1 Missing After Rig Explosion In Gulf

Ben Franklin said something to the effect that the anonymous writer could tell the truth, whereas the signing writer may well know that repercussions of their truth telling would be severe, and so anonymous writings have an important value when they are truth otherwise not to be known.

I have availed myself of the option to post anonymously which appears as Guest on occasion for reasons of my own that may or may not be private.

There is the great one that I did purely for fun with India about how to build a bridge from NYC to London, or something like that.

Sometimes if I feel my health or habits ought not be signed, but influence my post, I may well use the option, which otherwise I don't.

You're posting as a member, [your handle not withstanding] we can see from your body of work what you are about & act accordingly, when you post as guest [& you do post as guest] there is no way to differentiate between you & all the other anonymous cowards [guest].

You as a member are much more likely to get a response from me & many of the other long time members. The answers won't reduce the size of the vendetta you have against admin & or various members, that many of us perceive from your posts [using either the Aguest or guest persona]

So It Goes.......

Good one play the injured party, when you registered your cloak was defender of the poor defenseless member being throughly abused by the most savage beasts, Guru & or Moderator

there have been a few turns as holder of the truth & logic[facts to the contrary not withstanding]

Javahead pointed out the constant still a duck from here...

The latest report is that everyone is accounted for. One injury, and that person is being taken to a hospital.

The rig was inactive; no oil was being pumped.

[Saw an add for a Snorgtee the other day that said: 'I am disapointment with you're grammar'. Ha.]

CR4 Admin: Removed reference to deleted comment.

Just gotta get in some kind of dig then? My earlier comment was in response to some posts that have since been removed. Well I'm gonna to go then! And I don't need any of this. I don't need this stuff, and I don't need *you*. I don't need anything. Except this. [picks up an ashtray]

I did my part.

I can tolerate this backbiting no longer.

A noble effort to put forward a serious discussion has degraded to this slanderous vilification of members and guests alike. Insults, adolescent tirades, defamation, and down-right bad mouthing... this is not the uniform of the day, and should never be allowed to be so.

And so, this thread remains open for discussion?

Adeus, Farvel, Arrevederci, Sbohem... Good bye.

Thanks, Java, for bringing this back on topic.

The Mariner operation is a producing platform and not a drilling rig, so not subject to the moratorium. As far as I know, the cause is still under investigation.

It's dangerous, nasty work but there's so much safety training that roustabouts and pencil-pushers alike have to take. Just guessing that whatever happened here, like BP, is human operator error and not design or mechanical flaw. Jus' sayin'.

No problem Sue… I was going to respond but then after reading up on our guest, discerned that it would have been a futile endeavor - not to mention a poor investment of calories, regardless of how few it takes to type. Rather, I just changed my signature block.

Back to the rig fire, it will be interesting to see what shakes out of the investigation… I just hope it is free of political conjecture.

JavaHead signing off for the holiday weekend… hope you all have fun and we'll see you Tuesday.

Bwaaahaaahahahaha! I'd steal that sig line...but...hey...that's another troll-ful thread entirely.

"...24-hours prior to the fire that there was a 5,000+ attendance rally in Huston against the a moratorium on drilling attended by membership from Mariner, the owner of the rig in question... bad timing there."

Bad timing?

Or great chance for the "opposition" to stage an "event" proving their point?" Conspiracy buffs, queue up!

I don't know; will any of us ever, really, know? Kinda like someone with 2 clocks asking you what time it REALLY is -

I'm sure they will. But given the whole operation is a bit like drilling into a gas tank topped with propane, its kinda inevitable there will be "accidents", especially if there are performance imperatives set by "urgent men in suits".

But that aside: To have a total absence of any form of ignition source in all situations - including equipment failure, is a big ask.

And it's not as if the USA has a monopoly on rig fires.

GA.

I bet they had wished that they postponed that rally.

I think, in general, the industry in quite safe - ok granted the BP incident and this one would tend to dispute this. Incidences happen in all/ most industries and unfortunately when they happen in the Off Shore drilling industry then they inevitably end up on the front pages.

I don't think it is possible to remove all risk from an operation/ task. Some things are inherently risky operations.

I remember a number of months back that everyone was talking about the N1H1 (swine) flu, but then the Tiger Woods incident broke and suddenly no one was talking about or reporting N1H1 - I bet the Oil industry wishes that another Tiger-gate type story would break so as to get them out of the spotlight.

I concur that there are just some jobs that are inherently risky. And maybe the percentage of incidents similar to the Deepwater Horizon and the most recent Mariner platform is quite small and that the overall off-shore drilling process is 'safe' as compared to its inherent risk. And you'll never mitigate all risk… but having said all that, I think the off-shore drilling industry is going to have to revisit their processes, risk assessments, and safety measures. Risk mitigation is a dynamic process and it just got quite dynamic for them.

And you comments regarding news media are spot on, one of my continuing pet-peeves.

Most all members on this forum are of an age to remember pre-cable TV / Internet where your main sources of news, in the USA, were choices between three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) and two times for local news (6 and 11), evening news shows on each network, the newspaper, and a couple weekly/monthly new magazines. Back then with limited time, news reporting had to be efficient and to the point, with the only 'marketing aspect' being what the lead-in was going to be or what clips would be aired as commercials prior to the broadcast to guide viewers to your network.

A story such as the Deepwater Horizon or Mainer Platform would definitely make the lead-in opening piece, and probably hold that position for as long as the incident was dynamic. But even as the lead-in, the spot would be at most 5 minutes and then the balance of the program would be on other news… we'd still have the weather, sports, etc. Then, we'd wait for more detail in the magazines… Newsweek, Time, etc.

But now there are so many news providers that run 24 hours a day, all vying for your attention, that news has changed from information to a commodity and the focus has switched from ethical unbiased reporting to selling to your target audience.

Ever since the 24-hour news cycle took root the general focus of what's important has been driven by the sound/video bite.

Almost all mainstream news outlets are guilty of sensationalism and 'reporting' (I use that word very loosely) the 'OMG, the sky is falling' stories which in-turn drives public attention, which in-turn drives government focus.

Disclaimer - The following is a very broad and overly generalized statement but…

If you want to invoke change, motivate the nations populace, steer government policy, and guide political activity towards topics you feel are important… don't go into politics… become a news producer.

I loathe that fact that a potentially great leader could fail to be elected because of an awkward moment caught on tape. But mostly I loath the sheer lack of unbiased reporting and political undertones to general news reporting these days. It use to be that news reports consisted of the facts, and then out of 1-hour news program, there would be a 5 minute editorial/commentary piece. Now it seems the opposite to me, out of an hour long program, you're lucky to get 5 minutes of unbiased facts, where the rest is op-ed.

JavaHead

Nobody blames you, quite understandable.....

I think the topic was not of great interest to some of the readers, but instead of making inappropiate comments, it would be better not to answer the OT at all.

When I read a topic, I reply only if I feel qualified to respond with reliable info. If the topic doesn't interest me, I simply hang up and go elsewhere.

Back on track, indeed.

It is sad (or ironic) that what started as a serious thread, immediately threatened by some rather salacious and inappropriate comments (long since, and rightly removed) from a 'guest', firstly went very silly (nothing wrong with that!), but then descended into an unsavoury bout of sniping and backbiting unbecoming of CR4 members, the original post being seemingly forgotten.

Perhaps we can now see some serious discussion, and hear what other people think about all this.

As for JavaHead's "I just hope it is free of political conjecture.", we know how "hand-in-glove" US oil men and politicians used to be. Do you think things have changed? Was Obama's reaction to BP merely popularistic posturing? Are some of us just too cynical?