4 ms·

Except that's not what happened. Despite being a multi-billion dollar company they didn't install an emergency shutoff that only cost $500k. That's not just "

Except that's not what happened. Despite being a multi-billion dollar company they didn't install an emergency shutoff that only cost $500k. That's not just "drawing the short straw," that's criminal negligence.

locopati 16y ago
Add to that that the oil companies were actively lobbying/bribing the regulators for minimal restrictions and that the platform was drilling below the depth they were permitted to drill at (which can't help the cleanup efforts). Short straw indeed.
evancaine 16y ago
His original point still stands. If not BP, then it would've been another company. As consumers we demand low oil prices, the oil companies cut corners to meet that demand and it has consequences.
- naz 16y ago
  Do you really think that if their margins were a little higher they would spend the extra cash on safety improvements?
hga 16y ago
Errr, which emergency shut off are you referring to? An acoustic signaler? The utility of that is highly unclear, the BOP after all has a deadman system to engage if it loses its connection to the rig. Everything I've heard indicates the BOP failed in its primary function, for reasons we won't be sure of until it can be removed and examined (it might be something as simple as it not being able to shear through pipe couplings).
ErrantX 16y ago
It's far to early to pin blame like that. I will be the first one to beat down the door when it is time, but let's not get too hasty with all this. (fwiw I think in terms of cut out systems they were reasonably installed - that the bop failed could be an act of god or negligence: we have no idea yet. The possible negligence, and cause, elsewhere is another matter)
- pasbesoin 16y ago
  From a "60 Minutes" interview with a surviving on-site worker, we have pretty strong allegations that a mistake followed upon by willful negligence destroyed the effectiveness of the cutoff device and then chose to ignore same. There is a plausible argument that this aided the decision to proceed with subsequent mistakes. For example, if the device was compromised as described, pressure readings would be incorrect. If there is no criminal investigation, I will consider the governments involved effectively (entirely) compromised.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Yeh I saw that too; it certainly doesn't look good. I think we will see a criminal investgation - especially as this is a new gvernment, and the public are definitely asking for it to happen. I'll be interested to see the conclusion - my prediction? A mixture of accidents, mistakes and negligence which combined into a "fluke" accident. Heads will role :-) (which is another reason to take it slowly/calmly - it will be much easier for any culprits to pin blame in the current confusion)
    - pasbesoin 16y ago
      When "mistakes" results in deaths, in the "normal world" this may be considered manslaughter. At this point, I don't consider a Congressional investigation to be a criminal investigation. Even an appointed independent investigator/prosecutor will not suffice unless empowered to bring criminal charges. (And not merely against a chosen fall guy or scapegoat.) This is anecdotal, but the behavior and comments reported remind me all too much of what I've seen in (not the oil) industry. My own experience has shown my how prevalent negligence and cover-ups are, particularly in corporate environments. And how difficult it can be for ethical employees to counteract those trends. Sometimes -- often -- negligence may originate in part in ignorance and stupidity. It's not an excuse, especially when people die and livelihoods are destroyed -- to say nothing of irreplaceable natural resources. And irrespective of punishment, those responsible need to be removed from the ability and opportunity to make such mistakes again. If this makes it more difficult to find people willing to engage in oil production, maybe that is an economic incentive to accelerate development of other energy sources. EDIT: Sorry. This morning's coffee seems to have aided me in "getting my grump on". What I stated is a bit strong and perhaps simplistic. On the other hand, now is precisely the time to get -- publicly -- a bit "pissed off" and push for some real change. FURTHER EDIT: Well, it would have been better to push for change before such a problem occurred. But, to be practical/realistic/pragmatic/resigned about it ;-), now that it's in everyone's face, best to make hay while the sun shines.

locopati 16y ago

Add to that that the oil companies were actively lobbying/bribing the regulators for minimal restrictions and that the platform was drilling below the depth they were permitted to drill at (which can't help the cleanup efforts). Short straw indeed.

evancaine 16y ago

His original point still stands. If not BP, then it would've been another company. As consumers we demand low oil prices, the oil companies cut corners to meet that demand and it has consequences.

naz 16y ago
Do you really think that if their margins were a little higher they would spend the extra cash on safety improvements?

hga 16y ago

Errr, which emergency shut off are you referring to? An acoustic signaler? The utility of that is highly unclear, the BOP after all has a deadman system to engage if it loses its connection to the rig. Everything I've heard indicates the BOP failed in its primary function, for reasons we won't be sure of until it can be removed and examined (it might be something as simple as it not being able to shear through pipe couplings).

ErrantX 16y ago

It's far to early to pin blame like that. I will be the first one to beat down the door when it is time, but let's not get too hasty with all this. (fwiw I think in terms of cut out systems they were reasonably installed - that the bop failed could be an act of god or negligence: we have no idea yet. The possible negligence, and cause, elsewhere is another matter)

pasbesoin 16y ago
From a "60 Minutes" interview with a surviving on-site worker, we have pretty strong allegations that a mistake followed upon by willful negligence destroyed the effectiveness of the cutoff device and then chose to ignore same. There is a plausible argument that this aided the decision to proceed with subsequent mistakes. For example, if the device was compromised as described, pressure readings would be incorrect. If there is no criminal investigation, I will consider the governments involved effectively (entirely) compromised.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Yeh I saw that too; it certainly doesn't look good. I think we will see a criminal investgation - especially as this is a new gvernment, and the public are definitely asking for it to happen. I'll be interested to see the conclusion - my prediction? A mixture of accidents, mistakes and negligence which combined into a "fluke" accident. Heads will role :-) (which is another reason to take it slowly/calmly - it will be much easier for any culprits to pin blame in the current confusion)
  - pasbesoin 16y ago
    When "mistakes" results in deaths, in the "normal world" this may be considered manslaughter. At this point, I don't consider a Congressional investigation to be a criminal investigation. Even an appointed independent investigator/prosecutor will not suffice unless empowered to bring criminal charges. (And not merely against a chosen fall guy or scapegoat.) This is anecdotal, but the behavior and comments reported remind me all too much of what I've seen in (not the oil) industry. My own experience has shown my how prevalent negligence and cover-ups are, particularly in corporate environments. And how difficult it can be for ethical employees to counteract those trends. Sometimes -- often -- negligence may originate in part in ignorance and stupidity. It's not an excuse, especially when people die and livelihoods are destroyed -- to say nothing of irreplaceable natural resources. And irrespective of punishment, those responsible need to be removed from the ability and opportunity to make such mistakes again. If this makes it more difficult to find people willing to engage in oil production, maybe that is an economic incentive to accelerate development of other energy sources. EDIT: Sorry. This morning's coffee seems to have aided me in "getting my grump on". What I stated is a bit strong and perhaps simplistic. On the other hand, now is precisely the time to get -- publicly -- a bit "pissed off" and push for some real change. FURTHER EDIT: Well, it would have been better to push for change before such a problem occurred. But, to be practical/realistic/pragmatic/resigned about it ;-), now that it's in everyone's face, best to make hay while the sun shines.