Deep Water Horizon Explosion - Coursework Example

Deep Water Horizon Explosion Name Course Lecturer Date The Deep Water Horizon Explosion This explosion as well as the subsequent fire that followed the explosion took place on the deep water horizon oil drilling unit. This project was operated by the Transocean Company and the drilling as for the BP Company.The site of the explosion was Macondo prospect oil field about sixty kilometers southeast of the state of Louisiana coast (Water 2011). This was the biggest environmental and health disaster to happen to the United States. It killed eleven people and wounded sixteen more persons. The explosion was such big that it caused the deep water horizon to burn and subsequently to sink. The explosion and sinking of the deep water horizon lead to massive oil spill in the offshore coast in the Gulf of Mexico. This incident is considered the largest marine oil spill in the world because of the oil spill. It was estimated that 4.9 million barrels of oil spill on the ocean thereby posing big problem to the marine animals (Houck 2010). The blowout of the drilling facility and the subsequent oil spill was caused by a flawed well plan that did not include enough cement the production casing and the protection casing. The presumed blowout preventer failure was important but it was a secondary issue to the cause of the explosion. The resulting oil spill had grave environmentalimplications with the resulting efforts to prevent the flow of oil being fruitless and in effective. The companies involved with the project are said to have received prior warning on the condition of the project. They were advised to ensure that they put the necessary measures in place in order to prevent the ignition and blowout of natural gas coming out of the oil well. The natural gas became too strong for the cement and eventually blew out. This resulted in the explosion (Diercks et al., 2010). Why the Incident Is a Critical WHS Incident There was no regular monitoring, in addition, the hot work permits were not used to control the ignition sources. The WHS states that if the internal combustion engines must be shut down within the defined by the management of natural resources as well as the electrical code. The deep water horizon oil drilling unit was a higher classification and classified as class one division two of high classification. As such, the company controlling the operations of the project should have effective method of engine shut down whenever there was an ignition. The employees are in record saying that they were to shut down all hot works in case there was ignition if natural gas coming from the drill site. However, the company failed to put in place effective ignition control to prevent explosion (Liu et al., 2011). There was a danger of natural gas causing explosion because there were much deposits of natural gas from the drilling site. The company new of these developments as the employees reported there was more natural gas coming out much more than was forecasted by the company. Even after being aware of these dangers, the companies running the project did not institute measures to control and prevent the natural gas and thereby exposing the employees to work health and safety. As a result, the natural gas caused the explosion and eleven employees lost their lives and sixteen more were seriously injured. This was a controllable happening but the company failed to act upon the revelation of the problem. This was a serious WHS to both employees working in the facility and a life threatening menace for the aquatic animals (De Gouw et al., 2011). Blowout preventer, the main cause of the explosion, must be effectively restrained when aligning. In addition, the employees are prohibited from located near the preventer as they may be injured in case the preventer drops or swings. Transocean new this WHS standard but it did nothing to ensurethat the blowout preventers are effectively stationed and ready in case of ignition and blowout from the natural gas. As such, it exposed its employees to safety hazards. Moreover, the oil drilling and exploration was carried out deep in the ocean, sixty kilometers from the nearest coastline. In this case, the employees were working in a cold environment and nowhere to run to incase of an accident like the explosion. The Transocean Company had no standby rescue facilities and this contributed to the death of the eleven employees. The explosion should have been prevented if the company had put in the necessary precautions and act to implement the recommendations given. Essentially, the above are the reasons why the deep water horizon explosion was a serious work health and safety (Cleveland et al., 2010). Swiss CheeseModel For the catastrophic error to happen, the holes of the ignition part must have aligned for every step in the process thereby allowing all defenses to be defeated and hence resulting in the explosion. The management may have instructed the employees to set up the layers with all the holes lined up, as such, this make an inherently flawed system allowing a problem at the beginning to go all the way to harmfully affect the problem and the blowout eventually. This model explains that very cheese is an opportunity to stop the error from happening. As such, it requires that enough defenses to be set up and as soon as at the beginning of the project (Water 2011). There was no regular monitoring, in addition, the hot work permits were not used to control the ignition sources. The WHS states that if the internal combustion engines must be shut down within the defined by the management of natural resources as well as the electrical code. The deep water horizon oil drilling unit was a higher classification and classified as class one division two of high classification. As such, the company controlling the operations of the project should have effective method of engine shut down whenever there was an ignition. The employees are in record saying that they were to shut down all hot works in case there was ignition if natural gas coming from the drill site. However, the company failed to put in place effective ignition control to prevent explosion (Houck 2010). Recommendations as To How the WHS Management SystemCould Be Improved WHS Management System is a critical tool in ensuring safety operations in any undertaking. With it there are several policies and procedures, they ensure that it is comprehensiveenough to cover complexities and risks of any undertakings such as the deep water horizon oil exploration and drilling. This tool enables the operators of an undertaking to follow the due process; this due process assists in systematically achieving as well as maintaining the required levels of safety and health of employees and any other person in a business undertaking. This tool also enables operators of a business undertaking to demonstrate the management of safety and health to the outside world. In addition, it enablers a business undertaking to compare its system against the industry set standards. As such, it can improve wherever its policies and procedures falls short of the industry standards(Zacharatos, Barling & Iverson 2005). The work health and safety act requires persons and or companies conducting a business or any other undertaking such as mine operator and mine holder to ensure that, in a reasonable practice, employees and other workers are not put to risk from the undertakings being carried out. This involves the elimination of risks to safety and health so far as it is a reasonable practice. As such, the owner of a mine has specific duties and responsibilities. As far as WHS management system is concerned, it should act more than providing guidelines to employers on how to handle employees in relation to WHS. To improve it, the WHS management system should ensure that the employers have developed, implemented, maintain anddocument an effective WHS system accessible to all workers at all time (Frick et al., 2000). Another recommendation is that the employers should design a WHS management system that helps to identify al hazards and consequently minimize or eliminate risks to a reasonable practice. Business should be in a position to identify all hazards, evaluate the risks and eventually prepare control plan for the same. This would prevent problems such as the deep water horizon explosion. Furthermore, an organisational should prepare an emergency plan to be used when responding to an emergency like the deep water horizon explosion. If there was an emergency plan in place, and the workers understood it very well, it would have prevented the death of the eleven workers (Robson et al., 2007). As section 48 of the work health and safety act requires, the administrators or managementof any undertaking should consult with its employees likely to be affected by the WHS management system. As such, it is important to involve the workers in; Identifying risks and hazards Evaluating risks and the hazards In selection of control measures for implementation Any changes in work that may affect their health and safety Designing the procedures for consulting as well as resolving issues In monitoring procedures for the safety and health of the workers Standard information as well as the necessary training concerning health and safety to the workers This can be done by selecting representatives of the workers and involving them in consultations on the health and safety matters (Chuah & Rai 2003). To ensure the success of WHS management system, it is important and necessary to create and implement an action list; this ensures that it is comprehensive as well as integrated to manage all features of risk controls as per the regulations of WHS Act. The list should detail how the elements in the management system are to be implemented. It should schedule all the activities required as well as allocate resources needed in the implementation, it should also assign responsibilities to enhance accountability and orderliness. For example, the action list should be divided in to parts to suit the specific parts of the system, for example design, planning, commissioning, and monitoring. For large organisations undertaking complex undertakings, it is important to split it in to numerousprocesses or activities such as processing, exploration, mining and monitoring and review. This action list should cover every part no matter how small or insignificant it is, this would ensure it deve1ops an integrated approach. Notably, it is necessary to determining how the system would be reviewed as well as the triggers for review(Robson et al., 2007). The processes selected by an organisation should be capable to delivering health and safety targetsas defined by the policy. In selecting the system, it is necessary to consider the nature, frequency and magnitude of risks and hazards such as chemical, natural gas, physical, ergonomic or biological hazardsat the work place. Their extent as well as impact to particular work arrangements may have should be carefully considered in the system as well, these are such as repetitive tasks, shift work and pace of work that may result in stress and fatigue (Zacharatos, Barling & Iverson 2005). When planning the WHS management system, the management should take in to account the following; The necessary resources needed to manage the risks like costs, data collection, new information and time. The effects and impacts of changing working conditions, for example shut down, start up, maintenance and access The ability of the persons responsible to determine the processes to use when unexpected or new hazards crop up Specify the requirements for managed risks like dangerous goods and specialised plants The ability of third parties such as the suppliers to manage the hazards and risks they are introduced to or introduce The process used, which includes identification of hazards, evaluating the associated risks as well as selecting control measures, may vary depending on the type of risk and hazards as well as the work involved (Frick et al., 2000). Essentially, it is not possible to implement, maintain and modifyWHS management system without providing adequate resources. Resources include specialised skills, people, appropriate time, financial delegation and authority; they should be included in the action list. The administrator must exercise due diligence in ensuring that all persons comply with their duties and obligations. As such, the role and responsibilities of the person responsible for ensuring compliance should be communicated and documented to all people in the organisation. Such role and responsibilities include; Ensuring requirements are established, implemented and maintained Reporting on the effectiveness of the system (if targets are met)and Regularly reviewing and improving the WHS management system to suit the working environment (Chuah & Rai 2003). References Chuah, M., & Rai, G, 2003, U.S. Patent No. 6,665,718: Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Cleveland, C., Hogan, C. M., & Saundry, P, 2010, Deepwater Horizon oil spill: The Encyclopedia of Earth. De Gouw, J. A., Middlebrook, A. M., Warneke, C., Ahmadov, R., Atlas, E. L., Bahreini, R., ... & Watts, L. A. 2011, Organic aerosol formation downwind from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Science, 331(6022), 1295-1299. Diercks, A. R., Highsmith, R. C., Asper, V. L., Joung, D., Zhou, Z., Guo, L., ... & Lohrenz, S. E. 2010, Characterization of subsurface polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at the Deepwater Horizon site: Geophysical Research Letters,37(20). Frick, K., Jensen, P. L., Quinlan, M., & Wilthagen, T. 2000, Systematic occupational health and safety management: perspectives on an international development. Pergamon Press. Houck, O. A. 2010, Worst Case and the Deepwater Horizon Blowout: There Ought to Be a Law, Tul. Envtl.LJ, 24, 1. Liu, Y., Weisberg, R. H., Hu, C., & Zheng, L. 2011,tracking the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: A modeling perspective: Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 92(6), 45-46. Robson, L. S., Clarke, J. A., Cullen, K., Bielecky, A., Severin, C., Bigelow, P. L., ... & Mahood, Q. 2007, The effectiveness of occupational health and safety management system interventions: a systematic review. Safety Science, 45(3), 329-353. Water, D. 2011,the gulf oil disaster and the future of offshore drilling: Report to the President [of the USA]. Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Iverson, R. D, 2005, High-performance work systems and occupational safety:Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 77. Read More