Coast Guard refuses to buckle - Barges not seaworthy

Voyage of the Vasa (From Wikipedia)

A few days back there was a great deal of frustration and anger directed at government red tape in general and the Coast Guard specifically when some barges which had been jury rigged to clean oil were delayed. (Coast Guard overrides Bobby Jindal, orders barges to stop cleaning oil)

At the time of the delay it seemed to Governer Jindal  and others that it was extremely urgent that these barges get back to work,  following Coast Guard regulations seems like an unnecessary hindrance. From the article:

Brassel repeatedly declined to say whether the Coast Guard balances safety considerations in an urgent, disaster response scenario like what is happening in the Gulf versus ordinary circumstances when time is not of the essence.

Of course if the decision had been made to put the barges to work without the appropriate safety measures and an accident had occurred it would have been obvious in hindsight that it was a mistake. An example of this is  the case of the Deepwater Horizon 

Keeping the BP Deepwater from slipping further behind schedule seemed very urgent just before it exploded and sank. Reportedly  short cuts were taken to  "to speed finishing the well," which was running "significantly behind schedule. (Lawmakers accuse BP of 'shortcuts')

You'd think that the folks that were urgently  pushing to have possibly unseaworthy vessel to sea would be able to put two and two together.  A Bravo Zulu to the Coast Guard for sticking to their guns.

K.C.

"A Whale" - Pay by Barrel Recovered, Not by the Day

Boomed marshes containing oil spill (NOAA Photo)

UPDATE - Video from CNN here - make me a little more optimistic

UPDATE 2 -FAQ Has the Unified Command considered using supertankers to help clean up the oil spill in the Gulf?
 

When I first saw a photo of the vessel "A Whale"  (Massive oil-skimming ship makes stop in Norfolk) it seemed so unlikely that I though someone had photo-shopped the slots in the side. But is is for real, so here are some questions/thoughts:

In order for it to work at all, the slots must be kept at the proper depth. The ship's draft will have to be controlled carefully. As the ship fills with oil, ballast would presumably be discharged to maintain the proper draft.

The sea state will change the relationship between the depth of the slots and the surface. Swell will cause the ship to pitch and roll which will constantly change the depth of the slots.

From the article:

A Whale could handle 500,000 barrels of oily water a day, or slightly less than what all the skimmers now in the Gulf have gathered in more than 60 days on the job, Su said.

A skimmers effectiveness cannot be measured only by bbl of oily water/day. The area skimmed is important, this design seems very limited in that regard. Perhaps it could be fitted with booms to increase the area swept.

From the article again:

Because the vessel is Taiwanese and was built in South Korea, it needs an exemption from the Jones Act, a federal law requiring commercial ships doing business in U.S. coastal waters to be American-flagged

I think this is a red herring issue, already discussed to death below.

"Bureaucracy shouldn't stand in the way of cleaning up our coastline," Overton said. "

This is another way of saying we want BP to cut us a big check and we don't want to have to answer a lot of questions.

Overton said. "We need help. So I encourage them to just go down there and not take no for an answer. I mean, seriously, how can it hurt?"

It can hurt by consuming resources ineffectively and by displacing more effective methods.

My recommendation to BP is put them to work, but pay them by barrels of oil recovered, not by the day.

K.C.

A Dozen Assorted Black Boxes, What could go wrong?

Photo stolen from The Marine Installer's Rant
From The Marine Installer's Rant - PC purgatory. Increased complexity equals reduced reliability.

A display splitter, an Actisense NMEA multiplexer, and a dozen other assorted black boxes are there also. So what could go wrong here? Don't worry, I'm gonna tell you.

Great post, a perfect mix of theory and practice. Just go read it, if you don't like it I'll give you your money back.

K.C.

Would Supertankers be useful on the GoM Oil Spill?

Supertanker (Photo from Wikipedia)

There has been a number of reports asking why supertankers haven't been called in to assist with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. For example from the Science Christian Monitor Jones Act: Does Gulf oil spill cleanup need more foreign boats?

What Mr. Obama hasn't done is announce that he's calling in maritime mercenaries – foreign skimmers or Saudi supertankers – to help deal with the Gulf oil spill cleanup.

Supposedly  this was done in an unreported 700 million gallon in the Persian Gulf. Here is a story at Esquire -The Secret, 700-Million-Gallon Oil Fix That Worked — and Might Save the Gulf

The article is short on details as to exactly how a supertanker would be used, this was the key detail:

having empty ships park near the Saudi spill and pull the oil off the water.

The problem is a typical oil tanker can not "pull the oil off the water" without some sort of modification  and this is not explained in the article.

The Oil Drum has a post regarding this claim of the unreported oil spill in the PG here - Crude Confessions: Massive Saudi Oil Spill in 1993?

 A supertanker can move large quantities of oil but from what I have seen (Oil Spill raw video from the Times-Picayune)  that is not the nature of the problem.

Here is an interesting article and video from CBS which illustrates the nature of the problem: Skimmers Move at Slow Pace Taking Oil from Gulf  From the text:

"The biggest challenge, really, is finding and locating these ribbons of oil," said Swanson. "They're very difficult to see."


And they're almost as tough to catch, made up of thousands of hamburger-sized pieces and moving with the current.


It is slow work, moving at about 2 miles per hour. Any faster and the oil sloshes over the boom.


Once a line of boom is full of oil, Coast Guard sailors turn on the pump moving it through a hose, onto the ship and into holding tanks.


Swanson's ship collected nearly 12,000 gallons of oil in three days, a small dent in a massive spill.

If the video is typical, the problem is finding, containing and recovering the oil.  In this case  I can't see where a supertanker would be of much use. For that matter I wonder if BP bought Kevin Costner's machines just to shut him up?

From: Cleanup technology not apace with spills

"I'm not saying there aren't ways to improve or tweak the system," Nancy Kinner, co-director of the Coastal Response Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, told the Times. "But you're not going to change the laws of physics."

A supertanker is the largest vessel ever built by man but the reality of the situation is that there is a lot of oil in the Gulf and once the wind and current get it a lot of it is coming ashore, no matter what we do.

UPDATE: This might be interesting. A supertanker with slots cut in the bow for skimming Huge oil-skimming ship makes Virginia stop en route to Gulf of Mexico

UPDATE 2 - I have edited this post for clarity.

K.C.

The Jones Act and Airline Cabotage

Airbus (Photo from Wikipedia)

From an editorial in the Washington Post The Jones Act ship law has outlived its usefulness

The editorial notes that the Jones Act does not apply to the oil clean up but criticizes the Jones Act more broadly. The article asks:

If FedEx can move cargo across the country in European-made Airbuses, why can't a boat built in, say, Canada, ship wheat from Los Angeles to Honolulu?

This is a bit misleading,  U.S. airlines are in fact  protected by law from foreign competition, so-called Airline Cabotage.  Unlike the maritime industry however, U.S. airlines are not required to use planes built in the U.S, while the Jones act does require U.S. companies engaged in coastwise shipping to use vessel built in U.S. shipyards.


K.C.

Jones Act Fact Sheet – 18 June 2010

Jones Act Fact Sheet – 18 June 2010

Jones Act Fact Sheet (pdf) From Marad here - Found at Bryant's Maritime Blog NIC – Jones Act has not impeded oil spill response


Background:

Currently 15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved in the largest response to an oil spill in U.S. history. No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations as part of the response in the Gulf of Mexico. While we have not seen any need to waive the Jones Act as part of this historic response, we continue to prepare for all possible scenarios, and that's why Admiral Allen provided guidance to process necessary waivers as quickly as possible to allow vital spill response activities being undertaken by foreign-flagged vessels to continue without delay should that be necessary. To date, the administration has leveraged assets and skills from a number of foreign countries and international organizations as part of this historic, all-hands-on-deck response.

Summary:.
In no case has the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) or Unified Area Command (UAC) declined to request assistance or accept offers of assistance of foreign vessels that meet an operational need because the Jones Act was implicated. The Jones Act was passed in 1920. The Jones Act and similar laws governing coastal shipping were passed to encourage development of the American merchant marine for national defense and commercial purposes. U. S. Custom Border Protection (CBP) in consultation with the Maritime Administration (MARAD) administers waivers of the Jones Act in non-emergent cases. A Jones Act waiver was granted during Hurricane Katrina due to the significant disruption in the production and transportation of petroleum and/or refined petroleum products in the region during that emergency and the impact this had on national defense. In anticipation of Jones Act waiver requests the National Incident Commander (NIC) has coordinated closely with relevant agencies to ensure accelerated processing for any waiver requests. To date, no waivers of the Jones Act (or similar federal laws) have been required because none of the foreign vessels currently operating as part of the BP Deepwater Horizon response has required such a waiver.

PROCESS FOR DETERMINING APPLICABILITY OF JONES ACT AND OBTAINING WAIVERS
Generally, the Jones Act requires that all goods transported in coastwise trade between United States ports be carried in United States flagged vessels, constructed in the United States, owned by United States citizens. Additionally, U.S. law, generally, requires it to be crewed by United States citizens and/or permanent residents. The threshold determination is made by CBP in consultation with MARAD. CBP works closely with the UAC and NIC when such issues arise.

A foreign flagged vessel can still conduct certain planned operations for the BP Deepwater Horizon response if the vessel is an oil spill response vessel (OSRV) and meets the requirements of 46 U.S.C. § 55113. In all such cases, based on MARAD’s determination of availability of Jones-Act qualified vessels, the FOSC makes the determinations required by § 55113 on a case by-case basis and coordinates with the State Department in the matter as appropriate. To date, none of the foreign flagged vessels deployed in the BP Deepwater Horizon response have needed to rely upon 46 U.S.C. § 55113.

In anticipation of possible need for deployment of foreign flagged OSRVs, the FOSC, in coordination with other federal agencies, determined on June 16, 2010, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §55113, that there are an insufficient number of specialized oil skimming vessels in the U.S. to keep pace with the unprecedented levels of oil discharges in the Gulf of Mexico. Based upon this determination, foreign specialized skimming vessels may be deployed to response operations if the foreign country provides the same privileges to U.S. vessels. The use of such vessels under these circumstances would not violate the Jones Act or require a Jones Act waiver.
Alternatively, and for vessels not considered to be OSRVs, a Jones Act waiver request, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 501, can be submitted by an interested party, either inside or outside the U.S. government. The FOSC would again coordinate this effort with CBP who would make a recommendation to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in consultation with MARAD. In making that determination, consideration would be given to unique characteristics and capabilities of the foreign flagged vessel compared to what is available in the U.S fleet. Consideration would also be given to the impact of any delay in operations that might be caused by waiting for a United States vessel to arrive on scene or deploy the specific capabilities needed. To date, no Jones Act waivers have been necessaryvbecause foreign flagged vessels involved in the BP Deepwater Horizon response have not been engaged in activities that would require such a waiver.

HISTORY:
For over 200 years, the United States Customs Service, now CBP, has been responsible for enforcing and administering laws and regulations which set forth procedures to control and oversee vessels arriving in, and departing from, U.S. ports and the coastwise transportation of merchandise between U.S. ports. Federal laws protecting U.S. shipping date back to the First Congress in 1789. The coastwise law governing the transportation of merchandise was first established by Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, sponsored by Senator Wesley L. Jonesv(hence its name, the “Jones Act”), which revamped the U.S. shipping laws governing cabotage, shipping mortgages, seamen’s personal injury claims, etc. That statute provided that “[N]o merchandise shall be transported by water, or by land and water, on penalty of forfeiture thereof, between points in the United States, including districts, territories, and possessions thereof embraced within the coastwise laws, either directly or via a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation, in any other vessel than a vessel built in and documented undervthe laws of the United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the United States.”

The intent of the coastwise laws, including the Jones Act, was to promote U.S. shipping interests. The Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 55102), provides that the transportation of merchandise between U.S. points is reserved for U.S.-built, owned, and documented vessels. Pursuant to section 55102, “a vessel may not provide any part of the transportation of merchandise by water, or by land and water, between points in the United States to which the coastwise laws apply, eithervdirectly or via a foreign port, unless the vessel—(1) is wholly owned by citizens of the United States for purposes of engaging in the coastwise trade; and (2) has been issued a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement under chapter 121 of Title 46 or is exempt from documentation but would otherwise be eligible for such a certificate and endorsement. Consequently, foreign-flag vessels are prohibited from engaging in the coastwise trade—transporting merchandise between U.S. coastwise points. In addition, the same prohibitions apply to U.S.-flag vessels that do not have a coastwise endorsement on theirvdocument, i.e., are not coastwise qualified.

h/t to Towmasters 

K.C.

Oil Spill, Foreign Help and the Jones Act

U. S. Coast Guard photo by Ensign Jason Radcliffe.

From FactCheck.org -Oil Spill, Foreign Help and the Jones Act
Joshua Goldman


Q: Did Obama turn down foreign offers of assistance in cleaning up the Gulf oil spill? Did he refuse to waive Jones Act restrictions on foreign-flag vessels?


A: No to both questions. So far, five offers have been accepted and only one offer has been rejected. Fifteen foreign-flag vessels are working on the cleanup, and none required a waiver.

FULL QUESTION

Is it true that Obama blocked foreign help with cleaning up the Gulf oil spill because he refused to waive the Jones Act, which requires all boats to be American made and crewed by Americans to work in U.S. waters, even though it has been routinely waived for similar events?

FULL ANSWER

We’ve received several questions about the federal government’s response to the oil spill. This one claims that a provision of the Merchant Marine Act, called the Jones Act, has prohibited foreign vessels from entering U.S. waters and assisting in the cleanup.

The full post is at FactCheck.org here


K.C.

Waiving the Jones Act - Sending a message or making a buck?

U.S. Merchant Marine Poster WW II

Oil is spewing into the Gulf at the rate of 60,000 bbl/day, what is that? If you are Florida Senator George LeMieux, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison or John Cornyn of Texas it is a perfect opportunity to weaken the Jones Act. The story is here Gulf coast senators introduce bill to allow foreign ships to help with BP oil spill clean-up.

The story explains that the Jones Act does not apply to the clean-up outside three miles where the foreign ships would be used, but they want to waiver the law anyway.

Still, Hutchison said in a radio interview Monday that there was no reason why the U.S. should not be as open as possible to foreign aid.

Just in case I suppose.

The argument that maritime labor  was behind the opposition against a blanket waiver ran out of steam. Even Fox New has acknowledged this argument makes no sense:

Some critics have suggested that Obama is protecting the pocketbooks of his union allies by keeping foreign vessels at bay. But several Jones Act experts told me that makes little sense because unions have minimal influence in the Gulf. Foreign competition, therefore, would do little to hurt their bottom line.

They now argue that the Jones Act must be wavered "for the sole purpose of sending a message to our allies". Does anyone else smell a rat?

Here is The Right's Latest Faux Obama Outrage

Shipping companies that rely on foreign vessels have long hoped to amend the act so that they can compete domestically without paying US taxes or complying with domestic labor, environmental, or safety regulations. (Many of these, such as the Virginia-based Liberian International Ship and Corporate Registry, are American companies.) Firms that would prefer to save money by using foreign-registered ships have also griped about the Jones Act. In the mid-1990s, a group of such interests calling itself the "Jones Act Reform Coalition" tried—without success—to weaken the law.

The Mother Jones article warns of:

a bunch of leaky Liberian-flagged boats staffed with Somali teenagers earning slave wages.

That might be a little over the top but  the idea the idea that Gulf State senators want to waiver the Jones Act just to "send a message" is nonsense. This fight is about money, not cleaning up oil.

K.C.

Photo of Leader Class PCTC

Leader Class (photo by Towmaster)

A post to go with the photo - I put up the photo because I don't want the WSJ cow pie at the top anymore.

What to call it? I was coming around Europa Point one night to pick up the Port of Gibraltar pilot when the pilot called and asked, "What kind of vessel are you?

This question sometimes requires a little thought because the best answer depends upon who is asking. The pilot was outbound on the pilot boat and wanted to be able pick us out of the crowd. Usually the most commonly understood answer is "car ship" or "car carrier".

Technicality the answer is RO/RO (Roll On / Roll Off), more specifically it is a PCTC (Pure Car Truck Carrier). The ABS (American Bureau of Shipping) classification is "Vehicle Carrier". I have never used this term except on paperwork.

I told the pilot we were a car carrier, I am trying to pick the pilot boat out of the lights of the anchored ships but I'm thinking, how hard can it be to see this thing, what ever you call it?

K.C.

The Wall Street Journal and the Jones Act

A cow pie (Photo from Wikipedia

From the Wall Street Journal -The President Does A Jones Act

Blame it on the protectionist Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also called the Jones Act, that requires ships working in U.S. waters to be built, operated and owned by Americans. 

This is pure poppycock of course. Non-Jones Act ships can work in U.S. waters. What they can not do is load cargo in one U.S. port and discharge it in another. U.S. airlines enjoy the same protection.

Building specialized clean-up vessels in the U.S. is too expensive because of high union labor costs, and unions don't want ships built with foreign labor to be used in U.S. waters

This is pure nonsense as well. Every major port in the United States is filled with ships built with foreign labor.

I wonder what percent of the U.S. vessels currently working on the oil spill are union manned? My guess is that the number is close to zero.

As for the nonsense about "accepting help" from foreign countries, these are not good Samaritan acts, they expect to get paid. No doubt American companies are trying to push their company equipment and vessels to the forefront as well.


K.C.

The Jones Act and the Media

Image from NOAA
Here is an article: Jones Act complicates messy situation for Obama - about the oil spill and the Jones Act which I think is more or less accurate. It is from  Mr. Bluey, a contributing editor to Human Events, is director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation.


On the other hand I believe that this article from The Christian Science Monitor, which I have until now considered to be a trustworthy source, is incorrect. Jones Act: Does Gulf oil spill cleanup need more foreign boats?


The CSM article has this incorrect information in the header.

The Jones Act prevents foreign skimmers and tankers from helping with the Gulf oil spill cleanup.

The Heritage Foundation article on the other had says this:

Because the law only covers a three-mile limit from the U.S. coast, foreign ships do not have to get a waiver to work near the site of the spill or other areas in need of skimming.

Not sure if that is exactly correct but my understanding is that the Jones act does not prevent oil being transported from the Gulf of Mexico to a U.S. Port.

I think that the source of the misinformation are sources which oppose the Jones Act for other reasons and are using the BP Deepwater Oil Spill as an opportunity to push forward their agenda. An example is (From the Heritage Foundation article)

Newly elected Rep. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii), who raised the issue during his recent campaign, vowed to introduce legislation exempting Hawaii from the Jones Act because it has reportedly resulted in higher costs for goods.

K.C.

Deepwater's; - Cabotage and the GOM 

The Jones Act and The BP Oil Spill part 2

Fox New continues with it's nonsense regarding the Jones Act and the BP Deepwater Oil Spill.

Fox & Friends ignores international aid in attacking Obama over oil spill response

The fact is that, at present, 15 foreign flagged non-Jones Act vessels are in the Gulf responding to the spill and none required Jones Act waivers.

Here is a link to an AIS in the area.  When I checked all the vessels in the area are foreign flagged.

Perhaps responding to the blather- Admiral Allen provides Jones Act waiver guidance


Here is 46 USC 55113 - Use of foreign documented oil spill response vessels

gcaptain forum "Foreign vessels on GOM clean up"

From LA Times, Foreign flagging of offshore rigs skirts U.S. safety rules. Under International law, offshore oil rigs like the Deepwater Horizon are treated as ships, and companies are allowed to "register" them in unlikely places such as the Marshall Islands, Panama and Liberia — reducing the U.S. government's role in inspecting and enforcing safety and other standards.

K.C

Some Links, -The Oil Spill, O-Rings, Politics, Working With Rocket Fuel

Cut and Paste - Photo from Wikipedia

Odds and ends:

Details of possible problems with procedures - Letter from Congress to BP   Deepwater Horizon cost $500,000 a day to operate.

Real Time Mapping BP Oil Spill Response Vessels from gcaptain

Panbo has a seven day repair done in half a day - Gizmo fixed, thanks to a crack mechanic/technician

When I read the news at home I never, ever think: "I wonder what the chief thinks about this?" Deepwater Writing explains why in Politics - and reveals we share an interest in RO/RO.

Who doesn't love a story that includes solid rocket fuel ?

 Boats with electrical problems can send out stray currents into the water which causes nearby boats to have problems as well. Who knew? Bill Bishop at The Marine Installer's Rant did - The yacht club, rockets, and the electron police, The quest for the electrically perfect marina basin.

K.C.

In U.S. No Tolerance for Oil Spills

Handcuffs - Photo from Wikipedia
Nobody is claiming that BP deliberately caused the explosion on the Deepwater horizon and although there are suspicions that negligence may have been the cause it has yet to be proven. That isn't stopping some from claiming crimes have been committed.  Here is a typical example, this one is from the site Truthout:

evidence has emerged that appears to show BP knowingly cut corners on maintenance and safety on Deepwater Horizon's operations, which, according to blogger bmaz, who writes about legal issues at Emptywheel, could amount to criminal violations of the Clean Water Act. Additionally, because people were killed, BP and company officials could also face prosecution for negligent and reckless homicide.

This has implications for mariners, particularly if you work on tankers

From Watchkeeper: Dark lessons from the Gulf of Mexico

Firstly, it has illustrated once again, as if there was any doubt after the reaction to even small amounts of pollution, that the intolerance of such spills is absolute.

....... a US political class and media which seem intent on criminalizing anyone who, even inadvertently, harms the marine environment.

 And this:

in US waters, the whole concept of an “accident” is no longer valid, with the whole legal system in that country determined that any failure of judgement, or somebody making a technical decision which, in hindsight turns out to be wrong, must be subject to criminal sanctions.

If you are involved in an accident and spill oil you may not be able to count on the presumption of innocence.

K.C.

The Jones Act and BP Deepwater Spill

On Fox and Friends the claim was made the Jones Act is hindering the cleanup of the BP Deepwater oil spill because foreign vessel which could be used in the cleanup are not allowed to assist .

A scene  is shown of  some vessel  apparently idle because of the Jones Act. 

It's all bogus-  here is a report from Media Matters.

Anyone making this claim should either supply specifics, what is the  name or names of any vessel that can assist but has been prohibited or - how about a nice cup of coffee?



Here is a Journal of Commerce article: Jones Act Supporters Deny Opposing Oil Spill Waivers


Update: I think it would be difficult to make it more clear then this.

 From: SF Gate 

In an official statement by the Unified Command's Lt. Erik Halvorson, Chief, Joint Information Center of the Unified Area Command said:

 I am not aware of any instance in which needed foreign ships or technology have not been accepted due to the Jones Act. The Jones Act is not preventing us from getting the technology that we need.

K.C.

Live Vessel Tracking Deepwater Gulf of Mexico

Deepwater Horizon on fire - USCG Photo 

All links below  are from  DeepwaterBP Spill This is by far the best site I've found so far.
 Found at The Oil Drum


 Live Vessel Tracking . Gulf of Mexico - Deepwater position is:

 28° 44′ 12.01″ N, 88° 23′ 13.78″ W
28.73667, -88.38716

NOAA oil spill trajectory forecasts

Gulf Oil Spill Tracker

Protest from experts show drilling moratorium based on politics, not science: An editorial

K.C.

Hawsepipe or Academy Who is the Best?

Image from American Merchant Marine at War, www.usmm.org 

Towmasters has an interesting post (and comments) Hawsepipers: Why They’re Needed Now More Than Ever.

I agree with towmaster: It is vital that the path to a license remain reasonably achievable for qualified unlicensed mariners. The system should however be able to block the worse of the worse.


My observations are, the mates I get from the hawsepipe are both the best, and the worse. Of the best mates a disproportional large percentage of them came up though the hawepipe. On the other hand, the very worse officers I've had, almost all of them were haswepipers. Many of the mates from the academy fall in the middle range, neither outstanding nor incompetent.


Another observation, of the mates from the academies I sailed with, the ones who had good "sea sense", and were competent both in the wheel house and on deck, most had some experience in the towing industry. Of the hawsepipers, the worse of the worse, all had deep-sea backgrounds and had obtained licenses relatively late in their careers.


Bottom line, attitude is more important then background. Good judgment, experience and a willingness to work hard are what makes a good mate.


K.C.

View From the Office - Upbound Savannah River

Upbound on the Savannah River at Sunset - Photo by KC (click to enlarge) 
South Carolina to stbd and Georgia to port as we are upbound for a rare "overnight" in Savannah. Photo was taken March 2010.

K.C.

gcaptain, anchorman and The Atlantic Magazine

Deepwater Horizon on fire - USCG Photo 
So,  I'm  poking around on the intertubes  searching using "James Reason"  (author of  "Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents") and "Deepwater Horizon" and I stumble upon  this on-line article from  The Atlantic:  No Easy Villains May Mean no Easy Oil..  The author Lisa Margonelli has been lurking on the gcaptain forum.  From the article:

Over the past week I've been lurking in the forums of gcaptain.com, a virtual hangout for offshore drilling boat types. Gcaptain may have had the first news of the Deepwater Horizon fire when a nearby boat captain reported it ten minutes after it happened, kicking off a long thread of discussion about possible causes and meanings.

It's  anchorman's thread - Bob  Couttie is mentioned as well.

Also:

 Towmasters has an interesting post about the accident and a no knife policy

Knives!? We Don’t Need No Stinking Knives!

There may be an insight there that the company believed that the crew could be trusted with this complex and expensive drilling operation but not trusted to carry a knife.

Here is my post that I started but didn't finish:

New York Times article - In Gulf, It Was Unclear Who Was in Charge of Oil Rig.

The article quotes Tad W. Patzek: “It’s a very complex operation in which the human element has not been aligned with the complexity of the system,”

K.C.

From The Oil Drum;  Lessons Left Unlearnt From 2003 Gulf of Mexico Near-Spill