BSOD Issues On Deepwater Horizon 383
ctdownunder passes along this excerpt from a NY Times article about a rig worker's testimony concerning the April 20 accident at the Deepwater Horizon well:
"The emergency alarm on the Deepwater Horizon was not fully activated on the day the oil rig caught fire and exploded, triggering the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a rig worker on Friday told a government panel investigating the accident. ... On Friday, Mr. Williams added several new details about the equipment on the vessel, testifying that another Transocean official turned a critical system for removing dangerous gas from the drilling shack to 'bypass mode.' When he questioned that decision, Mr. Williams said, he was reprimanded. ... Problems existed from the beginning of drilling the well, Mr. Williams said. For months, the computer system had been locking up, producing what the crew deemed the 'blue screen of death.' 'It would just turn blue,' he said. 'You’d have no data coming through.' Replacement hardware had been ordered but not yet installed by the time of the disaster, he said."
The article doesn't mention whether it was specifically a Windows BSOD, or just an error screen that happened to be blue.
Why didn't they fix it? (Score:1, Insightful)
For months, the computer system had been locking up, producing what the crew deemed the 'blue screen of death. 'It would just turn blue,' he said.
So they didn't have proper computer administration in place? If my own computer started BSOD'ing often and for months, I would do something about it. I would especially do something about it if it was an important system, irrelevant to if it was Windows, Linux or any other OS.
It's not like it BSOD'd once and caused it. It was BSOD'ing for months.
They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why didn't they fix it? (Score:1, Insightful)
Many embedded systems have their console in blue. It's not even sure it was Windows.
How much did they save? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, the whole rig's cost is in the hundreds of millions (Wiki says $560 mil but google link said $350 mil). The whole disaster is in the tens of billions, ain't it?
You'd think they would do anything and spare no cost to keep the fucking thing in working order and floating.
Makes the $500,000 a day lease look like pennies.
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:4, Insightful)
the government's responses to national crises like this one should also tell you that those "GOVERNMENT IS GOOD, DOWN WITH CORPS" nutcases in the usa should also be silenced.
How about down with self-serving bureaucracy? you know, the kind that insulates its ideology from reality so much that everyone else is left holding the resulting inevitable calamity.
Cutting corners is the name of the game (Score:5, Insightful)
Cutting corners is the corporate way. I have seen so much "Mickey Mouse" stuff at places I've worked it disgusts me. Untrained workers, electrical boxes in pools of water, large pumps at refineries held in place by 4 bolts rather than the six bolts which were intended to be used etc. But of course, none of these problems are the CEO (or board members) of BP's fault. They only take credit when things go right. Avoiding responsibility is the name of the game.
Re:Egregious (Score:1, Insightful)
BP paid 20 billion dollars to avoid the criminal charges.
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:4, Insightful)
I am never a fan of government regulations, but when there are problems with an industry we can discuss possible government regulations of that industry. However, I am always opposed to new regulations to address a problem that appears to have happened largely because exisitng regulations were not being followed. If regulators have failed to enforce existing regulations, what makes anyone think they will enforce any new regulations?
Re:How much did they save? (Score:3, Insightful)
Deepwater Horizon is a perfect storm of greed, arrogance and ineptitude, by all parties mind you, and that includes the Federal government. It wasn't just BP, TransOcean or Halliburton who created this disaster, but crooked, incompetent bureaucrats who should have been doing their jobs, but seemed quite content to turn their heads.
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:5, Insightful)
If regulators have failed to enforce existing regulations, what makes anyone think they will enforce any new regulations?
The regulators were tasked to check that the companies followed the procedures for checking their own operations. This kind of twice-removed oversight is becoming increasingly common in lots of places, because it saves money for the government (popular with voters) as well as being popular in the private sector (for obvious reasons).
It works great as long as companies are overall honest and all their problems are caused by simple negligence. It doesn't work so well in the face of outright fraud.
Re:How much did they save? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd think they would do anything and spare no cost to keep the fucking thing in working order and floating.Makes the $500,000 a day lease look like pennies.
In the corporate word, the important thing is to save money no matter how mutch extra it costs.
Re:How much did they save? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Egregious (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is why is there not criminal prosecutions for bad engineering that leads to the loss of life? Why is it that only people with guns who kill people get criminal prosecutions?
IMNL but be very, very careful where you are going with this. I submit this as an example: If you built a machine and it happened to be involved in the death of several people a prosecutor could argue that your machine was 'bad engineering' and if they found sufficient evidence that people disagreed with you and were able to convince a jury of this you would end up in jail. Now if you were in a project where everyone was in agreement that it was a good idea then he could potentially still argue collusion. I'd imagine that you would have 'tolerances' but even these could possibly be argued as bad engineering, because why would you unleash upon the people a machine that statistically would kill a certain number of people?
If all we do is prosecute failure then no one would be willing to risk their lives to innovate. The only real loss here is if the industry learns nothing and repeats its mistake.
Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody is bashing Windows so far, yet it seems to be what the editor look for when he wrote the headline. Has Windows improved enough that nobody try to make fun of it anymore, or slashdotters are already older and more mature?
Re:Egregious (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't that be what a jury of your peers is for? If a prosecutor can convince a jury consisting of engineers that you deliberately cut corners and followed bad engineering practices causing loss of life then I think it's reasonable you should be punished for causing death (I can't remember the proper term for accidental manslaughter right now)
the regulators were the regulated (Score:5, Insightful)
the regulations don't matter in this case. i'm glad you admit we need some regulations, but the real issue here is regulator==regulated
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072205133.html?hpid=topnews [washingtonpost.com]
the lobbyists, the interior officials, the corporate assholes: all the same people
all the same smoochy same golf hole playing same bar attending backslapping crowd of assholes
that's why we had the disaster in the gulf
you can pass all the regulations you want, it doesn't matter if the ones who are supposed to be policing the industry ARE the industry
Re:How much did they save? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why capitalism is broken (Score:5, Insightful)
A company we hired nearly destroyed the Gulf of Mexico... What's that got to do with us?
One our business partners was rating these bonds as AAA when they were worthless, and we were busy making billions passing the bonds off as good investments... What's that got to do with us?
The company we hired to dispose of this toxic waste is just dumping it in a river... What's that got to do with us?
In effect, modern capitalism is a system of mafia thugs and their hired patsies who operate technically within the law, as long as they hire an agent to do their dirty work to take the fall. Any of the real costs can be passed off to the public, either though bailouts or just ruining the commons.
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:5, Insightful)
The regulators were tasked to check that the companies followed the procedures for checking their own operations. This kind of twice-removed oversight is becoming increasingly common in lots of places, because it saves money for the government (popular with voters) as well as being popular in the private sector (for obvious reasons). It works great as long as companies are overall honest and all their problems are caused by simple negligence. It doesn't work so well in the face of outright fraud.
It doesn't work period. Anybody who understands economics (as "fiscal conservatives" claim they do) should understand that you can't expect entities to act contrary to the incentives around them out of a sense of civic duty or something. When you set up a system where there are tremendous financial incentives to cheat, the chances are getting caught are almost nil, and even then the punishments will be laughable compared to the money saved by cheating, it would be insane to not expect things like this to happen.
The only way to prevent reoccurances is to change the system. That will require changing the regulations.
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:1, Insightful)
As opposed to the Democrats?
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:5, Insightful)
Government regulations are what keep you from dying every time you make toast, plug in the kettle, or turn on the TV. They keep you safe on the roads. They stop your house from falling in, from toxic chemicals being found in your food, and thousands upon thousands of other hazards that every day life throws at you.
Re:How much did they save? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not an geologist or a drilling rig operator or a CEO of a multibillion dollar company (IANAGOADROOACOAMDC) but I would at least ask that they have their equipment in working order. Given the state of BP's stock, I'm sure the stockholders would appreciate that, too (at least in hindsight anyway).
Computers should be working. BOP should be fully functional. They should have disaster plans from the getgo instead of trying to think of stuff on the fly or using failed tactics from the 30 year old Ixtoc spill just to look busy.
To use a car analogy, I'm not asking you to walk. I'm asking you to have working brakes, lights, windshield and windshield wipers, seatbelts, to not drive recklessly, and to have the physical capacity to drive.
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I am always opposed to new regulations to address a problem that appears to have happened largely because exisitng regulations were not being followed. If regulators have failed to enforce existing regulations, what makes anyone think they will enforce any new regulations?
Because the lack of regulations, and the lack of regulatory enforcement, are closely related phenomenon. Both are the consequence of a government who, like you, viewed government regulation as a bad thing, and felt that industry was best left to itself. So they relaxed the regulations. And while they didn't succeed in getting rid of all regulations, that same philosophy carried over into the hiring and management of the regulatory body -- that the regulations they were supposed to be enforcing were not important, and industry should be given every benefit of the doubt that they were doing the right thing regardless of the letter of the law. Fundamentally, the the enforcers of the regulations didn't think the regulations should be enforced, and so they didn't.
In other words, it was the anti-regulation philosophy that caused the regulations to not be enforced.
You say that the problem was caused by the lack of regulation. But that presumes that the oil companies would not perform proper maintenance and safety procedures unless forced to. It presumes that the default case in the absence of regulation would be that BP shirked their responsibility and allowed this spill to occur. MMS needed to have prevented the spill which BP would have otherwise caused. Which is an accurate view of reality, but the opposite of the anti-regulation philosophy.
So there are two ways in which the anti-regulation philosophy falls short. Blaming the lack of regulatory enforcement for the spill is a perfect example of how.
And as to why anyone would think new regulations would be enforced? I think they would be, provided the enactment of new regulations -- which suggests a belief that regulations are important just like the repealing of regulations suggests a belief that they are not -- is coincident with a housecleaning of MMS and the hiring of people who are not of the anti-regulation philosophy and a director-level-on-down belief that yes, these regulations are important.
Do I think this certainly will happen? Not at all. The firing of the MMS director is just the start of a long road I'm not sure they're going to walk down. However, arguing that because regulations we demonstrably need to make industry do the right thing may not be sufficiently enforced, is not a reason to not have the regulations! It's an argument to press the government to focus on making sure their agents do enforce them.
If you're anti-regulation, latching onto the failure of MMS to keep BP as evidence of your cause is the last thing you want to do.
Besides, compared to regular inspections of safety equipment and so on, simply regulating the need for relief wells to be pre-drilled in case all the other safety regulations aren't followed would be quite likely to succeed. Your general dislike of regulation does not outweigh the need for simple improvements like this.
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:4, Insightful)
More of the same, man, more of the same. It's all the same crap, packaged up in different colors and with a different label on top.
Re:It was Windows NT (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BSOD (Score:1, Insightful)
If the monitoring systems weren't working right, while it didn't produce the penultimate cause, it points to a lot more going wrong- and it most definitely didn't help things any.
I think we're going to find that BP was cutting corners everywhere so they could maximize profits in the short term- just like every other idiot company right at the moment.
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:2, Insightful)
I love how its the fault of people who don't like government regulations that the people who favor government regulations failed to enforce the regulations.
Re:Egregious (Score:4, Insightful)
Transocean was not an independent contractor. BP directed the Transocean employees on what to do. The Transocean employees sometimes told the BP executives that they were risking a failure of the well, but their concerns were vetoed. Decisions such as the choice of casing, what material to use to plug the well, and whether or not to try to fix the safety equipment were all made by BP and executed by Transocean.
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:3, Insightful)
After bankruptcy, any remaining cleanup costs would be passed directly to the owners of BP. Mansions, Yachts, Real Estate - All assets would be forfeit. Then they'd have to work in whatever capacity for the rest of their lives paying back the damage.
You do realise that a significant number of pension funds, both in the UK and the US, make up a large proportion of the holding of BP? (I'm not sure if you were endorsing the view you stated, or just explaining the logical situation that would result from a "true" free market).
:-)
While I agree with you (to some extent) that corporations should be more responsible for external costs than they are just now, it goes to show that the situation is more complex.
In fact, it's been said that the reason for America's prosperity is that its relatively lenient bankruptcy laws (vs. those in other countries at the time) allowed people to make mistakes and start again, rather than risking leaving themselves in a hole they had no real chance of getting out of. (Then again, IIRC that was said by right-wing historian Niall Ferguson [wikipedia.org], so take it with a pinch- or tub- of salt).
At any rate, if corporations' direct and indirect (*) owners were held to that level of responsibility, then nothing would ever be done by them for the reasons given above- matter of fact, their raison d'etre would cease to exist anyway.
FWIW, it would make more sense to ensure beforehand that corporations held enough money to (e.g.) clean up the results of their mistakes before granting them a license for a particular activity- and not rely on taking their word for it. And where those working for the corporation (particularly higher up) blatantly flouting laws or regulations in an obviously criminal manner would be charged and prosecuted accordingly.
But the logical conclusion of a completely "free market" approach would see granny and grandad having to "work in whatever capacity for the rest of their lives paying back the damage". The obvious conclusion is that many of those who argue for a "free market" would not- and do not- really want *that* free a market.
(*) If only "direct" owners counted, the real owners would simply hide behind some form of legal indirection to protect themselves.
Re:It was Windows NT (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why didn't they fix it? (Score:4, Insightful)
You've obviously never worked at a Fortune 500 company. The simplest things take weeks, if not months, to requisition. Then add submitting a labor request to have it installed. Add in a helicopter trip to get the tech and the equipment to the rig and you've got massive delays. Seems like they need expedited procedures for life-critical safety systems. (Sorry that was obvious wasn't it).
Re:BSOD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when did a corporate disaster become a federal crisis? BP scews up, BP cleans up. If we have a major earthquake or a large hurricane or massive flooding, there are federal agencies tasked specifically to address those.
I don't even know why the federal government is involved, except to monitor the leases and hold the responsible people to pay for the cleanup.
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:3, Insightful)
When you set up a system where there are tremendous financial incentives to cheat, the chances are getting caught are almost nil, and even then the punishments will be laughable compared to the money saved by cheating, it would be insane to not expect things like this to happen.
The only way to prevent reoccurances is to change the system. That will require changing the regulations.
Exactly. There should be dire consequences for anyone caught cheating. It may be hard to catch people, but when they are caught, the sentences should be so stiff (like life in prison) that they'll think twice about abusing their position.
Was is a BSOD or was it "smurfed"? (Score:2, Insightful)
This doesn't sound like a Windows BSOD at all. I'm not sure what DCS (distributed control system) they were using, but in my experience with Foxboro I/A is that when things turn blue it mean's there's no data coming in. The term I usually hear is "Smurfed" because somebody thought the color (cyan) looked like a Smurf.
This would possibly be due to an analog input signal that fell out of the 4-20mA range, or a loss of communications within the DCS or from an outside controller.
Re:Why didn't they fix it? (Score:4, Insightful)
In most multi million dollar operations some kind of redundancy is built in.
I am thinking there was a laptop or other desktop in a non critical role
that could have stepped into the role.
I think bad management plus ppl making excuses to not fix the problem
are often at the root of the issue.
We have a "not my problem" cutlure that spends more time looking for
excuses to deflect something than just fixing it and moving on.
I have been doing this for over 25 years so I can speak with some experience.
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody understands economics. Not even the economists. There is a reason it is called "the dismal science."
there is no functioning government in haiti (Score:4, Insightful)
its a libertarian utopia
every abuse by government you decry, does not happen in haiti. instead, those same abuses, and a hundred thousand worse abuses, happen on every street corner, by thugs and mafia instead
fact, whether you realize it or not: make government small, and a power vacuum will exist that will be filled by entities that are not accountable to you. being not accountable to you, there is no recourse when they abuse you. that really is the truth. someday you will wake up and realize and stop working so damn hard to destroy this country
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:2, Insightful)
This current thread you're posting in is descended from http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1730284&cid=33006020 [slashdot.org]. In which Bigjeff5 posits that the problem is that they regulators waved BP through on following industry standards which are supposed to be quite good and would have avoided this spill. You can agree or disagree with that all you want. What you shouldn't do is jump into the conversation and tell people who have actually read the thread that their comments are irrelevant to the thread.
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:3, Insightful)
Democrats have done more to reign in spending than any Republican ever has. Clinton balanced the budget that Reagan and Bush Sr. destroyed. When Democrats have been in power over the last 100 years or so, the GDP has grown by about 8%, on average. When Republicans were in power, it grew by n average of 0.4%. If you are generous and do not include Herbert Hoover, that jumps to a whapping 3%. Republicans seek only to plunder the national wealth for their corporate cronies. The Democrats, while certainly imperfect, are orders of magnitude better than Republicans. It is quite obvious who the lesser of two evils is.
Re:They didn't fix a lot of things (Score:3, Insightful)
The evidence suggests that enforcing existing regulations would have prevented this spill from happening. Therefore this spill is a terrible argument for new regulations.
The evidence suggests that some factors would have been prevented by enforcement of existing regulations, and other factors that existing regulation would not have prevented. You can argue that sufficient factors would have been eliminated to prevent the spill in this case, ergo no new regulations are needed. However if you're actually interested in preventing future spills, you can't act like every future situation will always be exactly like this one, and must learn from all the deficiencies, including those which are not covered by existing regulation.
There are no regulations whose enforcement would have changed the scenario when a spill occurs from months of waiting for the relief wells to be drilled. That absolutely should change.
The people in charge who want to use this spill to pass further regulations were the people in charge when the regulations were not being enforced. I love how its the fault of people who don't like government regulations that the people who favor government regulations failed to enforce the regulations.
The MMS agents who failed to apply what regulations remained were appointed and directed by an aggressively anti-regulation Administration. You can blame Obama for either not realizing or choosing to fix the problem within MMS, and that is a completely valid criticism that I think should be remembered. Yet that still involves accepting that the anti-regulation philosophy endemic within MMS was foolish and needed to be fixed.
MMS was acting as your philosophy -- and obviously the philosophy of the last administration -- would have them act by not regulating. You can try to pass blame around for that reality however you want, it only emphasizes how obvious a mistake that was.
Because at the end of the day, no matter who you blame, it still remains true that it is the anti-regulation let-industry-police-itself philosophy that was tried, and found woefully inadequate.
Re:BSOD (Score:3, Insightful)
Investigations of most disasters reveal not a single cause, but a combination of factors which lead to the disaster itself. Often, the absence of any one of those root causes may have avoided the disaster, or at least mitigated it to some degree. While I would not minimize the importance of the other factors which have already been acknowledged as key causes, identifying all the possible causes is critical to avoiding future repetition of the problem. If a computer-controlled alarm system was so faulty that its operators shut it down rather than endure its false alarms, we should give it due consideration as a potential contributing factor.
That makes it even more inexcusable though. There are so many systems and procedures in place to prevent such a disaster that they had to really make a continued effort of disabling safety devices and skipping procedures to blow up the rig.