EM/SYS 612 Final Project

Lessons Learned in Project Management:

Analysis of a Complex Systems Project
Stevens Institute of Technology
Systems Engineering and Engineering Management

Prof. John Mikruk

BP OIL SPILL

Vidya Badrinarayanan
Sloane Collins
Amrutha Rudrappa Umaprasad
Stephanie Spelman
Executive Summary

BP is one of the world’s largest energy companies. It provides its customers with fuel for
transportation, energy for heat and light and petrochemical products. Overall, BP finds oil and
gas, extracts oil and gas from the places they are found, and moves the oil and gas in order to
make useful products. Recently, BP’s reputation has been severely tarnished due to a disastrous
accident.
On April 20, 2010, news broke of an explosion on BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the
Gulf of Mexico, 52 miles southeast of Louisiana. There were 126 workers on board the rig at the
time of the explosion. Also, the rig was drilling, but not in production. While a search was being
conducted for missing crew members, the oil rig continued to burn. The fire was eventually
extinguished and the rig sank to the bottom of the Gulf. Within the week, two oil leaks had been
discovered that were dumping approximately 1000 barrels of oil per day into the Gulf. There
was much uncertainty and it was unclear what the overall impacts would be.
 In the end, the explosion and resulting oil leaks had devastating effects on various parties.
It was discovered that it would be extremely complicated and difficult to stop the leaks and to
clean up the spilled oil. Not until August 2010 was it confirmed that the static kill and
cementing procedures had been successful and the leaks had been plugged. It was now time to
focus on the extensive cleanup procedures that would be necessary. In this report, the
procedures used will be evaluated using NCTP classification.
According to BP, they have been fighting the oil spill by skimming oil from the surface,
carrying out controlled burns, spraying dispersant, and laying hundreds of miles of boom. This
is considered the “three-pronged approach”, which was used for the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989.
The approach includes the mechanical approach (use of a boom to corral and deflect oil and
skimmers to collect it), the application of dispersants, and in situ burning. While burning and
skimming oil have been used for the past 40 years and are not considered particularly innovative,
not all of the cleanup techniques are outdated. However, some of the newer technologies are
unproven and can be dangerous. For example, the dispersant contains 2-butoxyethanol, a
compound associated with headaches, vomiting, and reproductive problems at high doses. It is
possible that this toxic chemical could kill fish and other wildlife in the Gulf. BP also has an
underwater dome idea which includes building an underwater dome to trap oil and prevent it
from rising to the surface. But, this technology has never been used in such deep waters, so it is
untested.
BP still has a long road ahead of them concerning the cleanup of the approximately 200
million gallons of oil that spewed from the blown out well. Although cleanup techniques and
procedures that have been proven effective in the past are currently being employed, it is
unknown what the spill’s true effects are going to be in the years ahead.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1636656/gulf-oil-spill-cleanup-techniques-bp-deepwater-horizon
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9034429&contentId=7063892
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/bp-gulf-oil-spill-timeline.php#ch04
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/state-of-oil-cleaning-tech

Background Setting
 On Tuesday April 20, 2010, an explosion occurred on BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in
the Gulf of Mexico, which is 52 miles southeast of the Louisiana port of Venice. Little was
known about what actually occurred when news first broke. The Coast Guard reported between
11 and 15 crew members missing. A total of 126 workers were aboard the rig at the time of the
explosion. Although the rig was drilling at the time, it was not in production, so environmental
damage was assumed to be minimal due. The next day, helicopters and ships continued to search
for 11 missing workers. The rig continued to burn, creating a huge plume of smoke that was
more than 30 miles long. Late in the day, the fire was finally extinguished and the oil rig sank.

By Monday April 26, search and rescue operations had been suspended while 11 people
were still missing. Underwater robots had discovered at least two leaks that were dumping
approximately 1000 barrels of oil into the sea per day. For the time being, weather had kept the
oil from moving to the coast, but shrimpers and oyster farmers begin to fear for their season’s
catches. As more and more becomes known about the leaks, experts realize it could take months
to stop them because it will be so technically challenging. The U.S. Coast Guard suggests
setting the oil slick on fire, which is done, releasing another huge plume of smoke into the sky.
The next day, it is realized that the leak is actually spewing 5000 barrels of oil per day and has
already reached the Mississippi Delta. 10 days after the explosion, there is a strong odor
blanketing most of coastal Louisiana and the metro New Orleans area that is “possibly” due to
the massive oil spill in the Gulf. President Obama puts a stop on any new offshore drilling.
BP tries to install a shutoff valve on one of the three underwater leaks, but it is an
extremely complicated situation with an improbable success rate. To make matters worse, the oil
slick begins drifting toward the Alabama and Florida coasts.

While oil continues to spill, it is discovered that the disaster could have been prevented
by BP. A $500,000 acoustic cut-off switch could have been prevented this situation, but it was
left out in an effort to save money. BP’s reputation continues to be destroyed as time goes on.
By Wednesday May 5, BP claims that it has succeeded in plugging one of the three leaks. It
plans on lowering a 100 ton metal containment dome on one of the other leaks to siphon the oil.
The containment dome fails, and BP has to figure out another plan. BP decides to release
pictures of the underwater oil leak in order to allow independent scientists and engineers to have
a look at it.

On May 14, BP tries to intubate one of the leaks with a smaller pipe in order to siphon off the oil.
The tube captures some of the oil and gas, but much more is still leaking out. Hurricane season
is fast approaching and there are fears of what a rough hurricane season could mean to the
cleanup operations. The next attempt at stopping the leaks is called a “top kill”. The well would
be plugged with pressurized drilling mud long enough to be able to seal it permanently with
cement. At first it seems to be working, but after a few days, it is abandoned because oil was
continuing to leak.
Plans begin for deployment of a containment cap. The cap is called the Lower Marine
Riser Package (LMRP) containment cap. The cap is successfully placed on the leak and the oil
and gas is being pumped above the surface. However, not all of the leaking oil can be collected
by the cap. Collection of oil continues from the LMRP cap into July. On July 10, it is removed
in preparation for replacement with a sealing cap that is capable of increasing containment
capacity or even potentially closing the well off completely. The sealing cap is successful in
place by mid July and on July 15, oil ceases to flow into the Gulf of Mexico.
At this point, extensive damage had been done to various parties. Claims payments by
Louisiana residents topped $200 million. BP CEO Tony Hayward steps down and Bob Dudley
takes over. BP also takes a $32.2 billion pre-tax charge for the spill. It sets up a $20 billion
claims fund and plans to sell up to $30 billion of its assets. Focus shifts to cleanup procedures
and techniques that will need to be employed to deal with the damage inflicted by the oil. Using
the three pronged approach, which includes skimming, applying dispersants, and in situ burning,
BP claims 827,023 barrels of oil have been skimmed and 265,450 barrels have been burned thus
far.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/bp-gulf-oil-spill-timeline.php#ch04
http://www.bp.com/iframe.do?categoryId=9035136&contentId=7065156

Statement of Problem

BP admitted that it made

mistakes which led to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The oil giant’s internal investigation found
that managers misinterpreted data that told them a blowout was imminent on the very day the
disaster happened. Hours later the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, killing 11 men and
causing the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.

The impact of the spill continues since the well was capped. It is the largest accidental marine oil
spill in the history of the petroleum industry. Spill date: 20 April 2010 – 15 July 2010
Well officially sealed: 19 September 2010

The place that so many people call home and the first vacation destination for others is now
being ruined by something the entire world needs: oil. The one resource that can be found in so
many man-made products is now destroying the Gulf of Mexico and its beautiful ecosystem.
Not only has the BP oil spill affected the region’s environment and inhabitants, but it has largely
influenced the American economy in the Gulf region and will continue to do so for many years.
The United States now has to deal with the catastrophic consequences of a disaster caused by a
company that supplies something that keeps the nation, and world, turning.

The resulting oil slick covers at least 2,500 to 4000 square miles (6,500 km2), fluctuating from
day to day depending on weather conditions.

Since the April 20 Explosion, 210,000 gallons of oil (795,000 liters) have been gushing out into
the ocean every day. On April 20, one million gallons had leaked into the ocean. By April 27, the
total oil spilled was two million gallons. By May 4, the total leaked oil was three million gallons.
For comparison, the Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound in
1989.

A barrel of oil costs $86 currently. Before the spill, oil cost $83 per barrel. The BP oil rig is
leaking 5,000 barrels a day. That’s $430,000 a day that is floating away in the ocean and killing
marine life in the meantime.

Since the spill, BP’s stock has lost a market value of $25 billion. To put $25 billion into
perspective- it takes $15 billion to provide clean water to half a billion people in the world who
need it. Google makes $20 billion per year. The $25 billion that the spill has cost BP has made
the world’s water dirtier.

It’s estimated that it will cost $300 million to plug the spill. That amount does not include
cleanup.

Factors such as petroleum toxicity, oxygen depletion and the use of Corexit dispersant are
thought to be the main causes of damage. Eight U.S. national parks are threatened. More than
400 species that live in the Gulf islands and marshlands are at risk. On September 29 Oregon
State University researchers announced the oil spill waters contain carcinogens. The fisheries
and deep sea coral are also bearing the consequences of the spill.
 Petroleum by-products found in Gulf seafood, tourism, real estate, health implications to the
people along the coast all bear testimony to the damage done by the oil spill.

On June 25 BP's market value reached a 1 year low. Obscene amount of money will be involved
in the clean up and other damages.

Thus, the magnitude of the problem at hand is beyond comparison to any oil spill in the history
of the petroleum industry. The solution has to address all the far reaching consequences and avert
any future damage.

OVERVIEW

It was found that on April 20 managers misread pressure data and gave their approval for rig
workers to replace drilling fluid in the well with seawater. The seawater was not heavy enough to
prevent gas that had been leaking into the well from firing up the pipe to the rig, causing the
explosion. The investigation had also asked why John Guide, an engineer with BP and the team
leader overseeing the project, ignored warnings about weaknesses in cement outside the well
which could have prevented the gas from escaping.

The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have a remote-control shut-off switch
used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.
The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental
impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig.

Approach Documentation

The urgency in containing the spill and dealing with its effects has driven innovation in
technology,
tools, equipments and processes. The result has been a series of developments, ranging from
incremental enhancements to step changes in technologies and techniques aiding in the BP oil
spill containment and clean up process.
Highlights of these key capability advancements include:

 Containment (the effort to disperse, cap, close and ultimately stop the release of oil at the
source):
 The proven capacity to engineer and construct closed systems allowing not only for the
collection of oil but also the control of flow and the introduction of well-control fluids.
(page 12)
 Initial development of more robust non-wireline ranging technologies for faster well
intercept in the context of the deepsea drilling of a relief well. (page 22)
 Novel subsea systems to inject dispersant efficiently at source, with demonstrated
effectiveness in substantially reducing surface oil and Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs).
 New, highly scalable skimming technology, maintenance and deployment systems that
enabled the largest skimming response in history.
 Demonstration of controlled in-situ burning as a fully proven technique for oil recovery,
featuring advanced methodology, equipment and a standing expert base
 Successful, modular expansion of “small-scale,” minimally invasive clean-up techniques
harnessing the natural remediation of marsh with the capability to deploy responders to
remote locations with limited infrastructure

We will be discussing these technologies in detail

Near-Source Closed Containment

The objective of the closed-containment team was to provide the capacity to move from an open
system of collection to a closed system – with a latched, sealed and pressure-containing device –
allowing not only for the collection of oil but also the controlling its flow.
Prior Industry Practice in Near Source Closed Containment: As with open containment,
offshore operators had made repairs to closed systems, such as pipelines that seal off surrounding
water from contact with hydrocarbons.
However, activities of this nature had not been undertaken at such depths.
In particular, no operator had:
• Engaged at depths of 5,000 feet in shearing and removal of damaged risers with one-inch thick
walls;
• Dismantled and reconstructed closed systems to cap a wellhead in deepwater; or
• Attempted these containment procedures on a live well.

Innovations Undertaken in Near-Source Closed Containment:

The containment team meticulously planned and successfully completed a range of first time
engineering and operational tasks. These efforts enabled larger-scale collection of hydrocarbons
through closed systems, the closing off of the well, and the later hydrostatic kill and cementing
of the well.
Key Highlights

 The construction and installation of the manifold was completed in just two weeks.
Under normal circumstances, a comparable design-build-deploy cycle would have been
18 to 24 months
 The first-ever use of digital radiography at depth to evaluate drill pipe within the
damaged riser;
 The first-ever use of shears and other tools at depth to cut and then remove a damaged
riser;
 The creation of a wet mateable control connection system for hurricane recovery;

Subsea Operations: Remotely Operated Vehicles

A critical tool used in the containment effort was a fleet of expertly manoeuvred Remotely
Operated Vehicles (ROVs). Without these versatile machines, and the collaboration of the
companies that own them, most if not all of the tasks the containment team was called upon to
complete would have been virtually impossible.

Prior Industry Practice in Subsea Operations:

Offshore operations industry-wide benefit from the wide availability of advanced, highly capable
ROVs that have long operated at depths of up to 9,000 feet. BP, as a leading subsea operator,
and key contractors have made extensive use of the vehicles to carry out a broad variety of
manoeuvres, many similar in nature to those required for containment efforts in Deepwater
Horizon.
Innovations Undertaken in the Operations of ROVs: The containment team, through
extensive storyboarding to plan operations and manage risk, advanced the state of the art in the
simultaneous operation of multiple ROVs in a number of areas:
• The deployment, at peak, of 27 ROVs at depth overcoming harsh pressure and temperature
conditions, low visibility, and distance from the surface;
• The simultaneous operation of up to 16 ROVs – nearly three times the number generally
deployed at a very active single site – managed by eight surface boats;
• The extension of operational durations beyond the previous industry norm of a 10-day
maximum with one ROV deployment lasting 33 days. Work was transferred between ROVs as
needed to maintain continuity and advance time-critical operations;

Controllers in the Highly Immersive Visualization Environment (HIVE) coordinated the

operation of up to 16 remotely operated vehicles simultaneously. The centralized
management approach created efficiency and enabled novel interventions 5,000 feet below
the surface.
Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) closing the valve on the end of the damaged riser
pipe. Advancements in ROV tooling and subsea
hydraulic distribution permitted highly efficient ROV operations.

Subsea Dispersants

BP, working closely with the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), reviewed and undertook a subsea deployment of dispersants with the objective of
reducing the environmental and safety impact of the release of oil from the Deepwater Horizon
well.
Industry Practice on Dispersants:
The EPA has permitted use of dispersants subsea to remediate oil spills since
the 1990s. Although there have been limited trials and some discussion in technical papers of
applying dispersant to the source, industry practice in general has been to deal with subsea oil
spills by first allowing the hydrocarbons to rise to the surface and then dispersing the oil through
aerial application of dispersant. However, most oils evaporate quickly, leaving a waxy residue
which is unresponsive to chemicals and limits the times at which dispersants can be successfully
applied at the surface. In addition, there is an indication that injecting dispersants into colder oil
on the surface or into a mixture of oil and seawater requires more chemical to achieve the desired
effect.

Innovations Undertaken in Dispersants:

Under the supervision of Unified Command, BP undertook a novel approach to dispersant use:
• Following multiple tests and computer modeling soon after the incident, the first subsea
injection of dispersant directly into oil at the source, using newly engineered tools at the site of
the RITT and later, at the open top hat containment device;
• Reduction of dispersant use at the surface by almost 70 percent with good results, as measured
by
observation of lower amounts of oil and lower measurements of VOCs at the surface, enhancing
safety of containment operations at the site;
26
7
Resulting Capabilities Available for Deployment:
The use of dispersants subsea has resulted in the potential for
further advancements in their use, along with areas for additional investigation and action:
• A process that is more efficient in dispersing oil, allowed surface use of dispersants to decrease
by nearly 70 percent, reduced VOC emissions at the containment site and reduced shoreline
impacts;
• New and potential tools and processes for subsea application of dispersants.
• The proven capability to ramp-up supply of dispersant; and
• The potential to improve on the current swirl test for dispersant effectiveness.
Surface oil above the source before and after subsea dispersant injection. Testing found
that dispersant use reduced the level of oil and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at the surface, enhancing safety and making subsea
containment efforts possible

Assessment and Surveillance

Common Operating Picture

The Common Operating Picture (COP) created an integrated view across more than 200
previously disparate data types, employing newly developed equipment and technology to
provide a seamless and rapid assessment of the entire response effort. The COP has ensured that
responders and leaders in command posts and the field have accurate,reliable information
indispensable to good decision-making, effective communications with local officials and the
public, and a systematic and coordinated spill response.

Prior Practice on Information-Sharing:

Responding to oil spills at scale involves a multitude of data sources and requires agreement on
the right data to use to guide deployment of resources. In particular, responders need to “know
their oil” – where it is and what state it is in – to direct the correct response.
Infrastructure must be in place to ensure that information is collected and shared in a way that
ensures a common perspective on response strategies, coordination and optimal allocation of
resources.
The Evolution of the Common Operating Picture: The team developed the COP to provide an
instant, interactive and accurate visual of the spill status and response activities for all
responders.

Key Highlights

• Builds on the key concept of “knowing your oil,” providing comprehensive, continuous data on
the location and nature of oil on the water and onshore;
• Creates a central nervous system spanning “space to sky to sea to shore,” linking the full range
of responders and providing capability to input as well as receive data;
• Is accessible via a flexible internet platform over personal computers and hand-held devices;
• Collects multiple inputs from the full range of responders in the air, on the water and onshore,
along with
geographic information system (GIS) data, NOAA and EPA databases and other sources for the
most up-todate mapping of the spill;
• Offers ongoing updates on response efforts including boom and buoy placement and the
location of
nearshore/open-water skimming vessels and burning activities; and
• Offers a powerful tool for communications with local officials, coordinating activities and
directing resources.

Resulting Capabilities:

The COP offers numerous potential benefits for future response efforts:
• A fully developed, instantly deployable system for reliable, up-to-date and comprehensive
common communications and information;
• Rapid decision-making, prioritization, and effective resource deployment, and
• State-of-the-art and readily available information tools.
Air Surveillance
In this response, aerial surveillance served an expanded role as the critical coordination
mechanism for more than 6,000 response vessels, alerting controlled in-situ burn teams to fresh
oil and directing skimmers to the right locations. The recognition that “eyes on oil means boats
on oil” drove the response team to continuous improvements of its efforts in open-water
surveillance – tracking, spotting, recognizing and reporting to water-based teams the presence
and location of oil on the water, as well as its nature. In addition, air surveillance served as one
of the first responders feeding real-time photos and location
data to the COP.
Best Practices in Air Surveillance:
 Surveillance efforts required experienced spotters with the ability to distinguish actual oil
on the water from seaweed, shadows or other “spots,” to avoid misdirection of resources.
 Tracking oil required a large number of sorties night and day to keep up with the rapidly
changing location and condition of surface oil.
Tactical surveillance operations to direct water-based
responders on a real-time basis from the air.
Open-Water Skimming
While skimming oil from water had been tried and tested through other responses, the scale and
duration of this response, along with the frequently dynamic and variable nature of oil
characteristics, proved a new challenge for skimming. This challenge drove significant
improvements to skimming equipment, along with new approaches to organization, maintenance,
and deployment of skimmers.
Existing Practice in Open-Water Skimming:
Skimming fleets are staged along coastline across the United States.
For this spill, all Gulf Coast skimming assets were immediately deployed to skim oil. Due to the
need for change-out of crews, repair, refueling and resupply, the longest continuous runtime in
previous spills had lasted 14 days. One
long-standing challenge to skimming is that hydrocarbons are encountered in various states: oil
can be significantly weathered or emulsified, degraded and found in dense or grease-like mats.
Improvements in Open-Water Skimming to Respond to the Deepwater Horizon Incident: The
response team
took actions including:
• A skimming capacity of more than 1.2 million barrels per day* -- the largest such capacity in
history;
• Deployment of more than 60 open-water skimmers at the peak of the response through retrofit
of existing
vessels and international cooperation. This deployment included twelve responder class vessels
on-site by day
five, as well as a number of vessels provided by the Coast Guard;
• An innovative “command and control” system that combined air intel with an on-water director
coordinating
all skimming traffic centrally for optimal placement of vessels;
• The deployment of four “Big Gulp” skimmers, based on an innovation by a barge owner who
retrofitted his
own vessel to handle emulsified oil and sea grass;
• The development of an innovative 72-hour “pit stop” for skimmers extending runtime to more
than 100 days; and
• New techniques to improve the efficiency of skimming operations in deepwater, including
enhanced
booming, centrifuge separation of fluid on skimming vessels and barges, and the deployment of
the TransRec 150 on a 280 foot Platform Support Vessel (PSV), a new generation skimmer from
Norway.

Controlled In-Situ Burning

Through this response, controlled in-situ burning has undergone a step change from a
conceptually tested approach to a proven and mission-critical method for removing oil from
open-water. Techniques, understanding of burn criteria, preservation of specialized fireboom,
and the base of experts have all been significantly augmented through the experiences gained in
this response.
Existing Practice in Controlled In-Situ Burning:
Prior to the Deepwater Horizon incident, controlled in-situ burning of spilled oil had occurred
only once in open U.S. waters -- one burn conducted in Prince William Sound during the Exxon
Valdez incident.
Advances by the Response Team in the Use of Controlled In-Situ Burning:
With the assistance of the foremost experts on controlled in-situ burning and the full cooperation
of
government authorities, the response team established a new standard for the use of the practice:
• Performed 411 controlled burns, the longest lasting nearly 12 hours, remediating an estimated
265,000 barrels of oil;
• Trained and deployed 10 teams and increased the number of qualified experts from fewer than
ten to more than 50;
• Drove improvements in fireboom technology, including water-cooled and reusable booms;
• Designed new techniques to contain, control, and direct burns and a “dynamic burn” process
that allows continuous feeding of the ongoing burn with new oil to increase controlled in-situ
burn length;
• Developed and deployed a new manual ignition technique;
• Created new safety techniques, including the use of colored tarps for aerial identification of
ontrolled burn-capable vessels; and • Identified factors for determining the appropriateness of
controlled in-situ burning.
Clean-Up

Beach Cleaning
The response team has directed extensive resources toward keeping oil off the beaches, and,
where oil has appeared, toward rapidly and effectively cleaning them. To minimize intrusion, the
response has emphasized close cooperation with the most affected communities.
Prior Practice in Beach Cleaning:
Because of the continual effect of tides on the sand, failure to reach oil on the beach before the
next tide cycle can lead to deposits becoming buried below the surface. Rapid beach cleaning has
therefore
always been a top priority. On the other hand, large-scale beach-cleaning operations can also
have an intrusive disconcerting effect on beachgoers and the general public.

Response Team Advancements in Beach Cleaning: The response team has taken steps that have
advanced the methodology of beach cleaning while reducing intrusion:

• The introduction of nighttime shifts to reduce intrusion for beachgoers, reduce heat stress on
workers
and increase effectiveness;
• The training of more than 11,000 qualified community responders;
• Organization and equipping of beach-cleaning crews to minimize the footprint on the beach
and focus on
removing oil before the next tide cycle;
• Assessment and adaption of mechanical equipment previously used to condition and clean
beaches of rocks,
sea grass and other debris, applying new attachments and procedures to allow deeper and faster
cleaning
of oiled shoreline;
• Evolution of these transitional techniques, using continuous-improvement methodology, into
the “Sand Shark”
fit-for-purpose mechanical beach-cleaning vehicle, which digs deeper and “lifts and sifts” sand
to remove oil
while minimizing sand removal; and
• Protocols to determine when and how to remove oil from beaches and to manage resulting
waste.
Consequences

The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill also known as the BP Oil Spill lasted for three months
and was the “largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry, ” (wiki).
At the end of it all the spill gushed almost 5 million barrels or 185 million gallons of crude oil
into the gulf Coast. There have been extensive environmental and wildlife damage, large
economic impacts, and many dangerous unknowns with regard to human health.

Looking at the spill from an ecological perspective the spill was completely disastrous for
a number of reasons ranging from “factors such as petroleum toxicity, oxygen depletion, and the
use of corexit dispersant,” (wiki). There are eight national parks that are threatened and more the
400 species that are at risk. “As of November 2, 6,814 dead animals had been collected,” (wiki).

There are currently still many impacts that are not know. As Woods Hole from the
Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts stated the large quantity of oil "may alter the chemistry
of the sea, with unforeseeable results." Even months after the oil spill had been capped research
teams are finding polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which include carcinogens at levels
forty times higher than they were before the spill. PAHs are known to be able to kill animals
immediately can cause cancer to humans over time.

There is reason to be alarmed over health concerns, “On June 15, Marylee Orr, Executive
Director for Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), said on MSNBC’s Countdown
with Keith Olbermann that people along the Gulf Coast were getting very sick, with symptoms
of dizziness, vomiting, nausea, headaches, and chest pains, not only from the first responders to
the crisis, but residents living along the coast as well,” (wiki). Since the crisis began 143 oil spill
exposure-related cases have been reported to the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals
(DHH), and the number is only expected to rise. There are concerns about the effect that all these
chemicals can have on humans, specifically the brain as there has been a couple suicides already
which are thought to be linked to high exposure to the chemicals. An oil spill of this size is
unprecedented and it may take decades to fully realize the full health impact that this spill may
have had on those around the gulf region.

There is also a financial impact on the economy of the gulf areas that were affected. “The
U.S. Travel Association estimated that the economic impact of the oil spill on tourism across the
Gulf Coast over a three-year period could exceed approximately $23 billion, in a region that
supports over 400,000 travel industry jobs generating $34 billion in revenue annually,” (wiki).
According to Willid Group Holdings total losses could add up to $30 billion. In order to try and
cushion these costs to those who were affected BP announced a plan on November 1st to spend
$78 million to help Louisiana tourism and test and advertise seafood. BP also have money set
aside for claims from individuals and so far over 23,000 have already been filed.

The fact the BP was a foreign company may also impact international relations. “The
Organization for International Investment, a Washington-based advocate for overseas investment
into the U.S., warned in early July that the political rhetoric surrounding the disaster is
potentially damaging the reputation of all British companies with operations in the U.S. and
sparked a wave of U.S. protectionism that has restricted British firms from winning government
contracts, making political donations and lobbying,” (wiki). There are now strained relationships
with foreign companies in the United States.

The facts are what makes this incident undeniable, over 200 million gallons were leaked
from the explosion. To put this in perspective that is 10x the amount that was leaked from the
Exxon-Valdez spill. As of the end of August the facts show that there is still a lot of room for
improvement. According to Popular Mechanics, “32.9 million gallons of oil naturally dispersed,
which means it has broken into droplets smaller than the diameter of a human hair,” while
another 51.5 million gallons have evaporated or dissolved, (Repanich). Another 16.5 million
gallons were chemically dispersed by National Incident Command, and 830 skimming vessels
removed another 6.2 million, with 11.4 million gallons being removed by a controlled burn. Also
riser pipe and top-hat system was used to help remove another 35 million gallons. After all of
this cleanup effort this still leaves 53.5 million gallons in the water and washed ashore. While it
may seem like a lot has been done to try and cleanup the oil spill, the 52.5million gallons is still a
significant number that is taking over the shores and polluting the water. Over 57,000 square
miles of gulf water were still closed at the time of this article. In order to try and protect as much
coast as possible over 10 million feet of boom are being used to try and contain the spill.

There continues to be a mass amount of effort needed to help with cleanup and try to
piece together the shoreline and animal life that has been so drastically effected by this
unprecedented pouring of oil from the explosion into the ocean that so many people and animals
are dependent on.

It is frightening the known consequences that the oil spill has already had on the people,
environment, and animals in the area. A far scarier fact is that even the best experts can only
guess as to how this may impact people five or even twenty years from now.

Lessons Learned

President Obama has assembled a team to look into the BP oil spill to see what lessons
may be learned. The findings are showing that not only was BP grossly underprepared but so
was the government to deal with this large of an issue. Every year the oil companies make
billions of dollars, yet they have “devoted only minuscule amounts of money to planning to
control or cleanup after a significant spill,” (Broder). The group also found that the Minerals
Management Service who is the governmental group that would be in charge if there ever was
an oil spill was “vastly unprepared to deal with the BP spill and even after reorganization . . . it
still lags far behind in the capabilities needed to address another accident,” (Broder). It seems as
if this just exposed a case of the blind leading the blind, and worse of putting the American
people at risk.

1) Risk Mitigation Plan: As any good engineer would tell you, it is important to always
identify possible risks and create a risk mitigation plan. It is surprising that the offshore operators
should be able to drill without submitting detailed containment plans, and the capacity to carry
them out. From now on before letting any company to drill off of the US shores they should have
to submit a report of all the risks and what would be done if such an incident arrived. The
company should then be inspected and be able to prove that they are indeed prepared. It took
very valuable time for BP to try and come up with their “top kill” idea, if they had done this
planning ahead not only would the concept have already been vetted, but the tools to stop the
spill would have already been readily available.

2) Qualified Employees: Another lesson learned for the government is that they need to
“hire and retain qualified experts to oversee future accidents”, (Broder). It is easy to let the large
oil companies run the show if there are not a group of knowledgeable experts in a governmental
agency that is ready to challenge them on key issues. It is also impossible to properly lead a
cleanup operation without the appropriate governmental employees to control the process.

3) Oil Flow Gauge: In the beginning of the spill the amount of oil that was thought to be
spilling into the ocean was considerably less than the rate that it was actually coming out at.
“Government scientists should apply lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon accident to
develop better means of gauging the rate of oil and gas discharged during a spill, (Broder). If
there had been a better way to accurately gauge the flow rate, BP has said that they would have
probably proceeded differently in their containment and control method. Ideally from now on in
the risk assessment and mitigation plan there would be different action items depending on the
level of flow rate that was escaping from the well.

4) Well Drill Monitor: New technology also needs to be developed to help “monitor
wells while they are being drilled,” (Broder). It is no longer feasible to pretend like blowouts do
not happen, so it is time now to start taking proactive rather than retroactive measures. New
technology that monitors wells may help prevent situations from occurring by alerting people to
a possible major concern.

5) Preventative Design: A final lesson learned is that proactive measures must be taken
in a wide scale to help prevent this sort of event from happening in the future. Now when wells
are being designed there should be modification made “to take into account the possibility of a
catastrophic blowout,” (Broder). By having certain safety features it may help prevent such an
occurrence from happening.

Unfortunately the way most things are progressed forward is from learning the hard way.
It would be foolish for the US after this major disaster to now not look to the lessons learned to
prevent such an event from happening in the future, so all the public knows the next catastrophic
blowout may only be the next weekend ahead.

References

Broder, John M. "Industry and Government Were Unprepared for BP Spill, Study Says -
NYTimes.com." Energy and Environment - Green Blog - NYTimes.com. 22 Nov. 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.
<http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/industry-and-government-were-unprepared-for-bp-spill-
study-says/?partner=rss&emc=rss>.

Repanich, By Jeremy. "BP Oil Spill Statistics - Deepwater Horizon Gulf Spill Numbers - Popular
Mechanics." Automotive Care, Home Improvement, Tools, DIY Tips - Popular Mechanics. 10 Aug. 2010.
Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/bp-oil-spill-
statistics>.

Project NCTP classification

We have researched the BP oil spill clean project and have come up with the following Project
management model classification

Novelty – Platform

Complexity – Array

Technology – High Tech

Pace - Blitz

NOVELTY

The urgency in containing the spill and dealing with its effects has driven innovation in
technology, tools, equipments and processes. The result has been a series of developments,
ranging from incremental enhancements to step changes in technologies and techniques that
have advanced the state of the art and laid the foundation for future refinements as part of an
enhanced regime for any type of source-to-shore response.

Novelty, the first dimension of the project management model is determined by the nature of
the projects product and how new it is to the market, customers and potential users. We would
classify the Novelty of BP oil spill as “PLATFORM” because the company(BP) has used
technology which are improvised versions of existing products and services

.Dr. Gerald Graham, a 30-year veteran in the oil spill business, says all three standard
approaches remain essentially the same as they were at the time of the Exxon Valdez spill,
incremental improvements have been made in all areas.

 Mechanical approach
 Dispersants to the sea
 SITU burning

The technologies used in BP oil spill are improvised versions of the ones used in Exxon oil
spill. Booms and skimming are what we were doing as far back as 1969, when a Union Oil well
blew out five miles off the coast of Santa Barbara, Calif. It was dispersed with chemicals, soaked
up with straw and other materials, according to a story in the Washington Post. Here we are, 40
some-odd years later facing possibly the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, and the
tools we’ve got to use are pretty much the same.  The biggest improvements, according to
Graham, have come in information technology and how responders collect and use data—oil
spill response atlases, spill-trajectory modeling, satellite spill sensing, and using laser
fluorosensors to detect spills from aircraft have all become commonplace in the years since
Exxon Valdez.

The BP oil spill cleanup is operating with the Novelty classification as a “Derivative” when it
should actually be operating with the classification as “Platform”

COMPLEXITY
 Every project has a product which may be composed of components, systems and
subsystems. The three classes of Project Complexity are
 Assembly projects
 System Projects
 Array Projects
An array Project deals with a dispersed collection of systems that function together to achieve a
common purpose called a system of systems. Array projects are never performed at a single
site and are spread over a wide geographical area and typically consists of a variety of
subsystems

We would classify the BP oil spill project as “Array” because of the following reasons

 The response has required the development of extensive systems, procedures and
organizational capabilities to adapt to changing and unique conditions.
 A variety of new open containment systems proven in deepwater conditions with demonstrated techniques
to mitigate hydrate formation.
 Novel subsea systems to inject dispersant efficiently at source, with demonstrated effectiveness in
substantially reducing surface oil and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).
 The spill is spread over a wide geographical area and clean up operations are carried based on the satellite
surveillance information

The BP oil spill cleanup is operating with the Complexity classification as a “Array” and this is in
line with our analysis

Technology

The urgency in containing the spill and dealing with its effects has driven innovation in
technology, tools, equipments and processes. The result has been a series of developments, ranging
from incremental enhancements to step changes in technologies and techniques aiding in the BP oil
spill containment and clean up process.

We would classify High Technology due to the following reasons

Highlights of these key capability advancements include:

 Containment (the effort to disperse, cap, close and ultimately stop the release of oil at
the source):
 The proven capacity to engineer and construct closed systems allowing not only for the
collection of oil but also the control of flow and the introduction of well-control fluids.
 Initial development of more robust non-wireline ranging technologies for faster well
intercept in the context of the deepsea drilling of a relief well.
 Novel subsea systems to inject dispersant efficiently at source, with demonstrated
effectiveness in substantially reducing surface oil and Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs).
 New, highly scalable skimming technology, maintenance and deployment systems that
enabled the largest skimming response in history.
 Demonstration of controlled in-situ burning as a fully proven technique for oil recovery,
featuring advanced methodology, equipment and a standing expert base
 Successful, modular expansion of “small-scale,” minimally invasive clean-up techniques
harnessing the natural remediation of marsh with the capability to deploy responders to
remote locations with limited infrastructure

The BP oil spill is operating with a Technology classification as “High Technology” when it
should actually be operating as “Super High Technology”. The world needs significant
advancements to happen in the Oil spill clean up technology front to control and clean up an oil
spill of this magnitude

Pace

There are four classification of Project Pace.

 Regular Projects
  Fast/Competitive Projects
 Time – Critical Projects
 Blitz Projects

. Blitz projects are the most urgent projects. They are typically initiated on response to a crisis or as a
result of an unexpected event.

To succed such projects must be managed differently from other projects. First, because most blitz
projects are responding to a crisis there is no time for detailed planning. Work is performed around the
clock with nonstop interaction and continuous decision making

We would classify the BP oil spill project as “Blitz” project due to the following reasons

 The Deepwater Horizon oil spill (also referred to as the BP oil spill, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill,
the BP oil disaster is an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico which flowed for three months in 2010.
The impact of the spill continues since the well was capped.
 It is the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry
 This is a typical example of a crisis project

BP oil spill projects Current operation

FRAMEWORK

It is important for every organization to have a unique framework specific to their needs. A framework
can only be effective if the current situation is properly understood. It is sometime appropriate to alter
the NCTP framework, and other times a whole new framework. The current NCTP framework is diamond
shaped and looks at: Novelty, Complexity, Technology, and Pace. These are general ways to gauge the
scope of the project. The more important decision factors for an oil spill would be: Volume (flow rate),
Human Impact, Environmental Impact, and Financial Impact.

In order to determine what type of clean-up technology should be utilized it is necessary to have a clear
idea of what the four factors mentioned before are. One of the key problems in the oil spill was that BP
did not have a correct estimate on the Volume that was being spilled into the gulf. In order to determine
the corrective action that needs to take place and create an action plan, these four factors have to be
analyzed first. The type of plug used to prevent the flow will depend on the volume. The human impact
is crucial in determining part of the severity of the problem and helps determine the risk level. The
environmental impact is often overlooked, but should be considered more seriously. Many scientists say
that the region where the Exxon spill occurred many years ago the environmental are still feeling the
environmental side effects. The factor that may be most important to the company though is the
financial impact. How much is it going to cost in payments, clean-up, and the value of their stock. Many
companies unfortunately value this factor as the prime consideration.

It is important when looking to embark on trying to manage a project of this sort to have a flowchart
framework of how to go about it. The table provided below was specifically made for an oil spill
situation. It looked at other flows that might be used and created a new one. Please see the figure
below for particulars.

The first thing that is important to solve the problem is to have background knowledge on what
happened in the accident. It is also important to have people who are experts in various fields that may
be affected. Then with this group it is important to determine key decision factors. Once these factors
are determined it is possible to obtain data from them. Then the next step is analyzing the data. Once
the data is analyzed an action plan can be discussed and planned. Then the plan can be implemented
and move on to the next step of gathering data on the progress. Once the data is gathered the data
needs to be analyzed once again. This loop will continue until the problem is solved. It is important that
this process goes in a loop because there is always new information coming about, especially in an oil
spill situation. It is important to always evaluate where the project is currently at in order to stop it as
soon as possible. It is important to be flexible in an oil spill crisis situation. It is not a one solution fits all
sort of problem.

Also in the beginning of the process once the data is analyzed public relations needs to start happening
immediately. One of the largest problems that will occur with the company is bad publicity and a loss of
faith by the public. The reason public relations is so important after the data is analyzed is because the
people want to know that the company has a grasp on what is happening. The public needs reasons and
answers and there has to be hard data to answer a lot of difficult questions.

The other key step that needs to happen is at the end when the problem of stopping the leak is finished.
After going through the process of trying many different plans, it is important to step back and look at
lessons learned and then adopt future preventative measures. One thing that is unique with this
framework is that it does not stop once the problem is solved but will be an ongoing activity to try and
prevent such future problems from arising. The company could suffer large consequences if they choose
to ignore this last step. It is far more likely if no new measures are taken that this problem may occur
again.

Background
Knowledge

Determine Key
Decision Factors

Public Relations

Analyze Data Make Action Plan

Future
Preventative
Measures

Gather Data on
Implement Plan
Progess

Summary & Conclusions [0.5-2 Pages]

(Restate problem, approach, & results; Conclusions you drew (& why; Utility
of results; Subjects for further study; List any lessons learned and
recommendation you would have for the project, the company, or any
organization that may embark on a project of this nature)