We have just received word that gCaptain has been given the chance to do a short interview with Admiral Thad Allen on the Gulf Oil Spill. At this point, we are very limited with the amount of questions we are permitted to ask and therefor want to make sure we ask the right questions.
Post any questions you would like gCaptain to ask Admiral Thad Allen in this thread, and we will consider for the interview.
Thanks,
I would ask him about the level of cooperation from BP, on a scale of 1 to 10 - with 10 being the best, from the very beginning of the DWH incident till now. I think most will be surprised with the answer, considering the press, and that would be something I would want to be on the record.
I would ask Admiral Allen why on the Minimum Safe Manning of the DWH, a fully DP Vessel considered underway as per COLREG 3, there was no requirement of a Master when “on location” . As the DP MODU was operating in the US OCS why the USCG did not questioned the Flag State?
I would ask him, in an effort to get the actual responsibilities out in the open:
Who is/was responsible for overseeing the DWH operational, safety and procedures aboard the DWH?
Is this event going to change the way the regulatory oversight is handled in the future?
My thoughts are to let the whole public know about the overlapping jurisdictions and oversight which cloud and muddle an effective regulatatory process. It seems that the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ mystique is following to this incident. Or at least don’t ask ME, because I won’t tell! While we are all understanding why no one wants to commit to anything (BP, USCG) until an investigation is complete, there seems to be a stonewall of real info. The Obama administrations response to simply shut down deep drilling is pretty empty, and knee jerk. But I would expect nothing less!
[B]Why was there no contingency plan in place for an event like this?[/B]
There was a New York Times article a couple days ago that said “BP…cited the ‘worst case’ for a blowout as one that might produce 250,000 barrels of oil per day…But the agency did not require the rig to create a response plan for such a situation.”
This seems odd to me, as vessels must have plans for everything - vessel security, oil spill, fire and emergency, etc. There are private companies who’s entire job is to create VSPs and Ballast Water Treatment plans. I sailed on a foreign flagged tanker that had an inch thick binder describing the process by which we were to change all of our ballast water out at sea. A little overdone? Probably, but the plan worked perfectly when we used it.
So why, with a scenario that could cause such a huge disaster, was there no plan?
Isn’t it about time to do away with all the “vested interest concessions” and manage issues the right way the first time??
My question concerns the proper procedure for “booming”, i.e., proper placement and tending of oil-collecting booms. It was inspired by an interesting (and expletive-rich, in case that matters) post over at Daily Kos by “Fishgrease”, a self-described long term professional in the oil industry (production side, rather than drilling side, is my impression). Link:
One can quickly get Fishgrease’s main point/complaint via the graphic (drawing) he provided over there - scroll down 1-1.5 screens to see it.
Warning: in the text, Fishgrease is generous with his criticisms, including of ADM Allen. But I want to stick to the topic of booming. Are serious efforts underway to do it properly, i.e., double-booming in zig-zag pattern, with continuous tending, testing of placement efficacy (e.g., using ping pong balls as “test oil” when necessary) and repositioning as required, and provisioning of adequate boom material and personnel to do the work? [It sounds like lots of folks are suddenly available for alternative temporary employment, and according to Fishgrease, the basics of proper booming are acquired rather easily.]
According to that post, it sounds like a very effective means of oil collection, if done properly. The challenge in this situation is the sheer scale of effort required. However, having noted that, it seems it would be a whole lot easier to get the oil while it is water-borne, rather than letting it reach land and permeate into the terrain.
Thanks in advance, for any answers that can be provided. Best wishes for handling this monumental task!
[QUOTE=Sharl;35766]My question concerns the proper procedure for “booming”, i.e., proper placement and tending of oil-collecting booms. It was inspired by an interesting (and expletive-rich, in case that matters) post over at Daily Kos by “Fishgrease”, a self-described long term professional in the oil industry (production side, rather than drilling side, is my impression). Link:
One can quickly get Fishgrease’s main point/complaint via the graphic (drawing) he provided over there - scroll down 1-1.5 screens to see it.
Warning: in the text, Fishgrease is generous with his criticisms, including of ADM Allen. But I want to stick to the topic of booming. Are serious efforts underway to do it properly, i.e., double-booming in zig-zag pattern, with continuous tending, testing of placement efficacy (e.g., using ping pong balls as “test oil” when necessary) and repositioning as required, and provisioning of adequate boom material and personnel to do the work? [It sounds like lots of folks are suddenly available for alternative temporary employment, and according to Fishgrease, the basics of proper booming are acquired rather easily.]
According to that post, it sounds like a very effective means of oil collection, if done properly. The challenge in this situation is the sheer scale of effort required. However, having noted that, it seems it would be a whole lot easier to get the oil while it is water-borne, rather than letting it reach land and permeate into the terrain.
Thanks in advance, for any answers that can be provided. Best wishes for handling this monumental task![/QUOTE]
It can be effective if done properly and also if weather conditions cooperate. If the weather is bad enough no boom system, no matter how well tended, set, etc, will be effective.
Thanks. Having zero experience with the topic myself, my hunch is that adequate booming probably isn’t achievable for this gigantic clusterf*ck, even without factoring in uncooperative weather. But if nothing else, discussion might provide part of a “lessons learned” exercise for future disasters, including development of government mandates for these petro-studs, requiring them to have remediation resources and methods in adequate quantity at the ready in the event they are needed.
(I know - barn doors closed too late, and all that…)
Is it reasonable to assume private industry will “do the right thing” when it comes to off-shore drilling safety?
In the long run, is the Coast Guard the best federal agency to be policing off-shore oil drilling?
If so, does the Coast Guard have the resources to do the job? And, if not what resources are needed?
How can the politics and special interests be taken out of off-shore drilling regulation?
How can simple safety issues such as like lifeboat capacity be overlooked for so long (e.g. the “average” person ways 165 pounds when determining capacity)?
What short-term solutions are being planned in case there is another deep-water spill in the immediate future?
Has the Coast Guard set-up a whistle-blower hotline specific to oil rig problems?
[QUOTE=Robert;35767]It can be effective if done properly and also if weather conditions cooperate. If the weather is bad enough no boom system, no matter how well tended, set, etc, will be effective.[/QUOTE]
Robert, you are right on…
Booming and skimming in open ocean has many factors affecting the success of the operation…If the sea state is choppy you will get splash over and going into the seas you can experience entrainment (losing oil under the boom) There is also many different types and sizes of boom…All for different applications…
I would ask him what is the purpose of shutting drilling down is going to do, besides kill our economy? Ask him if he loses a chopper, do they ban flying for 6 months, think not. Where is his persuasion to get drilling back online?
I would like to know, if in the context of the world’s environment, does he think other countries do a far better job of protecting the environment.
My thought is that if people are determined to protect the environment as a whole, I would think that right here in the good ol’ USA we do a better job overall. Yes I know we have had an accident, but I think that accident is partially caused by the goverment inspectors, which are not coast guard people. So more regulation here at home or ship out all the oil exploration to other countries that can do a better job? Is the president and the media just mad because it is in our backyard? Would they give the same hype to a spill in the north sea? They are still going to drill baby drill. Question is where.
Lots of rambling there, but I am curious where all these rigs will go next and if that next place will have any better safeguards than we have now, or will presumeably have after this incident.
Why do we still allow foreign mariners to work in the gulf?
[QUOTE=Ea$y Money;35803]I would like to know, if in the context of the world’s environment, does he think other countries do a far better job of protecting the environment.
My thought is that if people are determined to protect the environment as a whole, I would think that right here in the good ol’ USA we do a better job overall. Yes I know we have had an accident, but I think that accident is partially caused by the goverment inspectors, which are not coast guard people. So more regulation here at home or ship out all the oil exploration to other countries that can do a better job? Is the president and the media just mad because it is in our backyard? Would they give the same hype to a spill in the north sea? They are still going to drill baby drill. Question is where.
Lots of rambling there, but I am curious where all these rigs will go next and if that next place will have any better safeguards than we have now, or will presumeably have after this incident.[/QUOTE]
Observers have recently noted that, even as bad as the Gulf oil spill is, the environmental damage in Nigeria due to pretroleum extraction is much worse, but gets little attention outside the circles of environmental and human rights activists trying to bring attention to it. One recent article: “Nigeria’s agony dwarfs the Gulf oil spill. The US and Europe ignore it.” (Guardian - UK).
[QUOTE=CaptVal;35702]I would ask Admiral Allen why on the Minimum Safe Manning of the DWH, a fully DP Vessel considered underway as per COLREG 3, there was no requirement of a Master when “on location” . As the DP MODU was operating in the US OCS why the USCG did not questioned the Flag State?[/QUOTE]
The definition of underway in COLREGs does not apply to manning requirements. For the purposes of manning, a non-selfpropelled MODU is considered either on-station or under tow. The USCG does not have the jurisdiction to dictate safe manning on a vessel not registered in the US. They may check for compliance with STCW and the MSMC issued by the Flag. They may deny entry to a vessel if they are not satsfied with manning requirements of the Flag. The DEEPWATER HORIZON was operating outside the territorial sea of the US. They were still in the EEZ and OCS, but the jurisdictional rights of the US on a foriegn vessel are less in these areas. They could have beeen denied the right to drill, but I believe that decision is made by another agency.
My question to Admiral Allen would be whether the USCG conducts safety inspections on foreign flag MODUs in the Gulf, how often, and when the last one on the DEEPSEA HORIZON was conducted. I believie that Flag state safety inspections were conducted by Class. ABS in this case. Does the USCG provide any oversight for these activities, particularly given ABS’s less than stellar record in applying delegated statutory requirements (ie the Prestige oil spill)?
[QUOTE=CaptHH;35786]I would ask him what is the purpose of shutting drilling down is going to do, besides kill our economy? Ask him if he loses a chopper, do they ban flying for 6 months, think not. Where is his persuasion to get drilling back online?[/QUOTE]
He certainly is not the person responsible for that decision
[QUOTE=Marc0;35812]The definition of underway in COLREGs does not apply to manning requirements. For the purposes of manning, a non-selfpropelled MODU is considered either on-station or under tow. The USCG does not have the jurisdiction to dictate safe manning on a vessel not registered in the US. They may check for compliance with STCW and the MSMC issued by the Flag. They may deny entry to a vessel if they are not satsfied with manning requirements of the Flag. The DEEPWATER HORIZON was operating outside the territorial sea of the US. They were still in the EEZ and OCS, but the jurisdictional rights of the US on a foriegn vessel are less in these areas. They could have beeen denied the right to drill, but I believe that decision is made by another agency.
My question to Admiral Allen would be whether the USCG conducts safety inspections on foreign flag MODUs in the Gulf, how often, and when the last one on the DEEPSEA HORIZON was conducted. I believie that Flag state safety inspections were conducted by Class. ABS in this case. Does the USCG provide any oversight for these activities, particularly given ABS’s less than stellar record in applying delegated statutory requirements (ie the Prestige oil spill)?[/QUOTE]
Being in the US OCS the USCG has the authority as far as safety of the vessel. For example, I worked in Brazilian OCS, incidentally on a Marshall Islands DP Drillship, and the Brazilian Navy issued a new MSM which we had to comply with while drilling in Brazil, because they founded the MI one not SAFE. We also had regular safety inspections from the Brazilian Navy and they were very, very rigorous.
I would ask why is the USCG not requiring that TWIC cards are issued to the crews of foreign flag units working in the OCS?
As they work regularly in the US EEZ and transit through our airports and ports why is this measure (TWIC Cards) not enforced. The STCW should not be used for those foreigners that routinely work in the US EEZ. It should be supplemented the TWIC.
They have the right to require background checks to issue TWIC cards to these foreign crews that work aboard foreign flagged units but USCG is not doing this…
The main questions is why not?
I would ask the good Admiral what actions regarding a criminal investigation the United States Coast Guard immediately took other than drug testing the survivors. I would also want to know if the BP officials on board were given the same drug tests. If not, why not? I’d ask him if it was the USCG that ordered the crew held incommunicado, not allowed to phone relatives etc., immediately after they were rescued.
I’d also ask him if NOAA had communicated to him shortly after the loss of the Horizon their estimate of the oil flow estimated; minimum and maximum. If not, where did he get the figures he expressed to the press ?
Tengineer