Gulf of Paria Underwater Welders Deaths: Lawsuits Filed

[The_Honourable]

yeah, he was operating in “small picture” mode
who was it that brought the remote vehicle late?
was it’s footage used to further make decisions?

Check from here: https://youtu.be/MLgN5ZTy4mw?t=1105

[De Dragon]

The crisis that you dread your entire professional career happening, happens.
Most people's emotions lean towards blaming Piper and Paria but faced with that decision is something you wouldn't wish on anyone. That said, Paria is far from blameless as it appears that they basically put the sole burden for emergency response, rescue and mitigation and seemed to have zero involvement in any aspect, from planning to monitoring to QA/QC for the job.

[hover11]

Paria executives still getting their big Christmas bonus and allowances still running right? So save the crocodile tears ....must be nice

[Animal Pak]

Prakash made slight reference to this point.

In the industry quality and ops people will understand what a "deviation waiver" is.

Basically I know the rules however in this situation I am going to intentionally break them. I accept all liability and responsibility if anything happens to me. I sign, management signs and talk done.

This is common knowledge in the oilfield.

CP didn't have to make any decision he could let them sign that and let them dive to their hearts content and he not liable.

At the end of it all. No decision was made which is a decision in itself.

[sMASH]

We still don't know cause d delta p

[16 cycles]

5 whys?

Divers sucked in
1. why? - Delta P arose

2.why? - plug failure?

3. why? -improper installation? / did not follow manufacture's protocol of monitoring every 4 hrs? / other reason related to plant ops?

4.why?

feel free to add in or amend ...

[killercow]

Prakash made slight reference to this point.

In the industry quality and ops people will understand what a "deviation waiver" is.

Basically I know the rules however in this situation I am going to intentionally break them. I accept all liability and responsibility if anything happens to me. I sign, management signs and talk done.

This is common knowledge in the oilfield.

CP didn't have to make any decision he could let them sign that and let them dive to their hearts content and he not liable.

At the end of it all. No decision was made which is a decision in itself.

While I am no fan of CP or the fact that no rescue attempt was ever made and I agree that no decision is still a decision, the simple signing of a waiver, especially under a sudden emergency situation has many more legal implications. If it were honestly as simple as signing a waiver, then the divers who rescued the lone survivor (and by extension the whole rescue team) who had days to make a rescue attempt could and probably would have been made aware of this option and I'm sure would not have hesitated to sign if it were presented to them or even draft up their own waiver and sign it (which is possible and allowed).

But you see, just like any other person in an executive position, CP and others would have firstly and continuously consulted (over the days that elapsed) about all those possibilities and any legal aspects that would implicate them in any way. And sure enough, either way you flip the coin, rescue or no rescue, CP and others would have some liability to take. They were probably just advised that the decision to make no rescue attempt was the better option for them due to the legal repercussions. This is probably why even though days had passed, nothing was ever done to even attempt to save the men.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

5 whys?

Divers sucked in
1. why? - Delta P arose

Was this ever addressed in the CoE?
Or is the CoE only about the issue of a rescue?

[The_Honourable]

5 whys?

Divers sucked in
1. why? - Delta P arose

Was this ever addressed in the CoE?
Or is the CoE only about the issue of a rescue?

Yes, Delta P situation due to the removal of the inflatable plug. It is to be decided by Chairman Lynch in his report if this was intentional due to bad removal practice by LMCS sanctioned by Paria or a catastrophic failure.

So far, it seems that who is responsible for Delta P is both LMCS and Paria with the ratio of liability is to be determined. On the other hand, the failed rescue seems to be the full fault of Paria via Colin Piper who was busy analyzing for a perfect rescue situation that never came.

[sMASH]

So, to be clear, whrn they removed the plug the delta P occurred, and sucked them in?
Was it a direct immediate result of removing the plug?

[Redress10]

Prakash made slight reference to this point.

In the industry quality and ops people will understand what a "deviation waiver" is.

Basically I know the rules however in this situation I am going to intentionally break them. I accept all liability and responsibility if anything happens to me. I sign, management signs and talk done.

This is common knowledge in the oilfield.

CP didn't have to make any decision he could let them sign that and let them dive to their hearts content and he not liable.

At the end of it all. No decision was made which is a decision in itself.

Alot of ppl keep acting as if this was some sort of fly by night rescue. These men were sucked into a 30 inch pipe 60 feet beneat the sea surface that ran a quarter of a mile on the sea bed. People are acting as if they were working in the pipeline and somehow got stuck. No one was even suppose to be in the pipeline to begin with. I'm sure traversing a pipeline such as that as a diver is no easy feat.

I think ppl are acting like this because of the one survivor who got out by himself that they think a rescue of this nature would be a walk in the park. Did the companies even consider the possibility that someone could be stuck in a pipeline under the sea and have the requisite expertise to rescue such? I'm sure that is not a common scenario that they would constantly be on the look out for.

Ppl seem to want to blame the inaction of Piper but give them the same situation they would probably act irrationaly or completely wash their hands of the situation. Piper was between a rock and a hard place to be honest.

[wing]

Prakash made slight reference to this point.

In the industry quality and ops people will understand what a "deviation waiver" is.

Basically I know the rules however in this situation I am going to intentionally break them. I accept all liability and responsibility if anything happens to me. I sign, management signs and talk done.

This is common knowledge in the oilfield.

CP didn't have to make any decision he could let them sign that and let them dive to their hearts content and he not liable.

At the end of it all. No decision was made which is a decision in itself.

Alot of ppl keep acting as if this was some sort of fly by night rescue. These men were sucked into a 30 inch pipe 60 feet beneat the sea surface that ran a quarter of a mile on the sea bed. People are acting as if they were working in the pipeline and somehow got stuck. No one was even suppose to be in the pipeline to begin with. I'm sure traversing a pipeline such as that as a diver is no easy feat.

I think ppl are acting like this because of the one survivor who got out by himself that they think a rescue of this nature would be a walk in the park. Did the companies even consider the possibility that someone could be stuck in a pipeline under the sea and have the requisite expertise to rescue such? I'm sure that is not a common scenario that they would constantly be on the look out for.

Ppl seem to want to blame the inaction of Piper but give them the same situation they would probably act irrationaly or completely wash their hands of the situation. Piper was between a rock and a hard place to be honest.

People are finding it difficult to separate facts from emotion. There are others who want to politicize every single detail, rather hear the PM friends look bad than truth and justice for the victims.

[pugboy]

so why didn’t lmcs initiate a deviation waiver?

[Val]

5 whys?

Divers sucked in
1. why? - Delta P arose

2.why? - plug failure?

3. why? -improper installation? / did not follow manufacture's protocol of monitoring every 4 hrs? / other reason related to plant ops?

4.why?

feel free to add in or amend ...

Not due to plug failure, but plug deflation. The methodology was flawed because the line pressure upstream and downstream the plug was either not considered, or considered but not kept static.

The plug was intact and held up until the act of removal.

It is still unclear whether the delta P was attempted to be minimized up front and was created as the job progressed, or if it existed from the start of the job (I.e. when the line was partially blown and Berth 5 riser was blanked). It seems to be the latter despite LMCS trying to prove the former.

I wouldn’t use 5 why’s for this. A FMEA will be more suitable given the ability to test each hypothetical failure mechanism. Even a FTA is better and probably what Incorrtech used.

[Animal Pak]

Delta P didn't kill them though.

They were alive and audio recordings were heard.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Delta P didn't kill them though.

They were alive and audio recordings were heard.

Cause of death - World Health Organization (WHO)https://www.who.int › classification-of-diseases › cause-...
WHO has defined the 'underlying cause of death' as follows: the disease or injury which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death.
Someone can get a gunshot wound and die from a heart attack on the or bleeding out on the operating table and the cause of death will be gunshot wound. I believe it's same with accidents and same with covid, for example.

I'm not sure which was used here.

[teems1]

Delta P didn't kill them though.

They were alive and audio recordings were heard.

If a hurricane knocks down a tree onto your roof and you die of a heart attack, the hurricane is recorded as the one responsible.

[Val]

Cause of death was already indicated in the autopsy reports. Primarily asphyxia and drowning.

But I understand the poster’s point, were they allowed to die, or were they really unable to be reasonably rescued, which is the second major contention within the COE.

Let's keep in focus, regardless of emotions, that without the poorly mitigated delta P scenario, causing the suction into the pipe, the incident would never have occurred and the men would've been safe today.

This is the primary reason working in the oilfield pays such high salaries. Those guys work in inherently risky areas, and likely do so because of the attractive salaries. I remember it wasn't uncommon when I was younger that everyone wanted to be either an actuarial scientist or an underwater welder, because of the money. No one really prioritised the risks.

This type of incident when it occurs is severe, but uncommon. There are accidents probably every day, and definitions are stretched to keep the stats clean, even in the face of modern HSE practices. It is far more probable for a platform to blow up than for this type of event to occur. It is also far more probable for you to crash your car than die in a heli crash, but guess which activity makes people more nervous.

To abridge, the difference between Paria & the rest of the country is the view on whether the systems that have evolved and are in place are acceptable (effectiveness aside) and have mitigated risk as low as reasonably practicable. Clearly Piper, Wei and Balkissoon think yes, while those affected would obviously think no.

[Redress10]

Cause of death was already indicated in the autopsy reports. Primarily asphyxia and drowning.

But I understand the poster’s point, were they allowed to die, or were they really unable to be reasonably rescued, which is the second major contention within the COE

That's what ppl trying to figure out. Was an effective rescue even possible given all of the unkown factors at the time. Was it as simple as "diving into the pipeline and pulling them out"?

The theatrics of Ramadhar etc not helping the situation and making it difficult to ascertain facts.

Too many emotions and stunts involved at this point.

[Val]

Cause of death was already indicated in the autopsy reports. Primarily asphyxia and drowning.

But I understand the poster’s point, were they allowed to die, or were they really unable to be reasonably rescued, which is the second major contention within the COE

That's what ppl trying to figure out. Was an effective rescue even possible given all of the unkown factors at the time. Was it as simple as "diving into the pipeline and pulling them out"?

The theatrics of Ramadhar etc not helping the situation and making it difficult to ascertain facts.

Too many emotions and stunts involved at this point.

I rather enjoyed Dramadhar's performance.

Let me put it this way, but again I only have some of the facts eh:

Facts supporting rescue:
1. The men survived the first incident - source: GoPro Audio & Boodram's testimony.
2. Some of the men, if not badly injured, and perhaps supported up the riser (like Fyzie did for Chris) could've traversed the pipe up to a few hours after the incident - source: Boodram is alive and came out of the pipe.
3. The men were alive for some time - source: testimony on pipe knocking duration + autopsy reports
4. It was possible to access the pipe, but to what distance we do not know - source: Kurban's testimony + camera footage
5. Experienced and equipped men were ready to dive into the pipe given the conditions in the pipe equalised and the men were in air pockets - source: testimony of the Beddoe's, Boodram, Kurban, Farrah and the continuous knocking showing the air pockets were stable.

Facts supporting inability to rescue:
6. It is possible the air pockets were killing the men slowly, due to VOC's and oxygen consumption, with limited access to dive bottles and regulators/masks.
7. the injuries were and still are unknown within the pipe, with the exception of the GoPro Audio conversations.
8. Removing the riser blind flange on Berth 5 could've upset the equilibrium in the pipe, causing a movement or dissipation of the remaining air pockets (maybe this effect would've been seen in the habitat again, but since the habitat was removed, and the riser on B6 extended, we will never know).
9. It was impossible to see in the pipe with any lights since the liquid was probably translucent at best, so a diver would have to be able to get right into the air pocket(s) to look for survivors. A camera would face the same problem and this should've been common sense. What was needed was stability within the pipe to prevent liquid movement.

[The_Honourable]

^^^Good summary

Cause of death was already indicated in the autopsy reports. Primarily asphyxia and drowning.

But I understand the poster’s point, were they allowed to die, or were they really unable to be reasonably rescued, which is the second major contention within the COE

That's what ppl trying to figure out. Was an effective rescue even possible given all of the unkown factors at the time. Was it as simple as "diving into the pipeline and pulling them out"?

The theatrics of Ramadhar etc not helping the situation and making it difficult to ascertain facts.

Too many emotions and stunts involved at this point.

It could have been as simple as that but from the COE, Piper wanted to be sure the conditions of the pipe were safe to conduct the rescue which is logical. How absolutely sure he wanted to be is the question and the time taken to reach that decision. He never reached that decision because he was unable to find out the conditions of the pipeline.

It was revealed in the COE that conditions in the pipeline were stable and was the best time to attempt a rescue.

[Val]

It seems apparent he wasn’t the right fit for Incident Commander.

As an IC and OSC, you weigh the risks, you don’t expect the risk to be zero.

[pugboy]

yeah, he seems to have stuck to a hardline decision process of zero or nothing

I wonder how the thailand cave rescue officials did their assessments when they allowed an army diver to go in and subsequently died, but still did another successful rescue attempt

It seems apparent he wasn’t the right fit for Incident Commander.

As an IC and OSC, you weigh the risks, you don’t expect the risk to be zero.

[Val]

yeah, he seems to have stuck to a hardline decision process of zero or nothing

I wonder how the thailand cave rescue officials did their assessments when they allowed an army diver to go in and subsequently died, but still did another successful rescue attempt

It seems apparent he wasn’t the right fit for Incident Commander.

As an IC and OSC, you weigh the risks, you don’t expect the risk to be zero.

The Thailand cave rescue is well documented. You can look up the decision making process. The IC deferred to the experts and wanted to save the boys at all costs because he became emotionally involved.

[16 cycles]

Thailand was different circumstances and lucky in that they were able to get the best in world to respond.

The clock was always against the LMCS divers.

I'm not sure any training locally gives IC persons a no win option to test their bias/unconscious bias. A military minded person might better be suited to weigh those options from warfare scenarios.

[Val]

Yes sometimes they do throw in fatalities in the table top to test the media/family responses.

But good point about the Thailand event, they did indeed have more time.

A question has to be asked about the level of their ICS Training. There are three levels (100, 200 & 300). This was what you’d consider a borderline expanding incident which is covered in level 300. Were they trained and drilled in this advanced course? Granted it isn’t much more than the basic. The course really is about coordination, communication and documentation. There are several forms that have to be used, where are they?

[pugboy]

1990 abu bakr was a classic example, in hindsight there should have been no amnesty giving to them idiots
any experienced military person would tell you shoot first, ask questions after

I'm not sure any training locally gives IC persons a no win option to test their bias/unconscious bias. A military minded person might better be suited to weigh those options from warfare scenarios.

[pugboy]

Is this Paria incident the first of its kind locally ?
being the first could also account for Pipers reluctance and taking the "safe" route

Yes sometimes they do throw in fatalities in the table top to test the media/family responses.

But good point about the Thailand event, they did indeed have more time.

A question has to be asked about the level of their ICS Training. There are three levels (100, 200 & 300). This was what you’d consider a borderline expanding incident which is covered in level 300. Were they trained and drilled in this advanced course? Granted it isn’t much more than the basic. The course really is about coordination, communication and documentation. There are several forms that have to be used, where are they?

[timelapse]

This is a real technical situation.In thinking about it from both sides of the argument,my thought process contradicts itself.
My questions now are;
Why wasn't a backup plan put into place?This kind of situation has happened in places before.The possibility existed that something like this could happen.Why were there no proper procedures in place?

Going forward,no matter what plays off in this situation, are we going to be more strict with reducing the risk of life threatening situations,or be as complacent as ever?

[MaxPower]

Going forward,no matter what plays off in this situation, are we going to be more strict with reducing the risk of life threatening situations,or be as complacent as ever?

times,

You asking this question knowing what country you’re in?

What you really think?