Drilling for Certainty - Excellent Op-Ed

[jmig]

I think this is an excellent op-ed piece. It hits the true reasons for the BP-Horizon disaster


Op-Ed Columnist

<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">Drilling for Certainty</nyt_headline>

<nyt_byline> By DAVID BROOKS (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/davidbrooks/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

</nyt_byline> Published: May 27, 2010

In the weeks since the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the political debate has fallen into predictably partisan and often puerile categories. Conservatives say this is Obama’s Katrina. Liberals say the spill is proof the government should have more control over industry.

But the real issue has to do with risk assessment. It has to do with the bloody crossroads where complex technical systems meet human psychology.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/opinion/28brooks.html
<nyt_text> </nyt_text>

[safn1949]

Excellent article.:d

[Ken Stallings]

A very probing and sage article, and likely as smart a synopsis of the contributing factors as I have yet read of this mishap.

For me the ultimate cause is human factors. You can have an effective system, but it requires effective leadership. A vital part of that effective leadership is promoting a climate of 100% accountability, responsiblity, and discipline.

The author of this column rightly pointed out climates of retribution for honest assessments of on-scene situations. It is the fault of leadership to create such a climate. Leadership in these critical industries have to create a climate of safety first and honesty. If the plane is broke, then it's broke. An employee has to fear hiding the truth more than revealing the truth. This climate can be created and maintained, but it requires leadership to keep their priorities aligned.

Ken

[Bjoern]

I still think the whole mess could have been avioded if the rig had been properly inspected by one of the more well known maritime certification companies.

[Snuffy]

Thanks for sharing Jmig! Interesting and frankly an argument I deal with on a daily basis. I always get the argument from the "controls" guys that, "if we put enough sensors, etc., in the project then we'll be sure to catch the problems before they happen."

I'm always counter arguing those points, saying "Some where some idiot will just flip the switch and ignore the warning and just keep on humming till she blows ... then what?"

I'm an ultra conservative engineering type. Always one to use more than necessary just for safety reasons.

In the article the exact senario I describe above took place on this rig ... one of the "controls" guys was preaching his mantra .... some idiot found a way around it.

[Willy]

Human beings have a seemingly fundamental tendency to compensate for lower risks in one area by taking greater risks in another.”


Very much like studies showing that people (in general) who drive cars equipped with air bags and antilock brakes have a tendancy to not wear their seatbelts and/or engage in riskier driving behaviors.

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Yes a good article. This sentence says the most...


But the real issue has to do with risk assessment. It has to do with the bloody crossroads where complex technical systems meet human psychology.

As good as it is the article does fail to adequately address what I think is the biggest issue - the human inability to accurately assess consequence. Instead the focus seems to be on minimizing the probability of something going wrong and considering that adequate for taking the risk. The emphasis needs to be on consequence. Ask BP and MMS if they envisioned a realistic probability that all systems would fail including a BOP thus releasing oil into the gulf for who knows how long and what the cumulative impacts and costs of that over time (years) eventually would be? I bet none of them thought that a probable scenario - understandable - but the way I look at it the cost of the consequence(s) simply demanded exorbitant safety measures including full preparation for this and perhaps including the drilling of more than one well (one as a relief well) for even exploratory purposes. The arguement that nobody could have envisioned this is pure BS - they could have envisioned this - they just didn't want to accept it as a very real possibility because of the additional burden in terms of time and cost.

-Ed-

[tigisfat]

A very interesting read, and very true as well. As for the increased risk taking, check out youtube and other video sites for the massive amount of people screwing off in Cirruses. People are disregarding usual rules for safety of flight because of the parachute. The chute can't save you're flying 100 feet off the ground and you clip a cable.