Challenges For Offshore Oil And Gas Production
One of the greatest challenges for offshore oil and gas production is to preserve our fragile ecosystem and to protect humans, wildlife and natural vegetation throughout the world. Safety guidelines and regulations have been developed and documented for all offshore drilling companies.
One of the greatest challenges for offshore oil and gas production is to preserve our fragile ecosystem and to protect humans, wildlife and natural vegetation throughout the world. Safety guidelines and regulations have been developed and documented for all offshore drilling companies. In addition, in most cases there is government oversight to ensure that oil companies are abiding by the regulations; however, as may be seen by the current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and also from the several incidents during the past several decades, that accidents continue to happen — mostly due to lax government enforcement of the regulations and the company’s inability or conscious effort not to follow all the safety mechanisms in place. Approximately 20 years ago the Exxon Valdez, the company’s storage tanker, was involved in an avoidable accident in its transportation of oil. The human element in part for the tragedy was determined to be the Captain’s alcohol consumption. We are in the 21st Century and by now we all know the risks of offshore drilling and transport of oil, yet many of those in charge of oil drilling and transportation have acted irresponsibly in complying with the rules of safety.
Last week another oil tragedy occurred when an offshore oil rig operated by British Petroleum (BP) exploded in the Gulf of Mexico killing 11 of the crew members and spewing millions of gallons of crude oil into surrounding waters. Immediately the fail safe mechanism called the Blowout Protecter (BOP) should have been engaged first by the drilling crew, which maintains ongoing random BOP safety drills during regular operations that includes activating the BOP to shutdown the drilling rig that prevents spilling oil into deep waters. Since 11 of the crew had been killed by the explosion and could not activate the BOP, there are two additional backup mechanisms to activate the BOP, one of which includes a “dead man’s switch” that is supposed to activate automatically and access to the BOP via a remote electronic device. The BOP was not engaged.
BP is telling the public that the explosion is unexplained so far and that the company does not know why the BOP was not engaged. During the past several decades British Petroleum has not been an exemplary oil drilling company. Approximately 20 years ago 14 members of a BP drilling crew were killed from an explosion on a similar rig to the one last week that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. BP has not issued a statement of its responsibility for this tragedy, but it also never pleaded guilty or admitted to its responsibility for the former oil rig accident. BP also has a history of being caught and fined for safety violations that have been thought of by many in the field as avoidable and caused with prior knowledge. In short, there are many who believe that BP is more interested and motivated by profits than it is to ensure the safety of the environment and its personnel.
It should be quite obvious by now that British Petroleum is not following the safety regulations and standards most other oil companies abide by. The company is responsible for the death of its personnel and it has directly caused the oil spill that still is dumping millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. This is exactly the scenario and the reason that the safety rules and regulations were developed and provided for oil companies drilling for offshore production. The safety regulations are supposed to prevent oil spills. Once the spill occurs, it is a losing proposition for the company and the environment.
In the aftermath of the explosion and oil spill BP is now spending billions of dollars to try to contain the spill. It is using chemicals that attach to the surface oil to try to keep the surface slick from spread further out to sea and closer to land. There are floating beams used to keep the slick from extending. BP is using robotic submarines that are supposed to shut off the flow valves on the pipes producing the majority of the spillage. BP designed and is building a huge capping device that no one has any idea if it will work in such deep waters. Another attempt to quell the spill is to use another drilling rig and to drill on an angle into the pipes that are the main source of the leak to divert the leak through the new pipes and into a floating vessel to haul off the oil spill. Fighting to contain an oil spill is a challenge that can be avoided with the adherence to proper safety regulations and making sure that safety devices are in the best working condition if and when they are needed. Running around trying to stop a spill as it is pouring millions of gallons of oil into our sea beds and destroying our environment is a poor second option.
The bottom-line is that engineers and many others have designed many safety mechanisms that are a challenge to prevent spill of intense proportions, such as the current one in the Gulf of Mexico, and yet BP is one of the companies that seems to have an ongoing problem adhering to the safety regulations and keeping safety equipment in working order. While other companies view the safety regulations as a necessary part of the cost of drilling, which ensures a better control over the process and to protect the environment and human life, British Petroleum has failed time and again as a safety conscious oil company and the public needs to know that those in charge of drilling and enforcement oversight of the industry will make an example of BP. It is time to make sure that all oil companies rise up to accept the challenges.
Peter Stern, a former director of information services, university professor and public school administrator, is a disabled Vietnam veteran who lives in Driftwood, Texas.
Giant Chunk Of West Texas Cost Of New Capitol
Thousands of Texans showed up in Austin on May 16, 1888 for the grand opening of the new state capitol paid for with three million acres of West Texas real estate.
Thousands of Texans showed up in Austin on May 16, 1888 for the grand opening of the new state capitol paid for with three million acres of West Texas real estate.
Billowing smoke and the crackling of a raging inferno interrupted Austinites’ lunch on Nov. 9, 1881. Frantic cries of “The capitol is burning!” alerted everybody to the disaster, but breathless diners arrived too late to save the historic landmark.
Flames quickly engulfed the building and in a matter of minutes caused the roof to collapse. By dark the capitol was a smoldering skeleton with only scorched walls still standing.
The blaze was blamed on a careless maintenance worker, who placed a red-hot stovepipe against the plank and paper walls of a storage room. Once the sides of the cramped cubicle ignited, stacks of old books provided plenty of kindling.
The conflagration consumed rare documents and treasured relics. The complete records of the state supreme court were lost as well as prized portraits of immortal Texans and archives dating back to the proud past of Lone Star independence.
Construction of a temporary capitol began immediately at the present intersection of Congress Avenue and 11th Street. Ready for business in 14 months, the modest substitute sheltered officials until the completion of the permanent replacement. Ironically the forgotten temporary capitol also burned to the ground around the turn of the century.
Prior to the 1881 catastrophe, Texans regularly entertained ambitious plans for a new and improved state capitol. As early as November 1875, a proposal was approved to finance the expensive enterprise by selling off a huge chunk of West Texas.
The State of Texas held title to 61 million undistributed acres, mainly in the sparsely settled western region, in addition to 20 million set aside for the educational purposes. With a combined holding of 81 million acres, nearly half of the original Republic’s total land mass, the public eagerly bought the idea of swapping a piddling three million for a first-class government headquarters.
Although future generations would criticize the scheme as a short-sighted giveaway, Texans at the time thought it was a heck of a bargain. Appraised at 50 cents an acre, the Panhandle parcel was worth only a million and half dollars on the open market. In exchange for what was generally considered wasteland, Texas received a capitol that cost a staggering $3,750,000 and was the envy of the nation.
In spite of coast-to-coast publicity, just two builders submitted bids. The winner was an Illinois contractor, who turned a fat profit by selling out to a Chicago syndicate.
The pleased proprietors of the XIT Ranch, the largest cattle spread in all of Texas, were a dry-goods merchant, his congressman brother, another politician and the man who raised Chicago from the ashes of the Windy City’s famous fire. But the glory of the Panhandle ranch was short-lived. By 1900 serious financial setbacks forced the systematic sale of sizable sections, and what was left of the XIT ceased breeding beef in 1912.
Although ground was broken in February 1882, construction of the capitol was postponed for a year. Problems aplenty plagued the project and occasionally halted progress for months at a stretch.
Two years into the endeavor, the superintendent rejected as inferior the initial sample of limestone from a local quarry. After a few years exposure to the elements, he argued, unsightly streaks were certain to appear.
The suggestion that a better grade of limestone could be obtained in Indiana raised Texan hackles. Adorn the Lone Star capitol with a midwestern mineral? Never!
Construction stayed at a standstill under the summer of 1885. A way out of the impasse came from the generous owners of Granite Mountain outside Marble Falls, who donated their rock free of charge. Fifteen thousand carloads of the red granite were required for the building’s beautiful exterior.
The terms of the contract stipulated the state would supply convict labor, a practice in tune with the Texas tradition that inmates should earn their keep. In protest of this “unfair competition,” the granite cutters staged a boycott and stonecutters brought in from Scotland finished the job.
A gala parade preceded the dedication ceremony in May 1888. State senator Temple Houston, the colorful 27 year old son of the San Jacinto hero, eloquently accepted the magnificent edifice on behalf of his fellow Texans.
Touring the imposing structure, citizens were awed by its sheer immensity. The seemingly limitless interior contained 392 rooms, 18 vaults and 404 doors with natural light provided by 924 windows.
The architectural achievement was proudly described as “second in size only to the National Capitol at Washington, D.C. and larger and finer than the German Reichstag or English Parliament buildings.” After all, the people of the greatest state in the Union would settle for nothing less than the biggest and the best.
Bartee Haile welcomes your comments, questions and suggestions at haile@pdq.net or P.O. Box 152, Friendswood, TX 77549. And come on by www.twith.com for a visit!
