« | »

NYT Claims BP Ignored Rig Safety Risks

From a witch-hunting New York Times:

Documents Show Early Worries About Safety of Rig


May 29, 2010

WASHINGTON — Internal documents from BP show that there were serious problems and safety concerns with the Deepwater Horizon rig far earlier than those the company described to Congress last week.

The problems involved the well casing and the blowout preventer, which are considered critical pieces in the chain of events that led to the disaster on the rig.

The documents show that in March, after several weeks of problems on the rig, BP was struggling with a loss of “well control.” And as far back as 11 months ago, it was concerned about the well casing and the blowout preventer.

On June 22, for example, BP engineers expressed concerns that the metal casing the company wanted to use might collapse under high pressure.

“This would certainly be a worst-case scenario,” Mark E. Hafle, a senior drilling engineer at BP, warned in an internal report. “However, I have seen it happen so know it can occur.”

The company went ahead with the casing, but only after getting special permission from BP colleagues because it violated the company’s safety policies and design standards. The internal reports do not explain why the company allowed for an exception. BP documents released last week to The Times revealed that company officials knew the casing was the riskier of two options.

Though his report indicates that the company was aware of certain risks and that it made the exception, Mr. Hafle, testifying before a panel on Friday in Louisiana about the cause of the rig disaster, rejected the notion that the company had taken risks.

“Nobody believed there was going to be a safety issue,” Mr. Hafle told a six-member panel of Coast Guard and Minerals Management Service officials.

“All the risks had been addressed, all the concerns had been addressed, and we had a model that suggested if executed properly we would have a successful job,” he said

So, who should we believe? The Times or the senior drilling engineer at BP, who says that all of the concerns addressed in the earlier documents had been addressed?

BP’s concerns about the casing did not go away after Mr. Hafle’s 2009 report.

In April of this year, BP engineers concluded that the casing was “unlikely to be a successful cement job,” according to a document, referring to how the casing would be sealed to prevent gases from escaping up the well.

The document also says that the plan for casing the well is “unable to fulfill M.M.S. regulations,” referring to the Minerals Management Service.

A second version of the same document says “It is possible to obtain a successful cement job” and “It is possible to fulfill M.M.S. regulations.”

Andrew Gowers, a BP spokesman, said the second document was produced after further testing had been done.

Again, should we believe the first draft of a document or the second draft that “was produced after further testing had been done”?

Doesn’t it sound like The Time is clutching at straws here to try to shift the blame off of the federal regulators and onto BP?

In April, the month the rig exploded, workers encountered obstructions in the well. Most of the problems were conveyed to federal regulators, according to federal records. Many of the incidents required that BP get a permit for a new tactic for dealing with the problem.

One of the final indications of such problems was an April 15 request for a permit to revise its plan to deal with a blockage, according to federal documents obtained from Congress by the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental advocacy group.

In the documents, company officials apologized to federal regulators for not having mentioned the type of casing they were using earlier, adding that they had “inadvertently” failed to include it. In the permit request, they did not disclose BP’s own internal concerns about the design of the casing.

"Concerns" that had been subsequently tested and eventually dismissed.

Less than 10 minutes after the request was submitted, federal regulators approved the permit.

Again, if any of this is true, than it sure sounds like at the very least the federal regulators at the MMS share responsibility with BP.

But you have to wade through this typically long and roundabout Times piece before you get to any hint of that — buried as it is in the final three paragraphs.

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, May 30th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

7 Responses to “NYT Claims BP Ignored Rig Safety Risks”

  1. tranquil.night says:

    It must be very depressing for the workers and executives alike of this company right now. Not only is the boot on the throat, but the arms are chained, the whip is crackin’, and for the grand finale the tar and feathers are comin’ out as the ravenous left prepares to try to chase them out of town (or prepares the noose?).

    It’s truly dismal and pathetic; a complete systemic disaster/failure by no other entity than the federal government. Even if any or all of this was completely accurate, it still pales in comparison to how we watched that slick of oil creep towards Louisiana’s coast for 5 weeks – listened to Jindal beg for help in preempting it – and then.. nothing. Purposely. And you can’t claim that’s BP’s fault when you’re claiming you’ve been on the job and directing them from day one.

  2. proreason says:

    Steve, you should find or create a graphic for the site with Obamy and his boot on the throat of American citizens.



    Note: pictures are clean

  3. canary says:

    Steve/”Again, if any of this is true, than it sure sounds like at the very least the federal regulators at the MMS share responsibility with BP.”

    You are 100% correct. Salazar did not enforce any of the federal agencies like MMS, EPA to perform the rigorous required inspections required. BP was given a free, get by fast, pass.

    Enough environmentalists know this. Dishonest ones like Gore & Obama will spin it, and dumb ones will believe the dishonest ones.

    Obama’s crime was saying that the federal government could not get involved, because the BP was private property. Any sea 3 miles off the American coast is federal waters, and not even a search warrant was needed.
    Obama could have ordered BP to allow Shell, etc. to aid.
    Obama bought himself, & BP as much time as possible to cover-up as much as possible, except to cover-up the hole.

    Salazar would have been in direct charge over seeing all was done correctly. It is possible that Obama Speedo told Salazar to skip all the mandatory regulations and “drill, baby, drill”, and Salazar didn’t stand up to Obama, but when Obama tells anyone to jump, they ask “how high”?

  4. Liberals Demise says:

    If the Slimes says it’s so….it ‘must’ be!

    Loved the picture, pr.

  5. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Since the 70’s, the greens have made it increasingly difficult to acquire oil. This is all under the methodology of “if we can’t stop them, we can sure regulate the hell out of them”. This is why readily and more easily accessible oil on this continent has been put off-limits. This is why oil companies have to resource oil reserves “way out, way down” in order to feed the need for transportation to have the vital fuel it requires.

    So this was bound to happen. Not an absolute, but an eventuality.

    Thanks to those who have acquiesced to the green way of thinking, including complicit republicans, we now have a well that is leaking that is thousands of feet down, miles offshore.

    To the liberals who have forced this to happen, I say “Bravo! Job well-done! You got your wish!”

    To them it’s the law of unintended consequences. To a conservative, it’s “Well, I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so”…and in response, the liberal green shuck-and-jive machine, it’s “Well, if you g-d-damned conservatives with your greedy oil machines that are killing the planet and making it bad for everyone would just stop driving cars…this wouldn’t have happened”. To which is attached the very loosest of loose-based logic.

    In today’s society, to get around, we need wheels. wheels that are perfunctorily attached to internal combustion engines, which, by the way, have grown more powerful and thus, more efficient in the use of a gallon of gasoline, even if the same greens have made that gallon of gasoline more expensive and less power-producing by inserting alcohol into it.

    Nope, gasoline is here to stay and has been the boon to western society by allowing machinery to operate efficiently and allowing manufacturing to explode onto the planet to make the things we need.

    Unfortunately, the incessant whiners of the hippie movement continue to be unable to understand how progress occurs, while simultaneously reaping the benefits of said progress. But, if it were up to them, we’d all be wearing hemp-based clothing, not cotton; Eating vegetables that are free of bugs because of “all natural”-based pesticides, not petroleum-based and therefore, in credibly expensive and hit-and-miss in terms of effectiveness.

    Sorry, hippies, petroleum-based products have resulted in monumental leaps in technology and allowed us to have the most economically abundant lifestyles ever. Sorry you can’t seem to get on board. But if you desire to go live on communes without the benefits of modernity, go ahead. I will not stop you but as I said when you nutjobs wanted to force most of the United States into it then, “Stay out of my life”.

    It needs mentioning again that when a conservative doesn’t like meat, they don’t eat meat. When a liberal doesn’t like meat, they will do everything they can to stop everyone from eating meat. And so it is with the intent of the liberal to control everyone and stop them from doing everything they don’t like for whatever reason.

    They are the misanthropes among us and have almost been successful in stopping people from doing what is normal. This includes normal sexual behavior; Normal, intuitive behavior of how mammals grow, learn, love and live and so forth.

    Of course, one possible irony is that the world is stopped from using petrochemicals entirely and either the next ice-age is hurried along, killing off 2/3 of humans, or, even funnier, a giant asteroid strikes the Earth killing off 7/8 of all humans.

    Besides, the bottom-line arrogance of liberals is that they truly believe that humans are truly able to change the climate (not the weather, mind you; They are far deeper-reaching than that) and have caused the Earth to die.


    It’s unbelievable.

    And, sadly, they are willing, like the boy who sits in the president’s chair, to allow an environmental catastrophe to continue in order to “make a point”. Watch and listen closely , America, he will say these very words, “Some people think….that I let this happen…..so that……uhhhhh…..I can point my finger and say……….I told you so……..”

    Well, when he says that, and he will, you will know it’s true. No, he probably didn’t make it happen, but he dragged his feet for a couple of reasons. 1) he had NO interest in it whatsoever and 2) he preferred to make it an ecoligical problem to give him “reason” to shut down all drilling in North America. Gasoline will spike in price (not “cost”) and thereby resulting in the take-over of drilling and all things oil. But only in the U.S.

    The benevolent dictator, Barry-The-Kind, will FINALLY be able to dole out how oil is gotten, refined, and most importantly, USED so that the world will be saved and people can get to their [green] jobs. Those of you who don’t have green jobs will have to suffer. It’s a sad but necessary part of life. You, you misguided and evil conservative, will be punished so that the correct-thinking and wise and wonderful liberals will survive.

    Yes, I believe he hopes for this. He is that deranged and very much that stupid.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      If you shut down American oil industries from doing work here, we as a nation will be forced to do business with Middle East nations for their oil.
      Allowing our dollars to go to Islamic Muslime sects hell bent on killing our soldiers.
      Boy Blunder Barry is full aware of what he is doing at all times but thinks the public is “TOO” stoopid for his Harvard brain of secular think.

    • proreason says:

      The green movement was taken over by Communists shortly after the Berlin wall came down. That signalled the demise of explicit formal communism, which some might have seen as a clear signal.

      But when your mission is to rule the world as all-powerful oligarchs, a setback like that can only be considered temporary. What we would consider a massive failure, they considered a blip in history.

      So they began anew as “environmentalists”, and pretty soon, they controlled, not only the European nutters, but the nuts in this country that they weren’t already controlling.

      And as far as transportation goes, they could care f**king less how the proles get around. In fact, the less mobility, the better. If you can jump in a car to go the store, you can just as easily jump in a car to go talk to somebody who agrees with you that living with a boot on your neck isn’t acceptable. So cars are not a good thing at all. (ps: same story for libwit’s vaunted “public transportation”. It would be better named “public transportation limitation”.)

« Front Page | To Top
« | »