Why would Transocean opposed CSB’s legal authority to investigate the tragic April 2010 blowout and explosion in the Gulf of Mexico? Because an independent investigation would reveal the truth (if they are not bought up first) that there was no Macondo Crude flooding the Gulf until 44 hours later. It was the deliberate 2nd Explosion in the BOP that weakened the cemented well head and induced a secondary bottom hole well blowout to unleash the gushing crude from the Macondo reservoir.
Ans: CSB was not part of the conspiracy parties to this contrived Planned_2_Spook_Market_Crisis disaster. The documents would have shown that (among other more incriminating evidence) that:
- it would be illogical for Transocean to top up their onboard fuel supply to 700,000 gallons (60% of capacity) days before the planned well abandonment operation. It is against safety prudence to stock up unnecessary fuel at the end of the drilling operation especially when the DWH is transported or towed in transit.
- Transocean was afraid of the new discovery of unwarranted shipment of explosive chemicals onto the drilling rig not normally used in drilling and cementing operations.
- Transocean is afraid their assertion (below) would not stand up to scrutiny. How could >60,000 bbls/day of crude oil flow thru 10 inch pipe opening, burnt up completely without spilling overboard? This is in addition to 700,000 gallons (16,667 bbls) of diesel fuel. CSB analyses would have confirmed there was no crude oil flowing in the first 2 days of the blowout at least until after the 17:22 CDT 22 April 2010 explosion (2nd explosion followed by a bottom hole well blowout).
"The April 20, 2010 blowout event did not immediately result in the release of oil into the water. Instead, the collapse of the riser structure created a flow path for the subsea discharge of crude oil approximately two days later. See id. at 2 & n.4 (explaining that Transocean’s position is “that any oil that traveled up the riser to the deck of the MODU during th[e] time [of the blowout event] would have combusted in the fire before it could have entered the water”).
~~~~~
Late this afternoon, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) learned that a Federal Court in the Southern District of Texas has upheld the CSB’s legal authority to investigate the tragic April 2010 blowout and explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Federal District Court Judge Lee Rosenthal issued an Order that denied a motion by Transocean Deepwater Drilling, Inc. to block the CSB’s access to information pertinent to the CSB’s investigation.
A number of other companies have cooperated with the CSB’s ongoing investigation; Transocean, however, had raised a number of legal arguments and has not provided the CSB with key information even as the accident approaches its third anniversary.
The Court found that “In sum, the CSB has shown that it has jurisdiction to investigate the Macondo incident. The subpoenas the CSB issued are within its authority. Because Transocean raised no challenge to the subpoenas other than the argument that the CSB exceeded its statutory authority, the motion to dismiss or to quash the subpoenas must be denied.”
http://www.csb.gov/statement-of-csb-chairperson-dr-rafael-moure-eraso-on-court-decision-in-deepwater-horizonmacondo-investigation-case/
![Deepwater_Fire[1]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sdS-wsbrwWb0yk3RmREoC0P2t55sMM1SWSjakGeu0d37s3i8g8lrJ2zCx-3fhUpuQVXeLlIgiDKsKEKZIU53w7WR0KapWeoLWnptucONIjxw5mvAskEtr-eMDTb8BbpGzgksXguXM1f3Q=s0-d)
Ans: CSB was not part of the conspiracy parties to this contrived Planned_2_Spook_Market_Crisis disaster. The documents would have shown that (among other more incriminating evidence) that:
- it would be illogical for Transocean to top up their onboard fuel supply to 700,000 gallons (60% of capacity) days before the planned well abandonment operation. It is against safety prudence to stock up unnecessary fuel at the end of the drilling operation especially when the DWH is transported or towed in transit.
- Transocean was afraid of the new discovery of unwarranted shipment of explosive chemicals onto the drilling rig not normally used in drilling and cementing operations.
- Transocean is afraid their assertion (below) would not stand up to scrutiny. How could >60,000 bbls/day of crude oil flow thru 10 inch pipe opening, burnt up completely without spilling overboard? This is in addition to 700,000 gallons (16,667 bbls) of diesel fuel. CSB analyses would have confirmed there was no crude oil flowing in the first 2 days of the blowout at least until after the 17:22 CDT 22 April 2010 explosion (2nd explosion followed by a bottom hole well blowout).
"The April 20, 2010 blowout event did not immediately result in the release of oil into the water. Instead, the collapse of the riser structure created a flow path for the subsea discharge of crude oil approximately two days later. See id. at 2 & n.4 (explaining that Transocean’s position is “that any oil that traveled up the riser to the deck of the MODU during th[e] time [of the blowout event] would have combusted in the fire before it could have entered the water”).
~~~~~
Late this afternoon, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) learned that a Federal Court in the Southern District of Texas has upheld the CSB’s legal authority to investigate the tragic April 2010 blowout and explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Federal District Court Judge Lee Rosenthal issued an Order that denied a motion by Transocean Deepwater Drilling, Inc. to block the CSB’s access to information pertinent to the CSB’s investigation.
A number of other companies have cooperated with the CSB’s ongoing investigation; Transocean, however, had raised a number of legal arguments and has not provided the CSB with key information even as the accident approaches its third anniversary.
The Court found that “In sum, the CSB has shown that it has jurisdiction to investigate the Macondo incident. The subpoenas the CSB issued are within its authority. Because Transocean raised no challenge to the subpoenas other than the argument that the CSB exceeded its statutory authority, the motion to dismiss or to quash the subpoenas must be denied.”
http://www.csb.gov/statement-of-csb-chairperson-dr-rafael-moure-eraso-on-court-decision-in-deepwater-horizonmacondo-investigation-case/
Statement of CSB Chairperson Dr. Rafael Moure-Eraso on Court Decision in Deepwater Horizon/Macondo Investigation Case
©
BEGIN STATEMENT
Late this afternoon, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) learned that a Federal Court in the Southern District of Texas has upheld the CSB’s legal authority to investigate the tragic April 2010 blowout and explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Federal District Court Judge Lee Rosenthal issued an Order that denied a motion by Transocean Deepwater Drilling, Inc. to block the CSB’s access to information pertinent to the CSB’s investigation.
A number of other companies have cooperated with the CSB’s ongoing investigation; Transocean, however, had raised a number of legal arguments and has not provided the CSB with key information even as the accident approaches its third anniversary.
The Court found that “In sum, the CSB has shown that it has jurisdiction to investigate the Macondo incident. The subpoenas the CSB issued are within its authority. Because Transocean raised no challenge to the subpoenas other than the argument that the CSB exceeded its statutory authority, the motion to dismiss or to quash the subpoenas must be denied.”
The Court’s ruling follows an extensive litigation effort by the CSB and our colleagues in the United States Attorney’s Office in Houston. This ruling greatly supports the CSB’s ongoing investigation and will enable CSB investigators to access critical information that might have otherwise been unavailable.
The CSB’s investigation has been taking a broad look at the causes of the Gulf tragedy. The issues include how the industry and the regulating agencies learned or did not learn from previous incidents. The report also examines the lack of human factors guidance for offshore production, the reliance on manual safety controls instead of automated systems, and organizational issues that can impair effective engineering decisions. We are also examining the implementation of effective corporate governance and sustainability standards to address safety and environmental risk.
The Court’s decision affirms what we always believed – that the CSB has the legal authority and, indeed, the duty to thoroughly investigate the Gulf tragedy.
END STATEMENT
The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating serious chemical accidents. The agency's board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.
The Board does not issue citations or fines but does make safety recommendations to plants, industry organizations, labor groups, and regulatory agencies such as OSHA and EPA. Visit our website, www.csb.gov.
For more information, contact CSB Communications Manager Hillary Cohen, cell (202) 446-8094 or Sandy Gilmour, cell (202) 251-5496.
No comments:
Post a Comment