UK_Widowmaker 571 Posted April 29, 2010 Once again, boils down to greed! The US does not have a mandatory ruling on an acoustic switch Quote:- "The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular Drilling Companies questioned it's cost?.....oh yes!..I'm sorry!....They can't afford such things....I mean lets face it...what is the death of eleven people, and an environmental catastrophe compared to a final solution cut off switch? Well, let's hope the head men at 'The Drilling Companies' don't lose any sleep eh? W*nkers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UnknownPilot 33 Posted April 29, 2010 I'd bet the loss of product cost far more than a cut off switch. For the sake of preventing a spill, yes, it should have been dictated. But risk to people? They sign on and choose the risk. We dont' have enough risk overall these days. Won't belong before this is YOUR morning commute as well - http://www.funpic.hu/files/pics/00004/00004967.jpg 'course, if we could just cut back on the new creations it would take care of itself (as Bill Burr so humously pointed out. ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Raden Posted April 29, 2010 Once again, boils down to greed! The US does not have a mandatory ruling on an acoustic switch Quote:- "The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular Drilling Companies questioned it's cost?.....oh yes!..I'm sorry!....They can't afford such things....I mean lets face it...what is the death of eleven people, and an environmental catastrophe compared to a final solution cut off switch? Well, let's hope the head men at 'The Drilling Companies' don't lose any sleep eh? W*nkers Now, those at the top, the CEO, the Boards of Directors (who enjoy MORE of golfing! -- learned the hard way of the EFFECTIVENESS of their refusing to install the device recommended by the US authority! Kindly Search "ten worst corporations' (year-wise) This "costs saving STUPID measures" remind me of a couple of air disasters affecting the commercial airlines, notably (formerly) the US AIR in 1990s (featured in TIME Mag, cover story if I recall it correctly in 1996). ALWAYS happened, the technician guys (good ones!) battling the STUPID decision(s) of the corrupt management team, who insisted that their fleet of BOEINGs (that small ones dudes, something series 200 which were/are still susceptible to SIDE WINDS) MUST fly tho the technicians stated they were not OK to fly. Result: a couple of crashes! The military side, it was in a book (old one) THE PENTAGON PAPERS/Paper (?). Malpractice of mark-ups on many things military. E.G., a toilet was priced at USD 700.00!!! Some parts of their attack chppers/helos were "canibalized". Results: same, unnecessary death of GOOD militarymen! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
