http://www.pnj.com/article/20110327/OPINION/103270309/Editorial-Drilling-risks-exposed?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp

9:00 PM, Mar. 26, 2011 |

BP’s fault, Transocean’s fault, Cameron International’s fault, nobody’s fault – all we know is the failure of the blowout preventer to do what it was designed to do – prevent the Deepwater Horizon disaster – underscores just how much of a gamble deepwater offshore drilling really is.

Here we are almost a year after the well blowout and explosion that caused the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history, and still nobody can say with certainty why it happened.

But now we have a report from a respected Norwegian company indicating that the widely used blowout preventers, built by Cameron and used as the last line of defense against catastrophic blowouts, might themselves be compromised by a design flaw.

The report also indicates that Transocean, the company drilling the well, might have made errors that also compromised the function of the blowout preventer.

So that’s possibly two fatal errors – one of design, one of operation.

That’s a recipe for the kind of complete failure that led to the blowout and oil spill last April.
This clearly and simply underscores why we should all be highly skeptical of claims by the oil industry that they have learned the lessons of the Deepwater Horizon and that deepwater drilling is now safer than it was.

The reality? They can’t know if that’s true; they can’t even say precisely what happened to the Deepwater Horizon, nor can they say that they know the blowout preventers currently “protecting” scores of other wells even work.

That means deepwater drilling remains a risky gamble of unknown proportions. Yet the oil companies are doubling down on that gamble by seeking permission to drill in even deeper waters.

We’re told the report by Det Norske Veritas “is not the final word” on the disaster. That means its conclusions don’t tell us everything we need to know.

That’s easy to see.

Cameron, the manufacturer of the blowout preventer, says the device was “designed and tested to industry standards and customer specifications.”

Transocean says the findings “confirm that the (preventer) was in proper operating condition and functioned as designed.”

It did? Oh, says Transocean, “high-pressure flow from the well created conditions that exceeded the scope of (the preventer’s) design parameters.”

In other words, the company was using a safety device unable to cope with the conditions it met … even assuming it would operate as intended?

If all this doesn’t reveal the hypocrisy behind the bland assurances coming from the proponents of offshore drilling about how safe it now is and how the industry knows what it’s doing, it will be a sure sign that they don’t really care about the environmental or economic risks.

Drill, baby, drill – and keep your fingers crossed?

Special thanks to Richard Charter