And Now, Bring On the Engineers

Very well. Good to see.

However, you do have to love the administration's firing order here:

1. Assign blame

2. Attempt to fix the problem (that is, Wait to see if the problem goes away by itself - refuse all outside help - Assemble legal teams)

3. Investigate to see what happened

This memo was just leaked from the White House:

*sigh*

Yet another attempt to politicize this engineering forum.

Who's actually playing the blame game here? It's rather easy to sit back and blather on about "they should do this!" or "why ain't they doing that?". Or as in this case to basically post "FAIL!!!!1!1!!!".

Nope. We're not buying a ticket to this one-act show. Sorry, but you'll have to pack up & carry it to another town.

Mr Guest, It is the policy of most members of this forum to dismiss any negatives posted by "guests". Use your name or go away.

Reply to Guest @ 10:15 AM.

AH's humorous comment on the article fits within realm of a legit reply. Humor, like a move to adjourn, is always in order. The article cited mentions that (nearly 3 months after the initial explosion) the administration has now requested the help of the National Academy of Engineering. Any engineer or scientist or technologist can wonder [ought to wonder] what took so long.

If you feel that his comment was an unwarranted political attack on the Obama administration, then I think you've got a thin skin. Besides, the Obama Admin is getting attacked by bigger guns than AH. I don't think they'd see him as much threat. (No offense, AH.)

great analogy of your position

Ed,

I respectfully disagree.

"You created this problem; now you go fix it"

That's not constructive nor useful. A more useful retort would be. "What do you need and how can we help?" That doesn't mean that BP gets a free pass, but we have to recognize that there is a bigger problem here than who should get spanked.

As a simple example to your point number one, the administration turned down numerous offers from other countries to send in cleanup ships and supplies until just a week or two ago. These resources were experts in containment and cleanup. The US waited more than two months before accepting some help. Frankly, we did not have the resources (nor did BP) to manage the problem alone, even with a capable Flag Officer.

Additionally, the administration seemed far too detached from the problem and when publicly pressured, they took the attitude of blame assignment and "Let's look tough". There is plenty of time to assign blame after the fire is out, but bickering while the building is burning is just plain wrong.

Again, I am not taking a partisan approach to my criticism or defending BP, just reporting my observations. The US government's best plan of action was almost entirely a CYA plan with the, "We've got our boot on BP's neck" remark. That is not the definition of leadership.

These observations were not Monday night quarterbacking. These issues were blatantly obvious the first week to anyone with half a brain.

These issues were blatantly obvious the first week to anyone with half a brain.

I disagree. I've learned to hesitate to blame anyone for shoddy work without myself having investigated the situation - at least asking someone in the know why something was or was not done, and then listening to the explanation/defense. (I even gave George W Bush the benefit of the doubt, always.) Such oversight must be balanced with the need for actual problem-solving, e.g., don't interrupt the bomb tech!

I still think the best action of the federal government (which consists of individuals) was to try to make sure none of that crap got on them. Yes, it is indeed a pathetic situation, but there you have it.

That said, I suspect the explanation for why international assistance wasn't used earlier might be a little arcane.

I suggest that the only thing we can all be sure about is that the only way to stop that oil from gushing into the ocean is to not poke a hole into the reservoir to begin with. Once the "mistakes were made" it was akin to spilt milk. In fact, we should re-assign the metaphor.

"I suggest that the only thing we can all be sure about is that the only way to stop that oil from gushing into the ocean is to not poke a hole into the reservoir to begin with."

What does that mean?

What do you suggest we do, pull up all our wells, go home, and call mother?

Follow that logic to it's end we should all be sleeping in straw huts and running around mostly naked with wooden sticks.

I think we can be sure that we need to fix the problem and reduce our risks. It's like our space program. Perhaps after we lost Grissom, Chaffee, and White we should have just abandoned the Apollo program, too, because it is the only way we can be sure it won't happen again.

Well, I have also learned to wait (benefit of the doubt) and after more than 80 days I now think my initial assessment was right. For that matter, most Americans do, too.

"I still think the best action of the federal government (which consists of individuals) was to try to make sure none of that crap got on them."

Well, I can only assume from that remark that you favor bureaucracies and their primary goal of self-survival.

Our leadership failed to communicate, appeared slow to act, and remained in a defensive blame mode through the whole event. That doesn't demonstrate leadership. Unfortunately, there is a long, long history of the demonstration of lack of leadership, so I can't say I am surprised, just deeply disappointed.

History will unravel some of the mystery here. I suspect that we will look back and see that there were far too many bureaucrats and lawyers and not enough engineers on the scene from the start through most of the story. As the original post's title reads, "And Now, Bring On the Engineers."

I am continually frustrated with the state of the world and the shear stupidity and laziness of my countrymen. Our inability to make tough choices when they matter the most is one of America's biggest weaknesses.

Wasn't always that way, but now everyone is protecting NO. 1. No matter what the costs, I saw this happening 20 years ago, when companies were taking people out of the labor force and putting them in desk positions because they got hurt on the job so they did not have to pay them workman's compensation, and then attaching a label on them called Engineer.

That started a save your ass attitude being they knew they were incompetent as an engineer.

I take that last line back and like to rephrase "That started a save your ass attitude being they knew they were incompetent as an well rounded engineer. "

Because they did bring some practicality to their job......but that was it. They were scared $#itless to sign there name on anything. But with a PE does not help either, because I have seen some licensed PE (about 50% ) that if you take away the book, they were lost.

p911

You are all over the map with your points. I would rather keep the discussion focused on the original topic than let it spiral out of control.

So it's the governments fault that BP got in over their head?

After a less than adequate response, the feds stepped in

& is anyone surprised, that experts in policy matters are not experts in deep water emergency response?

is BP any better than Goldman Sachs, lining up for corporate welfare?

What? I never said the US Government is at fault for the spill. Please reread my remarks carefully.

I said the government's response was at fault for not managing their leadership role effectively and not communicating effectively.

& why is the government responsible for the clean up?

BP effectively put their fingers in their ears [pick orifice of your choice] when it came to the effects of the spill & hoped "someone" would take care of it. The skimmers should have been running within hours or at least days.

Resources were devoted to developing technology to allow drilling at greater & greater depths, what about the rest of the truth table of possible outcomes?

You're quick to point out what a bad job the feds did, at a job that is clearly the responsibility of thems that make the money off the oil.

Red herring.

BP's bad boy antics do not justify bad management/leadership by other organizations.

You are just trying to divert the argument from the role the government played in the event.

Red herring my Arse

you are generally an advocate for the free market

the government shouldn't be playing nanny to BP

the feds are filling the void left by BP,

who abdicated their responsibility

Why is BP not having any contingencies beyond a BOP, a failing of the the feds?

Relying on a safety device that has a failure approaching 50% ?

The cap that may be a temporary solution, should have been sitting in a warehouse somewhere & not had to have been built... isn't the situation a lot like having to go to the hardware store to buy a fire extinguisher & a bucket when your house is already on fire?

the issues with reactions between the concrete & methane was know, but hasn't been researched enough.

This is not just BP's failure but all the companies involved with deep water drilling.

One would think that something would have been learned in 30 years

The governments failure is allowing undue influence to be exerted on the regulatory process, by the companies being regulated, which is actually a fine example of the free market at work

I remember, like it was today.

"Leave it to the specialists"

That was one of your initial responses to the catastrophe. And now, in hind site, you blame your rulers for doing just that. What's your point? Should your president have a degree in oil drilling? All the government can do is to handle the problem in the way you so flippantly suggested some weeks back. Now you are trying to milk the situation for your own advantage. Cheap shot Mate, very poor display of unsolicited propaganda.

I respect your very intelligent, educated and mostly to the point remarks about a lot of things but this one you have pushed a bit too far.

Leave it to the specialists, they will know what to do!

Inconsistent and opportunistic behavior and bad style is what I can recognize here.

Good luck to you all and I hope it will not be another Alaska, which it will be, however hard I try to stay positive.

With all due respect, Ky.

Sorry, mate. You are twisting the context of what I said.

The original statement I made was with respect to the question of what would you do to fix the oil leak. The answer was to call in experts.

This discussion was about the US government's response to the problem. That is a different matter.

I did not call in the government in this matter, although they do have a role. My critique is with the way that the government has handled their role in this (Post #6), which a number of people have agreed with my assessment.

If you find something that you are in disagreement with in post #6, bring it on. I would be happy to discuss it.

A number of people have tried to reframe this argument, but if you trace all these posts to their parent post (my claims in Post # 6) you will see why I am calling the reframed arguments red herrings.

As someone who is not an expert about deepwater oil drilling my initial reaction was to drop heavy weights on the situation. My theory was that it was like a wound. My theory was that like a wound to the body, first aid was pressure.

You recommended expert reaction to the event. The recommendation is reasonable. Apparently though there were no experts at first aid.

I thought, "What would someone like Patton do?"

If the expert surgical work now does work, that will be great. If it does not the solution is very crude and much like my own crude first aid approach.

you are correct, except only one weight

75 ton

My theory was that it was like a wound. My theory was that like a wound to the body, first aid was pressure.

Problem is with that analogy for that theory is oil does not clot like blood from a wound.

But you are right on one aspect of that analogy, it was more than bleeding........it was hemorrhaging.

I wanted to draft Henry Petroski to advise me, us, the administration. What do you think of my draft pick?

Henry said he was busy on deadline for another book. I was honored he even answered my email actually, for I have no real power.

Far as the blow out, I have come to the conclusion that the oil, while terrible, is not the really bad thing in the water. The oil is tarballs, whereas the natural gas makes more deadzones.

Far as total it appears great poisoning has occurred. Strategic defense of a leader would not allow for the possibility of another event accidental, or by enemy design when the one event has not been countered, and another could not be countered.

Your very 1st post:

However, you do have to love the administration's firing order here:

1. Assign blame

2. Attempt to fix the problem (that is, Wait to see if the problem goes away by itself - refuse all outside help - Assemble legal teams)

3. Investigate to see what happened

which sure reads like calling the white house on the carpet.

Hmmm

I'm talking about the actual issue & you're telling me I'm off topic?

in post #6 you continue to assign blame to the White House, for deficiencies in BP's emergency response system [or lack]

both political parties have packed the oversight agencies with industry insiders

As Phoenix points out short cuts were routinely taken to increase short term profits, turning a blind eye to any potential problems, that might actually cost them money to mitigate....

The rest of your points are just ranting and I don't think that this incident represents a good cause to scrape the free enterprise system nor have your arguments made any compelling case for that.

I'm not building an argument for "scraping" the free enterprise system

nor do I think this this administration is different in any meaningful way from the past few

You on the other hand don't like government & take every opportunity to go off on rants to that end.

& whatever on off topic

Post 6 just takes a serious and sober look at the response the government has made and laid out, in clear terms, what I feel were the correct steps for the response the government should have taken.

Tell me exactly what is wrong with my proposed steps?

Again, I am not taking BP off the hook for their part, but I am specifically talking about the government response.

The original post of this discussion was about the article where the government is now assembling a body of engineers to study the problem. The discussion is about the government's action plan, not BP's. If you want to discuss BP's role in this we should start another discussion and I am sure all of us will find plenty of fault with little disagreement.

Back to the point. You disagree with my assessment of how the government should have reacted. Tell me why and what steps our leader should have taken.

Nice try.

The opening paragraph:

The National Academy of Engineering has appointed a panel to investigate the technical failures that resulted in the gulf oil spill.

The point is the spill.

Why aren't you directing the critique at the Halliburton/BP's organizational structure, which is where the primary failure is? Instead you take a cheap shot at the White House, who stepped in to fill the void left by BP's inaction.

The companies making the money from the resources should be showing some corporate responsibility. I don't see any relevant action here (http://www.iadc.org/ checklist).

The governmental response is secondary, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management doesn't run drilling rigs, pipelines or anything else. Their role is oversight.

"The NAE is a private, independent, nonprofit institution. In addition to its role as advisor to the federal government, the NAE also conducts independent studies to examine important topics in engineering and technology."

You may be right. Do you know who is specifically sponsoring this study?

According to the link you cited, "In June, the U.S. Department of the Interior asked NAE and the Research Council to undertake this analysis to complement and inform investigations of the oil spill by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Minerals Management Service (MMS), and a presidential commission."

BP's involvement and responsibility is without question. They created this mess either in part or in whole with their subcontractors and are on the hook for fixing the problem. I have no argument about that. Guilty.

My argument with the government's response does not get a free pass simply because the government did not directly cause the leak.

If you are arguing that my post #1 and post #6 are irrelevant because the link for the government sponsorship of the study have not been established (which I think it has), then so be it.

If you are arguing that the two posts are wrong because it was BP's fault in the first place and because one party is at fault the other party's actions can not be criticized nor held accountable, then that is just ridiculous logic.

Regardless of the fact that BP created the problem, the US Government does have a role and obligation in the matter.

It is such discussions as these that I wish Obama, or his staff would read for intelligence value. Because of a prior job a friend of mine gets intel reports he is prohibited from giving me. Some of what he tells me face to face, seems to confirm to me intelligence failures reminding me of the portrait Norman Mailer drew of the CIA in Harlots Ghost.

As we know Politicians are not welcome on CR4. This continues to rub me wrong, for how you use what you know about your tools, is just as, if not more important than the tools themselves. Certainly the role of engineers in critical situations and conflicts is acknowledged as crucial to the success or failure of nations.

I must be a politician, though my humor is hard for many to capture, and I am part prude, and hold odd combinations of viewpoints. The current issue of Harpers is a barometric mental landscape oddity in that it contains an essay about what it really means to carry a pistol. Some people find it just too much work.

On occasion I have stuck one in my pocket, though I do not have a concealed carry permit. These days since the arthritis which causes me a great deal of pain, and obviates any ability to fight like I could in the past, I ought to carry more often. It's not like I haven't been attacked, beat up and robbed in the past.

What has happened to you influences your view.

Then as well I don't think I have to know everything and everybody to make a proper judgement. For instance in the case of the BP, Deepwater Horizon, Mancando, Gulf of Mexico Well Blow Out my initial reaction was to cover it up. I viewed the containment vessel as too small, too light, and no more than window dressing intended as a display of doing something whereas it was early on said that only the relief well was the real solution, and that would take months. I regarded the direction taken by experts as really married to that route. My crude plan would have really gotten in the way of the expert plan.

I was told that my crude plan was right workable, but there were legal issues as far as BPs ability to maintain leases if they actually endorsed such a plan.

This came out the US Navy anonymously through back channels. Hence it is interesting the US Navy position regarding control of the Engineering. I have to say that I agree that there ought to be a moratorium on drilling wells that can't be more quickly shut down, not because of accidents, but in the case of willful attacks meant to poison the food.

Further, since it is identified as a very significant problem for oil out a blow out to be at such high pressure, might be a good idea to limit that pressure by using wider pipes, and mandating that.

Further again I am not so stupid as to think I am an expert, but I know a few simple things same as a plumber.

P.S. Clear thinkers do consider the source of their information.

wider or you mean bigger diameter pipes does nothing to reduce pressure. But it will or could reduce flow.

okay, reducing flow of oil from the blow out is a good thing. What exactly is your engineering point?

Further, since it is identified as a very significant problem for oil out a blow out to be at such high pressure, might be a good idea to limit that pressure by using wider pipes, and mandating that.

easy there,,,,,,, I was on my palm pre and could not fully explain, the engineering point is a basic one, and was to correct yours. Changeing the size of pipe would not have any effect on pressure.

By increaseing the diameter would nomally decrease the velocity of the flow through the pipe (if the flowrate was a constant)...but in this cause it would only be a guess.......and I state may only decrease, because the reserves is huge and under alot of pressure.

What may happen by increasing the diameter of the pipe, because of the huge reserves behind it....and this is only speculation and my opinion, it would just would be a bigger volume of a mess in the same amount of time.

so mandating something that has no effect, or make it worse....that does sound like it would come from the government. And it really doesn't matter under who's administration.

p911

I argue that NAE or an organization like this should have been doing research for the past 30 years [ Ixtoc ], before moving the rigs to deeper & deeper water

It is most certainly not the job of government to pay for studies & or research to benefit what may be the most profitable industry on the planet.

If the feds are to undertake such fact finding missions the costs should be borne by the companies who have been profiting....

More corporate welfare [see post 19]

If you want to do organizational failure analysis, that's fine

the feds didn't push everyone out of the way to take a lead role, they ended up there by default

Why not actually focus on the relevant group?

Why is BP not having any contingencies beyond a BOP,

You looking at the current problem....one should look farther than that.....

Is BP practices any different that any other company drilling offshore.

This problem of negligence, short cuts what ever you want to label may be bigger than you think and it may not be limited to BP.

I do not know what type of inspections they have, but I am sure there are some.

IMO

Problem is, when you start digging, the deeper you get, the muddier the waters. And I don't mean the gulf waters. Both for BP, government and any other AIA (Authorized Inspection Agency) that may be involved, they all may not have been doing their job. It just may be pre-emptive strikes and a battle for PR.

p911

These issues were blatantly obvious the first week to anyone with half a brain.

If you mean thats it was going to be difficult problem to solve, with answers to the solution that have to be developed, as in trail and error.

Yes I agree, I have found it quite humorours and discouraging, when these armchair quarterbacks were declaring "How difficult can this be, Just cap it."

Just goes to show that they were in the dark more than the experts. Because the experts knew they had a difficult task at hand.

p911

Anonymous Hero

"Image the outcome of Apollo 13 if President Obama was the flight controller (instead of Chris Kraft) and he (Obama) used the same plan of attack he uses now. I am sure we would all be comforted to know that he had his boot on the necks of the manufactures of the Teflon wires for the the number 2 oxygen tank."

This was the passage were I thought you were overdoing it a bit. It is hypothetical and is not a true representation of what the situation was like, for a President who has so many other things on his mind that one wonders how he can stay sane. Not one of them are of his making and all of them he can only tend to as advised by his team of experts.

The downgrading and misleading influences he is supposed to have had, was and still is something I disagree with. Give the man a break and be constructive and blaming him for not being Chris Kraft and comparing him to that situation is an infantile attempt at propaganda, which helps nothing and nobody.

This is all easy to say for me, I know, not being part of your incredibly resilient country, but I wish that such generalized statements against a guy who has so many issues to deal with and such a past to overcome.

I think to kick a man while he is down and who is trying to get up, for the sake of you all, is just bad taste and from my point of view he deserves more than being kicked while concerned with such dire situations.

What you other wise state is fine, just that sliding in of cheap points has made me respond to the other wise very legitimate points. Frack to bont or not.

And now bring on the engineers, Ky.

Give the guy a break? This isn't an emotionally based argument.

My analogy is fine. I am comparing leadership styles between two men.

The argument about being overloaded and under stress is not an excuse. He signed up for the job!

There are other things Obama has done that have been very good in his presidency, but in the US it is wrong to accept what we feel are significant deficiencies in performance and sit by silently.

If this was a dictatorship we would be compelled to keep our mouths shut. Compelled by force and pain of death.

Yet another attempt to politicize this engineering forum.

No, I have seen these flow charts before, when your cut them down to its essences it very much resembles that

Anonymous Hero: Can I use that flowchart? I think that's a nice piece of humor.

Consider it open source. ;-)