re: #550 Bagua

Your first two paragraphs I agree are important to consider. Note that Obama may be thinking along similar lines in proposing the regulators make use of independent experts, and not solely on their bureaucracy.

I have no idea what relying solely on a bureaurcacy would even mean, but yes, independent experts, paid by the government and forbidden from entering into industry after or before service, would be ideal.

But I don’t get why you say “ruling out this failure” would be a bad idea? That makes no sense. Ruling out the practices that were permitted would have prevented this blow-out, even with the 9 other mistakes and the faulty BOP.

Every individual mistake for any accident is avoidable in retrospect. You could say that about any situation, at any time. Just don’t put that last straw on the camel’s back.

Regardless, we simply eliminate what proved reckless by regulatory mandate. That would seem an obvious next step.

Rather, we don’t grant the many, many exceptions that we granted from regulation.

An interim measure of adding another set of sheer rams would also seem an obvious interim solution, as once a blow-out occurs only the rams can shut it off. It is quite likely they hit a tool joint, though it is possible they simply couldn’t cut the pipe. Adding another set distance away would remove this point of failure in the device we count on as the “failsafe.”

In any complex system, there is no level of redundancy that can account for all types of failure without making the cost of the system unbearable. You always have to have a plan for failure. The companies have revealed that this current cleanup plan is actually the best plan we have. That is unacceptable.

No set of regulations, practices, or standards, can make any complex practice completely safe. Life is not so orderly.

You should read Better, by Atul Gawande.