Quote:
Originally Posted by silent_jay
Ace, I've worked in the mining industry before, I know this risk free world doesn't exist, but you don't seem to grasp the concept of relief wells being drilled at the same time as the producing well. To drill the relief well after the fact does nothing, the damage is done, the oil is already in the water at that point, the point of them is to relieve pressure in case of a blow out, hence the name relief well, not relief after the fact wells. Drilling one after the fact isn't a plan, a plan would have been to have one drilled alonside the producing well in the first place, to relieve pressure in case of a blowout.
Comparing it to having a fire station next door is well to use your own term, complete idiocy.
|
All you are saying is that you think there was a better plan. After an accident there is always a better plan. It is far to easy for people to say they had no plan or we simply need more regulation, my point is that regardless of the plan, regardless of the level of regulation, bad things can/will happen in a environment were there is risk. Wrongly identifying what we think is the cause will lead to ineffective solutions. So I persist in trying to get people to be specific and clear on this issue.
---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
===============
ace, i've made my positions clear.
what you call a "tizzy" is nothing more than exasperation at the fact i find myself bothering to engage with someone who simply refuses to do the work required to be taken seriously. it bothers me that against my better judgment i waste my time interacting with you.
as for your pissy ridiculous "questions"....i've already answered them.
to summarize:
i have made it clear what the directions are that the research has taken in this thread.
i have tried to integrate these directions of research through interpretations that in some details have changed as the information i have at hand changes. but the overall line has been clear.
the condition of possibility for this accident was the regulatory regime itself.
i've posted alot of information about how that regime operated.
i've posted information about minerals management. i posted a copy of the lease for the fucking site the deepwater horizon was on that allow anyone who looks, including you if you bothered, to see exactly what bp was exempted from providing.
there's plenty of information--more than enough----to render you're claims in defense of bp meaningless.
|
I don't defend BP, this illustrates you don't comprehend what is written. My point with BP is that they had a plan, a plan that was approved. BP is at fault here and I would have "fired" them from the very beginning.
Your thoughts on regulation are not clear. Are you suggesting that a different regulatory structure is required, if so what? Are you suggesting inadequate regulation, if so what type of regulation eliminates the possibility of a major oil spill? There are other questions, but I doubt you will respond. In my view what you present would do nothing to prevent or minimize the next disaster, because I don't think you understand the root cause of this one.
Quote:
|
moreover, there's material in this thread about bp's history of cutting corners on safety and environmental considerations in the gulf in particular.
|
What does "cutting corners" really mean to you. There is always going to be a point where a "corner" gets cut! The nature of cost/benefit analysis quantifies these trade-offs all the time in all types of markets and in all types of government. Your superficial comments on this subject is problematic to anyone taking the issue seriously.
Quote:
|
and there's ALOT of information about bp not following their own procedures in this particular situation. there's ALOT of information about negligence. and it's all public record. if you bothered to read, you'd see it.
|
Humans make judgment calls. In most systems, including oil drilling, the exposure to human judgment error never goes to zero. The real issue is how do we minimize this exposure, and what did BP do in this regard. What did regulators do?
Quote:
that an accident reflects long-term problems and is ringed round with general and specific problems on bp's part, on halliburtons part and transocean's part does **not** mean that what happened wasn't an accident.
no-one outside of the straw-man machine you seem to have in your brain has said anything other than that.
|
What about industry standards. These companies have been generally supported by the industry and experts regarding their general operational activities. Investigations will reveal what really went wrong, but this could have happened to other companies in the industry.
Quote:
where the problems of regulatory scheme and bp converge for real is in the 37 days that's passed since the accident. what's happened follows in a straight line from what conditioned or enabled it.
you're stuck on some idiotic claim that bp "had a plan"---that idiotic claim has been demolished over and over by me, by jazz, by jay, by others. there was no plan functionally to deal with problems that could arise with deepwater drilling like this in significant measure because mms did not require bp to generate the scenarios that would have been the basis for developing the technologies and contingency plans that should, obviously, have been in place. period. there is nothing you can say that changes this. the documentation is in the thread.
|
Documents show they had a plan. Their response shows they had a plan. Contracts put in place before the accident shows they had a plan. the President said they had a plan and that every action they have taken in executing their plan was approved by his administration. Sorry if I don't accept you Jazz and Jay saying something different.
---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ring
& also, for the record, Idyllic:
Ace has admitted to posting just to get a rise out of people for his own entertainment.
There is absolutely no comparison.
|
If you think there is no substance in what I present, the answer is simple - ignore what I write. I admit that I should be better and not respond to silliness with silliness, but I am flawed.