Effect of the MMS on the spill

quote:

---

I hope we're paying $10/gal within the month. That is the only thing that will focus the dumbass public's eyes on the effect of this moratorium.

---

agreed

quote:

---

The Deep Horizon was inspected by the MMS office in Lafayette. supposedly just about anyone who was in any way associated with the inspection of that rig has been fired.

---

Total BS. Lake Charles inspectors have been put on admin leave due to something not related to the DWH and occured in 2004/05. Lafayette district has no inspectors affiliated with the DWH while at MC 252.

Specifically, please tell me how the regulatory or inspection process caused this incident.

I will hang up and listen.

Rhonda Duey, Senior Editor Hart E&P


It’s impossible to go to any restaurant in Houston without overhearing at least one conversation about the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

This is probably true in other areas of the country, but in Houston most of these people know what they’re talking about. I went to breakfast Saturday morning and overheard some gentlemen at a nearby table discussing the top kill procedure and debating its potential success. (It failed.) Other eavesdropped topics include what went wrong with the blowout preventer and whether there was a cement failure.

On top of this is the recent announcement by Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that the US Minerals Management Service (MMS) would be divided to keep the regulators away from the royalty collectors. The director of the MMS was fired, and other key officials were expected to step down as a result of this move.

The general press has had a field day with the MMS, an agency which flew way under the radar until recent events put it in the glaring spotlight of media attention. Now the government is being asked to defend an organization that both regulated the oil industry and reaped some of its profits. Was there a conflict of interest?

Let’s return to another lunch conversation, this time with a friend of mine who has been in the geophysical contracting industry for a long time. He only recently began dealing with the MMS, and his company got off to a very bad start when it failed to secure the proper permits before shooting a survey. Officials at the MMS came down hard on the company, requiring them to send out a research vessel to evaluate the environmental impact of the incorrectly permitted survey. Like a teen-ager becoming more cautious after that first speeding ticket, the company learned from the experience and developed better processes and a more proactive safety/environment culture. The company now has a good relationship with MMS. In fact, my friend tells me that, unlike many other government agencies, the MMS has a very service-oriented culture. If a permit is needed in a hurry, shortcuts are not an option, but they will try to help whenever the resources are available.

He even went so far as to say that he’d write letters of recommendation for any of the people he worked with at the agency because he felt they were doing their jobs correctly. They are able to resolve conflicting interests because they understand both sides of the argument – “Drill, Baby, Drill” vs. “Save the Whales” – and make balanced decisions.

“Can you imagine what it will be like when there are two separate agencies handling these issues?” he asked. “There will be a building full of folks trying to maximize government revenues and another building full of folks asking seismic companies to provide Bose noise-canceling headphones for sea slugs.”

When asked to give a presentation to explain operations to MMS officials, my friend offered to take several of them to Fourchon, La., to see a crew in action. The MMS determined that this might be construed as accepting favors from contractors. So 15 of them took a day of vacation and drove to Fourchon in their own cars for the tour. They would not accept lunch, though they did break down and drink some water. They weren’t in it for the hospitality; they were genuinely interested in knowing more about geophysical operations.

I know that operators and service companies have not always been happy with MMS decisions, but the fact is that this is one regulatory agency that actually understands the oil and gas industry. The purpose of the MMS is to make sure that offshore natural resources are exploited in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner. Until Maconda, the Gulf had a fairly pristine record when it came to major spills. To imply that this disaster came about because the MMS was too chummy with the industry is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.

But what’s done is done. It remains to be seen if the new agency, with its divided duties, will continue to maintain this cordial but productive relationship with the energy industry.

However, it should be added that there was apparently far too much "exempting" going on without any sense of looking into why things weren't working the way they were supposed to do. It also sounds like the regulations on deepwater drilling are ridiculously outdated and a huge overhaul with all parties present needs to be done with the problems faced in deep water specifically, not just rules meant for shallow water shoehorned as needed.

While I have no problem with a federal oversight agency using common sense to solve any problem that comes up, I do have a problem with safety exemptions being given to a company with a history of poor safety regulation without any investigation into why the exemption maybe needed.

I also wonder if the BPs bigwigs are thinking man that 21 mil ( due to the well being @ month behind) sounds like a bargain now. Good to know they saved money on the concrete.

quote:

---

I do have a problem with safety exemptions being given to a company with a history of poor safety regulation without any investigation into why the exemption maybe needed.

---

It's not a willy-nilly as you'd believe from that article. Some of the exemptions on regulations are given because (as you noted) the regs are outdated. To follow the regs would actually lower safety. The industry is doing better than required. Others are exempted because they are techincally impossible. Some things that are easily accomplished in shallow water, are impossible (by any cost or means) not possible in deep water.

None of this happens because the MMS is technically incompetent. It's because government, by it's nature is reactionary not proactive. To become more proactive, the MMS needs to work with production companies because they understand the technology first-hand.

Like it or not... that approach requries the MMS be cozy with the producers. Cultivating an adversarial relationship isn't going to help things in the long run. The distance between regulation and reality will widen. The partnership between producers and MMS was strong... not as a mechanism for corruption; but for creating a cooperative dedicated to the common goal of safety.

Appears that's going to he77 in the name of vengence. It won't work.

quote:

---

The NYTImes article I posted today does a good job of scrutinizing the MMS and their part in this mess.

---

Yes it did. I read it. And my response could have (should have?) been in that thread. Although not without blame, dismanteling the MMS and turning it into an antagonistic enforcment mechanism like the EPA operates is a mistake. If you think the GoM is unsafe today, should have seen it 25 years ago...