SPECIAL FEATURES:
 Maybe it's time to reconsider.
"Pin It")
Email
The $500K switch that could have stopped the oil spill
U.S. regulators do not require oil companies install remote-control shutoff switches on their rigs because of the expense. (The valves cost about $500,000 each.) Maybe it's time to reconsider.
Mon, May 03 2010 at 11:35 PM
Related Topics:
Photo: Eric Gay/AP
I haven't written too much about the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster — just one piece admitting to making a bad call on supporting Obama's support of offshore drilling.
It's been such a huge event and there's a new story line nearly as fast as you can refresh your browser. I've been absorbing it all and waiting for the right story line to use to chime in on. I found a good one today while reading an article about oil rig safety: Transocean Ltd., the company that owned the Deepwater Horizon rig (BP had a relationship to buy their oil), failed to install an acoustically triggered shutoff valve (Cost: $500,000) that could have stopped the flow of the oil. U.S. regulators declined to make the installation of these backup safety valves mandatory, and BP was one of the few that did not voluntarily install it on their rigs.
Norway and Brazil mandate that all oil rigs be equipped with these backup acoustically triggered shutoff valves. Norway in particular is known for its exemplary safety record for oil rigs. Salon's Joe Conason says it's important to note that Norway's main oil company is state-owned and operated and doesn't spend heaps of cash every year to fight government regulation.
Right now officials think that around 5,000 barrels of oil (enough to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool every three days) are pouring out of the broken oil line every day, up from an original estimate of 1,000 barrels. I'm inclined to believe that the real total is much higher than that though, but there is no way we'll ever know the real number — rough estimates are the best we'll ever get.
BP is spending more than $6 million a day in direct cleanup costs. The BP brand is taking a HUGE hit an order of magnitude larger than that, and the eventual bill will easily be well into the hundreds of billions of dollars when all the external factors are considered. (Right now there is no fishing going on in the Gulf and shipping has been disrupted). BP could easily not survive this one.
And it all could have been avoided if they had just installed a half a million dollar piece of equipment. I'm not well-versed enough in oil drilling technology to know if the shutoff valve could have prevented the explosion on the rig that set this chain of events into motion, but I do know that it could have prevented the river of oil that is currently pouring out from the ocean floor right now. With the installation of that football-sized piece of equipment, we would have all read about the tragic sinking of an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico and by now, two weeks later, forgotten it and moved on to the next big breaking story.
If we're going to drill, baby, drill (and I don't think we should), shouldn't we do it in the absolutely safest way possible? Even if it does cost the oil companies a few extra million in safety measures?
Ironically, if there is any good news in this tragic situation, it could be that this disaster is right on our doorstep. It was terrible when Alaska was coated in Exxon's oil, but it was easier to ignore because it was way up in Alaska. This could be the nasty, terrible, tragic dose of reality that we need to really gain momentum towards clean renewable energy. It's much harder to push out of the news cycle when it has pretty much shut down the entire Gulf of Mexico. This thing is going to be a story for a LONG time to come.
President Obama should make it a national goal and priority to wean the country off oil, coal (don't forget that one), and other dangerous and dirty sources of power. For the good of our nation, for the good of the world, for the good of our unborn successors, we need to stop using this power sources.
Are you on Twitter? Follow me (@sheagunther) there, I give good tweets.
And if you really like my writing, you can join my Facebook page.
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- 20 ways to reuse coffee grounds, tea leaves
- 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared
- 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
- 15 houseplants to improve indoor air quality
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- How the rest of the world brushes their teeth
- Why you should not plant bamboo in your yard
- 9 habits that may do more harm than good
- Jon Stewart explains the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’
- How to clean brass naturally
From our sponsor
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
A sound and responsible article about the oilspill! Thank you!
what is this I dont even
Enter your comments hereIt's important to note that BP, Exxon and Haliburton all lobbied heavily to curtail regulations on offshore oil rig construction. While Countries like Norway required remote shut off valves by law. It seems astonishing to think that the platform operators wouldn't want a shot off valve that could be operated remotely (a technology widely available in the 80's) but the rest as they say is history.
It's important to note that BP, Exxon and Haliburton all lobbied heavily to curtail regulations on offshore oil rig construction. While Countries like Norway required remote shut off valves by law. It seems astonishing to think that the platform operators wouldn't want a shot off valve that could be operated remotely (a technology widely available in the 80's) but the rest as they say is history.
this is the bootiest website