Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Given continuing emerging technology that is often developed through industry R&D that has not been/can not be fully tried and tested in operational conditions before implementation, how would you develop safety/fail-safe regulations covering all contingencies without input from the "industry"?
For everyone else, again, BP has/had no incentive to waste millions of gallons of oil through an oil spill in the gulf, nor incur compensatory and potential punitive damages that will put their on going operations across the globe at risk. No one has yet to offer any hard proof that BP and any regulator failed to act in good faith.
|
Ace,
You keep calling this hindsight, but they are touting this device as having worked in 400-500 feet, but untested in 5K feet. So clearly, at the conceptual level, they didn't just figure out this funnel/straw technique. There's no reason why this device could not have already existed and already been tested at 5K feet - because that's where the oil is! The fact that they already had this technique but they didn't have it built or tested for this depth means that they did NOT act in good faith to prepare for every possible scenario. Looks to me like they put ALL of their faith in 1 singular dead man switch at the ocean floor. That's pretty crappy.
I'm a pro-capitalism, anti-big government guy. But, there was obviously some pathetic disaster plans created for these deep wells. Do I fully understand who developed and approved those plans? Nope. Am I willing to allocate a percentage of responsibility to BP/Feds? Nope. But common sense shows that BP didn't do all they could, and every indication is because they were lazy, naive, or...frugal. With so much at stake, it's immoral to be any of those things.