[QUOTE=tengineer;37305]Alcor, get a life and quit being an apologist for BP. We all know there is plenty of blame to go around but this thread is degenerating into an attempt to educate Alcor when Alcor doesn’t wish to be educated. It reminds me of a discussion I had with a guy who refused to believe the Holocaust occurred.[/QUOTE]
Someone once told me that people get the tips of their cocks cut off when they are children. I still can’t believe it!
[QUOTE=Corky;37306]Gotta love the whole "If you ain’t Dutch. . . . . . . You ain’t much attitude.
I believe you’ve got it figured out now Alcor, you are the only person on this forum who actually works on a drilling rig, the rest of us are librarians & book keepers just here to try & impress you.
You can stick your finger back in the dike any time now, and well your at it you can put your head back in that other place where you obviously keep it most of the time.[/QUOTE]
Corky, check my post 3131 & tell me I can’t be right. The fact is we have been going at this all wrong. The only ones to blame the rig- BP. The only ones to blame the BOPs- BP. The only ones that have total control of the crime scene -BP. We haven’t been thinking criminal enough. We have all been thinking like scientists & engineers instead of liars & criminals trying to cover their tracks. Go back & read 3131 & tell me if you were in control & knew the only evidence pointed to you, wouldn’t you try to create some & point it the other way as much as possible. Why else hang onto the evidence from 1500 Hours until the end. They had to make up some kind of story & get the first punch in. What a bunch of dumb lying bastard criminals. Hell can’t get hot enough for these guys.
[QUOTE=Corky;37306]Gotta love the whole "If you ain’t Dutch. . . . . . . You ain’t much attitude.
I believe you’ve got it figured out now Alcor, you are the only person on this forum who actually works on a drilling rig, the rest of us are librarians & book keepers just here to try & impress you.
You can stick your finger back in the dike any time now, and well your at it you can put your head back in that other place where you obviously keep it most of the time.[/QUOTE]
I therefore have one up on you. Knowledge and practical experience.
[QUOTE=company man 1;37309]Corky, check my post 3131 & tell me I can’t be right. The fact is we have been going at this all wrong. The only ones to blame the rig- BP. The only ones to blame the BOPs- BP. The only ones that have total control of the crime scene -BP. We haven’t been thinking criminal enough. We have all been thinking like scientists & engineers instead of liars & criminals trying to cover their tracks. Go back & read 3131 & tell me if you were in control & knew the only evidence pointed to you, wouldn’t you try to create some & point it the other way as much as possible. Why else hang onto the evidence from 1500 Hours until the end. They had to make up some kind of story & get the first punch in. What a bunch of dumb lying bastard criminals. Hell can’t get hot enough for these guys.[/QUOTE]
I may be wrong but I believe they were trying to conduct tests…and then get everyone to swallow the pill! Apparently, the OIM eventually swallowed it, and then went to bed!
[QUOTE=alcor;37311]I may be wrong but I believe they were trying to conduct tests…and then get everyone to swallow the pill! Apparently, the OIM eventually swallowed it, and then went to bed![/QUOTE]
Do you have a reference for this evidence that anyone quarreled while testing?
Oh & don’t give me a GD BP office hack that would lie his ass off to keep from going to jail either, because even his attorneys refuted his testimony. You know its bad when your own attorney has to come forward & call you a liar to keep from going to jail.
[QUOTE=company man 1;37312]Do you have a reference for this evidence that anyone quarreled while testing?[/QUOTE]
Look back through the threads over the past 2 pages. Someone made a reference to it. Otherwise, I’ll dig it out tommorow.
[QUOTE=company man 1;37312]Do you have a reference for this evidence that anyone quarreled while testing?[/QUOTE]
Look back through the threads over the past 2 pages. Someone made a reference to it. Otherwise, I’ll dig it out tommorow.
[QUOTE=alcor;37314]Look back through the threads over the past 2 pages. Someone made a reference to it. Otherwise, I’ll dig it out tommorow.[/QUOTE]
You’ll be digging deep because he was the only one who testified to this & then his attorneys had to recant his testimony the next day. Recant=euphamism for lying & got bailed out maybe, but not now.
[QUOTE=company man 1;37312]Do you have a reference for this evidence that anyone quarreled while testing?
Oh & don’t give me a GD BP office hack that would lie his ass off to keep from going to jail either, because even his attorneys refuted his testimony. You know its bad when your own attorney has to come forward & call you a liar to keep from going to jail.[/QUOTE]
It wouldn’t be in the interests of BP to have arguments ongoing offshore regarding the tests. They’d like to hide it, I’d imagine. So would the OIM involved.
It doesn’t look good for any of them. I believe we’re getting to the real criminal element, those who can’t interpret data. But, I’ve mentioned this before.
[QUOTE=company man 1;37312]Do you have a reference for this evidence that anyone quarreled while testing?
Oh & don’t give me a GD BP office hack that would lie his ass off to keep from going to jail either, because even his attorneys refuted his testimony. You know its bad when your own attorney has to come forward & call you a liar to keep from going to jail.[/QUOTE]
It wouldn’t be in the interests of BP to have arguments ongoing offshore regarding the tests. They’d like to hide it, I’d imagine. So would the OIM involved.
It doesn’t look good for any of them. I believe we’re getting to the real criminal element, those who can’t interpret data. But, I’ve mentioned this before.
[QUOTE=alcor;37316]It wouldn’t be in the interests of BP to have arguments ongoing offshore regarding the tests. They’d like to hide it, I’d imagine. So would the OIM involved.
It doesn’t look good for any of them. I believe we’re getting to the real criminal element, those who can’t interpret data. But, I’ve mentioned this before.[/QUOTE]
It would damn sure be inthe interest of their management if they knew the only evidence for this disaster pointed at them & they had to find another possible cause.
What data? Have you seen it? If you have then its because you work for BP because they didn’t turn that data over to congress, but chose to go to the court of public opinion where they could depend on guys like you to believe any lying word out of their mouths.
[QUOTE=company man 1;37315]You’ll be digging deep because he was the only one who testified to this & then his attorneys had to recant his testimony the next day. Recant=euphamism for lying & got bailed out maybe, but not now.[/QUOTE]
I recall the Chief Engineer mentioning a massive bust up.
[QUOTE=alcor;37319]I recall the Chief Engineer mentioning a massive bust up.[/QUOTE]
That was during a prejob safety meeting, not during tests. You have to do better than that.
[QUOTE=company man 1;37160]I will be looking forward to your reports on this.[/QUOTE]
To the best of my knowledge, there are no class requirements requiring co2 injection systems on
internal combustion engines.
As far as rig specific stuff, API RP 54, 3rd Edition section 9.15 deals with safety systems for
IC engines. 9.15.1 says “Emergency shut-down devices that will close off the combustion air
should be installed on all diesel engines”. 9.15.2 requires all rig power emergency shutdowns to
be actuation tested weekly & all other ICE shutdowns are required to be actuation tested at least
every 30 days.
The 2010 revision of the MODU code is a bit more vague. Section 4.2.3 requires
all internal combustion engines to be fitted with overspeed trips & a couple of lines down there
is also a requirement for automatic engine shut-downs to stop the engine when certain conditions
are possible (one of those conditions id the possibility of explosion). Self propelled rigs are
also required to have emergency shutdown controls for each engine on the navigation bridge as per
section 7.4.2.3.
[QUOTE=company man 1;37309] * * * We have all been thinking like scientists & engineers instead of liars & criminals trying to cover their tracks. Go back & read 3131 & tell me if you were in control & knew the only evidence pointed to you, wouldn’t you try to create some & point it the other way as much as possible. Why else hang onto the evidence from 1500 Hours until the end. They had to make up some kind of story & get the first punch in. What a bunch of dumb lying bastard criminals. Hell can’t get hot enough for these guys.[/QUOTE]
Well, I am a lawyer, and I expect the BP General Counsel, their outside lawyers and their crisis management firm have also been putting in 26 hour days–with some success in creating a fog-of-war blame haze. There must have been some [I][U]really[/U][/I] interesting exchanges preceding last Wednesday’s meeting and BP agreeing to fund the $20b, because BP would have started out sounding like Alcor. It seems the WH Counsel’s office was in the lead on this, not Holder’s people, and beat the diversionary efforts down but good–and fast, and convincingly enough that the BP board blinked, and then caved. Damn fine lawyering by some group.
I expect that there will be criminal actions, but going to the top or murder are going to be REAL stretches. This is more like a drunk driver, recklessly endangering anyone that crosses his or her path (viz. Anadarko), except here the drunk driver was the Houston engineering staff–and the management structure surrounding them. Drunk drivers who kill do end up wearing orange jump suits, but aren’t convicted of murder, which requires a level of intentionality that is lacking here. Houston didn’t WANT this to happen: they just created the conditions where, after all the negligence, and with the reservoir they tapped and the strata that the wellbore went through, it was inevitable.
Well, I, for one, am glad to see Alcor banned. We have plenty of diversity of opinion, not to say friction, here without his ad hominem attacks, culminating in the barrage of f-bombs. Occasionally, he shed a little light, but mostly generated waste heat.
In science, to test a theory for validity, it must have both predictive ability and be verified by experimental evidence.
Applying this discipline to this scenario…noting, of course, that in social “science”, that the rigor of real science is neither going to be available nor testable…let’s go ahead and try a “thought experiment”, such as what Einstein used to conjure up his theories of relativity.
[B][U]Question: How would a dis-honest guilty part act upon being caught[/U][/B]?
Answer: Denial. They would deny they are the wrong-doer, or deny that any wrong has occurred.
Example:
“It’s just a small spill in a large ocean.”
“It’s just 1,000 barrels a day.”
[B][U]Question: Suppose there is no doubt (evidence) that a wrong has occurred[/U][/B]?
Answer: Deflection…it’s the Other People that are truly guilty.
Example:
“It’s the fault of the government/MMS/etc. They didn’t do their job well enough to prevent us from behaving in this manner.”
“It’s the operator’s fault, it’s the cementer’s fault, it’s the BOP manufacturer’s fault.”
“it’s the firefighter’s/Coast Guard’s fault…if they had not put out the fire, the rig would not have sunk, all would be well.”
[B][U]Question: Suppose there is no doubt that a wrong has occurred, and the first line of attack against Others fails[/U][/B]?
Answer: Re-direction…since the larger players will fight back, blame the small people and the victims.
Example:
“If you drive a car, eat food, or use air-conditioning, it’s really [B]YOU[/B] that are to blame for this disaster.”
“It’s the fishermen that were docked at the rig that night which caused the explosion.”
"It’s the small people who are “particularly likely to file bogus claims” that are at fault.
[B][U]Question: Suppose the small people ain’t buying that load of crap[/U][/B]?
Answer: Remorse (fake). Try to play the sympathy card.
Example:
“I just want my life back.”
“I had no idea of what was going on.”
[B][U]Question: Suppose that don’t work, either[/U][/B]?
Answer: Go on the offensive, call in favors from friends. Paint yourself as the aggreived party.
Example:
“I apologize,” Barton told Hayward. “I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is – again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.”
"“What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.’ I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business,” he said. “I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen.”
[B][U]Question: Suppose that still doesn’t work[/U][/B]?
Answer: Resignation.
Example:
“I’m sailing away on my yacht.”
“I’m not in charge any more.”
[B][U]Question: What other tools are there in the toolbox[/U][/B]?
Answer: Re-direction. Focus on technical details which are all but incomprehensible to 99.99% of people, so it becomes a “he-said/she-said” battle of experts in order to create plausible doubt.
Example:
Let’s “drill down” into the deepest minutia of pressure casings and shear ratings and geologic strata and mud flows and pumps to see if we can discern the technical issues and pinpoint the blame on a piece of equipment rather than on people (including a corporate “person”). The mind-numbing triviality of the
intricacies and jargon of the technical details will certainly be above the head of the dead people, and the financially ruined “small people”, and since they aren’t “experts” at such things, then we can thus dismiss their voices as “un-informed” and exclude them from the discussion and realize that they have no stake, whatsoever, in these “macho macho macho man” discussions and outcomes.
[B]NOTE[/B]: I’m not saying that the specifics of an incident aren’t important, as an aid to understanding the physical aspects of the event, but they divert focus away from the BEHAVIORAL ASPECTS, i.e. the “intention” aspects that poster “dell”, above, describes.
[B][U]Question: What next[/U][/B]?
Well, I, for one, am glad to see Alcor banned.
Don’t worry, he’ll be back, and mutate into something even more grotesque…
Question,Is it a coincidence, or premeditation, that Tony, and Gold Sach’s sold their BP stocks, just prior to the accident…That is nagging at me.
Did Tony, have a motive i e,he knew was loosing popularity, and the accident happened, with some Big Chiefs, “visiting”? who could have been killed? Excuse my Alfred Hitchcock moment,were these Big Chiefs a Problem for Tony, <disgrunted employee, who was going to get back at them>