- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 6/17/10 at 2:27 pm to Decatur
quote:I know that inspectors can walk around and hit ESD and it shuts the platform in and have done it as a test
Do you know any specific instances?
i'll look for specifics though
Posted on 6/17/10 at 2:32 pm to coloradoBengal
quote:Regulations set a baseline below which persons cannot operate. If you can't meet the regulation, you don't get to operate. However, meeting the baseline does not mean that the operations are the best operations, reasonable operations, or even adequate operations. It just means that you get to operate.
I am trying to understand how when regulations set a minimum and people/companies meet those minimums, they can be held responsible for those minimums not being adequate.
Simply put: just because you're not speeding doesn't mean that you're not going too fast.
Posted on 6/17/10 at 2:35 pm to just me
quote:
Simply put: just because you're not speeding doesn't mean that you're not going too fast.
rain, fog, people walking on side the road
Posted on 6/17/10 at 2:36 pm to mylsuhat
Thanks
Posted on 6/17/10 at 2:50 pm to just me
quote:They would seem to be useless then.
Regulations set a baseline below which persons cannot operate. If you can't meet the regulation, you don't get to operate. However, meeting the baseline does not mean that the operations are the best operations, reasonable operations, or even adequate operations. It just means that you get to operate.
Look, I understand that its a complex operation. But this is the problem with govt regulation in a lot of cases. It draws arbitrary lines of minimum compliance, that provide a false sense of security.
Is the MMS's permission to operate with a certain config a "stamp of approval" or not? What I am reading from the article that started this thread, is that BP was in violation of known MMS regulations, but MMS said "Okie Dokie" anyway.
Is that what happened or not?
Posted on 6/17/10 at 2:51 pm to coloradoBengal
quote:
BP was in violation of known MMS regulations, but MMS said "Okie Dokie" anyway.
Is that what happened or not?
Not, no way it would have been approved
MMS is not corrupt as Barry would like you to think
ETA: they may have had 2 incidents in the past but the overall group are good people
This post was edited on 6/17/10 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 6/17/10 at 2:52 pm to coloradoBengal
quote:That's a different issue; however, yes, that is what I heard.
Is the MMS's permission to operate with a certain config a "stamp of approval" or not? What I am reading from the article that started this thread, is that BP was in violation of known MMS regulations, but MMS said "Okie Dokie" anyway.
Is that what happened or not?
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:11 pm to just me
quote:
that is what I heard
The MMS did not force BP to PROVE that they were in compliance..............that is very different than approving a departure from the regs........this is what I have heard.
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:14 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
The MMS did not force BP to PROVE that they were in compliance..............that is very different than approving a departure from the regs.
I guess I don't understand the distinction. I thought the MMS's purpose was precisely to do THAT... enforce compliance by controlling the ability to operate.
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:16 pm to AcadianDisciple
Acadian I didn't read all of that but the human factor is why I think it's ridiculous that I've heard someone in administration say something about guaranteeing that this won't happen ever again ... how the HELL could anyone ever guarantee that? When humans are involved there is ALWAYS a chance for errror.
I ask again, how will they ultimately figure out exactly what went wrong, or will this ever be known?
I ask again, how will they ultimately figure out exactly what went wrong, or will this ever be known?
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:18 pm to tiger91
Newest plan to stop the leak
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:19 pm to coloradoBengal
quote:
I guess I don't understand the distinction.
I guess you are not an attorney.........
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:38 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
The MMS did not force BP to PROVE that they were in compliance..............that is very different than approving a departure from the regs........this is what I have heard.
Posted on 6/17/10 at 4:21 pm to just me
BP blaming MMS for BPs mistakes is like an abusive husband yelling at his wife "Why are you making me hit you!" as he slugs her around.
Stay classy BP.
Stay classy BP.
Posted on 6/17/10 at 4:29 pm to just me
Seems pretty clear. There's a law. And nobody was following it, MMS or BP.
and then the senator hit the nail on the head...
Both parties were wrong. And I have to agree with the senator that I'm displeased with BP, though not surprised, but it's the MMS's job to regulate and they failed.
quote:
the Minerals Management Service official in charge of reviewing BP's application for the Macondo well was not aware of a regulation requiring oil companies to certify that their blowout preventers can cut drill pipe to shut off a flowing well under specific conditions.
quote:
The company responded that it applies for permits to drill oil wells "in accordance with the process prescribed by MMS officials," but goes on to say that it was not "MMS practice" to require anyone to comply with that particular section of the law.
and then the senator hit the nail on the head...
quote:
"I find it very disturbing that BP asserts that the 'practice' in oil drilling is to avoid current laws designed to keep our beaches safe," Grassley responded in his letter. "And I am outraged that MMS is looking the other way."
Both parties were wrong. And I have to agree with the senator that I'm displeased with BP, though not surprised, but it's the MMS's job to regulate and they failed.
Posted on 6/17/10 at 4:40 pm to NukemVol
Letter from Congress to BP's Hayward
quote:
At the time of the blowout, the Macondo well was significantly behind schedule. This appears to have created pressure to take shortcuts to speed finishing the well. In particular, the Committee is focusing on five crucial decisions made by BP: (I) the decision to use a well design with few barriers to gas flow; (2) the failure to use a sufficient number of "centralizers" to prevent channeling during the cement process; (3) the failure to run a cement bond log to evaluate the effectiveness of the cement job; (4) the failure to circulate potentially gas-bearing drilling muds out of the well; and (5) the failure to secure the wellhead with a lockdown sleeve before allowing pressure on the seal from below. The common feature of these five decisions is that they posed a trade-off between cost and well safety.
Posted on 6/17/10 at 4:43 pm to AcadianDisciple
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Minerals Management Service official in charge of reviewing BP's application for the Macondo well was not aware of a regulation requiring oil companies to certify that their blowout preventers can cut drill pipe to shut off a flowing well under specific conditions
How can the official in charge NOT KNOW what the regs are?????
Posted on 6/17/10 at 4:44 pm to tiger91
quote:
How can the official in charge NOT KNOW what the regs are?????
Gubment work. Its good if you can get it.
Posted on 6/17/10 at 4:45 pm to tiger91
That sounds like a twist on what someone said to me
i dont see how thats possible, the media seems to have spun that quote somehow
i dont see how thats possible, the media seems to have spun that quote somehow
Page 2 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News