than Congress.

In fact, by all reports from people who have worked for all the majors, BP sets the bar for an obsession on safety. Several people have used the term “overkill”: constant training and reminders about safety. Even their safety meetings have safety meetings. My company’s office is in the same building as a BP production office. You will not find a BP employee’s vehicle in the parking lot which has not been backed in to its space. I’ve heard stories about employees of other major companies losing their jobs for casually pulling forward into a parking space at work.

Such is the challenge of managing human behavior with safety as a goal. I can believe backing into a parking space is statistically safer than pulling forward, and backing out. But it is all too easy to focus people’s attention on the multitude of individual trees that surround them, while losing sight of the forest. Translating a sincere safety culture into the area that matters most, well design and operations standards, was apparently where BP failed.

Much has been made of the decision to run the long string vs. liner. The WSJ article linked above estimates the saving at $7-10 million, and the fact that some of BP’s peers rarely use long strings in this application. Two drilling engineers for whom I have great respect identified that decision early on as a questionable decision. Each of the majors has a well design style and philosophy. BP’s was within the law and had worked many times before, but left little room for error. Certainly that’s an issue that deserves more study.

If there’s a continuum between “poor judgment” on one end, with “negligence” in the middle and “gross negligence” on the extreme end, I would assume that BP exercised a series of poor judgments that ended up biting them in the backside. One of the Congressmen used the term “groupthink” to describe BP’s probable decison making mode, and I tend to agree. It’s not clear to me that there was ever one individual in the decision process who took accountability for the whole outcome; rather, there were a series of low-level decisions based on “we’ll probably get away with it” thinking, but unfortunately, they were wrong.

It’s still not time for assigning blame. Job #1 is controlling the well. There will be plenty of time to decide who’s to blame, and who will pay. BP, if they’re not completely ground into the dirt by the Obama Administration, has the assets to make restitution. And if, at some point, the Administration loses confidence that BP is up to the task of controlling the well, they should assemble an industry-wide team of the best and the brightest, and get the hell out of their way.

Cross-posted at VladEnBlog.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://www.thehayride.com MacAoidh

    …that BP’s safety record is as bad as it is because they think of safety as a product of driving their people crazy about little things as opposed to including it in strategic decision-making.

    The Weekly Standard has a piece out today which hammers this home.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/beyond-pathetic

    But it also appears part of BP’s problem is they don’t want to be an oil company anymore – they’d rather be Enron. And when you’re spending your attention and resources trying to flummox the government into subsidizing windmills and biofuels and the rest of that crap, you’re less likely to be any good at your core business.

    BTW, Vlad, have you read this piece in the Oil Drum about the doomsday scenario whereby the wellbore is hopelessly degraded and there’s nothing anybody can do to stop the leak now? It seems plausible, if unlikely, but I can’t claim anything close to the engineering knowledge necessary to properly evaluate it.

    Link: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593

    • johnCV

      Thanks for the link to that article – it appears BP’s citations were indeed substantive and warranted. If they go down, I hope it’s because of a bad business model and the rewards of bad practice, not because of some corrupt politicians in DC.

      Let’s hope we’re not seeing another way 0bama discovered to take over an industry.

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      It pretty much confirms my observations:

      I had been dissatisfied with the way senior BP management focused so heavily on the easy part of safety, holding the hand rails, spending hours discussing the merits of reverse parking and the dangers of not having a lid on a coffee cup?but were less enthusiastic about the hard stuff, investing in and maintaining their complex facilities.

      The Oil Drum comment I didn’t find, but I don’t really understand about the degraded wellbore. Regardless the condition of the wellbore, it seems to me that if the relief well can intersect its path, it should be able to kill & cement the blowout, at the source.

  • johnCV

    I deal with OSHA and understand that inspectors can be arbitrary and capricious at times.
    The talking point of the Left against BP has been the 700+ safety citations versus only a handful for BP’s competition. Is this in fact the case? Does BP have a record of substantive safety violations?
    I have no love of BP as they have been a tool of PC global warming crowd ( I detest their obnoxious commercials where some technically bankrupt doofus on the street whines about the environment and BP commiserates and says they are ‘working on it’…).
    They are a friend of this administration, but the precedent this situation sets up has far reaching consequences for not only our energy future, but every major natural resource operation in this country.

    BTW, I really enjoy your insights and explanations into the oil industry and appreciate you taking the time to post them. If you have not already, check out www.theoildrum.com for excellent posts relating to the oil industry.

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      …were in their refining business. Same company, same CEO, but very different activities, and very little overlap.

      OSHA doesn’t inspect offshore drilling or production, MMS inspectors do. They are unionized, believe it or not. I’d say they tend to focus on paperwork, metering & things like corrosion (sometimes rust is a structural issue, sometimes not).

      I’m always a little skeptical of violation counts; MMS also obsesses about training. In one area, oil spill management, regs require annual testing, which they interpret to be once every 365 days. IOW if my last training certificate for a course (which I’ve taken 6 times already) is dated June 1, 2009, and I were to handle an oil spill today (June 20, 2010), I might very well receive an INC (Incident of Non-Compliance), as if I forgot everything on day 366.

      • Scope

        is using info that was never fact checked, but feed to them by the O admin. to incite further demonization of the oil industry they hate, and they are using falsies to promote their cause.

        • dennism

          I think Scope intended to say “falacies” not “falsies.” No one would use falsies for the purpose of promoting a cause.

          • blooch

            fake boobs and stuffed shirts….

      • lineholder

        I had heard the information citing 700+ safety violations on the radio show of a well-known conservative. I even repeated that info to someone in a post here at RS last night.

        The inside information you’ve provided about the type of violation alters the context of the situation, and I’m glad to have this clarified so that I won’t make the same mistake again.

        If you’ll excuse me, I have to go kick myself in the backside for a little bit.

        • cactusjack

          I stand by what I reported about watercooler and breakroom talk going around some other oil companies this past week about BP. Also stand by the observation the Dems follow the tobacco settlements playbook on the $20bn. Stupaks reported comment only confirms that.

          • cactusjack
          • lineholder

            so it would make sense that there was a fire causing the smoke. It seemed such a simple cause-and-effect analogy at the time, but I should have verified the info before I posted it.

            Besides, taking myself to task every now and then does me good!!!

  • drfredc

    BPs oil mess is roughly analogous to a California homeowner having a fire that starts a full scale wild fire. Rather than do everything they can do to contain the spread and damage of the fire, the Obamacrats have been stuck on stupid reading regulations that weren’t designed to fight the growing disaster.

    If freely allowed to help without fear of huge legal liabilities, many industry and other folks would have quickly stepped in to help. Sucking the oil from the surface could have started in days, NOT MONTHS, Berms could have been built to reduce damage to fragile ecosystems. Etc, etc.

    But no, enter the Obamacrats, and their heavy handed legal teams. Meanwhile the mess and damage spreads.

    Nothing can be quickly and freely done without first winding thru a maze of conflicting regulations. Meanwhile the mess and damage spreads.

    Help from outside sits and waits approval to get going on cleanup and preventive measures or face legal entanglement. Meanwhile the mess and damage spreads.

    Finally, when the mess gets large enough for Obamacrats to perhaps end up owning BP, or at least get to hand out 20Big of BPs money to perhaps attempt to buy votes with other people’s money, movement finally starts to happen. Never let a crisis go to waste!

    • 6eorge Jetson

      “Rush to judgment”?

      There’s been Zero “rush” to protect the shoreline. To the contrary, there’s not an obstacle to clean-up that Obama won’t embrace, such as the Coast Guard shutting down barges sucking up oil.

      The greater the damage to the Gulf, the larger the escrow slush fund.

      The only siphoning that interests Obama is that his lawyer friends will suck from the escrow fund.

      • The Old Dog

        should go to healthcare. Obviously the Dems are highly worried about the wacky accounting tricks they used as the wool over the sheeple’s eyes to get 0bamacare passed. Stupak quickly amended that to say ‘healthcare for people in the Gulf’ but it’s not too hard to discern what was really in the plan. And we’ve seen 0bama use other useful idiots to float ideas out there to see what the reaction is. Reminds me of the general who sends a few troops up against a suspected heavily fortified line just to see how many guns there are, not caring a whit about the loss of a few soldiers. Of course, Stupak is carrion already so it’s not a BFD.

  • texasgalt

    Lots of businesses feel that way but the rules and regs just keep coming. It is to the point you can’t do business for going through all the “process”.

  • hungarianfalcon

    Different regulatory agencies have different policies on citations and companies have different interpreations. Not sure, which agency, but our company had an interpretation of one reg. where each time interval (15 min, 1 hr, or 1 day, can’t remember which) where you weren’t in compliance you were given a citation. Well, when you miss something (don’t have a meter on a vent, forgot to calibrate, calculations on vapor pressure, etc.) and don’t catch it for an extended period of time, a single mistake can become hundreds or even thousands of citations.

    One thing the lay people ALWAYS need to keep in mind when considering regulatory bodies (in particularly environmental), check the logic at the door. Even when you are trying to put yourselves in their shoes and use what you think is their logic, things very infrequently make sense.

    They are essentially trying to enforce industries they know nothing about with a mindset that is more often than not hostile to that industry and armed with legislation that is carved out to favor different lobbying constituencies akin to gerrymandering voting districts.

    HF

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir
    • Achance

      against BP. They practically had a hotline to Waxman from the North Slope for some time. This stuff is right out of the top of their toolbag. Complain to your client federal agency, or state agency in the Blue states, about everything and make the company nuts. Most of it is BS, but you can be sure it will all be admissible in any lawsuit.

  • Scope

    I thought BP has been consulting with everyone anyone with any experise around the world to come up with ideas to stop the gusher, and not relying strictly on BP people.

    You have talked about the long string of casing rather than a liner, and then cementing it, which were design flaws apparently. I was reading an article on the online WSJ (which has since been removed) which talked about an investigative hearing that was held between the CG and MMS. A few survivors testified that the BP “company man” made a decision earlier that day, in a meeting, where he prevailed over many protests, that the heavy mud would be displaced with lighter seawater before closing it. Would using lighter seawater have allowed gas to escape, which would have caused the explosion? Would the heavier mud (which weighs between 15-20 lbs. per gallon, I understand) and is more viscous, have prevented the gas bubbles from forming and escaping?

    It seems from reports that the rig was experiencing problems before the explosion. Despite the design flaws, would the decision on the seawater be the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak?

    I understand the BP company man did not attend the hearing, claiming undisclosed health problems,and, the Transocean man who followed the BP man’s orders, didn’t attend saying he was pleading the 5th.

    Do you know if anyone is any closer to issuing a report on the exact causes, if they have determined them yet? As you said, it seemed there were a string of low level mistakes, or bad decisions made. While the head of any company is ultimately responsible for everything that happens good or bad, Hayward was not there, and I would think the BP company man wasn’t calling him with every desision made, Hayward was correct in responding to any DC inquisitors at the Thurs. criminal trial held by our Congress creeps. How can he answer anything when all may still not be known. And, I’m not even talking about the $20 billion escrow account.

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      The only way to safely deal with an open wellbore is to have it “dead”, meaning the weight of the fluid in the hole exceeds the bottomhole pressure. Drilling engineers talk about the mud weight equivalent that it takes to keep pressure at bay – so you’re asking for a blowout if you have a partial column of 8.5 pound per gallon sea water holding back a 14 ppg formation pressure.

      The only reason BP did that was because they thought they had wellbore integrity due to a bad test.

      • Scope

        go to man for this entire episode. And, it is a pleasure to hear from one in the know. We don’t have to search through the weeds of misfacts or misstatements by those that have an agenda.

  • renny

    Maybe BP intended all along to provide an extra $20 billion here and there just to be in on the krap and trade dealings.

    Along with GE and other stooges, there must be gadzillions in it for them down the road.

    Liberman says on Drudge he doesn’t have the votes for “energy” yet.
    Hopefully, never.

    • Scope

      British Petroleum became legally BP, which I understand stands for Beyond Petroleum. I don’t want to dirty Vladimir’s diary, but, I must wonder why that low little company man, Donald Vidrine, made that fateful decision, on that fateful day. I am no where into conspiracy theories, but, why on that day, did the BP “company man” Vidrine, decide to use a risky method to close down the well, when the well had already been recorded to already have some risky problems? and very much against the main driller (killed in the accident) and also against the Transocean people. I hope that there are many investigations that include looking into Vidrines background. BP should be looking heavily into their hire. Or someone else should be looking into it. I suspect that in the end, Vidrine will be found culpable, and, the Transocean guy will be an accessory because he went along with Vidrine, and against what he knew was the best judgement.

  • ncindependence

    No wonder this is not all adding up. There is some kind of cover up here and I think BP and MMS are in it together and now their all trying to cover each other’s rear. BP and MMS should be destroyed!!

    There’s no reason why the US couldn’t privatize the land that is being drilled instead of trying to control everything. The landowners surely would make sure everything was right.

    follow link to Bloomberg. It’s also on FOX now I think

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-17/bp-struggled-with-cracks-in-gulf-well-as-early-as-february-documents-show.html

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      …and the Center for Biological Diversity.

      The Bloomberg article rather breathlessly describes events that are encountered more or less routinely in many wells. BP admittedly had problems with the well earlier, but there’s no indications that those problems were the proximate cause of the blowout.

      The blowout stemmed from the decisions I laid out in the OP,
      centerd around the decision to run a long string instead of a liner, and how to cement it.

  • Adjoran

    But remember, in the rush to hang someone, that the oil which is gushing out of the ocean floor BELONGS to BP. It is their money which is being lost, not to mention creating huge liabilities for them through the environmental and economic damages.

    It isn’t as if they said, “Well, boys, we could spend an extra half a mil and be safe, but screw the damn sea turtles and estuaries! Roll the dice!”

    And yet we have suddenly declared this company EVIL, and everyone who manages it, as well, it seems. Forget the rule of law and courts and torts, let’s have our Beloved And Benevolent Leader “suggest” an extralegal “escrow” fund – to be administered by someone HE appoints. “Rule of Law?” Balderdash! We have an emergency here!

    The power to rule by decree we have hereby granted Obama is a greater threat to the world than all the oil in that hole.

    • edingerb

      Except for the sea turtles part. I have been on hundreds of wells, just so you don’t think this is coming from some ignorant outsider with an opinion.

      On MANY occasions, I have seen the company man bypass steps that are standard procedure just to save time or money (and both.) I was on a well where we were seeing 3000 psi constant after completing a 90 degree curve into the production zone. The 11 pound mud was grossly inadequate and the company man ordered the driller to “get it out of the hole” referring to the drill pipe, so he could get the casing in. He had a live, under-balanced well that was kicking and just wanted to save time and money. As it turned out, the driller was pulling out and taking enormous kicks, he woke up the rig manager (tool-pusher) and there was a very public fight over what to do. The pusher told the company man to get screwed and ordered the driller to go back to the shoe and circulate until the mud was up to 13.4 ppg. After 16 hours of circulation, and 14 ppg mud weight, they returned to bottom and tried to get it under control from there. Still no luck. They eventually got stuck and had to cement the hole and sidetrack.

      All that said, I have seen many company men make similar stupid decision like that due to the pervasive pressure of THEIR superiors to get the job done faster and cheaper. MANY times I have seen them cost themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars after trying to save a few hours (no wiper trip or no circulating before pulling out resulting in stuck pipe and lost tools.)

      I was in disbelief when I heard that they displaced the mud with seawater on the Transocean rig (at the time I was on a platform in the Mexican side of the gulf.) My first thought was that it did not happen because NO rig manager would EVER let a company man jeopardize his men with a stupid decision like that. I still find it hard to believe it happened, but short of a conspiracy (I won’t even go there) none of the rig managers I have ever known would have gone along with that. We would have been circulating and “waiting on orders” while the chain of command was climbed until the right decision was made.

      I will also say that if the rig manager knows what he is doing, usually his superiors will back him 100% of the time and will not allow the oil company (BP in this case) to override his decision.

      Additionally, on ALL rigs that I have worked on, ANYONE can stop an unsafe act at any time (until it is too late.) Unfortunately, most do not for several reasons. Often, they don’t know what is going on. Often they have seen the act many times before and nothing happened.

      And lately, when we have had “booms’ in the industry, I have seen EXTREMELY inexperienced and unqualified people get handed the position of company man, just to fill the job. Many (in the oilfield) see it as a cushy, high-paying, do nothing job where you do nothing all day but watch HBO or the Western channel, as long as the reports are in by 5:00 AM. Often, they are correct. But when there is a problem, the company man and the rig manager need a wealth of knowledge and experience to avert a crisis like the one we are now watching unfold.

      Off the soapbox, back to the subject. Unfortunately, due to pressure to decrease days drilling, it is regular practice to cut corners on the rigs. However, when it comes to BOP’s (blowout preventers) and other well-killing equipment and procedures, you will rarely see corners cut.

      From what I have been able to find out, BP was given a pass in this area. They did not install and properly test the BOP’s. I have never seen that happen before. (I have refused to work on BP rigs for the last 10 years for other reasons, so I don’t know if they are guilty of this violation previously. It would be something to look into.)

      Before the Transocean rig collapsed, while it was burning, the MSM was reporting “there will be an oil spill after the rig collapses.” I have to think that they were fed that because BP knew the BOP’s were not functioning and there was nothing in place to stop the oil flow.

      Just so people know, very early in the well, the BOP’s and other devices are in place and functioning. They are modified and tested throughout the well, based on casing and liner size. So, there should not have been an oil spill of any great magnitude if proper procedure was followed.

      I could go on, but I sense this post is getting long and keeps turning into a soapbox. I do not post very regularly, so don’t expect me to engage in any verbal battles over mine or anyone else’s statements here.

      Vladimir is doing far better than I could and seems to have the time to respond with his insights. I have learned a bunch from what I have read.

      • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

        The key point being that MODUs are ocean-going vessels in international waters, and the Offshore Installation Manager (OIM or toolpusher) as captain of the vessel holds a huge trump card over the operator, in this case BP.

        It sounds like you’ve seen the OIM’s trump card played. Why it apparently was not with BP is a mystery for now, as the OIM was killed in the blast & the BP company man is not talking.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    You evidently work in the same building complex my wife does. She is a Conoco/Phillips employee.

    The safety first, and I might add, environment first attitude that you see in the major Oil companies would indeed be a revelation to the oil company critics.

    They are more likely to think of them as some sort of cowboy wildcatters like Daniel Day Lewis’ character in “There will be Blood.”

    On the other hand, that is exactly the way things used to be in the oil and gas industry. It took many years to change that corporate climate.

    Now we see that, for all the good it has done, the industry still faces crippling legislation from the idiots in Washington. In the same way as a stupid and unimaginative teacher would punish the entire class for the actions of one.

  • txgho1911

    So break down for the crowd the parties who partake in Union membership? Many people who are reading this may take some statements from above as blanket and true in that context.
    MMS is a unionized shop. Union rules hold sway and nobody cleans after themselves to leave it to the union custodian?

    Offshore oilfield labor?

    E&P company employees?

    Offshore services companies that support housekeeping and mess are similar to airline/airport contracted catering services and likely union.

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      I’m not aware of any large-scale union penetration in the private sector.

      Some companies in the past have had union workers (OCAW?) on production platforms. Most of that activity is contracted out nowadays.

      It’s not much of a day-to-day issue. I find it strange, though, that the gov’t workers on whom the system “depends” are unionized, like postal workers or the TSA. I don’t know to what extent their work rules limit them – hours of work per day, etc.

      • The_Gadfly

        Don’t work in either of those agencies, just started working as a contractor in a government shop, but if what I’ve seen is any indication, it really depends on how much a given employee wants to stand on the rules. I’ve seen at least two instances so far of someone in the union standing on a rule and preventing the deployment of improved services for the employees. In one instance an instruction was sent out containing correct information, but which had not been vetted by the union rep. The email was recalled. We expect to reissue it, effectively unaltered after the union vets it. In another we are prevented from telling certain employees to upgrade their software to a newer version so they can learn it to support it even though they don’t expect to ever obligate money to train the people who will be doing the support. But if those same employees “request” that we install the software, that’s okay.

        • Achance

          more than union rights. Legally the employer couldn’t change unilaterally something in such a way as to change a contract term. If the union thinks a memo changes a contract term, they can grieve it and an arbitrator or an administrative tribunal will sort it out. They can’t stop you from making the change prospectively usually but they can make you restore the status quo ante if you’re found to have violated the agreement.

          It depends on the law and the contract whether you can change a term of employment that isn’t specifically addressed in the contract. Some agreements will put that sort of dispute into the grievance procedure, others will leave it up to a labor board or the courts to decide if you’ve made an unbargained unilateral change. An unbargained unilateral change to a mandatory subject of bargaining is a per se unfair labor practice under most laws.

          What usually happens is that piss poor management is either politically allied with the union so they give them veto power over manageament action or they’re afraid of the union so they give them power they don’t actually have. Here is Alaska’s policy on dealing with union representatives: http://doa.alaska.gov/dop/fileadmin/lr/pdf/representationrevised.pdf

          Actually, the first version of that was written under a Democrat administration and they did in fact go ask the union if it was OK to send it out. Of course the union said no even though it is perfectly legal and in fact quite a conservative interpretation of the employer’s rights. I kept it on my computer and it was one of the first things I issued after we restored adult supervision.

          I’f you’ll look at all the memos between 1-01 and 6-06 interpreting and applying union rights and contracts, I’ll guarantee you the union wasn’t asked about any of them and they didn’t sucessfully grieve any of them either. Here: http://doa.alaska.gov/dop/LaborRelations/interpretativeMemo/

          You might also note that there were a lot more before 6-06 than there have been since, but none of the old ones have been rescinded unless rendered obsolete by changed circumstances.

  • http://www.dcworksforus.com Kenny Solomon

    Take a look at this and let us know what you think.

    Possible Nightmare Scenario: Well Bore Structure Is Compromised ?Down Hole?