Reuters is reporting the following:
WASHINGTON, May 3 (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers are focusing on whether lax government regulation that did not require BP to use a remote control "trigger" to shut an underwater pipe exacerbated the spreading oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
A $500,000 acoustic trigger may have allowed workers escaping from the burning rig by boat to send a remote signal 5,000 feet below the water's surface to close the valve and stop the oil.
Instead, BP (BP.L) is using submersible robots, whose tiny metal arms so far have been unable to move the lever that would cut off the flow of crude.
BP's ruptured well is still spewing about 5,000 barrels a day, nearly two weeks after its rig exploded. The massive spill is bearing down on the rich fishing grounds and tourist beaches of the Gulf Coast.
The Interior Department, which oversees offshore energy exploration, does not require acoustic triggers in deepwater drilling.
Oil producing countries such as Norway and Brazil require the triggers and some oil companies find the device so vital that they voluntarily include it on equipment when exploring for oil in the U.S. Gulf.
For those of you who have not been reading about BP's past safety violations, Pro Publica released some must reading yesterday titled, "Oil Companies Pay a Pittance in Penalties to Offshore Drilling Regulator".
BP is a corporation similar to Massey Energy (the coal company which just suffered a fatal mining mishap)in that they put profits above safety. Hence, BP was not one of these oil companies who "find the device so vital that they voluntarily include it on equipment when exploring for oil in the U.S. Gulf."
But that may change soon for BP as an outspoken critic of offshore drilling, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), is asking for an investigation. As Reuters mentions:
Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida on Monday asked the Interior Department's inspector general to investigate whether regulations covering back-up systems to cap underwater wells were adequate. He also wants to know if energy companies have lobbied to soften rules.
"I ask that you determine in your investigation the extent to which the oil and natural gas industry exercised influence in the agency's rule making process," Nelson said.
Meanwhile, the House Oversight and Investigations Reform Committee is also investigating and wants to know why the Interior Department has not mandated the shut-off switches.
Still, some in the industry say these automatic shut-off triggers may not have prevented the huge Deepwater Horizon accident:
Interior does not require the acoustic valves because they have not been "fully proven or they haven't been deemed reliable," a department spokesman said.
A report commissioned by the department Minerals Management Service in 2003 said that remote acoustic systems were useful when the primary shut-off pipe device has failed and are also useful in depths greater than 10,000 feet.
However, the report said the acoustic system may not work well if the underwater well has significant oil flow.
The report also said other problems can occur that would prevent the remote trigger from working such as loud noises or a mud cloud on the sea floor caused by an accident.
One petroleum geologist at a company operating in the Gulf said an acoustic trigger would not have worked in this case because the control box on the sea floor was probably broken.
"You could have had 20 of the acoustic activation devices on 20 boats, circulating that rig," said the geologist, who did not want to be identified. "It's probably because something is broken in the control box that would activate it or there is something in the way."
Several posters on Motley Fool yesterday were discussing the "prohibitive" cost of these safety triggers. Yes, they do cost a half-million dollars. But what is $500,000? One day's revenue from a well as big as the Deepwater Horizon.
Also there is this to consider: by law, oil spill liability payments were capped at just $75 million back in the 90s after the big spill off California's coast. But as the Reuter's article says:
Meanwhile the oil industry may soon find the cost of acoustic triggers more affordable, compared with the cost of fighting an oil spill. Legislation was proposed in the Senate to raise the limit on oil company liability for spill damages from $75 million to $10 billion.
"There is no such thing as a 'Too Big to Spill' oil well, which is why we need this economic protection in place," said Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey. It is unclear whether the legislation will be backed by Senate leadership.
Environmental lawyer Mike Papantonio, whose firm has filed a class action suit on behalf of Gulf Coast fishermen, said the triggers are a fail-safe protection against spills.
Will other class-action lawsuits soon follow from Gulf Coast watersports' businesses, recreational fishermen and environmentalists? A shake of my "Magic 8-Ball" sez "All Indications Point To "Yes!"
Stay tuned