Hopefully the quote in question will be along shortly; if not, you should go read The Silver Crown anyway (but not before the first two. )

I'll leave that between the two of you. I think the comparison no more ill conceived than the suggestion is was a good idea to draw conclusions on little to no data. If nothing else, you'd have thought by now I'd given sufficient object lessons in how dangerous that is to discourage it.

As I said, it was, IMHO, ill advised to venture a conclusion while simultaneously admitting general ignorance about the subject. That's tantamount to saying, "smack me upside the head with the facts; I like it. "

According to Wikipedia, "BP is the operator and principal developer of the Macondo Prospect with 65% of interest, while 25% is owned by Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, and 10% by MOEX Offshore 2007, a unit of Mitsui. " The Macondo Prospect is just that, an expanse of seabed thought to contain petroleum, the drilling rights to which BP leased from the US government, evidently along with several other companies who've not been otherwise mentioned in connection with Deepwater Horizon. BPs interest in what Deepwater Horizon pumped out of the Gulf was 100%. Wikipedia also notes that "On March 10, 2010, a BP executive e-mailed the Minerals Management Service [the part of the Interior Dept. from which they obtained the lease] that there was a stuck pipe and well control situation at the drilling site, and that BP would have to plugback the well.[32] A draft of a BP memo in April warned that the cementing of the casing was unlikely to be successful.[26] Halliburton has said that it had finished cementing 20 hours before the fire, but had not yet set the final cement plug.[14][33] A special nitrogen-foamed cement was used which is more difficult to handle than standard cement.[31]"

I've seen no indication of further involvement by Halliburton, and their role was nearly complete when the explosion happened.

According to an Atlantic article linked there, Transoceans contributions seem to be in the vein of "Are you fucking happy? Are you fucking happy? The rig's on fire! I told you this was gonna happen."

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/06/the-rigs-on-fire-i-told-you-this-was-gonna-happen/57775/


Yet appear to have disregarded.

Fair enough. But the liability is with the company that leased the site, leased the rig and performed the operations.

Every "on the scene" account I've seen so far paints the picture of BP executives overruling the safety concerns of either their own employees or Transoceans.


So it would seem.