PE CoffeeHaus Blog

Roy D. Bigham has been the editor of Pollution Engineering since 2002. Bigham attended Eastern Michigan University where he majored in chemistry and computer science with an associates degree in mathematics. He has worked as a laboratory technician at a research laboratory, managed an electroplating operation and an associated analytical laboratory. He spent three years overseeing environmental operations of five domestic and five overseas operations for a major manufacturer in the Detroit area. He then managed a field services department for an environmental analytical laboratory before moving on to a position as an environmental engineer for a construction aggregates company.

Bigham won a design award for a waste water treatment system for a landfill in the Detroit area from the State Chamber of Commerce. He has been active in the environmental field since 1980.

Who's to Blame for the Oil Spill

May 3, 2010
/ Print / Reprints /
ShareMore
/ Text Size+

Some readers have asked who is to blame for the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It is certainly not a topic that can be ignored. The results of this event are going to have dramatic impacts on everybody and it could have been avoided.

First, it seems to be human nature to place the blame for events on a single entity. We want to point our fingers at somebody. But let’s explore what should have happened. I think it is a revealing exercise.

Any company that handles oil products is required by rule to write and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC). This document is similar to a disaster plan in that qualified engineers must review and sign off on the plan. These plans must consider any spill possibility and describe in detail how such occurrences are to be handled to prevent a disaster.

According to an Associated Press news story released May 1, the 2009 exploration plan and environmental impact analysis submitted by BP contained remarks that it was "unlikely, or virtually impossible" for a large crude oil leak to occur and cause major environmental damage. The story did not make it clear if the remarks were contained within the SPCC portion of the impact analysis, which should have been a part of such a document. From just this information, it is easy to just blame the company.

However, from my perspective, an SPCC plan also should have been submitted to an oversight agency. That agency has responsibility to approve such plans before the drill rig should be allowed to become operational. Was this done?

It is my opinion that quality engineering was missing from this plan from the beginning and the oversight agency did not open it for serious review. Thus, the proper questions remained unasked.

Any good SPCC plan will try to determine the most unlikely scenario that could cause a disaster and plan for such an eventuality. To be fair, I have not read the plan nor have I had an opportunity to review operation logs of the Deepwater Horizon drill rig that exploded, leading to this disaster. The company has reported to news agencies that automatic shutoff valve systems were in place and that personnel did attempt to engage them before the craft was abandoned. Remote robots have tried to close the valves manually but have failed. There will be questions later by the legal system such as, are these systems tested, how often and when. They are going to want these valves recovered so they can learn why they failed.

People watching this play out are wondering at some of the decisions such as laying out a half-million dollars worth of containment booms in the surf. Certainly, there were no engineers involved in that call. The wave actions occurring are not uncommon for the area and they are not only washing over the booms but relocating the booms onto the shore. I would think it would be better to place booms either farther out where the waves are more like swells rather than breaking waves and properly anchor them in place, or draw a line in the sand and place them on the beaches after the waves have broken and confine the spill to a more manageable area. Maybe even use both placements. The booms were to be the last line of defense but certainly seem like a waste of time, money and effort now.

The biggest problem generated from this event is the bad reputation that will follow. Oil companies will take the most immediate hit but the consumer will take the largest hit.

Californians refuse to allow oil companies off their shores because of a bad spill that happened in 1969. This was before we had such checks in place such as SPCC plans. However, if companies are not going to properly use them and agencies are not going to properly supervise them, they are useless. There are going to be more rules and regulations now and they are not needed. Those currently in place would have been adequate had they properly been employed.

In the end, this spill will have to be cleaned up. The armies of lawyers that will descend on BP and every company that supplied equipment for the Deepwater Horizon will have to be paid for. These costs will be passed on to the consumer as all of the oil companies will experience higher drilling costs. There will be a bigger push to move more quickly to alternative energy sources, which are more expensive.

There were warning signs available. Counting this spill, the last three major events all have the same name at the head and similar faults. There was a major pipe leak in Alaska because the pipes were not inspected and properly cleaned. There was a major explosion at a Texas refinery because engineering practices were laxed. Now this.

But I think there should be a major introspection by the oversight agencies and not just those involved here. There are still problems across the board. I recall when we (industry) was required to write Right to Know plans and submit them to the local fire department. It became a real joke. The company I worked for at the time took on the responsibility at the corporate level. When we delivered the plans to the fire departments, they looked at us with incomprehension because they were not informed of the requirement and had no idea what to do with the plans. One unnamed fire chief told me that there was no way on Earth that he intended to find the report and read it if he was called to respond to a fire or other emergency. When informed the report was kept in a lockbox at the entrance to the facility for him, he said, "and you want me to stop to read it while your place burns down?"

We can write all the rules we want but without proper training and communication, it all comes down to shoot first and ask questions later. So now we watch our prices skyrocket and lawyers find a new income source.
You must login or register in order to post a comment.

Re: Who to Blame for the Oil Spill

George Huddle
May 6, 2010
"We can write all the rules we want but without proper training and communication, it all comes down to shoot first and ask questions later." Well, we have seen the shots fired by all the critics. Eventually, the lawyers will get rich and all consumers will pay. The deployment of the oil booms was in part a public relations event to reassure a public still scarred with memories of Katrina that action was being taken. I live in that region, and understand this thinking. Eventually, root cause analysis will be completed, and questions about the failure of the BOP valves will be answered, then better technology and practices will be put into place. I have worked in the chemical industry for over 30 years. Every major accident simply highlights the fact that human nature tends to miss small errors, and without proper oversight, these can then lead to major events.

Re: Who to Blame for the Oil Spill

Rick Stanford
May 7, 2010
The SPCC Plan should have been prepared by a professional engineer familar not only with the regulations, but with the operations of the off-shore rig. After all - perhaps the predominant reason for licensing is to protect the public. Then, someone at DOI/MMS should have reviewed that plan. Having said that - there seem to be a great many 'causes' for the release, and several don't lend themselves to 'planning'. First, it seems that the cementing of the well may have contributed to the initial problem. The cementing procedure could have contributed to a release of gas, or 'kick', and there are several ways in which that could have happened. That there was a kick seems to be indicated by folks who were on the rig reporting that mud and water was blown up the well string before the explosion. If there was a kick, then the driller should have seen it and activated the BOP. If the driller didn't see the kick, or if the exposion followed too soon, then the BOP should have been activated automatically when the rig parted from the riser. If these actions failed to activate the BOP, then it could be activated by a remote operated vehicle (ROV). This was tried, I understand, and it failed. The BOP could have failed to activate, or it could have partially activated, with the shear plate hitting a joint in the drill string and failing to shear completely, or some other reason. This seems likely, since I have heard reports that the oil is not coming out as fast as it could - indicating perhaps a partially-activated BOP. Even if the mechanical release mechanisms fail, there should be some response equipment on-hand. In off-shore situations, this could include booms. However, the explosion and subsequent sinking of the rig would have destroyed the booms, or at least have prevented access. SPCC Plans are generally good, but they can't anticipate the simultaneous failure of all emergency and response mechanisms. One scenario that wouldn't be included (or, at least, I wouldn't include) would be: "Improper cementing causes a gas release at the rig which explodes, killing or injuring the driller who doesn't activate the BOP. The BOP's automatic and ROV-activated shutoffs fail (or engages the BOP only partially). In addition - the on-hand booms are destroyed by the explosion and fire." I understand that there was an inspection of the rig and a check of the BOP ten days before the explosion. Checking the BOP shear rams is problematic since it's a destructive test. Much has been written regarding who is to 'blame'. Perhaps there is someone - perhaps there are several someones. But, then again - perhaps there is not. Perhaps it was simply an unfortunate accident. I hope folks won't let the search for someone to blame, and the equal effort that is then always taken to avoid or deflect blame, get in the way of searching for a way to prevent this from happening again.

Multimedia

Videos

Image Galleries

WEFTEC 2006

WEFTEC®, the Water Environment Federation’s Annual Technical Exhibition and Conference, is the biggest meeting of its kind in North America and offers thousands of water quality professionals from around the world the best water quality education and training available today.

Podcasts

This podcast addresses solutions to problems that can affect bioremediation in acidic aquifers.

Included are some of the impacts of pH on reductive dechlorination rates and different bases to raise aquifer pH.

Speaker- Dr. Stephen Richardson, P.E., Technical Lead, R&D, EOS Remediation

More Podcasts

THE MAGAZINE

Pollution Engineering

June 2013 PE cover 100px

2013 June

Check out the latest edition of Pollution Engineering Magazine today!
Table Of Contents Subscribe

XL Pipeline

The Sec. of State is expected to decide if he should approve the XL Pipeline. Should he approve it?
View Results Poll Archive

THE POLLUTION ENGINNERING STORE

M:\General Shared\__AEC Store Katie Z\AEC Store\Images\PE\toward-zero-discharge.gif
Urban and Highway Stormwater Pollution: Concepts and Engineering

Presents the practical work of leading experts working with highly impacted areas across the world.

More Products

Editor's Choice Awards

2013 PE Editors ChoicePollution Engineering magazine will be choosing the top, most innovative products and presenting companies that are chosen with an Editor's Choice Awards. The announcement will be published in the July 2013 issue. Visit the editor's choice awards page today!

PE Digital Editions

1112PE_Cover.jpgView Pollution Engineering's popular digital editions with interactive features. To receive each digital issue as soon as it’s available and delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe now!

STAY CONNECTED

FacebookTwitterYoutubeLinkedIn