On May 23, 6:38*am, "
wrote:
Oren wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:04:34 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
dpb wrote:

This beating up on BP is simply populist Monday-morning qb'ing for the
consumption of the press and populace.
Huh? As far as I'm concerned, they ****ed up. They should not have been
doing something that entailed risk, without a plan for dealing with any
problem that might arise. It's really just that damn simple.

You cannot write a contingency plan for every situation. Can't expect
a plan to cover every set of circumstances. *Didn't NASA save the
Apollo with a improvised brainstorm?

CAN'T write a contingency plan for every situation? *Hell, how about
"What do we do when the pipe breaks one mile down?" *I hope I live long
enough to witness the hearings where the oil guys are asked "Did you
ever discuss what corrective action would be taken if you opened a
gusher on the bottom of the ocean a mile down?"

BP HAD a contingency plan and fought to NOT follow it whilst the rig was
still on top of the water. *They violated their own safety procedure to
save time and money. *Apollo? *Apollo didn't have the potential for
ruining an ocean, and the flyboys did what they did because they were
risk-takers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I thought the report was that they did have that contingency - a 'blow-
out preventer'. Something went wrong with it however.

Harry K