Oil Spill

[Emeritus]

Yet, he seems to have trouble actually answering the question? I guess that comes with experience.

-ERD50

I'll answer a question when one is asked that can be answered . A speech or an assertion does not become a question just because you end it with a question mark.

 

[ERD50]

I'll answer a question when one is asked that can be answered . A speech or an assertion does not become a question just because you end it with a question mark.

I asked: What action do you think should be taken towards regulation of off-shore drilling?


I honestly think that is a straightforward question, not a speech. And I am honestly interested in your answer, whether you really are a Professor Emeritus (which I believe you are, not that it makes any difference here), or a kid typing from your bedroom in the basement.

But please use small words, I ain't all that edgy-kated, even anonymously on the inter-webs.

-ERD50

 

[kumquat]

But please use small words, I ain't all that edgy-kated, even anonymously on the inter-webs.

-ERD50

And if you use big ones, ie. three syllables, try to spell them correctly so I can look them up in the dictionary.

Since the time of the Titanic Congressional hearings have been used to drag information out of recalcitrant wrongdoers. Its the only way to nail down the facts before the purjurors get together to coordinate the lies.

 

[Gumby]

Do you suppose it would be possible to disagree without being disagreeable?

 

[Rustic23]

Possible.... yes..... Probable...NO!

 

[Westernskies]

I'll answer a question when one is asked that can be answered . A speech or an assertion does not become a question just because you end it with a question mark.

Asked once before, never got an answer- what successful companies can you offer as shining examples of your unique perception of corporate responsibility, with perfect product and personnel safety records, perpetual product improvement with lifetime retroactive product upgrades, cradle-to-grave warranties, and minty fresh breath? You know, the folks that don't need the new sheriff in town puttin' his boots on their necks?

Third time's a charm, counselor. Just a couple of names off the top of your head. With your wealth of experience, high-level testimony, and swarms of indoctrinated students out there preaching the gospel and policing the miscreants, surely there must be quite a few companies out there that got the message by now...

 

[lets-retire]

What doubt?

The doubt brought into any operation when humans are involved. The doubt that was introduced through the successful arguing of lawyers in court. The reason it takes four hours to process the simple misdemeanor of a DUI. The doubt that maybe the new clerk ordered a 4567/3 preventer instead of the 4567/2 preventer. The doubt that the guy in the warehouse picked up the 4567/7 preventer instead of the 4567/2. The doubt that someone along the way simply misread the paper work.

Absolutely those errors should be caught by the company, but if they aren't then who will catch them? It is no different than the wrong car thread on here. The car dealership should have had processes in place to make sure the correct paperwork and the correct car was delivered but somehow it wasn't. That is why the government gives a "warning" first. The fine can be graduated so that repeat offenders are fined more than a company that has an error once or twice in a decade.

 

[Emeritus]

The doubt brought into any operation when humans are involved. The doubt that was introduced through the successful arguing of lawyers in court. The reason it takes four hours to process the simple misdemeanor of a DUI. The doubt that maybe the new clerk ordered a 4567/3 preventer instead of the 4567/2 preventer. The doubt that the guy in the warehouse picked up the 4567/7 preventer instead of the 4567/2. The doubt that someone along the way simply misread the paper work.

Absolutely those errors should be caught by the company, but if they aren't then who will catch them? It is no different than the wrong car thread on here. The car dealership should have had processes in place to make sure the correct paperwork and the correct car was delivered but somehow it wasn't. That is why the government gives a "warning" first. The fine can be graduated so that repeat offenders are fined more than a company that has an error once or twice in a decade.

Doubt over the reason is not equal to doubt over the effect. That is why the law has had strict liability since the code of Hammurabi . If your car is under warranty you don't care why it doesn't work. Liability for oil spills is strict.

 

[Emeritus]

Asked once before, never got an answer- what successful companies can you offer as shining examples of your unique perception of corporate responsibility, with perfect product and personnel safety records, perpetual product improvement with lifetime retroactive product upgrades, cradle-to-grave warranties, and minty fresh breath? You know, the folks that don't need the new sheriff in town puttin' his boots on their necks?

Third time's a charm, counselor. Just a couple of names off the top of your head. With your wealth of experience, high-level testimony, and swarms of indoctrinated students out there preaching the gospel and policing the miscreants, surely there must be quite a few companies out there that got the message by now...

I answered the speech. It was not a question. The fact that we cant get perfection does not ever mean we have to tolerate shitty awful, in class or companies. Companies, countries and industries range from the pretty good to the shitty awful. And yes I have over 35 years experience examining safety regulation in a number of countries all over over the world. I've chaired international conferences on safety regulation. I'm organizing one right now. I teach engineering system failure and how the regulatory system interacts with the design process.

 

[Emeritus]

I asked: What action do you think should be taken towards regulation of off-shore drilling?


I honestly think that is a straightforward question, not a speech. And I am honestly interested in your answer, whether you really are a Professor Emeritus (which I believe you are, not that it makes any difference here), or a kid typing from your bedroom in the basement.

But please use small words, I ain't all that edgy-kated, even anonymously on the inter-webs.
-ERD50

I believe a posted an answer but it may be lost in cyberspace. I claim no expertise n drilling as such. But in all such cases you need on site regulation of some form and you need a corporate safety culture that BP lacks. It's no different from controlling MRSA in hospitals. BPs failed safety culture was the subject of several investigations after the Texas city disaster.http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_int...AGING/local_assets/pdf/Baker_panel_report.pdf

The company is simply a disaster waiting to happen

 

[Rustic23]

And Mr. Pompous goes on:

And yes I have over 35 years experience examining safety regulation in a number of countries all over over the world. I've chaired international conferences on safety regulation. I'm organizing one right now. I teach engineering system failure and how the regulatory system interacts with the design process. In addition to safety regulation I taught Consumer protection law for many years.

I've been a witness in congressional hearings.

I wrote the chapter on safe design for the first year students.

I've taught Technical safety regulation for 35 years

As an academic lawyer married to a physician working with lots of PhDs

I teach, write research articles, give presentations and play chess.

I certainly teach the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum. I also teach engineering ethics in comparison to legal and medical ethics.

I am an attorney by training and Professor Emeritus in an Engineering school where I still teach law and ethics and design safety to engineers.

I've been an attorney for 34 years and trained a lot of investigators and regulators.

I did a Sabbatical in health care information systems in the USA and Europe

I just finished writing the first exam for my students. The topic is regulating the safety of aircraft flying through volcanic ash

I was unemployed and deeply in debt.

have known Bill Clinton since College.

35 years of teaching at a first class State University convinces me that

I did my first Retirement plan 18 years before I took Emeritus status.

I've been teaching at the University level for 35 years. Never ever used a multiple choice or similar exam.

Ok We've used RVs before

We were in Annapolis last Saturday with a couple of European Volcano refugees

I'm an academic.

I have been a volcano refugee in Frankfurt for the last 5 days.

I'm Professor Emeritus



And this was only from the first couple of lines from his post! If not a troll what. Why do people keep this guy in business. It is the ignore list for me.

 

[Emeritus]

Just a comment. Reading several of Emeritus's post, and based on the number of times he has use 'I have .......' he is clearly the most experienced guy on the board, having done just about everything in question. Wow. I never knew.

We happen to be discussing the field in which I have spent my entire career.

 

[Rustic23]

Unfortunately for you, all these did not come from this thread. My brother, also an academic doctor, was called 'An intellectual snob'. After he left the academic environment he later said 'You know, I have to agree with mother, I was'. It is not your discussion, but the intellectual snobbery that is my reason for putting you on my ignore list.

 

[Emeritus]

And Mr. Pompous goes on:

And yes I have over 35 years experience It is the ignore list for me.

Feel free
whatever

Ad hominem attacks are best delivered anonymously

 

[lets-retire]

Doubt over the reason is not equal to doubt over the effect. That is why the law has had strict liability since the code of Hammurabi . If your car is under warranty you don't care why it doesn't work. Liability for oil spills is strict.

In case you missed it, I am talking about PREVENTING the spills by improving the inspection process PRIOR to a catastrophe. I'm talking about issuing fines and repercussion for failure to drill in compliance with approved submitted plans. The big complaint people seem to have is that BP took shortcuts that weren't approved in their submitted plans (even though the investigation has not be concluded yet). I'm talking about fining a speeder going 10 over on the highway, and you seem to want to charge the speeder with reckless driving.

 

[ERD50]

... But in all such cases you need on site regulation of some form and you need a corporate safety culture that BP lacks. ....

BPs failed safety culture was the subject of several investigations .....[/url]

The company is simply a disaster waiting to happen

I agree with all that (at least as I understand it from the general reports we have).

But as a US Citizen, I keep asking - If BPs failed safety culture is so well known, and so well documented, and we 'know' that disaster was imminent, why didn't the regulators shut them down to protect the GOM?

I don't recall an answer from you on that in these 500 plus posts to this thread.

Now here's the thing - to some of us, you are appearing to come across as a 'shill' for the US Govt (and/or regulators in general). I hear "BP=BAD" in every other sentence, yet I can't recall a single question or suspicion from you regarding the responsibility/competency of the regulators. Such apparent bias undermines the rest of what you say for many of us.

I'm not saying that as any sort of personal attack or to stir things up or to be disagreeable. I just feel that I can't give your statements much credence when they appear to be so biased.

Perhaps the bias I detect is a product of my own misunderstanding of what I'm reading from you. But it does not appear that I am alone in that regard, so I don't think so. So perhaps you can expand on the role of the regulators for us? Else, I will also choose to stop listening to you, despite what appears to be considerable knowledge/experience in some of these matters.

-ERD50

 

[Westernskies]

I answered the speech. It was not a question. The fact that we cant get perfection does not ever mean we have to tolerate shitty awful, in class or companies. Companies, countries and industries range from the pretty good to the shitty awful. And yes I have over 35 years experience examining safety regulation in a number of countries all over over the world. I've chaired international conferences on safety regulation. I'm organizing one right now. I teach engineering system failure and how the regulatory system interacts with the design process.

Again, a non-answer only a gasbag Congressman could love. What is so difficult about naming a couple of companies that meet your unique criteria for excellence?

If, after all your [-]self-serving[/-] dedicated efforts (Thanks, Rustic, for the summary) there aren't any good companies out there, maybe it's not the companies that need to implement a new program... This smacks of another thread about grading teachers, where the consensus from the educators was that is was impossible to judge their effectivesness. This appears to be another straw-man argumant to support that. Bragging about teaching a curriculum that all corporations are evil and can't be trusted without you there to police them (to a class of wide-eyed liberal college kids eager to change the world); arguing for self-serving regulations and gloating over product recalls of decades-old products; and touting your self-made "safety"credentials in any and every field out there (Food Science, Aviation Design , Construction materials, etc. ) makes me question who is really fleecing who.

Here's a simple question- can you direct us to a source to some of your Congressional testimony? (It's Public Information, anyway) Maybe a quick trip through a transcript or two would enlighten some of us lumpen proles....

 

[Emeritus]

In case you missed it, I am talking about PREVENTING the spills by improving the inspection process PRIOR to a catastrophe. I'm talking about issuing fines and repercussion for failure to drill in compliance with approved submitted plans. The big complaint people seem to have is that BP took shortcuts that weren't approved in their submitted plans (even though the investigation has not be concluded yet). I'm talking about fining a speeder going 10 over on the highway, and you seem to want to charge the speeder with reckless driving.

What your wrote was:
"The inspector goes out find the blowout preventer is the wrong size for the job it is supposed to do. It takes two weeks to replace the preventer. The inspector gives the company two weeks to get the job done and levys a $5000, $10000, $20000, whatever fine for deviating from the approved plans. The error could simply be an oversight, or it could be intentional. It's called giving people the benefit of the doubt."

I said "what doubt?" There is no doubt in your example that they don't have the right equipment.. In the regulatory world, THAT IS ENOUGH It doesnt matter why. Its a violation right there. Strict liability internalizes the desire to comply rather than the desire to come ups with creative excuses

 

[Emeritus]

Again, a non-answer only a gasbag Congressman could love. What is so difficult about naming a couple of companies that meet your unique criteria for excellence? ...

Please quote where I not you set this "criteria"

full quote

 

[Emeritus]

I agree with all that (at least as I understand it from the general reports we have).

But as a US Citizen, I keep asking - If BPs failed safety culture is so well known, and so well documented, and we 'know' that disaster was imminent, why didn't the regulators shut them down to protect the GOM?

I don't recall an answer from you on that in these 500 plus posts to this thread.

Now here's the thing - to some of us, you are appearing to come across as a 'shill' for the US Govt (and/or regulators in general). I hear "BP=BAD" in every other sentence, yet I can't recall a single question or suspicion from you regarding the responsibility/competency of the regulators. Such apparent bias undermines the rest of what you say for many of us.

I'm not saying that as any sort of personal attack or to stir things up or to be disagreeable. I just feel that I can't give your statements much credence when they appear to be so biased.

Perhaps the bias I detect is a product of my own misunderstanding of what I'm reading from you. But it does not appear that I am alone in that regard, so I don't think so. So perhaps you can expand on the role of the regulators for us? Else, I will also choose to stop listening to you, despite what appears to be considerable knowledge/experience in some of these matters.

-ERD50

Regulators fail routinely . The World Trade center was a disaster waiting to happen. The FAA screws up regularly . The operational design of the minerals management service was a disaster and its performance fell below any standard of care.. The British Board of trades regulation of the TITANIC was a disgrace.

my point is that these failures are not relevant to the failure by the industry, who by law have a non delegable duty to comply with the safety regulations and to avoid harming people property or the environment. failure by the policeman does not mitigate the action of the lawbreaker

 

[ERD50]

Regulators fail routinely .

... The operational design of the minerals management service was a disaster and its performance fell below any standard of care..

At last - Thank you!

my point is that these failures are not relevant to the failure by the industry, who by law have a non delegable duty to comply with the safety regulations and to avoid harming people property or the environment. failure by the policeman does not mitigate the action of the lawbreaker

This is where you go into la-la land for me.

I agree that BP has to take responsibility, I never said other-wise. But the way you state this, I can't imagine why we have inspectors at all. You say the company is just supposed to do the 'right thing'.

I'm not saying failure of the regulators relieves BP of any responsibility, but I am saying that if I had beach property in the GOM, I would also be upset that the regulators did not shut down BP before the mess, considering all the supposed evidence of their incompetence and impending disaster.

So, action should be taken against BP. But, what action should be taken regarding the regulators for their poor operational design and its 'performance below any standard of care..'?

And I don't mean some show like replacing the head of MMS, I mean punitive and structural changes. They screwed up by not shutting down BP.

-ERD50

 

[lets-retire]

I said "what doubt?" There is no doubt in your example that they don't have the right equipment.. In the regulatory world, THAT IS ENOUGH It doesnt matter why. Its a violation right there. Strict liability internalizes the desire to comply rather than the desire to come ups with creative excuses

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall (edited to remove inflammatory language). You want to shut the rig down completely for something that could be a simple mistake. That is heavy handed. I can see doing it your way, if the company routinely makes the same mistake, then a pattern can be established. That would mean there is no mistake and they are attempting to get a way with substandard building. The fact that they don't have the correct equipment is handled thorough the fining process, NOT shutting down operations. One is corrective the other is punitive.

To tell you how many simple errors companies make, I currently work in an area the has high regulatory requirements. We can fine for something as simple as incorrect paperwork. We have roughly 10-15 sets of paperwork come to our office every week. We write fines for mistakes about once a month. The same five or six companies submit paperwork week in and week out. Yet we are still able to fine about one company per month for not having the paperwork correct. This does not mean they are trying to get away with something, it's just simple mistakes. A close friend builds houses to be used as rental properties he owns. He has a list of stuff that he needs to have placed in his houses. About every two or three weeks he has to return something because the wrong item was delivered. Often it is discovered because my friend is the person ordering and installing the supplies. When working on a large projects often the engineer does not order or install the widgets needed to build. Similarly the ordering agent does not come up with the list of required equipment or install anything. The person installing the equipment most likely does not know what the engineer called for or what the ordering clerk was supposed to order. With so many disconnects it is very difficult to prove an intent large enough to completely shut down an operation. A company's self inspection should catch these errors, but it isn't very smart to have a company's self regulation as the only means of keeping them in compliance.

 

[Emeritus]

At last - Thank you!



This is where you go into la-la land for me.

I agree that BP has to take responsibility, I never said other-wise. But the way you state this, I can't imagine why we have inspectors at all. You say the company is just supposed to do the 'right thing'.

I'm not saying failure of the regulators relieves BP of any responsibility, but I am saying that if I had beach property in the GOM, I would also be upset that the regulators did not shut down BP before the mess, considering all the supposed evidence of their incompetence and impending disaster.

So, action should be taken against BP. But, what action should be taken regarding the regulators for their poor operational design and its 'performance below any standard of care..'?

And I don't mean some show like replacing the head of MMS, I mean punitive and structural changes. They screwed up by not shutting down BP.

-ERD50

Of course we have to fix both regulators and regulations. But taxpayers have to decide if they want to pay what it cost to have first class regulatory systems. In general they don't

 

[Emeritus]

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall (edited to remove inflammatory language). You want to shut the rig down completely for something that could be a simple mistake..

If a hospital is crawling with infection you take action \NOW

Whatever it takes.
IT DOESNT MATTER WHY

 

[lets-retire]

If a hospital is crawling with infection you take action \NOW

Whatever it takes.
IT DOESNT MATTER WHY

If a hospital is crawling with infection it is too late to prevent it (the blowout preventer has failed).