>>>If they are sure that what BP asks them to do is unsafe, then they should not do it.<<<
FWIW: I saw a very interesting "Build It Bigger" episode on the Discovery Channel some time back. The Norwegians had commissioned the construction of a massive floating NG processing plant for deployment near the Artic Circle. The construction site I believe was Spain. There were a number of details I can't recall. I think that perhaps that the construction was actually done in mud - with the flotation tanks flooded - with the intention that when construction was complete, they would be pumped dry to float the station out of its "submerged dry dock." That somewhat famous flatbed floating/submersible ship - the one that carried the crippled Vincenz after the terrorist attack - was brought to the harbor at an enormous daily rate. The tanks had to be pumped, and the mud suction broken in a quite controlled fashion all why the ship waited, and the large capital cost of the project was sitting idle. For some reason wind was a very large consideration. I don't know why wind was such a big consideration then, given that the ship was going to carry this huge load into the turbulent North Atlantic.
The bottom line of all of this...
Q: Who got to make the call on the flotation and transfer of the processing facility while the cost meter was running at warp speed?
A: The on-site agent of the insurance company covering the floating processing facility.
Interesting, is it not?
In a somewhat contorted way, this hearkens back a little to the financial ratings agencies and getting independent perspective. Having a third party in there calling the shots can be useful, so BP and TransOcean might have both been served better by having an unbiased observer/referee. In my example, the insurance agent had all of the motivation in the world to stop the process at the least sign of trouble, even if there was a 99.99% probability of success. The meter was running, but he didn't have to pay for the idle gear/lost time.
Overall a very interesting, recurring and problematic risk management situation.
From one who is anti Big Government and increased expansion, I have wondered whether the government shouldn't replace Fitch, Moodys, etc to be more objective. Then you get into regulatory capture and corruption. We all have to have some trust in everything we do - visiting doctors, buying automobiles with sticking accelerators, investing in oil companies which are cutting corners, or even allowing our Congress/Administration to allow these cowboy corporations to shoot from the hip in our backyard. |
