Opinion & Analysis

Political grandstanding is distracting from efforts to solve the environmental mess caused by BP oil leak, writes TONY ALLWRIGHT

UNDOUBTEDLY THE uncontrolled blowout of oil and gas from the 5,500m-deep Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, while being drilled by BP in 1,522m of water, is among the worst disasters in the history of the hydrocarbon industry. Only very dedicated and skilful human ingenuity and engineering grunt, without regard to cost, will bring it back under control and make it permanently safe.

But, despite what “experts” such as White House energy adviser Carol Browner and her boss have told us, it is certainly not the worst such catastrophe, at least not yet. Eleven men were killed – a never-ending tragedy for each of their families. But when the North Sea’s Piper Alpha platformexploded (twice) in 1988, the death toll was 167.

We are similarly misinformed that Macondo represents America’s worst environmental disaster, worse even than the Exxon Valdez calamity in 1989, which spilled 250,000 barrels of heavy viscous crude into the sea. But no one knows the Macondo flow rate because there is no way to measure it. Every figure being bandied about, from 2,000 to 80,000 barrels per day or more, is based on nothing other than humans eyeballing the flow as depicted by underwater TV cameras.

In any case what is relevant is the environmental damage. The Exxon Valdez ran aground and spewed its treacly load just 4km (2.4 miles) from Bligh Island and 15km from the Alaskan mainland, so all the wildlife and beaches were instantly devastated. By contrast, Macondo is 80km offshore and its crude is lighter and more volatile. Much of it is simply evaporating in the balmy Gulf of Mexico weather, being biodegraded by wave action and spreading out thinly as it makes its leisurely way towards land or further out to sea. That is, the oil that has escaped BP’s clever ruse of applying dispersant at the seabed.

On top of that, BP has contracted an armada, largely from local fishing fleets, of 1,400 vessels and 20,000 people to boom and skim and scoop the oil to keep it from the coastline. Consequently, our TV screens are not depicting the mile upon mile of blackened beaches and tens of thousands of oil-covered birds and animals that were such a shocking feature of the Valdez calamity.

As for the total amount of oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, Macondo is a long way from the record of the Ixtoc blowout of 1979 in which 3.3 million barrels of oil leaked for nine months despoiling some 260km of mainly Texas coastline, and killing up to 80 per cent of marine life. It is instructive, however, that thanks to rigorous clean-up and nature’s own recovery mechanisms, neither the Valdez nor Ixtoc caused lasting damage to the environment. Likewise, we can be sure BP is big and rich enough to fulfil its promise to make good all its mess, eventually.

Just as public figures have failed to put perspective on the Macondo blowout, they have displayed similar ignorance concerning the extraordinary technological efforts BP has been applying in reducing the flow until such time as the two relief wells reach their target.

The company has had up to 20 surface ships in close proximity, each held in position by satellite-centred dynamic positioning. In the cold, pressurised, lightless, hostile environment 1,522m underwater, BP has been using some 14 unmanned submarines to conduct a series of intricate manoeuvres such as shoving, tugging, manipulating, cutting, grinding, positioning, connecting, observing.

But because few understand the engineering and it cannot be seen, interest in this astounding activity is scant. BP has systematically been applying one imaginative potential solution after another, each one carefully thought through with failures and back-ups factored in. No organisation could be tackling this massive challenge more professionally than BP and every attempt to distract it reduces its chances of success.

Nevertheless, BP’s approach to the problem it has created does stand in stark contrast to the events leading up to it, which indeed are highly questionable. A lot of evidence suggest disgraceful, last-minute, cost-reducing short cuts. A couple of weeks ago, the day after the US administration subjected BP chief executive Tony Hayward and the company to a $20 billion (€16 million) “shakedown” (Congressman Joe Barton’s word), Hayward appeared before a congressional committee to be grilled on prime-time TV, ostensibly about these events.

Some days earlier, the committee had sent him a 14-page letter detailing five technical areas where BP had arguably cut corners. It was superbly crafted, meticulous, leaving very little wriggle-room for Hayward. Yet when it came to the hearing, the search for the truth of what caused the blowout was overwhelmed by committee members’ overweening desire to demonstrate

their toughness. Once the real questioning began, the aggressive tone continued, yet the questions singularly failed to delve into the acute technical issues so adeptly exposed in the letter. In turn this allowed Hayward to repeat his mantra that BP was still investigating; he wasn’t a technical expert; action would be taken – and other evasions.

You would think that not just for BP, but for the US administration and the general public, the most important issue right now is to kill that damn well, make it permanently safe and clean up any damage.

Yet the US administration seems to apportion greater priority not to winning this gargantuan battle against nature but to launching inquiries, belligerent “kick-ass” blather and criminal investigations. This is the behaviour of ignorance. Once Macondo is solved – and it will be – there will be decades for anger, recrimination, lawsuits, inquiries, compensation, prison terms, sanctions or whatever. The future is a long time.

Meantime, ignorance seems to hold sway.

© 2010 The Irish Times

11 Comments »

sexitoni (= Daniel Sexton)
The comments from those who haven't the first clue of engineering should be entertaining...

2nd July 2010, 09:30:58

Colin Michael Brennan

However heroic the cleanup attempts, the fact that the culture in BP where quick and easy profit was more important than safety which led directly to the Gulf disaster should not be forgotten. And the use of examples of other oil related events as if to say 'well, at least we are not as bad as them' is a cheap cover for what is still a major environmental catastrophe.

2nd July 2010, 10:13:19

Marcas O'Duinn 
A well-balanced article. I would only suggest that, while it is BP's job to cap and clean, it is, in fact, the governemnt's job to "kick-ass", to help minimise a repeat.

2nd July 2010, 10:50:14

Brian Murphy 
While there is much with which to find fault in Mr. Allwright’s article, what is perhaps most disappointing is his apparent blind faith in BP’s ability to address the catastrophe it has created. #“No organisation could be tackling this massive challenge more professionally than BP”. Really? Is this the same BP that has, by many orders of magnitude, the worst safety record in the petrochemical industry? The same BP whose Texas city refinery explosion in 2005 killed 15 workers and injured more than 170? The same BP which only last October was fined $56.7 million for violations related to their failure to take corrective action following that explosion, plus a further $30.7 million for 439 new safety violations? How is it possible, while lambasting the “ignorance” of others, to make such a statement with a straight face? Does he know exactly how other organisations would be reacting if they found themselves in the position BP does now? No, of course he doesn’t – but that doesn’t stop him issuing platitudes on BP’s behalf.

BP is where it is today because of its own hubris, its inability to recognise its own limitations and an inability or an unwillingness to carry out proper risk assessments on its operations. This is why refineries and oil rigs explode – because a company fails to understand the risks and fails to install appropriate preventive measures.

Incidentally, BP’s Tony Hayward claims he has this plaque on his desk:, "If you knew you could not fail, what would you try?". While I’m sure he feels this is terribly motivational, to anyone who has any experience of risk assessment or hazard evaluation, that statement is truly terrifying because it’s very easy to re-write it as “If you thought you could not fail, what wouldn’t you risk?”. Or maybe BP just thought it meant “If you knew you could not fail (to escape financial responsibility), what would you try (to get away with)?”

As for Mr. Allwright’s dig at those who don’t understand engineering, he might like to consider that he himself is a little over-enamoured with some of the discipline’s shiny toys. “20 surface ships in close proximity, each held in position by satellite-centred dynamic positioning” might sound very cool, but what exactly are they doing? And if those unmanned submarines where such a good idea, why are these only being deployed now after the “Top Hat”, “Top Kill”, “Junk Shot” and other low tech solutions? Ah yes, because “BP has systematically been applying one imaginative potential solution after another.” Too bad none of them work, eh? Which brings me back to my earlier point – if BP had done its risk assessments at the start, it would have identified a dull-but-efficient real solution (e.g. ensure that a functioning blow-out preventer was installed) instead of scrambling desperately after the fact for an imaginative potential one. That’s good engineering but it’s not what BP did and Mr. Allwright should be ashamed of himself for defending their actions.

2nd July 2010, 11:52:43

Rush O'Limbaugh
If you're a smart engineer, you wouldn't be in the mess to begin with.

2nd July 2010, 20:03:50

Bert Hornback
What a stupidly pious fatuity. Mr. Allwright has it all wrong. He must have his money where his head should be. Or maybe he has it invested in BP?

Mr. Obama hasn't done anything but make noise: true. On day one he should have called out all the military's heavy earth-moving rigs, and all those owned by highway construction companies, and started protecting wildlife refuges, swamp land, oyster beds, and beaches. On day two he should have had tankers out siphoning up oil out of the water. And instead of doing important presidential "fly-overs"--which cost about 4 million euros each--he should have been putting money in the pockets of shrimp fishermen and others put out of work.

But Obama's dithering and posturing doesn't lessen BP's crime--or the correctness of Obama's insistence that BP will pay for their negligence and greed as well as for all the harm they have done.

3rd July 2010, 10:40:26

Tony Allwright
Brian Murphy essentially makes my point for me.

First of all, let me say I have no shares or other interest in BP. Secondly, my article – and my previous one on 10th May (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0510/1224270049624.html) both criticise BP strongly for the events which led to the blowout, for which it will no doubt suffer heavy consequences in due course. And I agree that BP’s previous accidents in the US augur ill for its managerial competence.

The thrust of my latest article, however, is that the professionalism and expertise with which BP has been tackling the problem it (admittedly) created is largely unrecognized because outside this specialised industry (ie drilling deep, high-pressure oil and gas wells in very deep water and then bringing them into production), people have no idea of what BP is doing so far underwater. So, like Mr Murphy, they assume they are talking sense when they think “junk shot”, “top kill” etc are low-tech solutions (presumably because the names sound silly). But nothing done in 1500 metres of water while trying to control high pressure gas and oil is low tech, any more than thinking that because you cannot see or understand the micro-circuitry, an electronic chip must be “low-tech”.

Likewise Mr Murphy thinks he knows the cause – a malfunctioning blowout preventer – but this shows he doesn’t. There is no evidence yet that it was malfunctioning, but in any case the battle was pretty much lost at a much earlier stage of proceedings when very questionable operational decisions were taken.

Finally, as mentioned this is a highly specialised industry. Only a few companies have the necessary full package of expertise, and they are all major international Western oil companies (Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP etc), and perhaps Petrobras. They do not include contractors such as Transocean, Halliburton, Cameron, Schlumberger, who have fantastic expertise but only in they own particular roles, not in the integrated whole. Neither do the smaller oil companies nor the huge national oil companies have the whole package, either because they’re too small to sustain million-dollar-day drilling operations or too protectionist. Nor do any regulatory bodies, whose expertise is in “regulating” which is very different from “doing”. Even the major oilcos are heavily dependent on but a small cadre of employees who have learnt their arcade trade through engineering study and decades of practical experience.

Therefore only a major like BP can fix the problem, and only those who happen to have specialist knowledge (includes me) can have a proper appreciation of what they’re doing.

Prof Bert Hornback says I “have it all wrong”. I would have expected a distinguished professor to provide evidence before making such statements.

If interested, the full version of my article is available on my Tallrite Blog: http://tinyurl.ie/g0

3rd July 2010, 14:57:47

Joe
$20 billion is not a shakedown. The final cost will likely be far in excess of $20 billion.

There may be a high cost in humans lives yet to be realised. From CNN. Almost All Exxon Valdez Cleanup Crew Dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRrbqBEGxiw. The dispersants may be highly toxic.

The dispersants turn the crude into a gunk emulsion, which has to go somewhere. It doesn't create a harmless as water by-product. It's like squirting fairy liquid into a chip pan - you'll still have a mess, with its' own problems. These emulsion plumes could be creating vast under water dead zones as they degrade - like drips of Indian ink in water - they cannot be boomed in like oil which floats on the surface. It's a real mess.

3rd July 2010, 20:31:03

Enda Bates
So your point is that we should be applauding BP's professionalism in dealing with the consequences of BP's lack of professionalism? That is specialist knowledge indeed.......

4th July 2010, 12:10:15

Robert Browne
Professionalism or not BP is now a dead duck in the water. If BP had done its homework properly they would not have got into this deep water oil exploration as the risks are far too great. The british government consider BP too big to fail so they will be getting a bailout from the tax payer, for that, the government are going to take a controlling equity stake.

Why would you drill a well that could wipe out the company? Some of the chemicals being used are up to six times more toxic than the oil they are dispersing to the bottom of the sea. The geniuses that decided this well was a good idea are now telling us to believe them and their plans. Sorry but it is already too late. No, I am sorry the whole thing from start to finish has been anything but professional.

Obviously, the risks were assessed but the "drill baby drill" guys said "that type of disaster has a miniscule chance and will never happen". It did. I think BP made a profit of 6bn in their last financial year. The damage here is 40bn plus and rising all the time 6 x 7 is 42. So on that figure alone the next 7 years 'profits' are wiped out. No wonder the share price has halved.

5th July 2010, 01:24:55

Brian Murphy
In his response to my earlier comment, Mr. Allwright has seen fit to drive home his point that the general public should refrain from commenting on the actions of BP as we can never be fully conversant with the technical details of their activities.

So, apparently we should all stop whinging and should instead stand in awe as BP deploys all manner of technological wonders (or “witchcraft” as some of us insist on calling it) and join in Mr. Allwright’s cheerleading of BP’s heroic efforts to control its self-made disaster. Quite why the paper of record chose to provide a platform for this “Proles – know your place!” lecture is, perhaps, a question for another day.

For my part, in spite of Mr. Allwright’s best efforts to the contrary, I’ve decided to remain unimpressed by BP’s as-yet unsuccessful efforts to plug its hole in the ocean floor. If they were half as smart as the author thinks they are, they never would have found themselves in this position in the first place. And if Mr. Allwright is looking for a victim of oppression to stand up for, he might take time to consider that BP, with its billions in annual profits and a track record of terrible corporate citizenship, is hardly the most deserving of causes.

One last thing – seeing as Mother Nature is the one currently getting it in the neck in the Gulf of Mexico, it seems a little harsh to describe the current situation as a “gargantuan battle against nature”. But maybe this just reflects the author’s worldview in which clever-clever men like Mr. Allwright are the good guys while nature/the proles need to be kept in their place.

Other Reaction
4th July 2010

The “Sovereign Independent”, which is an Irish news service, takes issue with me with an article entitled “Irish Times Slick Deception to Rig the Real Story by ‘Oil Expert’”, accompanied by four ten-minute Youtube videos, and lays a kind of challenge to me to respond. 

The editor, Neil Foster, tells me that