Harry K wrote:
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

As I understand it, the "mud" that is used to fill the pipe was pumped
out. The mud helped maintain proper pressure. Increasing pressure
damaged some kind of rubber seal. Someone noticed rubber particles in
whatever was being pumped out and brought it to the attention of ? That
was the beginning, and I think the pressure problem is what allowed the
gas to escape. The BOP was part of a solution, but obviously there was
no plan for "what if the BOP battery dies and the whole rig blows up?".
If I was pumping gas from the bottom of the ocean, I'd kind of wonder
what to do when the pipe breaks down at the bottom.