A specific example of a scientist's idea about checking the BOP & its initial rejection by BP

[Are_grits_groceries]

Here is what happened:
"The scientist at one point pushed the unusual idea of using gamma rays to peer into the blowout preventer to determine if its valves were closed, a technique he experimented with in graduate school while studying radioactive decay.

The suggestion at first elicited snickering and "Incredible Hulk" jokes. Then they tried it, and it worked. "They weren't hot on his ideas," a senior White House official said of BP's initial reaction to his suggestions. "Now they are."

Here is part of an interview with him:
"How is it that you know enough about gamma rays and oil spill technology to be helpful? I wasn't aware that that was an area you'd worked in?

Reply: Oil spills were not something I've worked on, but I do know about gamma rays."

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/05/excl... /

The scientist was Dr. Stephen Chu. If he had not been in his current position, I doubt if his idea would have even gotten through the door.

You don't have to have a degree in petroleum engineering or direct experience in drilling to make an important contribution. This is the very problem I have been talking about. Ideas need to be solicited from a variety of places.

[Schema Thing]

1. why do you think they aren't?

there is no shortage of "ideas". There is a shortage of GOOD ideas and a shortage of time and a shortage of space around the well.



Look at how orgasmic the average Joe Internetexpert got about a couple of dudes who noticed that hay tends to sop things up. There isn't an :eyeroll: icon large enough to cover that silliness.

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. I doubt if the example I gave is an exception.

This was from a scientist with credentials and experience in a field not related specifically to the oil industry. Even though he was supposedly leading the process, they laughed at his idea.

Trying to find out if the valves were closed was vital. They didn't know how, but they automatically rejected his idea at first even though there was a sound scientific basis for his proposal.

This is the problem when a group of people with experience in certain procedures who are also familiar with each other. They are uncomfortable with anything outside of that group. This isn't just confined to this situation. It can occur in many places when trying to solve problems.

This is a problem that has never been faced before because of the depth. Their experience and knowledge is vital. However, it can also be limiting. Because of the many unknowns, there should be a small group with people composed of some people that don't work for BP to vet ideas. If Dr.Chu was not involved in the process but was able to present this idea to them, it might get a better look before it is discarded.

BP doesn't have all of the knowledge about possible solutions or even ideas that will help. There have to be some independent people with a good scientific grounding who can help them break out of their set of ideas and think out of the box. In a disaster like this with so much at stake, there is nothing to lose by considering a lot of different ideas.

As far as the hay goes, there are many more ideas that have been presented that have been dismissed. The one that was accepted was the device made by Kevin Costner's brother. It jammed when used in a marsh. They are trying to tweak it to get it to work.

When an idea spreads like wildfire, then it would be beneficial to let people know why it won't be useful at all. That way there might not be so much frustration and doubt about what is being done.

There is another factor that is also going to matter a lot. There have to be some independent people involved who can speak about the results. Hayward, other BP people and even Thad Allen are so distrusted now, that anything they say will be dismissed by a lot of people.

Everybody can name point after point why they should still be listened to if they want. That won't change the fact that public perception of those people is very negative. Energy can be spent trying to convince those watching why they still have credibility if they can, but the better use of time would be to get some people involved with no ties to BP so there will be some acceptance of what is presented.

As long as this entire endeavor remains so closed and controlled BP, the negativity will continue to rise. Being open won't solve the capping problem, but it might allay a lot of the suspicion that is building up even more.