Correct. Welcome to the real world.
Ask yourself this question and try to give an honest answer: would you ever, after an incident such as this, say “Well, [insert name of appropriate oil major here] were well prepared enough but sometimes things happen anyway, so it’s not really their fault”? Frankly, your posts are so spittle flecked and your anger so white hot that if you answer “yes” I won’t believe you.
The fact is there is always one more precaution one can take, against any risk you care to mention. One has to draw the line somewhere. And there are always people who will, after an accident, say the line should have been drawn a step further towards risk avoidance. But I have no confidence whatever that those people wouldn’t, if an accident occurred despite that addtional step further towards risk avoidance being taken, say that the line should have been drawn one additional step yet further towards risk avoidance.
Right. After bribing the regulatory agency members with hookers and cocaine parties. That’s a hell of a stance you got there.
/spittle
Got a cite for that or are you just talking nonsense?
This is just the first thing that came up when I googled, and kind of derivative, but try this article.
And, you are making my point for me here.
If it is so difficult and complicated, how are they so confident that a blowout cannot occur?
And, there doesn’t seem to be a preparation beyond blowout preparation. That’s what a well can do.
London.
I notice you didn’t answer my question.
In the end it is about whether the regulations concerning risk diminution were to the appropriate level and followed. Given that you are still citing to people talking about about acoustic regulators which as I understand it wouldn’t have helped in this case, you seem to me to be a classic example of someone who doesn’t actualy want to hear the facts, you just want to yell at someone.
Do you have a cite to anyone from the industry saying “a blowout cannot occur” or did you just make that up? Do you actually believe there was no preparation for a blowout?
My cite for the fact that there was insufficient blowout preparation is the Gulf spill.
God damn BP.
So you still haven’t answered my question and you have no cite.
You understand the difference between “no preparation” and “insufficient preparation” right?
What does that even mean? Who do you think you’re addressing this sentiment too?
This operation spans many companies and vendors each with it’s own engineers who, under the guidance of 40 years of government regulation, had an accident. This is not the first oil spill from offshore drilling and it won’t be the last. The fact that it happened at 5,000 feet is a function of the advances of drilling technology.
Nobody is trying to absolve BP or any of the other companies involved but to simply damn an entire company because of an industrial accident is grossly over simplistic. History is replete with large-scale failures of bridges, aircraft and other engineering endeavors.
Crap happens and we need to learn from the mistakes. It may be a simple function of drilling multiple well heads from the start to take the pressure off the primary head. Whatever it takes, changes will be made based on what is learned.
‘Crap happens’ isn’t good enough.
BP needs to be put on the chopping block as an example. Nothing else is even realistic.
I’m not sure I know what bloody cite you’re even referring to anymore. Why don’t you repeat it, and while you’re at it supply an answer to the mystery of oil reps, hookers, blow, and regulatory board members connected in one constellation.
Enjoy your unicorn collection. I’m done.
I understand at this point that you are mainly interested only in posting polemic, but I really don’t know why, after all the information that has been presented here and in other threads on this subject, you seem to think that BP and only BP is at fault for the failures that led to this disaster. I and others have described methods and processes apparently used for the construction of the well on MC 252 that are considered more or less standard for deepwater operations by all such operators. Likewise, so far as anyone can tell all applicable regulations were followed, and it is quite clear, even with the limited information available, that a considerable number of checks and safeguards, not all of which were necessarily were under BP’s control, failed to end in the blowout condition. Again, the risks of kicks and blowouts are not operator-specific.
Now I will grant, IMO, that general claims by anyone that preparations for a spill related to a deepwater blowout are adequate, prior to such an event occurring, should be considered highly suspect without detailed analysis of those preparations. These events are quite rare, there are no really standard procedures for successfully dealing with them in a relatively short time frame, and there is no particular history of these being successfully controlled in a short time frame. This is precisely why the industry has expended the bulk of its time and money on prevention.
If you have convinced yourself that BP is the root of all evil here, I will not bother to try to convince you otherwise, but personally, I’m not so inclined to rush to judgement as you seem to be.
So still no answer to my question and no cite. And you aren’t fooling anyone by pretending you don’t know what I’m asking for.
You made this move before.
It is coming out that there were a number of known malfunctions in the BO but they went ahead anyway, FWIW.
My beef is not so much that there was a blowout. It is that BP, the operator, was not prepared to contain a blowout. Blowout containment was a cost they trimmed, and they did it by lying about their ability to handle situations much worse than this. They had an imaginary preparation.
They are rare like a nuclear meltdown is rare. A runaway nuclear plant can’t happen either, for essentially the same reasons. If deep water blowouts cannot be controlled in a suitably short time frame, why is this technique used at all?
Oh, money is probably lower than BP, but they are liable. I might feel more lenient if they didn’t seem so negligent.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/05/12/bloomberg1376-L2D6DZ07SXKX-4.DTL It is clear how much responsibility the oil companies feel. They are already trying to cut liability. They do not intend to make the people they hurt whole again.
You mean the oil company that employs thousands of people and may go bankrupt? You act like the company consists of Martha Stewart trying to cut the losses of a few stocks.