It's interesting right now how the finger pointing is going around. I wonder if BP and Transoceanic will point the finger at the Bureau of Mineral Rights and pointing out that if they've been doing their jobs (i.e. keep a watch over both of them), we wouldn't be in this mess because they would had caught on to what they were doing. I've been involved in some construction projects on the EH&S (environmental health and safety) and I always noted two things on part of the some contractors and most subcontractors:
1. To make money on the project, try and complete ahead of time, which leads to:
2. Eliminate some intermediate steps. Some of which could be justified because the conditions are not there. But you better be sure it isn't there and what plans do you have in the event that those conditions return?
The problem I see with most subcontractors and some contractors is this:
Q1:If you have a project in which you eliminate an intermediate step that can save you 30 days on the project leading to a bonus of 1 million with a probable failure rate of 1% of the structure under normal conditions and 5% and perfect storm conditions. The minus side is 75% minor damage, 15% major damage and 10% catastrophic damage to the structure. Would you be willing to take that risk?
Q2
o you have a backup plan in case of trouble
I've seen subcontractors who would had said yes to the Q1 and said "I'll worry about it" when it happens to Q2. Thank you God, I haven't seen any contractors say yes to Q1 yet. But it looks like someone at either BP or Transoceanic said "yes" to Q1.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
1. To make money on the project, try and complete ahead of time, which leads to:
2. Eliminate some intermediate steps. Some of which could be justified because the conditions are not there. But you better be sure it isn't there and what plans do you have in the event that those conditions return?
The problem I see with most subcontractors and some contractors is this:
Q1:If you have a project in which you eliminate an intermediate step that can save you 30 days on the project leading to a bonus of 1 million with a probable failure rate of 1% of the structure under normal conditions and 5% and perfect storm conditions. The minus side is 75% minor damage, 15% major damage and 10% catastrophic damage to the structure. Would you be willing to take that risk?
Q2
o you have a backup plan in case of troubleI've seen subcontractors who would had said yes to the Q1 and said "I'll worry about it" when it happens to Q2. Thank you God, I haven't seen any contractors say yes to Q1 yet. But it looks like someone at either BP or Transoceanic said "yes" to Q1.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell