But anyone responsible for planning industrial or field operations is supposed to know that engineering safety in is the best way to go. Once upon a time, machines were regularly designed with belts to transfer power. It was too easy to get fingers and clothing caught in those belts, so belt guards were added, and now, for the most part, other methods are used.
The out-of-control oil well, for a time, was emblematic of the industry. But that was a waste of oil, of the pressure that drove the oil, and, oh yes, sometimes killed people as the equipment used to drill the well blew out along with the oil. Or the associated gas exploded. Definitely the kind of thing, like losing a hand in a belt, that might get someone thinking there was a better way to do it.And there is. There are mechanisms called blowout preventers that can be installed, and methods of drilling that prevent those spectacular oil fountains. So where was BP's blowout preventer? They claim it was installed and failed to work. Was it installed properly? Was it engineered for this application? Did the people at work at the time know how it operated?
It's impossible, as we have seen time and again, to clean up a spill in water. As the videos of this latest spill show, choppy seas have rapidly cut up the oil into ribbons. The ships deploying booms are pathetically small in comparison.
Apparently there are questions about another operation that was done just before the rig's explosion.
If it's necessary to fix blame, as it will be at some point, it should go to those who failed to engineer safety into their operations, or those who failed to enforce the regulations that require that safety. That's where the media should be looking.
7 comments:
It's far from obvious to me that we couldn't implement a system to collect spilling oil. So the skimmers and the booms can't cope. What make's that the last word. Who's spent how much toward the technology and/or infrastructure to deal with spills. It's not as if there's anything approaching an adequate institutionalized incentive for state or government to spend on it. I suspect this event was no more inherently catastrophic than Katrina. Everything institutional in this country seems to be a perfect storm.
correction: "incentive for industry or government" I meant.
e.g. Why are we skimming when we have know-how for deep-water remote-control, not to mention nuclear submarining, monster turbines and balloons for volumes ten-fold greater than what's gushing/spewing daily?
Technologists turn to technology but Murphy can never be abolished. Pandora and Mickey Mouses buckets will always have the last smirk.
I can envision a system to collect the spilled oil. Build a ship that sucks in the surface layer of water/oil, put it through a cyclone separator to concentrate the oil, and pump it into tanks. A fleet of these could handle a spill like this.
But that ship doesn't exist, or, if it does, I'm not aware of it.
I'm wondering at this point why the things that can be done, like using dispersant at the source of the oil, are taking so long. Could it be that the dispersant technology isn't BP's?
Just as a matter of principle, though, prevention is always better than a cure. That oil spreading out on the water is obeying the second law of thermodynamics. It's more difficult to get the toothpaste back in the tube, in a similar problem.
I'm wondering at this point why the things that can be done, like using dispersant at the source of the oil, are taking so long. Could it be that the dispersant technology isn't BP's?
We couldn't get aid to New Orleans or Haiti, though we had plenty of the will, the personnel and the stuffs to help. Apparently it's more about readiness than resources. In crisis, time is not money. (Probably not in stock price fluctuations either). We like and I guess it's efficient to be able to rely on so-called "time-independent" or "steady state" solutions, but of course life, death and everything we care about are fundamentally dynamic. We can lay as many bets as we like, but it's hard to engage in more than one game of chess.
Cheryl,
Right on when you said "If it's necessary to fix blame, as it will be at some point, it should go to those who failed to engineer safety into their operations, or those who failed to enforce the regulations that require that safety. That's where the media should be looking."
Now, let's do the same with respect to nuclear deterrence! As you know, that's what I have been trying to do in my Defusing the Nuclear Threat project at http://nuclearrisk.org/.
Martin
Post a Comment