Wasting our time
11 views
Skip to first unread message
EdMG
Aug 4, 2010, 8:29:14 PM8/4/10
to stop_b...@googlegroups.com
This whole effort seems like a waste of time. There is nothing here which oil industry engineers can't figure out for themselves. We don't need to tell them how to do their job. The problem is lack of regulation, not technology.
docellen
Aug 5, 2010, 6:03:00 PM8/5/10
to blowout
Ed, you are right on all except the statement that we are wasting our
time. You are right that the solutions we have proposed are simple,
can be done by any competent engineer, and will be done if the
engineers have any influence on the political process. We are not
telling them how to do their job. Our proposals are directed to policy
makers, reporters, congressional staffers, and other non-technical
people who might be charting a new course for offshore oil drilling.
If this forum helps them understand the technology, our time will not
be wasted.
Even if we have no influence on the politicians and business managers,
even if all we do is inspire some students, I would not say we are
wasting our time. Where else but here can we find a collection of
simple technical solutions that could have helped in the current
disaster, and just might be helpful in a future disaster.
You are also right that the current problem is primarily in lack of
intelligent regulation, not the challenges of a difficult technology.
I would also add organizational SNAFU to the list of problems. Anyone
who has worked for government or a big company knows that major
decisions are made without even consulting those who best understand
the technology. See my post "Blaming the engineers" for more on the
disconnect between engineering and decision making.
Technology won't solve the regulatory problems, but it can sure make
it easier on the regulators by reducing costs and minimizing the push
to avoid those costs. The industry might oppose a requirement for an
extra shear ram, but they won't argue with a requirement for an
emergency hydraulic port to operate the ram when all else fails, not
when the cost is only a few hundred dollars, and the benefit is a
chance at avoiding a $20 billion disaster. An emergency hydraulic
port also avoids SNAFU. It doesn't depend on some bureaucrat twenty
years from now, remembering to include a checkbox on a form.
We can't assume that industry, by itself, will pursue these simple
solutions. Even if they plan now on spending billions to construct a
system that will handle a repeat of the current disaster (http://
www.theoildrum.com/node/6775), by its very complexity, it may not work
with a different disaster. Even more likely, it won't be built,
because of the long delays, the costs, and the one-in-a-million chance
that it will ever be needed.
What we need are simple, practical solutions that can be "designed in"
or be built at low cost, and kept ready for years, with little
temptation to save these costs. We also need a whole new way of
thinking that hasn't been evident in the current disaster. If the
"bag of tricks" we come up with now doesn't work in some future
disaster, we will need to toss out the parts that don't work, and
quickly come up with something new. This kind of thinking is rare in
companies that are focused on billion-dollar projects. We hope some
of the solutions presented here will encourage more "out-of-the-box"
thinking.
time. You are right that the solutions we have proposed are simple,
can be done by any competent engineer, and will be done if the
engineers have any influence on the political process. We are not
telling them how to do their job. Our proposals are directed to policy
makers, reporters, congressional staffers, and other non-technical
people who might be charting a new course for offshore oil drilling.
If this forum helps them understand the technology, our time will not
be wasted.
Even if we have no influence on the politicians and business managers,
even if all we do is inspire some students, I would not say we are
wasting our time. Where else but here can we find a collection of
simple technical solutions that could have helped in the current
disaster, and just might be helpful in a future disaster.
You are also right that the current problem is primarily in lack of
intelligent regulation, not the challenges of a difficult technology.
I would also add organizational SNAFU to the list of problems. Anyone
who has worked for government or a big company knows that major
decisions are made without even consulting those who best understand
the technology. See my post "Blaming the engineers" for more on the
disconnect between engineering and decision making.
Technology won't solve the regulatory problems, but it can sure make
it easier on the regulators by reducing costs and minimizing the push
to avoid those costs. The industry might oppose a requirement for an
extra shear ram, but they won't argue with a requirement for an
emergency hydraulic port to operate the ram when all else fails, not
when the cost is only a few hundred dollars, and the benefit is a
chance at avoiding a $20 billion disaster. An emergency hydraulic
port also avoids SNAFU. It doesn't depend on some bureaucrat twenty
years from now, remembering to include a checkbox on a form.
We can't assume that industry, by itself, will pursue these simple
solutions. Even if they plan now on spending billions to construct a
system that will handle a repeat of the current disaster (http://
www.theoildrum.com/node/6775), by its very complexity, it may not work
with a different disaster. Even more likely, it won't be built,
because of the long delays, the costs, and the one-in-a-million chance
that it will ever be needed.
What we need are simple, practical solutions that can be "designed in"
or be built at low cost, and kept ready for years, with little
temptation to save these costs. We also need a whole new way of
thinking that hasn't been evident in the current disaster. If the
"bag of tricks" we come up with now doesn't work in some future
disaster, we will need to toss out the parts that don't work, and
quickly come up with something new. This kind of thinking is rare in
companies that are focused on billion-dollar projects. We hope some
of the solutions presented here will encourage more "out-of-the-box"
thinking.
docellen
Aug 9, 2010, 6:53:45 PM8/9/10
to blowout
I uploaded "Oil spill containment system.jpg", the drawing of the new
containment system planned by the oil industry. There is also a fact
sheet that goes with this at http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf/ContainmentFactSheet.pdf.
Initial cost is expected to be about $1 billion. Target completion is
18 months.
Is the oil industry really going to spend a billion on a system that
will probably never be used? Will they keep it available for rapid
deployment anytime in the next 30 years? Even if they do go ahead
with this, shouldn't they also do some of low-cost and very effective
things presented in this forum?
We need some agile thinking on this problem.
containment system planned by the oil industry. There is also a fact
sheet that goes with this at http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf/ContainmentFactSheet.pdf.
Initial cost is expected to be about $1 billion. Target completion is
18 months.
Is the oil industry really going to spend a billion on a system that
will probably never be used? Will they keep it available for rapid
deployment anytime in the next 30 years? Even if they do go ahead
with this, shouldn't they also do some of low-cost and very effective
things presented in this forum?
We need some agile thinking on this problem.
0 new messages