Were the BP designs signed and stamped by PEs? 3

[elguero]

Editor: 30 June 2010
Letters, PE magazine (via email to pemagazine@nspe.org)

Sir or madam:

The following letter was published in the Pasadena [CA] Star-News in the 25 June 2010 edition.


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Re: The Gulf Oil Spill

As a thoroughly schooled, experienced engineer, I have read the news, watched TV, and listened to the radio for an engineering explanation of what went on as British Petroleum lost control of their oil well. All I have heard is name calling, political comments, and threats of punishment. Often I have heard that the scientists failed.

Actually it was management that failed ---- Corporate management AND government management.

If a building were to collapse in Pasadena, the first inquiry would be a review of the design drawings and calculations. No science here. It’s all management ---- first on the part of the city, next on the part of the builders. The main question asked would be: was the design done by a registered, licenced professional engineer? Did he/she stamp and sign the drawings?

I have heard no such questions regarding BP and the Deepwater Horizon. If the job had been managed properly, stamped, signed drawings of the design should currently exist. The signatures need be by licenced engineers: not only BP engineers, but United States Corps of Engineers too. I will wager a six-pack of Corona Extra that said signatures are either missing, or affixed fraudulently. Or even worse, that good design drawings were not even prepared.


Scott Mansfield, PE (Ret’d.)

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

I submit it [and this addendum] to PE magazine for publication in the Letters section, as it underscores how disasters occur when professional reviews and the signing/stamping procedures are sidestepped, either purposely, or through ignorance. The NSPE should endeavor to learn what designs, if any, were reviewed by licenced professionals working for BP, or the Corps of Engineers, or the Coast Guard, or any of the Gulf states. The disciplines that should have put stamps on the designs are: structural, mechanical, chemical, electrical, and control systems. Every material (whether a metal, or non metal) need have been vetted by a team of licenced chemical, and metallurgical engineers. The designs requiring said reviews (and approvals) are those of the platform (the Deepsea Horizon), the blowout preventer (with close attention to the dynamic seal that enables movement of the drill rod), the well casing, the well discharge pipe, and the well termination [xmas tree], with special attention paid to the shut-off valve and the valve actuators.

Scott Mansfield, PE (retired)

 

[JLSeagull]

Some of the Deepwater Horizon problems appear to be operational. Some of the sub-sea blowout preventer problems appear to be improper maintenance or procedural. OSHA and the other assorted hearings etc. may determine some of the failures that occurred on the Trans-Ocean drilling platform. Only after the problems are diagnosed should one seek out the scapegoats for execution.

 

[hacksaw]

Your comments apply in the case of land based rigs in Texas and Louisiana.The laws are very specific and binding.

Any one who has worked in the drilling business knows how common it is for a mud engineer or the tool pusher to write up a will and make certain the family knows where the insurance papers are, before going back onto a troubled well. It is dangerous business and no place for bonus motivated idiots.

Drilling on the high seas is uncharted regulatory-wise, unfortunately, ever since Col. Drake struct oil in Pennsylvania 150+ years ago, regulations are only enacted after the fact, usually after great loss of life.

Lets hope the close this one off soon, it is releasing the equivalent of 15% of our national energy use, and runs the risk of depressurizing the entire field.

 

[BenThayer]

with regards to failure of management, i absolutely agree with you.

however, i have seen many drawings of very bad designs signed and sealed by PE's. proper signatures do not a good design make.

BP could have done the exact same design and procedures signed by PE's and that would not have made it any better.

a basic flaw with BP is the operational discipline and the culture. the head honchos are invariably promoted from within to correct past problems. most notably, Texas City.

but to change the culture, you cannot promote from within the very same culture that you desire to change.

they need fresh blood and from outside their industry. sort of like Ford did hiring Alan Mulally from Boeing.

 

[elguero]

To:JLSeagull

The whole point of solid DESIGN is to make sure procedural difficulties do not become uncontrollable. Sure, a design done by a licenced PE might get into trouble, but less likely. When a PE affixes his signature, he will only do so unless he is satisfied the design is trustworthy and reliable.

 

[dcasto]

Scott Mansfield, PE (Ret'd.) needs to be talked to by the PE organization for betting on the outcome of an incident, bad form indeed.

The offshore well is not in a public area and it is a private endevor. The use of a PE stamp is between the company and the insurer. Since the well was in virgin terriatory, who could stamp everything??? given a design pressure of 15,000 psi for example and the well is way over pressure at 20,000, having a stamp is worthless. Who checks the inputs and signs off??? Not I said the little red hen.