GOM - yet another ditching

[Torquetalk]

Relax, land gently, go boating - enjoy!

AnFI: It's quite clear that you lack common sense and I don't think you have much uncommon sense either.

If I were flying offshore night and faced with the choice of either single engine, single pilot, or multi-engine, mutli-crew and YOU were the other crew member, I'd go for the first scenario in a heart beat. It's just not safe to fly with someone with a head full of toys.

[grumpytroll]

my proposal then

You guys are smart I'll give you that.

Now, here is my proposal and I hope it is taken very seriously because it might be the wave of the future.

You must have three engines on your helicopter. Two will operate at all times until one craps out. The third engine will automatically start and run up using the FADEC etc. and you will then be able to simply continue your mission as if nothing has happenned. I would love to see the safety factor calculation of this proposal.

A further question for the mathematicians: How many engines would be necessary before the increase in safety factor becomes so small that it is no longer worth it to add any more engines. I personally think the answer will be three but no more. In any case, if adding a third engine would significantly increase the safety margins for all helicopter operations then I support it fully.

Cheers,

[Shell Management]

Perhaps just replacing underpowered, ill-equipped old rotorcraft would be a good start.

If US airlines were run by the Gulf of Mexico mafia they would still be flying DC-3s.

[SASless]

Aye Grumpy...but ya will be needing a separate fuel supply....with contents taken from a separate source than the fuel in use would ya not? After all...most engines fail due to fuel starvation or exhaustion than from mechancial failure.

[MamaPut]

Perhaps just replacing underpowered, ill-equipped old rotorcraft would be a good start.

Let's have a look at Shell's record in that respect.

The S92 - no engine problems (well not to speak of). Gearboxes .......

The AW139 - no engine problems (well not to speak of). Tailbooms and rotors .....

Yes, twin engine reliability and great single engine performance has really helped

[Ian Corrigible]

Originally Posted by Shell Management

If US airlines were run by the Gulf of Mexico mafia they would still be flying DC-3s

Just for grins, Bristow's fleet of GOM singles averages 19 years, and RLC's fleet of singles 25½ years.

American Airlines' fleet of 204 DC-9s (sorry, MD-80s) averages 20 years, and Delta's 116 MD-80s average 21½ years.

I/C

[SASless]

There are still DC-3's in Airline Service....something like 76 years after the first one rolled off the production line. We sure will not be saying that about the Shell choice of EC-155's and Dornier Jets bought for Nigeria now will we?

[snotcicles]

I've got an idea...if flying helicopters over water is so dangerous, why doesn't Shell just build bigger decks on their rigs and call them runways? They could use Twin Otters or some other STOL twin to improve safety. I've never flown out to a rig in my life but if safety is what its all about, wouldn't that solve the dangerous helicopter problem?

[oleary]

believe it

Believe it or not that very idea was proposed by de Havilland (now Bombardier) for Hibernia some 30+ years ago. They were going to buy an old aircraft carrier and anchor it about 200 NM offshore and then use helicopters to provide support within the field.

[SASless]

Bell 212's were based offshore in the Brent Field for years and years.

[Shell Management]

The upgrade from 212s to EC155s and from Twotters to 328Jets a decade ago went very well SASless. Would you rather we were still flying Whirlwinds at Warri?

The 212s in the ESB went nearly 20 years ago. Pay attention.

[MamaPut]

SM, you are exceptionally dense. What SAS less is saying in reply to oleary is that larger helicopters were flying out to the ESB more than 30 years ago and the BEAS/Bristow Bell 212s based there then flew them to their various destinations. Several companies were talking about buying aircraft carriers due for scrap, or converting tankers to allow fixed wing to shuttle passengers out to a central point for onward shuttling. The flat deck would also have been a suitable place for an offshore single engine alternate and with fuel and accommodation. Naturally, in the interest of saving money, Shell just preferred to have the 212s there carrying no shore diversion fuel.

The 328 jets were so successful they lasted a few brief years and then, being far too expensive, were sold off and Shell now just uses seats on scheduled routes. As for the 155s .....

Enjoy living in your fantasy land where because Shell has hoodwinked a few senate committee members (doubtless helped with the dispensation of a few Ghanas-must-go ) you think that all is well.

He said the non-intervention of the government agencies is an indication of conspiracy with Shell Company against the people of Niger Delta.

The National Youth Council of Nigeria and the Off-Shore Oil and Gas Host Communities Youth Development Association (OGHYDA), however, is particularly aggrieved with Shell for what it described as the company's carelessness in allowing the spill in the first place.

According to a statement signed by Matthew Ebi Oreiware and Torke Eketun, the spill has caused unbearable damages to the people living in the coastal communities.

Maybe you need to get some detergent and clean the cr@p off your rose coloured spectacles

[Shell Management]

The ESB 212s were for in-field work and medivacs in the 1980s. So your other comments are irrelavent

Lets see, the Shell EC155s replaced 212s in Nigeria that had a major accident at PH due to a rotorhead fatigue failure that could have killed everyone on board, and have operated safely since their introduction, bringing in modern avionics, external liferafts, enhanced performance higher speed,and more modern certification. They were introduced at a time when there were still plenty of aged S-61s in the North Sea

The Dorniers served well until the local airline industry developed to the point that acceptable commercial competitors existed on the main routes the Dorniers were used on.

If you know Nigeria you will know the agenda of OGHYDA.

A question: Did you become an ecowarrior before or after you were well payed by the oil industry?

Meanwhile, back to the topic: The failure of certain oil companies (mostly non-OGP members and Exxon) to invest in the GOM is the route cause of the regular accidents in that region (and the regular 'non-accidents' were aircraft are lost and people rescued). The safety culture in the GOM ofton seems to be one of making excuses and accepting a poor safety record will dressing it up as good.

[MamaPut]

your other comments are irrelavent

I suppose you mean irrelevant, rather like yourself. Don't Shell provide spell check?
The Dorniers were way too expensive, just like the EC155s, but then that never mattered to Shell did it?

have operated safely since their introduction

except for the occasional engine failure here and there . They finally got enhanced performance when the DanCopter EC155B2s arrived; before that they struggled.

well payed

oh dear spelling again . I am not particularly well paid, unlike some so-called safety experts employed by oil company aviation departments

I've believed in protecting the environment in which I live since I was born into it. The oil industry can easily afford to pay the price for putting acceptable controls in place but for most of the time will only do so when forced by legislators . For the most part they prefer to do things on the cheap.

Yes, I do know the agenda of OGHYDA - it's to make irresponsible IOCs put something back into the communities they have devastated, rather as the Shetland Islands Council has done for the Shetland Islanders, whilst the government in Nigeria has just been in hand-in-glove with the IOCs in suppressing the rights of the local communities and murdering their leaders

Despite the notable influence that it’s had on Shetland’s economy, the physical impact of the oil industry is very limited. The terminal is off the beaten track and few people live nearby. It has an enviable environmental record, thanks to the rigorous controls exercised by the Shetland Islands Council. A thorough, long-term programme of environmental monitoring has been in place since the terminal opened.

The failure of certain oil companies (mostly non-OGP members and Exxon) to invest in the GOM is the route cause of the regular accidents in that region (and the regular 'non-accidents' were aircraft are lost and people rescued). The safety culture in the GOM ofton seems to be one of making excuses and accepting a poor safety record will dressing it up as good.

Daily Times Ng

Shell lied about Bonga spill?

Contrary to claims by Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) that the December 20 oil spill in its Bonga offshore field involved “less than 40,000 barrels”, latest satellite imaging by United States-based non-profit environmental awareness and protection group, SkyTruth, reveals that the volume could have been as high as 60,000 barrels.

Environmental analysts say the thickness of the oil slick on the waters adjoining the spill area, estimated at about 120 kilometres offshore Nigeria in the 200,000 barrels per day capacity Bonga oil field, was inconsistent with what Shell claimed as the volume of oil pumped into the ocean.

Shell, which blamed the spill on a leak on the export line linking the Floating Production Storage and Off-take Vessel (FPSO) to a tanker during the process of transferring crude oil, had said that the oil slick following the spill was "less than a hundredth of a millimeter" thick in most areas.

However, the environmental group has pointed out that with an oil slick estimate of 1/100th of a millimeter (an equivalent of 10 microns) provided by Shell, the spill volume could not have been anything less than 58,000 barrels (about 2.4 million gallons) or more.

SkyTruth President, John Amos, said: “We think the amount spilled is near the high end of Shell's estimate of "up to" 1.68 million gallons (about 40,000 barrels), based on the size of the oil slick observed and the photos provided showing a rainbow sheen.

"The thickness of "rainbow sheen" is in the 5 to 10 micron range according to the CONCAWE guidelines, and 0.3 to 5 micron range according to the BONN convention. The 5 microns overlap would mean a spill of at least 1.2 million gallons (28,571 barrels).”

Shell, which claimed on Friday that the oil slick has successfully dissipated and dispersed at more than 7.5 kilometres offshore, following the use of chemical dispersants, insists that whatever discrepancy is established between the real size of the spill and what it reported could be other spills from the facilities of other oil companies operating in the area.

However, when contacted SPDC’s Manager, Communications and Media, Tony Okonedo, said he would not comment on claims by SkyTruth, as Shell was not aware of the basis upon which it based its estimates of the spill.

Also, contrary to claims by Shell, as well as a declaration by the Minister of Environment, Hadiza Mailafia, that the spill has not impacted the environment in some Niger Delta communities, some environmental rights groups in the region have cried out to the government to call the oil company to order.

The National Coordinator, Ogoni Solidarity Forum, Celestine AkpoBari said President Goodluck Jonathan should emulate his United States counterpart, Barack Obama, who decisively held BP accountable following the explosion that involved the company’s deepwater oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico.

“Shell believes it came to Nigeria to do business and not cater for the interest of the people in the area of its operation. Claims that only 40,000 barrels was involved in the Bonga oil field could not be true, just as it has always told lies about oil spills in Ogoniland," AkpoBari said.

"With a former staff of Shell as the current Minister of Petroleum Resources, no one should expect the company to say otherwise."

Similarly, a representative of the Ogoni Advancement Organisation, has condemned Hajia Mailafia over her media comments that the oil spill did not impact coastal communities in the region, saying given the situation where the minister was flown to Bonga oil field with an helicopter provided by Shell, there was no way anyone would expect her not to be influenced to be biased in her observations.

It's best you put your rose-coloured spectacles back on and retreat to your ivory tower. Maybe while you're there you can re-read the excellent article by Andrew Rowell on the illustrious history of Shell and the environment. It's an old article, but gives some excellent insight into Shell's record as a polluter of note.
Royal Dutch Shell plc

The Guardian: Unloveable Shell, the Goddess of Oil

November 15, 1997

For a century, Shell has explored the Earth to make our lives more comfortable. But in its wake, says Andrew Rowell, lies corruption, despoliation and death

The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh went to the Shell Centre on the Thames riverside near Waterloo last Tuesday, to crown the company’s centenary celebrations. Critics claim the timing of the Queen’s visit was slightly unfortunate: it came just one day after the second anniversary of Ken Saro-Wiwa’s death in Nigeria: he was campaigning against Shell’s oil exploitation in the region.

The Shell Transport and Trading Company (STTC) has risen from its humble roots in a cramped office in the East End to become one of the most successful corporations of the century. What we collectively know as “Shell” is in fact more than 2,000 companies. Last year, the Shell Group’s profit was a record pounds 5.7 billion, the proceeds from sales of pounds 110 billion. “Were our founder, Marcus Samuel, to reappear today, I do not think he would be displeased with what has grown from his efforts,” says Mark Moody-Stuart, STTC’s chairman.

As part of the centenary celebrations, the cream of the City were invited to a reception at the Guildhall. There is also to be a commemorative book. Whilst it may mention the Shell Better Britain Campaign, and even the controversy over Brent Spar, not everyone will agree with the authorised biography’s version of Shell’s history. Here is a less authorised approach.

After it merged in 1907 with its rival Royal Dutch, the Royal Dutch Shell company was formed; its first chairman was the Dutchman Henri Deterding. By the 1930s, Deterding had become infatuated with Adolf Hitler, and began secret negotiations with the German military to provide a year’s supply of oil on credit. In 1936, he was forced to resign over his Nazi sympathies.

During the early 1940s, as the world waged war, Peru and Ecuador had their own armed border-dispute – over oil. Legend in Latin America says that it was really a power struggle between Shell, based in Ecuador, and Standard Oil in Peru. The company left a lasting reminder of its presence in the country: a town called Shell. Activists in Ecuador are seeking to get the town renamed Saro-Wiwa.

In the post-war years, Shell manufactured pesticides and herbicides on a site previously used by the US military to make nerve gas at Rocky Mountain near Denver. By 1960 a game warden from the Colorado Department of Fish and Game had documented abnormal behaviour in the local wildlife, and took his concerns to Shell, who replied: “That’s just the cost of doing business if we are killing a few birds out there. As far as we are concerned, this situation is all right.”

But the truth was different. “By 1956 Shell knew it had a major problem on its hands,” recalled Adam Raphael in the Observer in 1993. “It was the company’s policy to collect all duck and animal carcasses in order to hide them before scheduled visits by inspectors from the Colorado Department of Fish and Game.” After operations ceased in 1982, the site was among the most contaminated places on the planet, although Shell is now trying to make it into a nature reserve.

At Rocky Mountain, Shell produced three highly toxic and persistent pesticides called the “drins”: aldrin, dieldrin and endrin. Despite four decades of warning over their use, starting in the 1950s, Shell only stopped production of endrin in 1982, of dieldrin in 1987 and aldrin in 1990, and only ceased sales of the three in 1991. Even after production was stopped, stocks of drins were shipped to the Third World.

Another chemical Shell began manufacturing in the 1950s was DBCP, or 1,2 -Dibromo-3-Chloropropane, which was used to spray bananas. This was banned by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1977 for causing sterility in workers. In 1990, Costa Rican workers who had become sterile from working with the chemical sued Shell and two other companies in the Texan Courts. Shell denied that it ever exported the chemical to Costa Rica and denied that it exported it to any other country after the ban in 1977. The case was settled out of court.

Just as people had begun to question Shell’s products, so they began to challenge its practices. In the 1970s and 1980s, Shell was accused of breaking the UN oil boycott of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) by using its South African subsidiary and other companies in which it had interests. Shell, singled out by anti-apartheid campaigners for providing fuel to the notoriously brutal South African army and police, responded by hiring a PR firm to run an anti-boycott campaign.

By the 1980s criticism of Shell’s operations was spreading. From Inuit in Canada and Alaska, to Aborigines in Australia and Indians in Brazil, indigenous communities were affected by Shell’s operations.

In the Peruvian rainforest, where Shell conducted exploration activities, an estimated 100 hitherto uncontacted Nahua Indians died after catching diseases to which they had no immunity. Shell denies responsibility, and says that it was loggers who contacted the Nahua. By the end of the decade, the company’s image was suffering in the US and UK, too.

In April 1988, 440,000 gallons of oil was discharged into San Francisco Bay from the company’s Martinez refinery, killing hundreds of birds. The following year, Shell spilt 150 tons of thick crude into the River Mersey, and was fined a record pounds 1 million.

But by now, the company was responding to growing international environmental awareness. “The biggest challenge facing the energy industry is the global environment and global warming,” said Sir John Collins, head of Shell UK, in 1990. “The possible consequences of man-made global warming are so worrying that concerted international action is clearly called for.”

Shell joined the Global Climate Coalition, which has spent tens of millions of dollars trying to influence the UN climate negotiations that culminate in Kyoto next month. “There is no clear scientific consensus that man-induced climate change is happening now,” the lobbyists maintain, two years after the world’s leading scientists agreed that there was.

At the same time, the company has taken its own preventive action on climate change and possible sea-level rise by increasing the height of its Troll platform in the North Sea by one metre. By 1993, as Shell’s spin-doctors were teaching budding executives that “ignorance gets corporations into trouble, arrogance keeps them there”, 300,000 Ogoni peacefully protested against Shell’s operations in Nigeria. Since then 2,000 have been butchered, and countless others raped and tortured by the Nigerian military.

In the summer of 1995 there was the outcry over the planned deep-sea sinking of the redundant oil platform Brent Spar, and in November Ogoni leader Ken Saro-Wiwa was executed, having been framed by the Nigerian authorities. At the time Shell denied any financial relationship with the Nigerian military, but has since admitted paying them “field allowances” on occasion. This year in Nigeria, the three-million-strong Ijaw community started campaigning against Shell, leading to another military crackdown.

“The military governor says it is for the purpose of protecting the oil companies. The authorities can no longer afford to sit by and have the communities mobilise against the companies. It is Ogoni revisited,” says Uche Onyeagucha, representing the opposition Democratic Alternative. In Peru, Shell has returned to the rainforest. It acknowledges “the need to consider environmental sustainability and responsibility to the people involved”, but the move is still criticised by more than 60 international and local environmental, human-rights and indigenous groups.

“Shell has not learnt from its tragic mistakes,” says Shannon Wright from the Rainforest Action Network, which believes there should be no new fossil-fuel exploration in the rainforest: “They continue to go into areas where there are indigenous people who are susceptible to outside diseases.” Meanwhile, Shell publicly talks of engaging “stakeholders”.

It hopes that we, as consumers, will continue to give it a licence to operate. However, for each barrel produced, the ecological and cultural price increases exponentially. Everyone knows we need to reduce our consumption of oil: but Shell’s very existence depends on selling more of it. Senior executives are said to be “girding our loins for our second century” because “the importance of oil and gas is likely to increase rather than diminish as we enter the 21st century”. Can we let that happen?

Have a wonderful 2012 keeping the world safe

[SASless]

Some recent stats on GOM helicopter operations.....note there were no helicopter accidents for year 2010.....less the three ditchings and even when those are factored into the mix...2010 was an excellent year numbers wise.

2009 GULF OF MEXICO OFFSHORE

[AnFI]

amazing stats !!!

are they true? am i reading them right? they seem to show far greater fatals per 100,000hrs in twins than singles - Jim?
It's not in line with the impression given that singles are a problem in GOM

[zalt]

Which bit of data are you looking at?

[squib66]

Oil and Gas Operations in the Gulf of Mexico Claim 139 Lives in Helicopter Crashes ov

I've just come across the link to this study on the GOM done by John Hopkins Uni in the US which

examined fatal and nonfatal crash records of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) from 1983 to 2009. Analyses determined that the most common result of mechanical failure in both fatal and nonfatal crashes was loss of engine power, which occurred in almost one-third of fatal crashes. The majority of forced landings following mechanical failure occurred in water, with 20 percent resulting in the sinking of the helicopter despite the fact that most helicopters are being equipped with pilotactivated flotation devices.

Bad weather was the second most common precipitating factor for fatal and nonfatal crashes and was responsible for the largest number of deaths. In fact, bad weather was the only factor that significantly increased the risk of pilot death when a crash occurred. Pilot error was a major contributor to 83 crashes (47 percent), with poor decision-making the most prevalent error.

“

Our findings suggest that efforts to reduce crashes and deaths must address mechanical failure, non-activation of flotation devices, and pilot error.”

The researchers also examined crash trends over the study time period and found an increase in the most recent time period, 8.2 annually during 2000 to 2009 versus 5.6 during 1983 to 1999. Following 2007, however, the researchers measured a decrease in crashes.

“Only time will tell whether this is a temporary statistical blip or the beginning of a positive trend.”

http://www.jhsph.edu/bin/u/f/BakerGu...opterFinal.pdf

[Shell Management]

You need to look forward to the OGP 10 year review for full unbiased clarity and analysis by aviation safety professionals

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/473...ml#post6940882

[Mars]

************************************************************ ********************
** Notice created 3/13/2012 Notice 1 **
************************************************************ ********************

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 104LP Make/Model: B206 Description: BELL 206B HELICOPTER
Date: 03/12/2012 Time: 1600

Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown

LOCATION
City: BATON ROUGE State: LA Country: US

DESCRIPTION
N104LP BELL 206L-3 ROTORCRAFT ROLLED OVER ON A PLATFORM, 25 MILES OFFSHORE,
GULF OF MEXICO, BATON ROUGE, LA

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:


OTHER DATA
Activity: Unknown Phase: Unknown Operation: OTHER


FAA FSDO: BATON ROUGE, LA (SW03) Entry date: 03/13/2012