ADK_Forever
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,706
- Reaction score
- 1,001
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You're article doesn't address my question.
Your article goes on and on about this particular BOP, but I asked something different.
Your question is hypothetical and totally ignores what this article's eye witness says happened.
I know, it's awful when an article goes on and on and on with those pesky "facts" disproving your desired explanation. :roll:
Had everything been working perfectly, there still would have been a fire. This is due to the methane being able to reach the deck before the computer could have detected and reacted to the problem.
WRONG! Had you read the article or listened to the interview you would have learned that a "methane bubble" had nothing to do with the explosion. Nothing.
My presumption that the Deepwater would have burned and sank even if the BOP had performed perfectly was incorrect because I assumed the initial explosion was much greater then it actually was.
What's with "presuming" anything here? Several very good sources have been provided yet, you continue to go off on your own science dream "presuming" that a fictional event happened. Why is it so important to you to ignore facts as they are exposed?
Had everything worked the way it was supposed to and had BP not taken those safety short cuts and had BP not ignored their damage to the BOP... that rig would still be out there pumping out oil.
THAT is the point. :doh
Your intentional refusal to address this is enlightening in itself.