The deeper the water, the more exceptions granted by regulators (NYT)

[charlesg]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/06rig.html

June 5, 2010
Before Oil Spill, It Was Unclear Who Was in Charge of Rig
By IAN URBINA

... New government and BP documents, interviews with experts and testimony by witnesses provide the clearest indication to date that a hodgepodge of oversight agencies granted exceptions to rules, allowed risks to accumulate and made a disaster more likely on the rig... Deep-water oil production in the gulf, which started in 1979 but expanded much faster in the mid-1990s with new technology and federal incentives, is governed as much by exceptions to rules as by the rules themselves.

Under a process called “alternative compliance,” much of the technology used on deep-water rigs has been approved piecemeal, with regulators cooperating with industry groups to make small adjustments to guidelines that were drawn up decades ago for shallow-water drilling. Of roughly 3,500 drilling rigs in the gulf, fewer than 50 are in waters deeper than 1,000 feet. But the risks and challenges associated with this deeper water are much greater. “The pace of technology has definitely outrun the regulations,” Lt. Cmdr. Michael Odom of the Coast Guard, who inspects the rigs, said last month at a hearing.

As a result, deep-water rigs operate under an ad-hoc system of exceptions. The deeper the water, the further the exceptions stretch, not just from federal guidelines but also often from company policy. So, for example, when BP officials first set their sights on extracting the oily riches under what is known as Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico, they asked for and received permission from federal regulators to exempt the drilling project from federal law that requires a rigorous type of environmental review, internal documents and federal records indicate.

As BP engineers planned to set certain pipes and casings for lining the well in place in the ocean floor, they had to get permission from company managers to use riskier equipment because that equipment deviated from the company’s own design and safety policies, according to internal BP documents obtained by The New York Times. And when company officials wanted to test the blowout preventer, a crucial fail-safe mechanism on the pipe near the ocean floor, at a lower pressure than was federally required, regulators granted an exception, documents released last week show. Regulators granted yet another exception when BP sought to delay mandatory testing of that blowout preventer because they had lost “well control,” weeks before the rig exploded, BP e-mail messages show...

[benld74]

1. Every damn one is culpable in this disaster,,,,,

The last administrations constantly droned on how private business could do a better job than the government in all things great and small. However, they failed to mention the bottom line RULES in private industry. No communications, lacking in safety, failing tests, not doing tests, allowing no tests. FUBAR TOTAL FUBAR
ANd we will be paying for this for a HELL of a ong time.

[mother earth]

2. We thought we were battling deregulation on all fronts, we are

battling corruption on all fronts. The entity that was to be our protection, the gov't, was in bed literally with those they oversee. And when they weren't in bed, they were in pockets...does it really matter who was in charge of the rig? These bastards should be doing time, all of them, they ALL knew they were blowing off every form of protection and safety. This was a calculated money decision and they all do it and have been for quite some time. Corporations understand they have bought their protection, it's all dollars and cents and who you buy.

That Halliburton was in the mix, makes my skin crawl. It was never a question of could it happen, it was more a question of when. Why is it the economic hitmen just disappear into the sunset, damning the planet and damning all of us? Shall we be discussing this for the next generation with BP & friends going the Bush/Cheney cabal way? Seems likely.