Re: ( Rating: 3, Interesting)
Offered every thing i am hearing about BP’s greater than normal security breach issues, i understand they may talk the talk, but evidently they just do not walk the stroll.
As an example inside my business we now have three status ratings for tasks.
In 36 months, for tasks which were terminated, that have been belated, that have been failures that are horrible imagine which status positions had been NEVER APPLIED.
We foolishly utilized yellowish when and also the response had been strong. We stated
Re:Rogue_rat enjoys cock often ( rating: 5, Insightful)
Or intentionally ignoring your own personal designers saying, “This is a bad concept. The wellhead will blow out.”
If there have been designers whom thought the wellhead would blow down due to the course these were using, they must be held responsible for the fatalities of the colleagues, it, especially if management thought the job was safe because it was their job to stop.
Hold it. It had been administration who had been pushing pushing pushing to get that well pumping ASAP, and management whom told operators that 2 in the place of 3 tangible plugs could be adequate. It as also management whom failed to make sure both batteries when you look at the BOP had been functional/charged. That you are less than impartial on the topic for you to throw this all on engineers when there are numerous reports of management forcing an unsafely accelerated schedule is ludicrous and shows.
To be clear, blow outs happen.
To be clear: blow outs could be avoided if standard security procedures are not bypassed.
That’s where we simply take problem aided by the claims when you look at the moms and dad article. It assumes all people want in being intelligent and learning from mistakes. That is much too positive a view. The content actually says ‘even as we notice that we usually do not err away from laziness, stupidity, or intent that is evil. ‘ But individuals DO err away from those reasons (we equate greed with ‘evil intent’ once the individual understands their actions has a significant chance to harm/kill other people, that is just what took place in BP’s situation.) It is an important blunder to assume no body in the foreseeable future will put greed in front of security and work out a mistake via that wrong option. This pattern that is repeating perhaps not an indication of cleverness.
Re:Rogue_rat enjoys cock usually ( rating: 5, Interesting)
I was told by you, you did not persuade me personally.
Really, had they told anyone, the work would stop. Every worker gets the authority to cease a workin job – any work. You can findn’t some jobs that some individuals can stop plus some jobs that other folks can stop, anyone can stop a job for security on a BP rig (or any BP center). That gets pounded to your mind time from time 1 – that you think is unsafe, you stop it, and everybody gets together and double-checks the plan and makes sure they haven’t missed anything that would make it unsafe if you see something.
You will find practical restrictions, needless to say. As an example, then i have no business stopping a job if i’m not involved in a job and I have no idea if it’s safe or not because I’m not qualified enough to know the difference. We continue to have the authority to avoid it, but i will not stop a working job because I have no concept what is included. but if i am associated with a working job and I also feel unsafe, i am going to definitely stop the work.
Because of the exact same token, management can be pressing to have a job done a particular method (they constantly wish to utilize the lower price choice), but if they’ren’t qualified to know exactly what is safe and what exactly isn’t they clearly are not planning to stop the task for security. Nevertheless, if you’re qualified to learn whether it’s safe, and also you believe that it is perhaps not safe, you have to stop the work. If you are taking care of a job and also you feel unsafe, you have to stop the task.
All it took had been for example individual to express “This does not appear safe, we have to stop the work” and also the work would then have stopped right and there. The reality that it don’t means either nobody thought to stop the task, or there was clearly a breach that is serious of policy.
All of this “If they had just listened to the engineers” stuff is either complete bullshit (as in, never happened), or criminal mis-management at the rig level in other words. This is simply not the form of decision that takes place further up the string. There is certainly an extremely real possibility that there is a local tradition to ignore security issues regardless of BP policy, in which particular case the people accountable are actually the individuals regarding the rig. Maybe not Tony Hayward, maybe not the President of BP Americas, nevertheless the rig administration and perhaps one degree above them (only if for placing such individuals in a position of authority).
I really do think there is certainly a problem that is real BP’s administration tradition making accidents much more likely. They will have a tendancy to maneuver supervisors around from place to put, in addition they have a tendency to remain at one location for a maximum of 2 yrs. The theory is to obtain a “broad understanding” of oil industry operations along with the business side. This implies in one place for very long if they are ever going to get a top-level manager, they can’t keep them. This results in severe inconsistencies in management generally of a facility/rig that is particular. They even connect bonuses straight to simply how much of your allowance had been remaining every year. This produces an amazing storm for accidents as a result of bad upkeep, because the simplest destination to cut could be the upkeep budget (security & conformity and manufacturing always gets funded). I really believe for this reason BP has got the worst record for environmental accidents on the market by a large margin. How that directly relates to the spill will be subdued, however. I would personally absolutely name it as a factor that is contributing.