Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (83866)	5/12/2010 3:16:52 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224769

The acoustical backup control for the shutoff valve would allow the well to be remotely shut off after the accident. It might not have done so. And since your not asserting that it might have, but that it would have done so, the burden of proof is on you. Again see Message 26529898 or if you can't be bothered to follow the link reply to "Beyond that there is the question of would it have helped, which you seem to assume, you don't address it at all. The well not only had a primary shutoff (where someone presses a button and the signal needs to travel down an intact wire to cause shutoff), but a backup "deadman switch" with a constant signal that if lost (by the connection to the sub-sea unit being severed) causes the shutoff to occur. The fact that this backup didn't work leads to speculation that the cause of the failure was at the sub sea level, with some physical or electrical fault preventing the shutoff from happening. If that's the cause a setup for an acoustical signal to the shutoff valve unit wouldn't have done any good." and "The efficacy of the devices is unclear. Major offshore oil-well blowouts are rare, and it remained unclear Wednesday evening whether acoustic switches have ever been put to the test in a real-world accident."