Article

 

 

But on Friday, Transocean issued a statement insisting that switching off the main alarm had not jeopardised safety on the rig as there were

Its all a big conspiracy to get more money?

A conspiracy by whom? To get more money from whom? Serious questions, because I didn't understand your post.

Not sure if I understand all the intercompany relationships correctly, but the rig was owned by Trans-Ocean, using at least in part equipment made by Haliburton (sp?) and leased and operated by BP.

 

If you start fiddling with the checks and balances, you can create more "throughput" and make the site appear more valueable when you determine what the operator has to pay for leasing it.

 

Edit: One "conspiracy" scenario would be something along the lines of substandard equipment, an operator that ignores the smaller warning signs trusting in the big whistle to alert them to serious danger, except that it has been disabled by the owner because "it already had a lot of small alarm bells" and the combined greed of everybody involved leads to disaster.

A conspiracy by whom? To get more money from whom? Serious questions, because I didn't understand your post.

Oh, I was just screwing around; In any case, this looks like a simple screw-up resulting in minor punishment.

Edited July 28, 201015 yr by Irrelevant