Member Info for MCB55

My expectation is that this rope is in fact a synthetic/polypropylene multi layered hawser of very special construction, albeit one of several standards of the manufacturer. It will be bespoke in length and in type of end termination. Suppliers are unlikely to have one "on the shelf", but could make one fairly quickly at a cost, say a week, plus logistics, say 2 weeks.
The whole Lifting Equipment system will have a SWL and that cannot easily be changed (unless completely re tested and re rated!), the rope is part of this, so the same spec rope is likely to be used. So the only extra safety factor that can be easily applied is to reduce the weather conditions/heave limits for the operation.

I can't imagine that litigation has really crossed their minds just yet, cos everyone needs to work together to get it over the line! Maybe later though.
What the incentivisation is I don't know, maybe day rate, maybe just money/profit, maybe even a small % of production?
Could be that incentivisation caused BW to jump the gun a bit/cut corners, so not always a good idea!
HUR/internal investigation (possibly joint HUR/BW) will result in a more considered/measured approach to hook up next time? That is flat calm for 24 hours or no attempt.
I feel sure that all the lifting gear will have to be thoruoghly re -examined/tested....they have the time, as next WW not til 22nd earliest (subject to change as always!).
There will be a news/RNS blackout til successful hook up as stated, except for drilling start.

Re-Load cells......was there a recording facility and hence they should know what the peak load was I wonder?

I agree.
Next time they will go for calmer conditions and less heave I suspect, so could be a long wait!
I think the fail was on the saturday in marginal conditions, the sunday was far better and they should have waited!

Yes indeed, it all depends on how big the overpull was. The rope is always designed as the weakest link, but the rope break/fail load is about 1.5 to 2 times the swl and the rest of the system is hopefully designed at about 2 times or more of the swl, so maybe ok , but still needs examining though!
Surely they had a load indicator? If not the failed rope will need to be forensically analysed and maybe tested to determine an approx load at which it started to fail.

WW,
You seem to think the rope is steelwire and a repair/test done on site, I disagree. I think it is a synthetic rope and any crush would need at least a close visual and to be safe a replacement. But thats history so no matter!
If there was an overload in this last incident then that is serious, not only does the rope need changing, but also depending on how much the overload was the rest of the lifting system needs thorough examination. It could have been a defective rope that failed below the swl?

WW,
What you say is possible I believe, but don't you think the visit of Olympic Zeus after the first snagged rope was to replace it with their only spare or was it just to inspect? The OZ could hook the buoy and lift it to the surface (it has a 250 ton crane) and then the old rope unshackled and new one fitted?
At least we seem to agree the problem is at the buoy end, a ragged end of rope needs removing and a new one fitted!

Deep Explorer is off Peterhead and Deep Arctic is Amsterdam. There must be plenty other DSV's around though.
Do you not think the Olympic Zeus can do the job?

MN,
A scan of your DNV document seems that it is very design orientated, but essentially saying the same thing as all the other lifting regs. Whichever one actually applies I think the principles and practices are essentially similar/the same!

Its a moot point, you maybe right.However I would expect the Maritime Regs on lifting equipment to be much the same as LOLER anyway?

Lifting equipment as defined by LOLER includes lifting accessories which includes ropes and slings!
LOLER also states that thorough examination is required after circumstances liable to jeopardise the safety of lifting equipment, which may include after damage or failure.

No equipment damage?.......a failed rope is an integral part of the lifting equipment believe it or not!
The cause of failure must be established and rectified before another lift can start.
If it was a defective rope that failed below its swl and this can be proven then fine, fair enough no problem, move on.
However if the swl of the rope and associated equipment was exceeded then a major problem!! Was there a load indicator installed? There is potential unseen damage to the whole system and therefore it would all have to be re-inspected and maybe load tested by a competent person!

Most people don't bother to check tradesmen are qualified/certified via the yellow pages, unless it is a gas fitter then by law you have to!
However Hurricane will have done a pretty thorough contractors assessment on Bluewater including their internal QA/QC system/procedures, etc, so probably/hopefully fully covered.
However remember that RBS did a "light due diligence" on ABN Hambro before takeover and got caught out by the hidden liabilities!! So there are levels of "due diligence"!!

Agree no enforcement (not waning I accept!) notice likely at this stage anyway! All depends on outcome of internal investigation, the results/recommendations of which will be recorded and acted upon according to internal HSE procedures. Further reporting to the Offshore HSE may follow, if only to keep them appraised.

Canetois,
Fair point, tradesmen will be covered if following standard practices and procedures and using certified parts and equipment, But if a cowboy and cutting corners then probably not so!

Maybe, but In this case it is only a delay in production so not a direct loss. A clear line of root cause/fault by the contractor would have to be established, such as use of an uncertified/underrated rope or not following agreed procedures, etc, even then they are unlikely to make a legal claim in this case as it would sour relations. However a clear admonition would follow at least with a need to tighten up all procedures (depending on root cause findings/recommendations) All depends on the outcome of an internal/external investigation as to root cause. This was of sufficient magnitude to be a reportable incident in my opinion. Hurricane/ Bluewater may still be given a warning notice.

Yes sure you can sue them, probably only for reparation though, but unlikely for time/production/reputation loss. Also if your oversight of their competence was deemed defective in some way then the OGA /HSE would take a dim view and may fine you.

Aduk,
I agree in principle, as always it depends on the scale and potential consequence of the incident/accident. Also on the root cause. If for sake of argument the contractor is using incompetent/uncertified tradesmen or uncertified equipment and poor procedures knowingly then he is obviously liable, but so are you for not being aware of the possibility of such gross violations. It is not always that it results in a near miss fatality/major loss of asset, it is the risk that it might/could have, in which case you are implicated.

The buck always stops with the License Holder, Hurricane, in the 500m zone no matter who caused it! BP found that out in the Gulf of Mexico, Halliburton got off virtually scot free!!
You can contract out operational day to day management, but you cannot contract out overall responsibility. They are working for you on your site. Can you demonstrate that you have employed a competent contractor and adequately checked their processes and procedures?
If your plumber/sparky caused a flood or a fire, who do you think holds the responsibility and the consequences, you!

Maybe offshore regs apply inside the 500m zone?