The Glade 4.0

Actually my world isn't all that different. The main difference is that I'm not, and I highly suspect that neither are you, privy to all the documents that allow for a full understanding of the issue. They just aren't available for Joe Q. Public. That is why I rely on investigative reporting to some extent, and most importantly full official investigations to get to the real detail of what happened and recommend solutions.

The other difference is that I really don't have an interest in becoming the oil expert that it would require to fully understand what happened, so at some level I must rely on professionals to help me understand what happened. I don't view that as a bad thing, I view that as using my time effectively.

Aizle:

Except that isn't true. Wired is making assertions based on hearsay information from Senators that have no more information than what the Senator Energy Committee made public. I read ALL of the Senate's released documents linked at the end of your Wired Article and found it lacking. What I did find, in this documents, was proof of due diligence on BP's part.

_________________

Well, we'll see, won't we. You're pretty confident for not being an expert in the field (or involved in the investigation). I find it pretty amusing that in other threads you get on people's cases for jumping to conclusions. Pssst: the investigation is underway....



So what? They're still liable. If you did everything right in your car, and your wheel fell off, causing an accident, guess what? You're liable. That's why we have insurance. The oil companies are self-insured.



No, I'm not, reread what I wrote. I said that BP may be able to transfer their liability to their contractor, if the contractor did not perform according to BP's requirements. However, the permit holder is still "to blame". In other words, BP gets sued, but may be able to recover some or all of the funds from its contractor.

If your wheel had just been worked on by a mechanic, and it falls off causing an accident, who's liable? You. But you will be able to turn around and sue the mechanic.

Khross, you don't even know what "due diligence" is for operations such as these.

Arathain:

I don't? Due diligence? Really? I read all these documents and look at all these permits and all these comments and exchanges and in the end I have the administrating and regulating agency saying ... "This all meets regulation and passes muster."

So what I see is BP doing their due diligence and following the law. Seems to me that if I don't know what due diligence is, then it must involve a whole lot of things that have 0 place in a court room.

_________________

Appeal to authority? You're assuming that the regulatory agencies are responsible for determining if BP is doing what they are supposed to? Just because BP has a letter saying "yep, looks good" from the agencies, doesn't mean they are performing due diligence. In fact, I am very comfortable saying that you are not aware of what due diligence is by making that statement. Engineers and contractors must perform according to regulations AND permit conditions AND good engineering and construction practices for the industry. It's not enough to just follow regulations. Any engineer or contractor knows that.

Now, the question is - what are these standard good engineering and construction practices for the oil drilling industry? Reading documents will not provide the answer, Khross. When you've obtained your geology degree, minerals and mining engineering license, and have spent about 10 years practicing in the field, I'll agree you understand what it takes to do the job correctly.



You're wrong. Professionals get sued all the time for problems when they deviate from standard practices. Even if they followed the regulations.

This I know. I'm an engineer.

Arathain:

And, yet, all the evidence before us indicates those are exactly the things BP was doing. Yet, you're not willing to accept the evidence at hand; or, for that matter, any analysis of that evidence. Because, from where I'm sitting, not doing what you have a permit to do (deviating from the license) and not following regulations (standard practices) shouldn't be cleared. But, whatever, you're civil engineer telling me I can't read. And I'm just guy a who's following this pretty interestedly because it's a god damned witch hunt.

_________________

No, all the evidence does not. There was testimony from other drillers that they did not follow industry standards.



I'm willing to accept all evidence as evidence. I have certainly not seen proof of anything. As for analysis, I'll accept some analysis, if done by experts in the field (which has not been completed yet). But unfortunately for your argument, I will not accept any old analysis, no.



Permits don't tell you how to do things, man. They give you conditions of approval. Specifications and design plans tell you how to do things, for specific items. Industry norms tell you how to do things in the absense of specific instructions to the contrary. For example, every set of plans and specs I put together says something to the effect of "Any statements made herein shall not be construed to alleviate the Contractor from that work which would normally be required to complete the Project based on industry accepted practices."



No, you can read just fine. It's your lack of expertise in the subject matter that has made you unaware of what applies but is not specifically written.



Can't argue with that.

There is particularly convenient testimony from drillers stating they didn't follow standards, but that would require complicity on the part of Haliburton and Schlumberger. Both companies had oversight and inspection teams on the rig at the time of the explosion. Neither company has stated anything more, in the written affidavits available, than BP operations were proceeding according to standard. In fact, in the expanded list of materials available from the Senate (now), the provided some of these companies work logs, etc.And Aizle's article somehow counts as expert analysis? The documents it links to contradict the statements it contains. That should be enough to dispute the claims of Wired Magazine on this matter. More to the point, the documents provided support the notion of due diligence on BP's part.Except, the permits I'm discussing have specific procedures and technical plans attached to them. Indeed, as I quoted earlier in this thread, BP dictated how things were to be done. If the contractor failed to do them as such, and if both third-party oversight groups were complicit in said failure, how does that become BP's "fault"? But, even then, we're getting beyond the most reasonable expectation and into "conspiracy" territory. The documents the Senate has made available are very detailed and very technical, including some of BP's engineering standards and guidelines for various components.So are these unwritten, but applicable standards that somehow super-cede regulatory approval of SPECIFIC procedures and construction plans?

_________________

Convenient or not, testimony is evidence. This evidence therefore invalidates your previous statement:



Clearly, all evidence before us does not indicate what you claim.



No, it doesn't count as expert analysis. Please reread my quote, in particular the part where I said it hasn't been completed yet.



All permits do. Technical plans and specifications are a subset of the information needed to perform a job. There are also typically certifications stating that contractors will be qualified and licensed to perform the work. Licensure has additional requirements, including conforming to industry standards. For example, nowhere in the specs, plans, or permits does it likely say how to operate the drilling equipment. It will lay out the requirements for the equipment, and the requirements for drilling, but actual operation of the equipment is covered by QUALIFICATIONS. There's a lot more that's tied to the profession, not the a particular job. You're looking at a small piece of the pie.



Of course. Does "how it is to be done" comply with everything it needs to? Is it specific and clear and unambiguous enough for the contractor to fully understand? How was their oversight? How was their implementation plan?

Because BP's required to manage their contractors. The permit wasn't issued to the contractor - part of obtaining the permit is establishing qualifications.



No, we really aren't.



Great. Sounds like a good place to start.



No, they are complementary. In general, you perform to standard practices unless the plans or specs specifically state otherwise. In other words, if it's not written, it still applies, but if the contrary is written, then you must do the contrary.

If I tell a contractor to dig a 6' hole, he must use an excavation box to protect workers in the hole. If I tell a contractor he is to dig a 6' hole and he cannot use an excavation box, he can no longer use an excavation box. It is now my responsibility to prepare a plan that protects his workers. Of course, he must accept the plan.

So, if I don't say anything at all about protecting his workers, he must still follow standards and do so.

How is testimony from their competition (which wouldn't have any access to the site or records of BP) in any way convincing testimony? It is hearsay.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

It's not hearsay, it's expert testimony. Hearsay would be if they testified "Billy told me they cut corners."

Now, for the reading impaired, did I say it was "convincing testimony" or did I say it was "evidence"? Whether or not it is convincing evidence is up to others to decide. It is, however, evidence.

Not really - it's an assertion...Its called "testimony" when it's used under oath in a trial, not "evidence". Evidence is "something that furnishes proof".

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

You're correct. The testimony in question is expert interpretation of the evidence.

Exactly!

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

This was too funny to pass up.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Nope, it is in fact testimony, and yes, the testimony is in reference to the evidence gathered in the case.

Evidence, by the way, is not fact. Interesting bias that you feel compelled to change "evidence" to "alleged fact". I see no particular difference in meaning between the two, but your choice in language is telling.

I'd say that evidence is always fact, but the conclusions one reaches based on those facts may or may not be true.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

It's interesting that I choose to use English?





See, you can't have "alleged" evidence. You can have "alleged facts." Since the "evidence," as I understand it, hasn't been demonstrated to correct and is effectively hearsy or circumstancial at this point, it is more proper to use "alleged fact(s)" than to use "evidence." Evidence points to the idea that you know what happened; that you know the facts.

You don't know them, and neither do I. So I was removing the bias from your language, not introducing my own.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Sweet, so now testimony is evidence. Eat it, suckers!



No ****.



Or evidence.



Nope. You gather the evidence, and then, if you have enough, you can determine what happened. You don't decide what happened, and the gather evidence that supports that.



And neither does Khross. Which was my entire point.

But hey, even though we agree, let's see if we can spend another 6 pages arguing over semantics.

The fact that you're too **** retarded, on a regular basis, to understand that semantics and word usage are important doesn't negate the fact that semantics and word usage are important... it just makes you retarded.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Semantics and word useage can be important, especially when you have someone who.. oh let's say likes to use the word "terrorist" for a lot of people who really aren't terrorists in order to try to draw a false equivalence for ulterior motives.

This, however, is not one of those times.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Wow, nice personal attack there. A bit uncalled for, IMO, but hey, I guess it's all good. I don't normally mind "language" discussions, if there's a relevant point behind them. But too often that is not the case. You seem to spend a great deal of time being concerned about semantics over substance, so I guess I can understand you getting your panties in a twist and crying like a little girl when your semantics are dismissed.

It's warranted because you're too stupid to contribute, so whenever anybody says something over your head you just ***** about semantics. Furthermore, it's warranted because you've been insulting people with passive aggressive bullshit throughout this entire thread. I don't play passive aggressive, because I'm not concerned about how people will react when I call them on their ****.

See, you don't want to actually examine the use of language here because you'd be proven wrong. And you can't be proven wrong because your persona is some sort of engineering super-genius. Well you may be good at your job, but you fail at a couple important things, at least in this thread: "comprehension" and "logic."

See, for something to be evidence it has to have been demonstrated to be correct or to have actually happened. Problem with that? We still aren't sure what happened. Hence, all the things you're calling evidence or "facts" are simply "alleged." Since one can't have "alleged evidence," the appropriate term would be "alleged facts," because they've not been demonstrated to be correct.

"That's not important," your small mind will say, "because it's just semantics." Except that it is important, because the different between an alleged fact such as a congressman with bias saying "we don't believe they followed best practices" and actual, demonstrable evidence (besides hearsay) that "the didn't follow best practices" is the difference between an innocent verdict and guilt of gross negligence.

By calling things evidence that are merely slanderous accusations without proof, or "alleged facts," you poison the entire well of public opinion on the matter. This is considered "bad" in a free country, and while I know you typically don't side with freedom, it'd be nice if you didn't put your finger on the scale.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

You are enjoying the hell out of the Hellfire immunity, aren't you D Flaming K?

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones