re: #499 Stanley Sea

So basically the MMS approved the rig and the drilling procedure, therefore they are at fault. Sure, in the big picture. This view then supports the moratorium until the entire regulatory system is reviewed and fixed.

I keep going back to what happened on the rig that caused the explosion. Wasn’t there an argument between the people on the rig about how to proceed? Was an MMS guy involved in the argument?

Yes, that is what the record shows. Of course the one actually drilling is causing the actual accident, the regulators deal with paperwork.

The point is, the action proposed by BP had to also be evaluated and approved by the MMS. Thus there is a regulatory failure as well as a primary engineering failure. It was not “deregulated” or done in secret.

The alledged argument was from a mud engineer protesting the action that BP wanted to proceed with and the MMS specifically approved.

Rather than fit the accident into a deregulation narrative, should we not try to understand what actually went wrong?