Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kat Bloomfield on April 7, 2010 at 0:31

I dunno. I'm just asking. Your comment raises yet another question-- aren't the reports you reference based on self-reported data? SONRIS is only as accurate as the industry reports. Your royalty check is only as accurate as the operator makes it. Safety and self-reporting requirements are costs which for profit companies inately abhor. And without a big stick held over the for profit heads, there is no self-motivation. So I tend to lean towarda the bigass stick approach to ensuring socially reaponsible behavior when dealing with an "it" whose only interest is profit and next quarters stock price

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kat Bloomfield on April 7, 2010 at 1:43

nuthin political here. Just data, reporting, and safety concerns, which last I checked, aren't the crossbeams of any political platform that I'm aware of.

for profit companies have one singular goal: P R O F I T no matter the costs. Those costs include health, safety, welfare, data reporting, etc. I could care less if aliens from Mars serve as the hall monitors. To let operators run loose in the halls without oversight is just plain myopic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on April 7, 2010 at 3:55

I have to agree with Jay,

As an operator we take our responsibilty to be as acurate as possible very serisously.

As to safety regulations, I do not see how the feds could do anything more to actually make things safer. OSHA already has a good deal of safety regulations in place, In addition our private insurers also don't like paying claims and impose their own requirments. Every driller we use is absolutly serious about safety, You can't make money with sloppy work or going to court to defend your practices.

With the high pressures, shear numbers of rigs, and the physical nature of the work accidents are inevitable. However, I venture to say it is probally safer to work on a rig than drive around town, how many car accidents do we see each day? How many other workplace injuries are there that just aren't as glamorous to the newspeople as a rig accident?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ur dern tootin' on April 7, 2010 at 8:21

In virtually all of the oil/gas producing states, the principal oil/gas regulatory authorities (e.g. LA Office of Conservation/Railroad Commission of Texas) do not have strictly "safety related" (or ISO) regulations. The specific state agencies that DO have such regulations are the various state "departments of labor". In addition to these state agencies, the federal OSHA/MSHA agencies have safety regulations with which industry must comply.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on April 7, 2010 at 8:55

It's been my (personal) experience that the majors are very serious about safety, and the drillers are as well. Now, I've found it funny that nearly 100% of the major accidents I've heard about were CHK or their contractors. The law of statistics should say that it should be more evenly split.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on April 7, 2010 at 10:29

Yeah I didn't say that, and that does of course, influence the statistics. I would still expect to see it spread out a little more. Although, I have no logical basis for saying it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on April 7, 2010 at 10:13

The regulations in place, including those self imposed by the E&P companies are exhaustive and borderline on the ridiculous at times. The problem is not in regulations but making sure they are carried out. MOst accidents are the results of equipment failures, not any disregard for procedure.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on April 7, 2010 at 13:23

as someone who dealt with safety issues and osha inspections for years allow me to say, hell to the no, the feds need to mind their own business.

most of the inspectors don't even know what they're looking at, much less how to make it any safer.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kat Bloomfield on April 8, 2010 at 2:41

Sed Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?** Or, in other words, But Who Will Guard the Guardians?. Put another way, you don't want the fox in charge of the hen house.
Professor Emeritus Leonid Hurwicz rejected the unwavering trust Plato placed in city-state leaders in his compelling acceptance of the 2007 Sveriges Riksbank nobel price in economic sciences. His acceptance speech in effect was a lecture on mechanism design theory, entitled "But Who Will Guard the Guardians." Under the theory, his conclusion was government and all those in charge need a great deal of oversight to ensure enforcement of law and regulations. Prof. Hurwicz explained eloquently his mechanism design theory which posited that leaders and officials of political, economic, and social entities need a great deal of oversight to ensure enforcement of the rule of law and that oversight comes from the intervenors, individuals of integrity who act without self-interest, whether in profit, power, or donation dollars. See http://nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=786;
http://www.isd.net/mhurwicz/stories/nobel_maxim_for_leo_hurwicz.h
tml

**an historical note: the question "sed quis custodiet isos custodes?" [who will guard the guardians] was posed by Juvenal during ancient Roman times as a philosophical inquiry into the efficacy of using guards to guard men's wives.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Terry L. Antee on April 8, 2010 at 7:58

No company wants anyone to get injured on a well the legal costs are tremendous, nor do they want a spill again it is not worth it. It cost a lot less to be safe than have injuries or spills. We do not need another government employee, don't people understand who pays for every government employee.........WE THE PEOPLE or at least the one's that pay taxes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on April 8, 2010 at 13:26

Not gonna comment on the post. But what about the guards guarding mens wives? HA, thats funny.

• ▶ Reply