Fortunately, a few reporters were not so complacent. An article in late June 2008 by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s Don Hopey balanced statements about advanced technologies with a no-bones-about-it explanation that “offshore drilling accidents can [still] be devastating.” Similarly, a few weeks later, USA Today’s Rick Jervis, William Welch, and Richard Wolf had a long and detailed analysis of whether or not offshore drilling was “worth the risk,” whose headline stressed, “doubts persist despite oil industry’s advances.” Yet even that article, with all its cautionary language, offered readers the takeaway message that:
Government officials and industry specialists say improved technology and government oversight have made routine drilling safe.…
Today’s technology, such as automatic shutoff valves on the seabed floor and mechanical devices that can prevent blowouts caused by uncontrolled buildups of pressure, has greatly reduced risk of oil spill.
That the number and volume of oil spills has, in fact, decreased over recent decades is the likely explanation for the complacency evident in the 2008 coverage (and beyond). The statistics seemed to distract reporters from asking that all-important question: “But what if…?” Few seemed to recognize—as The New Times only recently observed—that while drilling technologies had improved, cleanup technologies had not.
Moving forward, that concern needs to be front and center in journalists’ minds, especially given that BP is not the only oil company currently operating under potentially overstated promises of “proven” technologies. An excellent analysis that Greenwire published on Wednesday pointed out that:
Most of the three dozen or so companies that kept drilling in deep water in the Gulf after the Deepwater Horizon rig sank got their regulatory approvals based on documents stating they could easily mop up spills, even gushers many times the stated size of the BP spill. But there’s no indication they have any better method than BP.
Indeed, if this disaster has taught reporters anything, it is that we can no longer allow ourselves to be deceived by exaggerated promises that technology can save the day.
A rule of thumb should be applied. If you can't get a diver down to the proposed drilling depth, DON'T APPROVE IT!!!!!!!!!
#1 Posted by Ken Ernest, CJR on Thu 3 Jun 2010 at 04:13 PM
reporters are starting to be more cautious about promises of what technology can deliver. That caution is overdue.
Are reporters becoming more cautious or are they just becoming more realistic? Given the extremely complicated nature of the work being performed coupled with the unprecedented nature of this disaster I think its far more likely that journalists, not known for their depth of technical literacy, were interpreting the statements of engineers working on the BP leak through their own lenses of perception rather than the intent of the individuals they are mining for sound bite worthy quotes.
And I found this very interesting:
There are quite a few instances of the press running unchallenged statements that advanced technology had made the process safe.
A point you undermined later in your article
That the number and volume of oil spills has, in fact, decreased over recent decades is the likely explanation for the complacency evident in the 2008 coverage (and beyond).
Recent notorious examples aside, its pretty hard to argue that the 4000 rigs (triple that number of wells) operating in the gulf isn’t a pretty good indication how safely the industry has been operating of the past 40 years.
Minor facts, I know.
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 3 Jun 2010 at 07:10 PM
Just two questions: Where does the pressure come from that forces the crude from the earth on the sea bed?
What if anything fills the void left by dry wells?
Thanks
#3 Posted by Marvin Wagner, CJR on Fri 4 Jun 2010 at 01:39 PM
Just two questions: Where does the pressure come from that forces the crude from the earth on the sea bed?
All that rock and water sitting on top of it.
What if anything fills the void left by dry wells?
The wells aren’t giant caverns, caves or tanks filled with oil. An oil deposit is usually comprised of porous sedimentary rock. Inside these tiny pores lies a mixture of oil and natural gas. As the oil and gas are pumped to the surface water takes their place. As the water takes the place of the oil more water begins to flow out of the well until the point when it becomes uneconomical to pump anymore. Surprisingly, this point of economic unfeasibility when as little as 10% of the oil has been extracted from the field. This is why many wells lay dormant until oil prices rise to the point where producers can make money turning the wells back on.
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 4 Jun 2010 at 04:22 PM
I think it would be productive for journalists to dig into BP's past to see how they use technology promises to make deals and then reneg on those promises when no one is looking to cut costs.
Outside of Greg Palast, Democracy Now, and a few other fringey alternative outposts, no one is really talking about BP's involvement in the neglected Alaska pipeline (which has just had a spill
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/05/25/breaking-oil-spill-in-alaska-pipeline-is-51-owned-by-bp/
)
Or their involvement in the Alyeska Consortium that was responsible for safety and disaster response in Prince William Sound during the Exxon crash.
This old 4 part doc "Slick Operators " by the Scottish Eye is eye opening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLu-Hp9--RU
This is not a new problem, in particular with BP, and we should realize that promises are worthless without independent inspection. These guys cannot self regulate when they're under shareholder pressure to cut costs/corners.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 7 Jun 2010 at 10:55 AM
"There are quite a few instances of the press running unchallenged statements that advanced technology had made the process safe.
A point you undermined later in your article
That the number and volume of oil spills has, in fact, decreased over recent decades is the likely explanation for the complacency evident in the 2008 coverage (and beyond)."
Yes, we could be getting safer... or,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/7039960.html
"In the five years before the Deepwater Horizon exploded, federal investigators documented nearly 200 safety and environmental violations in accidents on platforms and rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, describing a stunning array of hazards that resulted in few penalties.
Workers plunged dozens of feet through open unmarked holes. Welding sparked flash fires. Overloaded cranes dropped heavy loads that smashed equipment and pinned workers. Oil and drilling mud fouled Gulf waters. Compressors exploded. Wells blew out.
And yet, in their investigations of nearly 400 offshore incidents, Minerals Management Service officials failed to travel to one-third of the accident scenes, collected only 16 fines and did not investigate every blowout as their own rules require."
And even though there are rules that require incident reporting, over the last decade the people in charge of oversight have been too busy with meth, prostitutes, and porn to do much inspection.
Therefore, one can easily imagine how a decreasing number of reported accidents can give the illusion of improving safety and spill control.
Is there any reporting that can clarify that for us? Could minor spills and accidents be left unreported? One could assume that risker environments produce more accident opportunities.
It's a tad suspicious if riskier wells aren't producing accident reports.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 7 Jun 2010 at 12:17 PM