Boom boom boom boom

[pozorvlak]

A couple of days ago, I encountered this DailyKos post about BP's response to the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. More precisely, it's about the oil containment boom that they're laying in a largely ineffective attempt to keep the oil away from the land.

That inefficacy, Fishgrease claims, is not because boom is useless, or even because it's useless in these specific circumstances. It's quite a long post, but this handy diagram contains most of the information:



Guess which one BP are doing? Yep.

[The swearing, by the way, is a constant through the post, and doesn't just reflect Fishgrease's anger; that's how oilmen talk, apparently.]

Now, I know damn-all about oil spill containment, but that looks pretty sensible to me. Don't try to block the oil; deflect its path so that the current forces it into a handful of small locations where it can be skimmed off, and use multiple layers of boom because your boom will never be high enough or low enough to stop everything. I can't find an equivalent "this is how you lay boom to protect a long stretch of coastline" diagram elsewhere, and the NOAA's boom fact sheet (PDF) makes no mention of this stuff, but this page and this page from oilspillsolutions.org back him up on the general principles:

Deflection

This use of booms is normally executed for shorelines. Usually where sensitive environmental areas are concerned. It is necessary to have an adequate point for the collection of oil on the beach. The booms are used to deflect the oil towards that point. After the oil has been deflected, it may be retrieved by skimmers, vacuum pumps or other methods of recovery.

This rather garish presentation by the Massachusetts state government is also big on deflection, angling booms, and multiple layers of boom. So why are BP doing it so badly wrong? Here's Fishgrease again:

Not only is Oil Spill Booming a large industry in the USA, teaching Oil Spill Booming is a large industry in the USA. Most of BP's production and pipeline employees in the USA have attended at least one booming school. Many have attended two or three. Most oil and gas production employees in the USA have attended booming school. Some of us have attended really good, really extensive, week or two-week booming schools. BP's production employees have attended the best booming schools. I know this. I've seen them there.

BP's drilling folks have mostly not attended booming school. They're sometimes sent to booming school, but they fuck off in the bar and their bosses sign off on that being okay. Because for Drilling Hands, booming is for pussies. This is a generalization. Not all drilling hands think that, but most of them do and I guarantee BP's drilling executives think that booming is for pussies -- and that's if they think about booming at all or even know what it is.

It gets worse:

1. The booming is being run by a company that concentrates on drilling and booming is for pussies. Production employees were not invited because they would just cause trouble. This is a drilling operation so just fuck off.
2. There's not enough boom, rope nor anchor on this planet to properly boom the Northern Gulf of Mexico. There should be! It's not that much an expense! Really! It's not! They said they were ready! Having enough materials to perform fucking proper fucking booming, IS part of being ready! THEY'RE NOT READY! ARE THEY?

If Fishgrease is right, we're about to lose the Gulf of Mexico because of organisational infighting and machismo.

Comments

[necaris.livejournal.com]

But of course if the government ever says "hold on, BP, why the f**k haven't you done anything useful" then half of Congress will descend like angry Valkyries because someone dared to criticise their benevolent corporate overlords. The private sector always knows best and has the public's best interests at heart, didn't you know?

[bdunbar.livejournal.com]

The private sector always knows best and has the public's best interests at heart, didn't you know?

I am reminded of a joke from the Cold War ...

Q: What is the difference between Communism and Capitalism?

A: Under Capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism, it's the other way around.

[wholepint.livejournal.com]

Eeek. That's depressing.

[elvum.livejournal.com]

Dunno, the explanation of a lot of the guy's criticisms could be due to a point he highlights: that there simply aren't enough ropes, anchors and booms. The diagram you link to seems to imply that the "optimal" method requires about three times the boomage than the solution he claims has been adopted. As to whether BP should have taken additional steps to mitigate against the risk of an oil spill as significant as this one (such as investing in booms), I don't know: I assume risk assessments are carried out, but I'm both ignorant of them and entirely unqualifed to comment on their accuracy.

Also, I'd prefer to see criticisms from experts willing to waive their anonymity. I understand why experts might not want to criticise one of their biggest prospective employers, but anonymous criticism is generally less believable, in my opinion. His refusal to talk to the media is also a strike against his credibility, I'd argue.

[pozorvlak.livejournal.com]

Yes, I too would much prefer to see non-anonymous criticism. OTOH, he's probably not worried about pissing off one employer: I suspect any employer in the oil industry would be wary of him if he became known as "the guy who outed BP". Look at what happens to whistleblowers in medicine (http://www.badscience.net/2010/05/peep-peep/#more-1638). Refusal to talk to the media: Again, I take your point, but he's not claiming to be an expert in booming, merely to have attended a few weeks of courses in the subject. I'd be damn reluctant to go on national TV and be cross-examined on a subject I'd only studied for a few weeks.

[bug-fashion.livejournal.com]

Definitely recommending this all around.

I love it!