Thread: Obama's bumbling of the oil spill

Originally Posted by jviehe

So what in that article indicates negligence? According to the company and evidence, they followed procedure.

You obviously didn't read the article.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Which indicates a difference of opinion, not negligence.

You made the point that the article was specific and conclusive. That is not the case. That is my only point. There is a lot more to this story than was in that self-serving article.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

You obviously didn't read the article.:rolleyes:

I notice you didnt answer the question.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

You made the point that the article was specific and conclusive. That is not the case. That is my only point. There is a lot more to this story than was in that self-serving article.

Thats how YOU interpreted my statement. I simply summarized the article in regards to the claim being made. Interesting how Mrs M considers it an indictment of the company and you consider it self serving. Must be somewhere in the middle.

Originally Posted by jviehe

I notice you didnt answer the question.

I thought the answer was quite obvious if you had read the article....let me help you:

In the case of the Deepwater Horizon, Scott Bickford, a lawyer for a rig worker who survived the explosions, said the mud was being extracted from the riser before the top cement cap was in place, and a statement by cementing contractor Halliburton confirmed the top cap was not installed.

I don't really understand why people think anything will change after this. We need fuel far more than we need products provided by fisherman from LA , for example.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

I don't really understand why people think anything will change after this. We need fuel far more than we need products provided by fisherman from LA , for example.

The only change I want is for BP to clean up my backyard and then get the hell out of there. They have a horrible track record and don't need to be in operation but I most definitely want the drilling to continue by other companies in the Gulf, though.

Originally Posted by jviehe

So what in that article indicates negligence? According to the company and evidence, they followed procedure.

So you don't count an exploding oil rig as evidence of something done wrong?
See I'd say the evidence points to negligence.


Because if this is what happens when you do everything right, then that's a strong argument for banning all offshore drilling.

Originally Posted by CSA

is that way OBAMA was about to give them an AWARD for saftey the Friday that teh explosion happened?

Really? Obama was giving BP a safety award?
Let me guess, you got that story from a right wing wacko web site..........

Obama wasn't handing out awards, The Minerals Management Service was.

In ironic twist, BP finalist for pollution prevention award – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

The president isn't the grand poobah of all that happens under the sun.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

I thought the answer was quite obvious if you had read the article....let me help you:

I understand that that is what the lawyer for some random worker said. This is testimony, not evidence. We have several companies all blaming each other. And then you have the govts role:

A worker who was on the drilling rig said in an interview that Halliburton was getting ready to set a final cement plug at 8,000 feet below the rig when workers received other instructions. "Usually we set the cement plug at that point and let it set for six hours, then displace the well," said the worker, meaning take out the mud.

According to this worker, BP asked permission from the federal Minerals Management Service to displace the mud before the final plugging operation had begun. The mud in the well weighed 14.3 pounds per gallon; it was displaced by seawater that weighed nearly 50% less. Like BP, the MMS declined to comment on this account.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

With the number of concurrent failures of equipement and unique circumstances, all signs point to an accident.

Originally Posted by jviehe

...
With the number of concurrent failures of equipement and unique circumstances, all signs point to an accident.

Accidents usually are a combination of unsafe circumstances coming together, which is what this appears to be. When one skirts safety item after safety item then can there be surprise when there is an event? Is that event still an accident, or just a consequences of money-shaving habits?

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Accidents usually are a combination of unsafe circumstances coming together, which is what this appears to be. When one skirts safety item after safety item then can there be surprise when there is an event? Is that event still an accident, or just a consequences of money-shaving habits?

A bit of both, no doubt. Risk management is an art.