Business consultant Pat Murray proclaims, “You stand for what you tolerate. Define your intolerables.” Well in a recently authored letter by two house democrats that have been leading the BP oil spill investigation, the concept of “what you tolerate” applies. According to a recent Washington Post article, it states,
– BP saved $7 million to $10 million using a more risky option for the well casing, or steel tubing. The safer option, known as the liner-tieback option, would have provided more barriers to prevent the flow of natural gas up the space between the steel tubes and the well wall.
– BP failed to install enough devices to center the pipe in the hole, which increased the danger of cracks in the cement surrounding the pipe. The American Petroleum Institute’s recommended practices warn that if the pipe, or casing, is not centered “it is difficult, if not impossible” for the cement to displace the drilling mud on the narrow side of the opening.
– BP decided against a nine- to 12-hour procedure known as a “cement bond log” that would have tested the integrity of the cement. Although BP had a team from Schlumberger, a leading oil services firm, on board the rig, BP sent the team home and told them their services were not needed.
– BP did not fully circulate drilling mud, which would have taken as long as 12 hours. That would have helped detect any pockets of gas, which later shot up the well and exploded on the deck of the drilling rig.
– BP did not secure the connections, or casing hangers, between pipes of different diameters.
The letter says that many of these decisions contradict the advice contained in other BP internal documents, which warned against the dangers of using certain types of pipe. And it reveals that even before the accident, BP engineers were struggling with unusual difficulties. On April 14, BP drilling engineer Brian Morel e-mailed a colleague, Richard Miller, saying “this has been [a] nightmare well which has everyone all over the place.”
In the book Without Warning, it states, “Silent problems absolutely define what you tolerate.” Quite simply, individuals inside BP were willing to “tolerate” actions and activities that did not pass internal standards. Instead of thoroughness, corners were cut. To achieve what? A deadline? A budget? An incentive clause? Whatever the reason, billions of dollars are now lost and thousands of lives are caught in the crosshairs. This at times is the tragic outcome associated with silent problems.
Bottomline: The BP oil spill was avoidable if they had taken the precautions necessary to ensure a safe well. Now they will pay the price for their neglect.
