The Ocean Ranger
The Ocean Ranger was an offshore exploration oil drilling platform that sank in Canadian waters 315 kilometres southeast from St. John's Newfoundland, on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland on February 15, 1982, with 84 crewmembers onboard. The Ocean Ranger was the largest semi-submersible, offshore exploration, oil drilling platform of the day. Built in 1976 by Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, it operated off the coasts of Alaska, New Jersey, Ireland, and in November 1980 moved to the Grand Banks. Since it was so big it was considered to have the ability to drill in areas too dangerous for other rigs. The government thought it was unsinkable, so they felt that there was no need to train a crew very well.
The disaster that took place on the Ocean Ranger had a very large effect on the way Newfoundlander's feel about the gas and oil industry. The government examined the safety issues that led to this disaster and has implemented numerous changes to enhance the safety of the offshore workforce. The Newfoundland and Canadian government set up a combined royal commission to investigate the disaster of the Ocean Ranger and to provide recommendations to improve safety. Two years after the disaster, the royal commission on the Ocean Ranger disaster concluded that the deaths resulted not only from the storm and flaws in the rig's design, but also from a lack of human knowledge.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...e this engineers could have a back up system that would be able to pump out the liguid, one that could use the water as a power source. The engineers could try to make the walls near the water line stronger to prevent flooding. There also should have been a way to detach the drill string that would be more convenient
for the workers. All the blame is not due to poor design and construction flaws, but to the oil companies for not teaching the employees about the system. This disaster could have been prevented if the engineers and oil companies were not blinded by their ignorant beliefs that the Ocean Ranger was unsinkable.
Citations
1. http://www.canadianheritage.org/reproductions/21050.htm
2. http://www.chs.k12.nf.ca/socstud/ssgrassroot ... anranger/OceanRangerLesson.htm
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/drill_string
4. Evening Telegram, February 20th 1982
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
This rock type could prove dangerous, being soft and with little solidness in its structure. Therefore placing the protection over the rock cliffs was a very well thought and planned engineering
Who is legally responsible for this incident? From the report, it was ruled as a normal accident. This may be the case since it was not due to negligence on the locomotive operator or the tugboat captain. It was an unfortunate event that resulted in the loss of several lives. As a nationally recognized company Amtrak, it is in their best interest to compensate the passengers and the loved one’s families to maintain a good public reputation. Even though legally they are not responsible for the loss, they have a social responsibility to react in this
At the end I come to conclusion that BP was not properly prepared for any disaster like that there risk assessment related to project is very limited and even not considered seriously about it for their own progress and putting live of public and employees in danger by not following the standard SOP of particular project. Even after incident happened they try to close their eyes on reality. The company should take this incident as alarm and should implement proper risk assessment for future and also compensate damages on ethical ground and if they counter this situation in good way their loss of bad reputation will be lesser as it predicted to be they should considered their responsibility towards society as well by doing this they not only making other people lives better but also earning good will to their company.
Scarlett, M. (1977). Consequences of offshore oil and gas-Norway,Scotland, and Newfoundland. St. John's: Memorial University of Newfoundland.
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).
Greer, M. E. (2001, October). 90 Years of Progress in Safety. Professional Safety, 46(10), 20-25. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5367632&site=ehost-live&scope=site
“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.
November 10th, 1975, a massive storm rolls over Lake Superior. As many ships make their way towards the safety of the coastline, one ship is left behind, in the dark turbulent night. That ship, The Edmund Fitzgerald now lye in the depths of the Superior. The events of that night and what happened to the 729-foot freighter are still a mystery to the world. Many theorize what conditions caused the ship to go down that night. Some theories deal with the weather conditions as well as focusing on equipment malfunctions that took place. So what sunk the Edmund Fitzgerald?
In 1989, Exxon Valdez had a hole punctured in the side of its hull. It spilled about 24 million gallons of oil into the Prince Williams Sound. They were fined over 150 million dollars and settled damage claims. I think they did so rightly. Exxon Valdez did not follow the right regulations and did not reinforce their hulls like they should have. When the spill happened,
Most people believe that one man-made natural disaster would teach us to be better, but we have learned that history repeats itself. The Exxon Valdez oil spill (in 1989) and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, or BP oil spill, (in 2010) were both devastating oil spills that shocked the nation. The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred due to a tanker grounding. The BP oil spill was caused by an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil platform. These two oil spills were both disasters and had greater effects in certain categories. In this essay, I will be comparing the cause of both oil spills, the damage/effect of both oil spills, and the cleanup of each oil spill.
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.” In the three months that it took to finally put a stop the leak, 4.9 million barrels of oil were released into the ocean. The spill caused considerable damage to marine and wildlife habitats and the Gulf’s fishing and tourism industries. The White House energy advisor, Carol Browner, goes as far to say that the Deepwater oil spill is the “worst environmental disaster the US has faced.”
On the day of March 24, 1989 the oil tanker Exxon Valdez was afloat when it ran aground a reef in Prince William Sound, putting a gash in its hull. This gash bled out 11 million gallons of crude oil.
This tragic accident was preventable by not only the flight crew, but maintenance and air traffic control personnel as well. On December 29, 1972, ninety-nine of the one hundred and seventy-six people onboard lost their lives needlessly. As is the case with most accidents, this one was certainly preventable. This accident is unique because of the different people that could have prevented it from happening. The NTSB determined that “the probable cause of this accident was the failure of the flightcrew.” This is true; the flight crew did fail, however, others share the responsibility for this accident. Equally responsible where maintenance personnel, an Air Traffic Controllers, the system, and a twenty cent light bulb. What continues is a discussion on, what happened, why it happened, what to do about it and what was done about it.
After the accident, a full-scale investigation was launched by the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). It concluded that the accident was caused by metal fatigue exacerbated by crevice corrosion, the corrosion is exacerbated by the salt water and the age of the aircraft was already 19 years old as the plane operated in a salt water environment.