Steinhauer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 12,109
- Reaction score
- 136
If that's so, why was it done intentionally?
my comment meant that they purposefully ignored negative pressure tests and drilled anyway.
If that's so, why was it done intentionally?
my comment meant that they purposefully ignored negative pressure tests and drilled anyway.
okay, what's difference a mile and two really?First, its 5000 feet down, last i checked that is under a mile, not two.
Second: There were safety precautions that BP ignored before the explosion, so in a way they did cause the leak.
Didn't I hear they were only 10 hours away from drilling AFTER actually performing these tests?
If was NOT an accident! BP failed to run a tests to made sure the rig was safe to use. And BP did not have a part of the rig installed as they did not want to wait 10 more hours to start drilling for oil. BP was trying to save money in making the rig and is cost 11 men their lives and is nowing killing wildlifes and peope can no longer fish to made a living. This oil disaster was all about greed and money. I wish people would stop calling it an accident.
Its difficult to objectively label a person or corporation's "intent" with this incident. It eats at me every day this doesn't go resolved and there are still unforseen consequences that will undoubtedly result from it. But, I think I would still call it an accident myself; except I would add in the equation a significant amount of neglegence. I've seen patient's die at the hospital and while I doubt any cause of death within the hospital's liability is intentional, I can tell you I've seen instances and read case studies where staff or physician neglegence plays a role in a person's cause of death.
If that's so, why was it done intentionally?
Some folk just don't get it.
Right, TXgolfer. What's the record now?