World Politics

[Anonymous]

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop lying about what I said.

Can u write that any bigger?

I have an novel concept. I'm going to stop responding to you and if you will do likewise perhaps this thread will decrease in it's level of stupidity.

 

[Oncearunner8]

I am not sure anyone can tell what regulations were not followed at this point in the disaster. It is unfolding as we post. There will be an investigation by Transocean, BP, ABS, MMS, USCG, DOHS, NOAA and quite possibly a separate Federal panel appointed by the President of the United States. I am not sure these guys will try to coordinate an investigation or will act alone. It would be in BP’s best interest to work along side MMS in my opinion. Check this out for some information regarding the size of the BOP for example the BOP in question is approximately 20’x20’x50’tall. http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/

There is more information coming out everyday and unfortunately some of the most knowledgeable people to speak about this particular well and its reactions during those last hours are no longer with us. RIP. They would know what the MUD mixture was during the well circulation and how it was reacting. There are reasons why the BOP could fail but it is rare.

I am posting a email conversation I had and maybe some folks can pick up on what may have been happening / going on. I will Bold my comments during this conversation. These comments were made the morning after the initial BOP failure / explosion.


I don't know who all the missing worked for but I assume most of them were Transocean hands...probably the drill crew that was on tour (shift) at the time.
Most likely the crew on the drill floor; would have been consumed in the fire


More info this morning is that they had run 9 7/8" x 7" O.D. well casing that was hung off in the wellhead at the sea floor...standard procedure. The casing hanger and seal assembly were negative tested to a seawater gradient and evidently held okay.
Normal procedure is to run and land casing, hanger and seal assembly in the wellhead below the BOP; casing is then cemented in place; after cementing, the seal assembly is set and energized, effectively sealing off the new casing from the old casing and open hole drilled; the seal assembly is then tested to ensure a seal

The blowout occurred as they were displacing the drilling mud in the marine riser (conduit from the subsea wellhead to the rig) with seawater in preparation for disconnecting from the well.
Normal operation before displacing the riser and removing the BOP is to set a series of plugs inside the casing; usually location and number approved by MMS (http://www.mms.gov/); again this ensures a sealed hole; sometimes short cuts are taken and riser displaced before setting plugs; not a good idea


A lockdown sleeve had not been run to lock the hanger in place but that is not unusual. More often than not, the lockdown sleeve is run after the blow-out preventer is disconnected from the wellhead so that we can see, via ROV camera, as it is landed and locked.
Not sure about the lock down sleeve; casing should be set and sealed as above; normal operation after removing the BOP is to set a well cap just to cover the hole and protect the wellhead until the well is reopened in the future

Evidently, the hanger and seal assembly (with the casing attached) got blown upwards into the BOP when the lighter seawater reduced the hydrostatic pressure on it. Hydrocarbons would have immediately rushed into the marine riser and come to the surface, probably evacuating all of the seawater ahead of it. The crews never had a chance to do anything when that happened.
True statement; not known is why the casing was unseated and driven up into the BOP; once gas and/or lighter formation fluid enters the riser above the BOP, there is nothing you can do; 5000 feet of 21” OD riser is allot of conduit

I'm assuming the hanger and casing were lifted inside the BOP because it is fitted with what is known as a "deadman" system. Once communication to the BOP is lost, it will automatically close the blind/shear rams via pre-charged accumulator bottles that are on the BOP itself. Since the deadman system failed to stop the flow and subsequent attempts to shut the BOP via ROV failed, I can only assume that something is inside the BOP preventing closure of the rams. That something can only be the hanger and casing.
The “deadman system” is used for auto closing of the BOP if communication via electric cable is lost between the BOP and the rig; this would have occurred after the explosion on the rig and probable destruction of the BOP controls on the rig; if the casing is in fact inside the BOP, this would explain why the BOP could not be closed; there are several emergency means of closing the BOP if primary communication is lost; pumps on an ROV and acoustic controls from remote location i.e. boat etc

Two Transocean rigs on contract to BP have been moved to the area to start the process of drilling relief wells...at best that will take two months or so. Meanwhile the well continues to flow oil and gas at a very high rate. Unless it "sands up" and bridges over, the environmental impact will be incalculable. Bad, bad, bad.
Articles and radio have said that there is no flow from the well right now; this is unusual and may be to bridging over; this would only be a temporary reprieve, all though very welcome; loss of the rig and an open well and not being able to close the BOP could lead to major pollution issues; if all these are correct, then the only way to deal with this is move in another rig and drill a relief well to kill the original well; which takes a long time particularly in 5000’ of water

 

[Anonymous]

Bro, I'm just quoting here and quoting recognized sources. You're quoting yourself. Who's the blowhard? Congrats.



Then why are you arguing with me inserting personal opinions to counter my facts?

This is similiar to your ridiculous argument regarding how the Great society was a failure I believe.



It doesn't stop your pedantic self important arguments against me though.




Talk about reading minds and creating unfounded assumptions.

Really? You don't think people with extreme productivity demands accept the probability of risk if that means what I think you mean?

You're unaware that Domino's pizza had their 30 min delivery guarantee regulated out of existence. How is Domino's that different from any other transportation company? I'll tell you how, their political lobbying people weren't as good.

You don't think the Domino's drivers were personally held liable by both management and law enforcement agencies?

So, a situation where 1) you may be fired by management for not acceding to their demands, or 2) you may be personally fined thousands of dollars by the FAA for going along with the wishes of management on the same issue, doesn't meet this criteria?



I have brought up instances of disaster and what's caused them. The rest of the statement is your overactive mind at work creating assumptions.




Bro, what's your professional background? Mine is extremely varied with some aspects I don't get into. I do have an Accounting background though with a B.S. in that subject. Do you know why Arthur Andersen failed. I'll give you a hint and btw, it was a foreseeable occurrance. The reason is so basic that I'm sure you'll overlook it and it violates very bedrock accounting standards.



No reason? More absolutist nonsense. How much did his profit margin shift? How long are the classes?



Didn't BP just occur? Isn't that what we're talking about? Did I bring up the Space Shuttle? Uh no, I just pointed out the obvious (which isn't so obvious to some of you) that the Challenger proves exactly what I'm saying about major disasters such as BP.



Really, name some. I was very specific about common sense regs that are necessary in my industry and which there is routinely pressure from the corporate structure to violate. Why don't you carry the Repug banner with Scott?



Useless regs that have a significant burden on profit. Name some.



Yes but we were (at least I was)talking about regulation regarding life threatening situations.





More mind reading? Show me where I supported useless regulation.



What's stupid is your arguments against strawmen in your imaginary world.




I ascribed the quality of evil to companies that fight useless regulation? Show me where I did this. I believe I was talking primarily about the well known (not by you apparently) facts of the Challenger disaster, and my personal experience in an industry where accidents often result in death and serious injury.



Bro, listen, the Challenger event was extremely well documented and the conclusions were what I said they were.

With regards to safety many of the regulations are black and white because experts who know better (unlike yourself) want exact guidelines to be followed to avert disasters.

They don't want some moron thinking that he can make personal judgements about how much dry ice can be on an airplane.

You ever fly in the cockpit of a large jet? The pilots have very specific protocols of exactly what they must do.


Take a guess why.



You're the one ascribing traits to people. I'm talking specifically about very specific incidents.




Everyone? Again, we were talking very specifically about very specific industries and practices.

Your risk assessment skills are horrendous by the way and that's just illustrated by you and your cronies use of all inclusive, absolute terms, like everyone.

I'll try to keep my statements to short sentences so you can follow.

Trying to debate a man with the mind of a 16 year old is pointless. You keep making sure you never take into account the possibility that you might be wrong, and the world will continue to treat you like the angry child that you are. Have fun Mr Accountant Risk Management Regulation Government Business Expert!

 

[cartman]

Buckwheat, mate. Reading the raging discussion I find it unfair you're calling ScottSoCal a liar. I think you ought to go back and read the last few pages and see who wrote what. If you're 'right', then my apologies and I'll blame my english skills.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. What HJ wrote is "what government is suppose to be, an organ for protecting and serving all the citizens, regulating commerce and insuring the health and well being of all its citizens as well". To me, these are different. Maybe HJ meant them to be interchangeable that's why I was asking.

What I was saying was

protecting and serving all the citizens, regulating commerce and insuring the health and well being of all its citizens

that is what a good government should do IMO and what I believe ours was set up to do. Your slogan is just that, a slogan for a call to arms to wrest the colony that England had set up here away and run it ourselves. I don't believe that slogan appears in exactly that form anywhere but at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.

 

[cartman]

I'm assuming the hanger and casing were lifted inside the BOP because it is fitted with what is known as a "deadman" system. Once communication to the BOP is lost, it will automatically close the blind/shear rams via pre-charged accumulator bottles that are on the BOP itself. Since the deadman system failed to stop the flow and subsequent attempts to shut the BOP via ROV failed, I can only assume that something is inside the BOP preventing closure of the rams. That something can only be the hanger and casing.
The “deadman system” is used for auto closing of the BOP if communication via electric cable is lost between the BOP and the rig; this would have occurred after the explosion on the rig and probable destruction of the BOP controls on the rig; if the casing is in fact inside the BOP, this would explain why the BOP could not be closed; there are several emergency means of closing the BOP if primary communication is lost; pumps on an ROV and acoustic controls from remote location i.e. boat etc

I spoke to a couple of friends who work on offshore platforms. They said this would have been prevented with an acoustic controlled BOP, which they said are mandatory in Norway and Brazil. Reading this though it appears there's a problem inside the BOP preventing any kind of seal even if you get the command through. Although the reason an acoustic controlled BOP is mandatory here is because if the 'deadman system' should fail it's easier to use this than roam around with robots 5000 ft below sealevel trying to close it.

 

[Oncearunner8]

I spoke to a couple of friends who work on offshore platforms. They said this would have been prevented with an acoustic controlled BOP, which they said are mandatory in Norway and Brazil. Reading this though it appears there's a problem inside the BOP preventing any kind of seal even if you get the command through. Although the reason an acoustic controlled BOP is mandatory here is because if the 'deadman system' should fail it's easier to use this than roam around with robots 5000 ft below sealevel trying to close it.

It is my understanding that this BOP had acoustic optional control also. If not then yes it is much easier to use that method than to use ROV's.

 

[buckwheat]

Hey cartman, this is what I originally wrote:

Oh, for goodness sakes. You've never been in an industrial environment?

There are standard practices that are followed to a T. These are widely known. When they are not followed, accidents happen, people die, or are severely injured, and environments are damaged.

These things are known from experience and that is why standards are set.

Do you have any idea what "case studies" are? The Challenger Commission is an example of one. It's a text book case of known standards not being followed with foreseeable results. It's not like I'm doing original thinking here. This was a panel of experts and bureaucrats and the problems they uncovered weren't all that technical or obsure.

Then Scott distorts what I said into what's highlighted in red.

Well folks, there its is. It took a while to get there, but we are there now. Problem solved. All we have to do is follow regulations to a T.

Buckwheat, mate. Reading the raging discussion I find it unfair you're calling ScottSoCal a liar. I think you ought to go back and read the last few pages and see who wrote what. If you're 'right', then my apologies and I'll blame my english skills.

Scott enjoys taking stuff completely out of context and then applying his absolutism to everything I write.

In the cockpit of an airplane, there are very stingent procedures that are followed. There are similiar stringent procedures followed in many industries where while the risk of an accident occurring may be small, the consequences are catastrophic. This is what's happened in the BP case.

Because I do take very seriously that I may be wrong I did go back and read what was written. I stand by my accusations.

As for TFF, he's another one with very poor reasoning skills.

The Challenger case, (which I did not bring up btw) was a classic textbook example of a catastrophe that was preventable, except that the decision making process was corrupted many steps along the way by influences that didn't make safety a primary consideration..

People like Scott and TFF make everything political and think they can insert their reasoning into situations where there are already well established protocols. Those protocols are often extremely black and white but these people somehow know better.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey cartman, this is what I originally wrote:

Oh, for goodness sakes. You've never been in an industrial environment?

There are standard practices that are followed to a T. These are widely known. When they are not followed, accidents happen, people die, or are severely injured, and environments are damaged.

These things are known from experience and that is why standards are set.

Do you have any idea what "case studies" are? The Challenger Commission is an example of one. It's a text book case of known standards not being followed with foreseeable results. It's not like I'm doing original thinking here. This was a panel of experts and bureaucrats and the problems they uncovered weren't all that technical or obsure.

Then Scott distorts what I said into what's highlighted in red.





Scott enjoys taking stuff completely out of context and then applying his absolutism to everything I write.

In the cockpit of an airplane, there are very stingent procedures that are followed. There are similiar stringent procedures followed in many industries where while the risk of an accident occurring may be small, the consequences are catastrophic. This is what's happened in the BP case.

Because I do take very seriously that I may be wrong I did go back and read what was written. I stand by my accusations.

As for TFF, he's another one with very poor reasoning skills.

The Challenger case, (which I did not bring up btw) was a classic textbook example of a catastrophe that was preventable, except that the decision making process was corrupted many steps along the way by influences that didn't make safety a primary consideration..

People like Scott and TFF make everything political and think they can insert their reasoning into situations where there are already well established protocols. Those protocols are often extremely black and white but these people somehow know better.

I never even addressed the Challenger issue little fella. You are the one that keeps droning on and on about it. I don't even disagree with your assessment, but you are too busy reading your own words to realize that. I don't ascribe the term a$$hat to many people, but you sir are certainly an a$$hat.

 

[buckwheat]

Trying to debate a man with the mind of a 16 year old is pointless. You keep making sure you never take into account the possibility that you might be wrong, and the world will continue to treat you like the angry child that you are. Have fun Mr Accountant Risk Management Regulation Government Business Expert!

Trying to debate a person who argues their opinion with well established facts is pointless.

Where was I wrong?

About the Challenger argument ChrisE brought up that Scott was so impressed with.


By my highlighting the fact that it proves his entire argument is incorrect.

The point they were getting at was that I was being a Monday Morning Quarterback and that hindsight is 20/20.

The conclusion of the Challenger Commission was that NASA had foresight and that pressures within NASA caused people in crucial decision making areas to greatly underestimate the known statistical probabilities of disaster.

Obviously the point of regulation is to lessen the possibility of accidents happening, but willful negligence because of profit motives or under the guise of supposed patriotism is something that has been found more than a few times.

We'll see what the verdict is on BP. Was safety compromised because of known risks that could have minimized or averted disaster?

Can 100% of all accidents be eliminated? Answer:NO

Was this an accident or negligence: We may find out, maybe not.

 

[buckwheat]

I never even addressed the Challenger issue little fella. You are the one that keeps droning on and on about it. I don't even disagree with your assessment, but you are too busy reading your own words to realize that. I don't ascribe the term a$$hat to many people, but you sir are certainly an a$$hat.

There are analogous situations but you keep voicing your very non expert opinion as if it is fact.

The larger point of the Challenger thing which you are completely blind to is that it is totally demonstrable that big tragedies can fairly easily be prevented with knowledge available.

I'm answering your broad generalizations and mind reading very specifically.

If you don't disagree with my assessment why are you saying it's too black and white? The importance of these regulations in certain circumstances is that they be entirely black and white and that is the point you're clueless to.

Like certain things aren't done under any circumstances. That's not a subjective assessment. That's a black and white line that is not crossed.

As for your opinion of me, I couldn't care at all.

After your disgraceful arguing of the help people received from Great Society programs you might as well be a Republican.

Start talking that rugged individualism crap.

 

[Anonymous]

Trying to debate a person who argues their opinion with well established facts is pointless.

Where was I wrong?

About the Challenger argument ChrisE brought up that Scott was so impressed with.


By my highlighting the fact that it proves his entire argument is incorrect.

The point they were getting at was that I was being a Monday Morning Quarterback and that hindsight is 20/20.

The conclusion of the Challenger Commission was that NASA had foresight and that pressures within NASA caused people in crucial decision making areas to greatly underestimate the known statistical probabilities of disaster.

Obviously the point of regulation is to lessen the possibility of accidents happening, but willful negligence because of profit motives or under the guise of supposed patriotism is something that has been found more than a few times.

We'll see what the verdict is on BP. Was safety compromised because of known risks that could have minimized or averted disaster?

Can 100% of all accidents be eliminated? Answer:NO

Was this an accident or negligence: We may find out, maybe not.

And I do not disagree with any of that, however to suggest that you are not intimating a point regarding BP with your examples is disingenuous. Maybe I am reading what I want into it, but it appears to me that while you profess the possibility that there may not be negligence, you certainly appear to have made your mind up and believe that there is in this case, else why the continued list of examples where negligence was involved? All I have said is that you appear to overlook the possibility that there was no nefariousness here, and that quite possibly, the problem was one that may have been foreseeable, but such a remote possibility that it was deemed unnecessary to address. That actually does happen in any system, and because of that, there is an inherent risk that must be accepted in any system. It does not mean however that anyone was purposefully negligent, nor that there were safeguards being ignored purposefully because of profit motive. I don't know what the case is here, and neither do you. My feeling is that regardless of the findings, BP and the other companies involved do have to shoulder the responsibility here because it is they who are engaging in the practice of offshore drilling, and sometimes things go wrong. In those cases, it is businesses responsibility to make restitution for the harm done even if there is no negligence or skirting of regulation.

Chill out man.

 

[Anonymous]

There are analogous situations but you keep voicing your very non expert opinion as if it is fact.

The larger point of the Challenger thing which you are completely blind to is that it is totally demonstrable that big tragedies can fairly easily be prevented with knowledge available.

I'm answering your broad generalizations and mind reading very specifically.

If you don't disagree with my assessment why are you saying it's too black and white? The importance of these regulations in certain circumstances is that they be entirely black and white and that is the point you're clueless to.

Like certain things aren't done under any circumstances. That's not a subjective assessment. That's a black and white line that is not crossed.

As for your opinion of me, I couldn't care at all.

After your disgraceful arguing of the help people received from Great Society programs you might as well be a Republican.

Start talking that rugged individualism crap.

Says the guy ascribing negligence to a situation that has not even been studied yet. You have absolutely no idea what the cause was here, and yet you feel the expert because the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded. You have no idea how ridiculous you sound.

As for anything else we have discussed, again, there are lots of people in the world and they all have opinions. You are one of them, and give little reason for anyone to consider yours objectively because you appear to have no objectivity yourself.

I should have kept you on ignore before. I will not make the same mistake twice. Toodles little fella.

 

[buckwheat]

And I do not disagree with any of that, however to suggest that you are not intimating a point regarding BP with your examples is disingenuous. Maybe I am reading what I want into it, but it appears to me that while you profess the possibility that there may not be negligence, you certainly appear to have made your mind up and believe that there is in this case, else why the continued list of examples where negligence was involved? All I have said is that you appear to overlook the possibility that there was no nefariousness here, and that quite possibly, the problem was one that may have been foreseeable, but such a remote possibility that it was deemed unnecessary to address. That actually does happen in any system, and because of that, there is an inherent risk that must be accepted in any system. It does not mean however that anyone was purposefully negligent, nor that there were safeguards being ignored purposefully because of profit motive. I don't know what the case is here, and neither do you. My feeling is that regardless of the findings, BP and the other companies involved do have to shoulder the responsibility here because it is they who are engaging in the practice of offshore drilling, and sometimes things go wrong. In those cases, it is businesses responsibility to make restitution for the harm done even if there is no negligence or skirting of regulation.

Chill out man.

Ok, but it was suggested that a redundancy that could have contained this whole thing would only have cost a half million dollars.

While it's a nice thought that BP has "stepped up to the plate," the idea that a company can clean up this disaster if they don't get a handle on it fairly soon seems to be extraordinarily wishful thinking.

I'm chilling

 

[Oncearunner8]

I never even addressed the Challenger issue little fella. You are the one that keeps droning on and on about it. I don't even disagree with your assessment, but you are too busy reading your own words to realize that. I don't ascribe the term a$$hat to many people, but you sir are certainly an a$$hat.

LMAO

I was thinking the meltdown was over. Boy was I wrong.

 

[Hugh Januss]

LMAO

I was thinking the meltdown was over. Boy was I wrong.

Shush, you'll wind 'em up again!

 

[Anonymous]

What I was saying was that is what a good government should do IMO and what I believe ours was set up to do. Your slogan is just that, a slogan for a call to arms to wrest the colony that England had set up here away and run it ourselves. I don't believe that slogan appears in exactly that form anywhere but at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.

Perhaps, although I think we really are speaking of the difference between positive and negative liberties.

I'm more concerned with what the govt is not allowed to do to any individual than what the govt is allowed to do for any individual.

This is tedious but interesting (or at least I thought so).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

 

[ChrisE]

Shush, you'll wind 'em up again!

From the deepest bowels of my heart and colon, I wish to extend this apology to the regular forum denizens for subjecting them to the wrath of buckwheat.

Mind you, my cause was noble; after occurances and castrophes things change, such as regulations and culture. I erred in the possibility that my example, albeit innocent, would be picked apart to where my original intent was obscured. For this I am truly sorry.

In closing, I hope that the good posters of this forum will forgive me for inciting the ferocity of my friend buckwheat. This is not unlike the lessons learned from many past catastrophes; I will self regulate from now on to prevent future buckwheat meltdowns.

This self regulation may cut down on the efficiency and volume of my posts, but the forum society as a whole will be better for it.

Sincerely,
ChrisE

 

[buckwheat]

Mind you, my cause was noble; after occurances and castrophes things change, such as regulations and culture. I erred in the possibility that my example, albeit innocent, would be picked apart to where my original intent was obscured. For this I am truly sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program

this link may illustrate just how much things change.

BP has had a history of "accidents"

March 2005 Texas City Refinery disaster
Main article: Texas City Refinery (BP)
One of BP's largest refineries in the USA exploded in 2005 causing 15 deaths. The fall-out from the accident continues to cloud BP's corporate image because of the mismanagement at the plant. There have been several investigations of the disaster, the most recent being that from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. It was preceded by the Baker report and BP's own internal investigation.[42]

A large column filled with hydrocarbon overflowed to form a vapour cloud, which ignited. The explosion caused all the casualties and substantial damage to the rest of the plant. The incident came as the culmination of a series of less serious accidents at the refinery, and the engineering problems were not addressed by the management. Maintenance and safety at the plant had been cut as a cost-saving measure, the responsibility ultimately resting with executives in London.[42]

On 30 October 2009 the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) imposed an $87 million fine on the company for failing to correct safety hazards revealed in the 2005 explosion. The fine was the largest in OSHA's history.[43]

[edit] August 2006 Prudhoe Bay Shutdown
In August, 2006, BP shut down oil operations in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, due to corrosion in pipelines leading up to the Alaska Pipeline. BP had spilled over one million litres of oil in Alaska's North Slope.[44] This corrosion is caused by sediment collecting in the bottom of the pipe, protecting corrosive bacteria from chemicals sent through the pipeline to fight this bacteria. There are estimates that about 5,000 barrels (790 m3) of oil were released from the pipeline. To date 1,513 barrels (240.5 m3) of liquids, about 5,200 cubic yards (4,000 m3) of soiled snow and 328 cubic yards (251 m3) of soiled gravel have been recovered. After approval from the DOT, only the eastern portion of the field was shut down, resulting in a reduction of 200,000 barrels per day (32,000 m3/d) until work began to bring the eastern field to full production on 2 October 2006.[45] In May 2007, the company announced another partial field shutdown owing to leaks of water at a separation plant. Their action was interpreted as another example of fallout from a decision to cut maintenance of the pipeline and associated facilities. [46]

[edit] October 2007 Prudhoe Bay spill
On 16 October 2007 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation officials reported a toxic spill of methanol (methyl alcohol) at the Prudhoe Bay oil field managed by BP PLC. Nearly 2,000 gallons of mostly methanol, mixed with some crude oil and water, spilled onto a frozen tundra pond as well as a gravel pad from a pipeline. Methanol, which is poisonous to plants and animals, is used to clear ice from the insides of the Arctic-based pipelines.[47]


Apparently your outlook about things changing is just as faulty as your use of the Challenger incident to illustrate that these kinds of incidents were not foreseeable and preventable.

BTW, you do realize that the shuttle continued its missions after Challenger and there was a second disaster. So I guess NASA continued to waste money on a failed technology and continue missions in which people were killed.

Thanks and continue distorting.

 

[ChrisE]

You have so much energy. If we could just harness that energy.....

 

[buckwheat]

Says the guy ascribing negligence to a situation that has not even been studied yet..

You might want to look up the past history of BP. They hardly learn from their "accidents."

You have absolutely no idea what the cause was here,.

Hmmm, the thing is under 5,000 feet of water, and they aren't sure if they can stop the oil if something does go wrong. A third grader would tell you they probably shouldn't have been drilling there in the first place.

and yet you feel the expert because the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded. ,

I know I'm not an expert. I'm just quoting them. The problem is that you don't know that you're not an expert and you're offering up your opinion as if you are one.

As for the Challenger, there is a vast amount of evidence that the culture at NASA did not change which helped contribute to a second disaster. Plus they're wasting billions on missions that aren't accomplishing a whole heck of a lot. Looks like the change ChrisE is fantasizing about is not actually occurring.

You have no idea how ridiculous you sound.,

I'm ridiculous quoting experts and ripping your assertions and opinions apart. You're the voice of reason relying on your own "expert" opinion which has been shown to be off at every turn.

As for anything else we have discussed, again, there are lots of people in the world and they all have opinions..

Right and some are experts and the large consensus of those experts has criticized both the way BP runs its business and how NASA runs the shuttle program.

Apparently you know better and when you don't you'll still keep arguing anyway.

You are one of them, and give little reason for anyone to consider yours objectively because you appear to have no objectivity yourself...

Try google, there's tons of information out there, most of it coming down on the opposite side of your opinion.

I should have kept you on ignore before. I will not make the same mistake twice. Toodles little fella.

C'mon, you're an intellectual masochist. Float some other crazy idea so I can tear it apart.

another toaster....

PS, it's kind of ironic how you'll cut these known repeat environmental offenders tons of slack but you come down hard on Great Society programs which actually helped people who had very little chance to begin with.

 

[Anonymous]

From the deepest bowels of my heart and colon, I wish to extend this apology to the regular forum denizens for subjecting them to the wrath of buckwheat.

Mind you, my cause was noble; after occurances and castrophes things change, such as regulations and culture. I erred in the possibility that my example, albeit innocent, would be picked apart to where my original intent was obscured. For this I am truly sorry.

In closing, I hope that the good posters of this forum will forgive me for inciting the ferocity of my friend buckwheat. This is not unlike the lessons learned from many past catastrophes; I will self regulate from now on to prevent future buckwheat meltdowns.

This self regulation may cut down on the efficiency and volume of my posts, but the forum society as a whole will be better for it.

Sincerely,
ChrisE

It really makes me wish Challenger had never blown up...

 

[Hugh Januss]

Perhaps, although I think we really are speaking of the difference between positive and negative liberties.

I'm more concerned with what the govt is not allowed to do to any individual than what the govt is allowed to do for any individual.

This is tedious but interesting (or at least I thought so).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Well I found it much more tedious than interesting, kind of an over-blown semantics lesson.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You have so much energy. If we could just harness that energy.....

He just needs some regulation.

 

[rhubroma]

Sorry about your Grandfather. Terrible situation.

One can eliminate oil spills by eliminating oil exploration. One can eliminate airline disasters by eliminating air travel. Same for mining accidents.

Regulations are necessary. Right now BP is claiming equipment failure. How do we regulate for that? At what point will you accept that unforseen accidents happen?

Once again you do not see the forest through the trees, because of your ideological position.

The point I was making wasn't about creating a system in which no accidents ever occur, which of course is an impossible goal. Mine was simply concerned with eliminating, as much as is humanly possible, that margin of error caused by the conflict of interests between profit and proper mainatainance and upkeep costs. And this is government's job and business' responsibility. In the specific cases I cited, such a conflict of interests led to the disasters.

I won't be at all surprized when the so called equipment failure in the BP disaster is determined to have merely been a cynical alibi for what in reality was criminal negligence, as these things usually go. We will wait and see.

It is obvious, however, that your ideological world view compels you to at times defend the undefendable, and thus to not see the bad where the bad exists, whereas it should be about placing those with great responsibility and power under the most rutheless scrutiny and to be unwavering in seeing justice done by bringing the necessary pressure to bear on those in power to do their job and those making the profit to not let their business interests prevent themselves from responsible behavior in all the business aspects and, vice versa, to not allow the business interests to determine all the political aspects andsoforth. Of course they always do I harbor no illusions about this, however, in such aweful circumstances we must never justify them. In this case mechanical failure itself isn't really the issue since it is just a fact; but why such mechanical failure took place and under which circumstances has such mechanical failure taken place, because it is naturally unacceptable "unacceptable" underlined that such mechanical failure really did take place when it should absolutely have never taken place and under the specific circumstances that it did which naturally brings under scrutiny every business practice and each political determinant that led to it happening, when they should have ensured just the opposite, due to the catastrophic consequences that have resulted in the horrible befouling of a vast marine environment off the coast of Louisiana caused by the profit making operation of drilling for oil. On the other hand if it is proven that everyone behaved responsibly as they should have, which is almost never the case especially where large profits and political determinents are concerned, then we can just hope that it won't happen again.

Though, I repeat, the later scenario is usually the one most accepted initially, when not immediatly from the start, by either naive fools or else cynical ideologues who always jump to defend profit and the political determinants behind the business practices and usually out of convenience sake because they coincide with a base world view.