Why Was It Leaked?
So NOLA.com has a story from Bloomberg News: BP investigation of Gulf of Mexico oil spill finds several areas of fault
BP’s internal investigation of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster pins some of the blame on the company for mistakes made when finishing the oil well, including misreading pressure data that indicated a blowout was imminent, according to a person familiar with the report.
BP managers aboard the Transocean-owned rig misinterpreted a test of the Macondo well’s stability in April, deciding the test confirmed the well was in good shape, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report’s findings haven’t been publicly released.
That positive interpretation of the test data cleared the way for rig workers to begin replacing drilling fluid in the well, which is heavier than oil and natural gas, with seawater.
The seawater was too light to prevent natural gas that had begun leaking into the well from shooting up the pipe to the rig, where it exploded and killed 11 workers. The damaged well eventually spewed more than 4 million barrels of crude into the sea, enough to fill two supertankers.
“The entire industry should not be blamed for the actions of one single individual,” John Hofmeister, chief executive officer of Citizens for Affordable Energy and a former Royal Dutch Shell executive, said in an interview with Peter Cook Monday on Bloomberg Television’s “Inside Track.”
Why was this given to Bloomberg? The report is coming out, and the accident investigation board will put it in the public record. The information is no surprise to anyone who has been tracking the hearings. There has to be a reason beyond “public service” for getting it out now, rather than just waiting for the report. If we knew the name of person who gave this to Bloomberg, we would know why that person was interested in getting the story out sooner, rather than later.
Even though this agrees with my own analysis, I don’t give it much credibility because the source got anonymity. I suspect that it was someone above the engineer identified in the article who is looking for a scapegoat.
It wasn’t the industry; it wasn’t BP; it was one engineer on the rig. Yeah, right 😈
16 comments
You obviously can’t read or understand what you read , but that is consistent with your status as a conservative.
To quote myself: “Even though this agrees with my own analysis, I don’t give it much credibility because the source got anonymity.”
Look, if you don’t understand the meaning of credibility, look it up. Saying something isn’t credible is not a stamp of approval.
It wasn’t the reproducing of “public testimony”, it was the biased selection of what testimony to include, and then the interpretation of what it meant that distorted what actually happened in the hearing. That is a regular feature of News Corp tabloids that wasn’t a feature of the Wall Street Journal before the take over. Their editorial policy was very off-the-wall, but their reporting was once a place to find facts.
Bryan,
[sarcasm]
I think you do a great disservice to Bloomberg, to Mr. Duff, and (of course) to BP with your skepticism. Why, clearly any anonymous source must be as pure as the driven snow! Mr. Duff is confident that their only intention is informing the public. How dare you insinuate that they may have ulterior motives?!?!?!?
The only real issue is this: Why should the actions of “one single individual” [*] tarnish the whole industry, even thought the “one single individual” was, of course, an employee of that industry?
[The importance of this question flows, of course, from its potential for keeping the public from contemplating the far-too-high likelihood of another Deep Horizon disaster in the near future under the existing rules and regulations.]
BTW, would it not be a coincidence of cosmic magnitude if that not only was the massive damage of the Deep Horizon catastrophe the fault of “one single individual”, but that the more recent explosion and fire of the Vermilion Block 380 vessel was also the fault of one single individual!
Hey — maybe these two engineers know each other, hummm? Maybe they were college roommates. Or — maybe it was the same engineer on both platforms! Bet you can’t prove that wrong!
Mr. Duff understands that common-mode-failures never occur in the real world, and he also is quite confident that Mr. Murdoch is as pure as the driven snow. Why can’t you see such reason?
[/sarcasm]
Keep up the good work!
Best,
Jim
[*] As described by the former president of Shell Oil, who — by merest happenstance — is now the CEO of a “Citzen’s” group advocating more oil production.
In the Intel business we rated information with letter grades. To be classified as “A” validity something had to be confirmed by three separate agencies using three different methods. Things that you witnessed yourself weren’t worth more than a “C” validity. Information from an unidentified source is “F”, rumor, because you have to evaluate the reliability of the source as well as the information.
The senior BP people in charge have either declined to testify based on their Fifth Amendment rights, or have said they are too ill to testify. I’m wondering if they believe that they will scapegoated by BP? These guys are engineers who normally have errors & omissions / malpractice insurance, in which case they are covered in the event of a law suit. There is something going on in the background that isn’t quite visible yet and I think this leak is part of it. Bloomberg is financial news, not industry news. Why is this showing up on Bloomberg?
I have questions, but few answers.
Yes, Mr Duff, has undying loyalty to the Murdoch empire. It’s probably as a result of Page 3 in The Sun.
Mr Duff, the dictionary is your friend, not an adversary. Mr. Bales identified his comments as sarcasm because they were irony applied with a “trowel”. That is a definition of sarcasm.
Quoting without the appropriate context is a common occurrence in News Corp articles. It’s just another form of lying, a bit more work, but still lying.
I have no idea why you keep fixating on something Obama said in passing, but it has no affect on the court system. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has more actual power than the President. Our system is not parliamentary. Congress is a separate branch of government and doesn’t blindly follow Democratic Presidents. The local district court has already voided Obama’s first attempt at a drilling moratorium. You keep bringing up that irrelevant point. The BP employees who aren’t testifying are Americans, they and their attorneys know the comments are meaningless.
Mr. Duff seems to believe that a factually correct statement can only be made in good faith.
The (apocryphal) counter-example is from the cold war. Allegedly, while at a summit, Eisenhower and Khrushchev took a walk, just the two of them, and one challenged the other to a foot race back to the building. Ike came in first.
The NY Times reported: “Eisenhower beats Khrushchev in foot race.”
Pravda reported: “In a race between heads of state, our glorious leader, Nikita Khrushchev, came in second, while the Imperialist Eisenhower was next to last.”
Pravda’s report is absolutely true — and absolutely deceitful.
Mr. Duff’s approach leaves him open to such deceit. Mr. Dumka’s, in contrast, provides the possibility of recognizing the difference between the truth and the whole truth. Of the two, I prefer Mr. Dumka’s
Best,
Jim Bales
PS Since there seems to be some misunderstanding, let me state that my intent in my original comment was that expressed in this definition.
Sarcasm: raw and scornful use of apparent approval to express disapproval.
Your mileage may vary. -jb
The key to a really successful lie is to include some truth. Whenever the statement is questioned, you then point to the true part and demand that the questioner prove that it is a lie.
After you’ve spent a decade reading Soviet propaganda you really are immune to most forms of agitprop, because you have seen them all in great quantities. We read it because there was truth interspersed on the pages and it often provided clues to what the leadership was thinking. Not as blatant as Western media, but buried among the propaganda.
Now you are forced to do the same sort of critical reading of the Western media as corporations decide what people should know.
Mr. Duff states “There, you see, I try to be all ‘nicely-nicely’”, a claim that is, of course, utter nonsense.
Not one of his comments in this thread has been offered in good faith. The tone and content of each has been supercilious (*) at best.
If Mr. Duff wishes to have a constructive dialog, he is welcome to start one. He has yet to do so.
Best,
Jim Bales
(*) “[H]aving or showing arrogant superiority to and disdain of those one views as unworthy”. Synonyms include disdainful, haughty, imperious, lordly, overbearing, prideful, and sniffy.
Mr. Duff is discovering that people do not like being treated in this manner and will often respond in kind. -jb
Mr. Duff I would like to thank you for proving my point on quotes.
You offered “‘Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit’.”
The proper form would have been ‘Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit …’ , the ellipsis indicating that it was only a fragment of the sentence.
Normally I wouldn’t bring it up, but the omission does tend to change Oscar Wilde’s meaning:
“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence.”
Mr. Duff proposes:
If you promise not to accuse me of writing in bad faith, I promise not to look down my nose at you – how about that?
Mr. Duff has always been free to write in good faith — he need only do so. He is not limited by the lack of an agreement with me.
If, at some point in the future, Mr. Duff were to choose to write in good faith and I were to falsely accuse him of writing in bad faith, he would then be able to quickly refute my charge by quoting the text of his posts.
Best,
Jim Bales
Mr. Duff is, and always has been, free to write in good faith — he need only do so.
Best,
Jim Bales
Mr. Duff, your response on the quote is deflection. You refused deal with the issue and attempted to substitute something else. That’s the sort of thing that moves people from the category of “witness” to “person of interest” in criminal investigations.
You have done this several times and I’m tired of it. You are assuming that I am too stupid to understand what you are doing and will be distracted. That isn’t going to happen.
Using deceptive practices like deflection is not a sign of “good faith”.
Bryan,
“Deflection” — that is a cool term in this context! I assume you picked it up during your stint in law enforcement, is that correct?
Either way, it precisely describes Mr. Duff’s response, and is a term that I am adding to my vocabulary for on-line exchanges.
Best,
Jim
It was part of the training for “interviewing” in both the military and law enforcement. It is one of the signs that a subject is being less than honest in answering questions. There is a long list of rhetorical “dodges” as well as physical actions that you are trained to look for when interviewing.
Really skilled people can pick up a lot from voice changes, but my “ear” isn’t good enough.
Generally speaking, the training is more effective than a polygraph in spotting deceptive subjects. Polygraphs are limited by the need to elicit single word responses, normally “yes” or “no”. The techniques taught in interviewing work during normal conversations while avoiding too many direct questions. The goal is to get people talking and not just responding to the interviewer.
I’ve noticed that it is used a lot in television interviews, and reporters don’t seem to challenge it. It is really just “changing the subject”, but with more subtlety.
Mr. Duff observed that I continue to note that he has written in bad faith.
Mr. Duff is (and always has been) free to explain how his initial comment — which essentially states, “Thank you for your hypocritical post. I enjoyed laughing at it.” — was written in good faith.
If Mr. Duff can set forth a plausible rationale explaining how that comment was made in good faith, I will offer my sincere apology for questioning his good faith in posting that comment.
Best,
Jim Bales
Mr. Duff writes:
I believed it when I wrote it
Presumable “it” here means that he finds Mr. Dumka’s post hypocritical.
One acting in good faith would have written something like:
“But Bryan, isn’t it hypocritical of you to write off any and all reports from News Corp. outlets as a lie even when they are publishing transcripts of evidence?”
Compare the tone of this good-faith comment to that of Mr. Duff’s bad-faith comment (which is accurately summarized as “Thank you for your hypocritical post. I enjoyed laughing at it.”).
Similarly, consider Mr. Dumka’s original post, including:
Why was this given to Bloomberg? The report is coming out, and the accident investigation board will put it in the public record. The information is no surprise to anyone who has been tracking the hearings. There has to be a reason beyond “public service” for getting it out now, rather than just waiting for the report. If we knew the name of person who gave this to Bloomberg, we would know why that person was interested in getting the story out sooner, rather than later.
Anyone writing in good faith would have explained why they believed the report was leaked at this time and in this way, and why they believed that the motive was “public service”. Alternatively, the hypothetical good-faith commenter could have acknowledged the validity of Mr. Dumka’s concern. Mr. Duff has done neither, preferring instead to change the subject (aka “deflection”) — an act of bad faith.
Similarly, upon reading in Mr. Dumka’s response:
It wasn’t the reproducing of “public testimony”, it was the biased selection of what testimony to include, and then the interpretation of what it meant that distorted what actually happened in the hearing,
anyone writing in good faith would have acknowledged that the meaning of the testimony could have been distorted by the selection what to quote and what to ignore (and then go on to explain why the did not believe such distortion was happening in this particular case). Mr. Duff continues to ignore the substantive content of Mr. Dumka’s comment, with more deflection — more bad faith.
I am delighted to see that Mr. Duff has finally come to grips with a substantive comment of Mr. Dumka — in this case concerning the putative quote from Oscar Wilde. After failing in his efforts to deflect the topic, Mr. Duff now claims he has never heard of the second clause of the attributed quote. Clearly, we cannot expect Mr. Duff to reproduce a saying he has not heard!
However, I cannot understand why Mr. Duff did not reply “I’ve never heard of the ‘added’ phrase which you introduced” when Mr. Dumka first posted it, as I would have expected from someone writing in good faith at that time.
Best,
Jim Bales