On April 9, 1997, Rig 52 that belonged to Mallard Bay Drilling was towed to a location in the territorial waters of Louisiana, where it drilled a well over two miles deep. After the well was almost complete an explosion occurred killing four of the crew and injuring several others. Seeing that this was a marine casualty in navigable U.S. waters, under existing regulations the United States Coast Guard responded. When the investigation was over the Coast Guard did not find any violations of their regulations and noted it was an uninspected vessel and the operator held an Operator Uninspected Passenger Vessel (OUPV) license. Soon after the incident the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited Mallard Bay Drilling for violations …show more content…
of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 for violating their own regulations. Mallard Bay Drilling immediately challenged OSHA’s jurisdiction in court on the grounds that rig 52 was not a workplace and that USCG had exclusive authority even though they were stationary drilling and actually doing work with hired labor at the time.
OSHA and the USCG signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) recognizing that the Guard has displaced OSHA's jurisdiction over all working environments on inspected vessels, including those not addressed by precise regulations but, the USCG regulations and authority over uninspected vessels is more limited. When all this was taking place Mallard Bay Drilling could not identify any specific regulations that address these issues that would be covered in the USCG regulatory program. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of OSHA that they had jurisdiction in state waters on the uninspected vessel but was later reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals saying, the USCG did in fact have exclusive jurisdiction over regulatory working conditions not only on inspected vessels but uninspected vessels. The court explained that the USCG has implemented their authority to issue safety regulations for uninspected vessels such as: marine safety, fire extinguishers, life preservers, engine ventilation, and emergency tracing
equipment. When looking into the outer continental shelf drilling I found that the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and USCG both regulate offshore mobile drilling units (MODU). OSHA does have some authority but must the USCG must call OSHA when it sees apparent violations of OSHA standards. MODU’s fall under United States Coast Guard regulations and are subject to their regulatory authorities. The USCG regulates safety of life, property, and unregulated hazardous working conditions. After the MODU is attached to the seabed the BSEE comes into play. The BSEE regulates and oversees all well activity but the USCG would have jurisdiction on worker safety in federal waters. The main scope of the BSEE and USCG is to oversee oil and gas activity located in the OCS. The United States Coast Guard regulates 14 types of inspected vessels. These vessels include; freight vessels, marine school vessels, offshore supply vessels, passenger vessels, sailing school vessels, seagoing barges, seagoing motor vessels, small passenger vessels, steam vessels, tank vessels, fish vessels, great lake barges, oil spill vessels, and towing vessels. Yes, MODU would be considered an inspected vessel. When dealing with MODU’s the United States Coast Guard regulates things such as aircraft landing/refueling, structural integrity, station keeping, marine engineering equipment, communications, cranes and material handling, lifesaving equipment, fire protection and the living quarters. On the flip side, the BSEE regulates drilling/pipeline, the anchoring plan, blowout prevention controls, lifting and hoisting systems, circulating systems, electrical equipment, atmospheric vessels and well control. OSHA does set the standards for equipment regulations and safety procedures such as tools, portable equipment, permits, material handling and storage, rigging equipment and hazard communications. Even though they have no control over the MODU the United States Coast Guard will call if they see any of these violations that fall under OSHA guidelines. OSHA should have more of presence on offshore mobile drilling units. Seeing that OSHA sets the standards, guidelines and are professionally qualified to address these issues and specific hazards that might occur it would be beneficial to the BSEE, USCG, and the operating company to have them in the mix of what’s going on at all times! I do believe OSHA could and should have jurisdiction on inspected vessels especially involving those who could have serious hazards and affect the safety of workers and the environment. OSHA, BSEE, and USCG could all benefit from one another as a team in offshore mobile drilling units. They each have their own specialties and when pulling all those resources together it would make for safer working conditions which are the main goal for all three organizations. In conclusion BSEE, USCG, and OSHA play huge roles when it comes to offshore regulatory procedures. OSHA sets the foundation of safety in the oil and gas industry. It is clear that the BSEE is looking to increase their role as a world frontrunner in the safety and environmental department by decreasing the risk of accidents and spills and an improving their capability to react to such events that might occur with suitable regulatory action. The BSEE is solely responsible for the MODU after it is attached to seabed to participate in drilling and production activity. United States Coast Guard is in charge of the MODU before it is attached then has several responsibilities as listed in the memo after it’s attached to the seabed floor. While OSHA is not responsible for the safety onboard the MODU they do however set the foundation for safety in the oil and gas industry. OSHA has in place the correct safety procedures and programs for USCG and BSEE to regulate while on the MODU and if either sees a violation they are instructed to call OSHA. When it comes to drilling exploration near misses and close calls can be valuable lessons for not just employees but regulatory agencies as well. By reporting these incidents things can be corrected and prevent further accidents.
The debate on drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is an intensely debated topic of America today. Proponents of the oil drilling believe that the oil in the refuge will solve the high prices of gasoline, but they don’t even know what amount of oil the refuge holds and the amount of oil that we use every year in the United States. The drilling in ANWR will severely damage the wildlife refuge and its environment. The oil would take years to access with drilling and so far there has been no proof that the drilling would actually produce enough oil to sustain our needs as a country. Also a reason to not drill in the refuge is because the reserve is being saved for when our country is in a national emergency, or until when there is no oil left because of its rapid decline in availability. How did you feel when just about a year ago there was the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? That event killed the environment in the Gulf and millions of innocent animals died to our screw up, if the drilling in ANWR is allowed we could be faced with these same exact circumstances again. These are the reasons that the oil drilling in the national refuge should not be allowed.
The Secretary stated that “under citation No. 1, Garden Ridge contends 1910.212 (a)(1) does not apply to the cited conditions. The company asserts OSHA’s Lockout/Tagout standard, at 1910.147, is the applicable standard. Garden Ridge also argues the Secretary establish its employees were exposed to a hazard while operating the garbage compactor. Under Citation No. 2, Garden Ridge concedes it violated 1904.40(b)(2), but contests the proposed penalty”( Secretary of Labor v. Garden Ridge pg. 2). Garden Ridge argued to the judge that they believed that the Lockout/Tagout standard was being intertwined with the issue that Bryan had on the guarding of the compactor. There was proof of the LOTO standard shown to McCollough that states that if there is any type of servicing or maintenance on equipment then there is a possibility that there could be an injury to the employees. Bryan had then began to testify to the court that he had asked McCollough for a copy of the LOTO for the garbage compactor and McCollough proceeded to tell him that they did not have a LOTO procedure in place for employees because the employees did not do any maintenance work on that specific piece of equipment and so this is why OSHA’s Secretary cited Garden Ridge for the guarding standard rather than the LOTO procedure/standard. McCollough later testified in court that he did not state that there was not LOTO procedure in their store to Bryan and that it was posted on the door near the machinery. “Garden Ridge is correct when it states the Secretary has “intertwined” the issues of LOTO and machine guarding. This intertwining began with the Secretary’s inartfully drafted alleged description violation for item 1 of Citation No. 1. Generally, machine guarding violations create conditions that expose employees to injuries from points of contact during the machine’s normal production
Experts say the many deaths could have been prevented with better safety training and better safety precautions. Since then new and old rules have been enforced. During the late 1980's the federal and provincial governments installed boards to regulate offshore oil and gas. These boards required anyone visiting the rigs to have minimum safety...
British Petroleum (“BP”) is the company that is being blamed for the incident. Employing 80,000 people, BP is an international oil company that puts different technology to use for finding oil and gas under the Earth’s surface. One of the oilrigs, Deepwater Horizon has drilled 35,000 ft. making it to be the deepest drilling of oil and gas (Walsh). Deepwater Horizon was drilling in the Gulf of Mexico about 52 miles southeast of Venice on Louisiana's tip. After the explosion, helicopters searched for 11 crewmembers that reported missing. 17 people were injured (BP Internal Investigation Team). A day later, the rig was found upside down (BP Oil Spill Timeline). The cost to clean up the damage is approximately $760 million (Walsh).
along.” BP CEO Tony Hayward, said the pipes complied with local laws and regulations. The spill itself was not the company’...
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was formed as an agency of the federal government that is charged with protecting workers from recognized safety hazards within the workplace. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was created as a result of passage of the “Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 in response to dangerous working conditions across the nation and as a culmination of decades of reform” (Walter, 2011, para. 5). President Richard Nixon signed the act into law on December 29, 1970 and The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was officially established on April 28, 1971 (Walter, 2011). During the 41 years on the job, The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has identified and addressed numerous work hazards, as well as provided solutions to mitigate and/or avoid placing workers in unnecessary danger. OSHA regulates as enforces regulations throughout the country, however the agency does declare that “states can run their own safety and health programs as long as those programs are at least as effective as the federal program” (http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-osha.htm). The states that choose to implement their own version of the occupational safety and health plan are referred to as OSHA states, whereas those who implement no plan are required to follow the federal regulations, as set forth by OSHA. OSHA effects all workers and employers in the United States, as the desired effect of the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act is “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources” (Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1970). OS...
The United States relies on imports for about forty percent of its crude oil, which is the lowest rate of dependency since 1991 according to the U.S Energy Information Administration. Today our country is trying to keep on track in becoming less and less dependent. When it comes to the topic of the future ways the United States will get its fuel, most of us readily agree that the United States should become more independent by using natural gas that is already here on our land. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question of the consequences drilling for natural gas brings. Whereas some are convinced drilling is safe, others maintain that it is actually in fact dangerous. Hydraulic fracturing or "fracking", the terms for drilling for natural gas, is dangerous to our public health and to the environment because of the water contamination it causes. Therefore, it is not something that should become a project for alternative fuel used by the United States.
The OSH Act gave OSHA the authority to come into work places and inspect facilities for health and safety risks. Due to shortages in personnel, OSHA inspects accidents and safety complaints that are filed, and those facilities that have a high volume of accident rates. If an individual state has an approved safety and health enforcement plan, then they may be exempt from yearly inspections by OSHA and have their own state personnel conduct the inspections. The Act sets a maximum penalty for safety and health violations, but OSHA has the authority to calculate fines. If an industry objects to the citation or fine, they can go before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
“On March 23, 2005, at 1:20 pm, the BP Texas City Refinery suffered one of the worst industrial disasters in recent U.S. history. Explosions and fires killed 15 people and injured another 180, alarmed the community, and resulted in financial losses exceeding $1.5 billion.” (U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 2007) There are many small and big decisions and oversights that led to the incident. Underneath all the specific actions or inaction is a blatant disregard for addressing safety violations and procedures that had been pointed out to BP even years before this event. The use of outdated equipment and budget cuts also contributed to the circumstances that allowed this accident to happen.
There are three exploratory oil rigs that have been drilling under contract for several years along the Angola coast. Each oil rig owned by a United States drilling company. The case study focuses on a small oil rig called the “Explorer IV” housing 180 staff, 30 of these being American expatriate workers or “Expat”, and the top administrator in authority regarding life on the rig is an Expat himself. The purpose of the oil rig’s purpose is for drilling oil and to house all of the staff drilling and operating the rig. The rig is approximately 200 feet by 100 feet so cramped and tight living spaces is to be expected. However, there is a difference in living quarters, quality of food, medical care, and means of transportation between the Angolan’s and the Expats.
The BP oil spill began on 20 April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico on the BP-operated Macondo Prospect. On April 20, 2010, 126 workers on the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon were in the process of temporarily closing the exploratory Macondo oil well. That evening, an explosion abroad the drilling unit set off a chain of events that eventually led to the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon. Eleven crewmembers lost their lives and others were seriously injured, as fire engulfed and ultimately destroyed the rig.
On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, located in the Gulf of Mexico, exploded, killing 11 workers and injuring 17. The oil rig sank a day and a half later. The spill was referred to as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP oil spill, Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and BP oil disaster. It was first said that little oil had actually leaked into the ocean, but a little over a month later the estimate was 12,000-19,000 barrels of crude oil being leaked per day. Many attempts were made to stop the leak but all failed until they capped the leak on July 15, 2010, and on September 19 the federal government declared the well “effectively dead.”
Around the world, countries are dependent on oil and more often than not, foreign oil. The U.S. is at a time where they believe buying foreign oil supports terrorism and hurts our economy. Shale formations deep underground that spread all over the U.S. have been found to contain natural gas. This includes the Marcellus Shale formation and the Utica Shale formation, which can be found all throughout New York State and down the East Coast (Hydro-Fracking pg.1). To get at this abundance of gas underground, hydraulic fracturing was invented, but this new method of gas extraction safe for the environment and for the people around it?
In this case a large engineering consulting firm was contracted by the government to perform civil engineering work for the installation of equipment that would be later used to train firefighters. Prior to the actual work being commenced on site, Donald J. Giffels, president of the consulting firm soon realized through careful observation that there was a significant amount of ambiguity in how critical safety systems were to be designed. In this situation, what are the ethical issues that the consulting firm faces in accepting such a contract from the government. What is the optimal strategy in responding to what Donald J. .Giffels identified as an unacceptable lapse in safety. These two important questions are discussed in further detail with a conclusion of noteworthy facts surrounding this case following.
Mechanical engineers have a responsibility of ensuring they abide by general ethics as that have been laid down by engineering bodies such as the American Society of Mechanical engineers. Engineers have to sound alarm whenever safety violations are breached or when the organization does not perform required procedures that may endanger lives. It is the engineer’s duty to inform members of the public whenever legal bodies fail to nullify projects which may cause disasters.