Did good Samaritans sink the Deepwater Horizon?
Just after the Deepwater Horizon explosion in April, flames engulfed the rig and it ultimately sank. This left many unanswered questions.
One of the questions has prompted a lawsuit with disturbing ramifications. Why did the rig sink? Some of the answers given at a joint Coast Guard/Interior Department hearing in July suggested that a lack of a coordinated firefighting effort could have inundated the rig with salt water causing it to capsize.
The Center for Public Integrity reported that at the hearings Coast Guard personnel said there was no fire marshal designated in the hours after the fire started. The Coast Guard was focused on searching for the 11 missing rig workers, so with no one in charge, the boats that responded to the fire pumped water on it for several hours. The rig listed then capsized taking with it to the bottom a mile of mangled pipe.
“It was the flooding of the Deepwater Horizon and the resulting sinking of the rig that directly caused the piping to break and begin spewing millions of gallons of oil into the ocean,” lawyers Lloyd Frischhertz and Gerald Maples asserted in a class action suit filed in federal court in New Orleans. The suit seeks damages from the vessel companies that responded to the explosion and fire, not from BP.
What, they are suing the good Samaritans?
This is but one of hundreds of lawsuits relating to the BP rig explosion and subsequent oil leak. But this one seems badly misguided. What about the next time a fire is raging at sea? Will responders hesitate to try and save lives for fear of being sued? Let’s hope this one gets filed under “trash” in the court in New Orleans.
[B]I recall many moons ago when I went to firefighting school seeing a film showing the sinking of a ship alongside a dock because of too much water being introduced while fighting the fire. That was a coordinated effort and there was a fire marshall or fire captain that was in charge. Who got sued then?[/B]
The Horizon was sagging and melting from the heat of the fire - it was going down regardless. “Hold Harmless” letters were signed by Transocean for most of the OSV companies that participated in the firefighting. The fireboat OSVs were under the direction of a Transocean employee by daylight. I read the lawsuit, and the lawsuit suggest the OSV should have put lines on the rig and held it on DP. I still can’t believe I read that. As hot as the fire was, that cooling effect was good enough to get a ROV vessel in there to dive on the BOP, that never worked. Without the fireboats cooling the rig, the ROV vessel wouldn’t had a chance to even attempt diving on the BOP.
They had few options. “What would the reasonable person of ordinary prudence have done under the same or similar circumstances?”
The “reasonable man/person” standard.
In assessing and evaluating
the propriety of one’s behavior, courts measure it against the standard of the
"reasonable man." This isn’t simply a reflection of how the average person behaves,
but is how the typical person ought to behave in circumstances in which there is a
potential or actual risk of harm to others. The reasonable person is not perfect or
infallible; he is allowed errors of judgment or mistakes in perception, and may be
momentarily distracted, but such errors must have been reasonable or excusable under
the circumstances; they must have been consistent with the exercise of ordinary care.
[QUOTE=anchorman;43708]The Horizon was sagging and melting from the heat of the fire - it was going down regardless. [/QUOTE]
I thought at first that trying everything possible to keep the rig afloat was the best course in order to keep the flare burning and the riser intact, but thinking about it now, the fire would have eventually caused the entire deck to buckle and collapse and then there would only have been two disconnected pontoons with their columns. Those alone would not have been able to stay afloat and would have gone down.
If the fire had been less intense, then I think the rig might have actually been salvaged or at least maybe kept afloat over the riser in order to keep the flare consuming the escaping hydrocarbons. The accident sure was an eyeopener to those of us who work in drilling of the nature of what lies down hole in the wells we drill. Kind of like working on a ship carrying ammunition for the military…just another cargo or so you only think!
[QUOTE=c.captain;44006]I thought at first that trying everything possible to keep the rig afloat was the best course in order to keep the flare burning and the riser intact, but thinking about it now, the fire would have eventually caused the entire deck to buckle and collapse and then there would only have been two disconnected pontoons with their columns. Those alone would not have been able to stay afloat and would have gone down.
If the fire had been less intense, then I think the rig might have actually been salvaged or at least maybe kept afloat over the riser in order to keep the flare consuming the escaping hydrocarbons. The accident sure was an eyeopener to those of us who work in drilling of the nature of what lies down hole in the wells we drill. Kind of like working on a ship carrying ammunition for the military…just another cargo or so you only think![/QUOTE]
I think that was most everyone’s initial judgement. That is part of our training after all, and one of the greatest risks - the water from fighting the fire. I can see why that was the first thought of many. In this case, with high pressure hydrocarbons fueling the fire with the source nearly a mile subsurface, I think it’s safe to say that best judgement was getting the ROV vessel working on shutting down the source (BOP). After being on scene and witnessing everything unfold, I can’t second guess anything that was done, and I’m usually the first one to say “they should have do this”, or “they should have do that”. I’m generally a harsh critic. Under the circumstances, professionals did a good job in a bad situation.
[QUOTE=Capt. Ken Wahl;43709]They had few options. “What would the reasonable person of ordinary prudence have done under the same or similar circumstances?”
[B]" ordinary prudence" is oxymoron to me. Prudent is somewhat defined by going/caring/acting …above and beyond ordinary.[/B]
The “reasonable man/person” standard.
In assessing and evaluating
the propriety of one’s behavior, courts measure it against the standard of the
"reasonable man." This isn’t simply a reflection of how the average person behaves,
but is how the typical person ought to behave in circumstances in which there is a
potential or actual risk of harm to others. The reasonable person is not perfect or
infallible; he is allowed errors of judgment or mistakes in perception, and may be
momentarily distracted, but such errors must have been reasonable or excusable under
the circumstances; they must have been consistent with the exercise of ordinary care.[/QUOTE]
[B]This is where the training comes in, on a small scale, you could refer to the “good samaratan act” ie: giving someone CPR. You may act in good faith, but must not show gross negligence. blah blah balh…[/B]
[B][/B]
[B]On the scale of BP Horizon,… I’m not familiar with the scope of training for so many vessels and crew to coordinate efforts (first of all) effectivly and conciousely, and secondarily, avoid getting sued in the future … all in such a short time.[/B]
[B][/B]
[B]"[/B]they must have been consistent with the exercise of ordinary care" [B] I don’t see where “ordinary” comes into play under emergency circumstances, that is usually defined by a good leader that can handle things with the distress of a lot of factors, You cannot train someone to handle this, under a “perceived or ordianry scale”. I may be getting my wording wrong, (as I’m sure the lawyers will cringe at) but I’m sure that plenty of lawsuits will prevail on the condition that one company or another, will bail out to avoid future litigtion (cost). [/B]
[B][/B]
[B]So? Everyone can ramp-up on the case-law for the future, which won’t happen right? [/B]
[B][/B]
[B]I’m with anchorman on this one so far, hope John can make more light for me in his book. You need 23.5 hrs./day just to follow this thread. [/B]
[B][/B]
[B]I’m sure it will take years for truths to come out and that there will be more issues of [I] Fire on the Horizon. [/I][/B]
[B][I][/I][/B]
[B][/B]
[B][/B]
[B][/B]
There was a SMIT Salvage Master on scene when she sank… so, unless they have become a non-profit company, I don’t think you can call them “Good Samaritans”.
From what I heard the deck was flexing under incredible amoutns of heat, so they had to balance between letting her burn (and crack in half) or cooling her (and watching her sink).
Others ask the question of why so many boats… It takes a lot of water to cool a rig PLUS the ROV boat needed protection.
[QUOTE=cmjeff;44021]It takes a lot of water to cool a rig PLUS the ROV boat needed protection.[/QUOTE]
We all know from fire training that to protect a fire team in an involved space, you do it by spraying them with a fog pattern (or preferably using an applicator to put the fog above and infront to them). Should not have the FiFi boats turned their monitors towards the ROV vessel and placed a water blanket between it and the DWH?
DWH was bound to sink unless the blowout was stopped at the BOP, but it still would have been wise not to sink the rig any earlier than was necessary. The weather was very favorable so she might have just stayed sitting right on top of the riser for a few days if not a week possibly.