Dunno, the explanation of a lot of the guy's criticisms could be due to a point he highlights: that there simply aren't enough ropes, anchors and booms. The diagram you link to seems to imply that the "optimal" method requires about three times the boomage than the solution he claims has been adopted. As to whether BP should have taken additional steps to mitigate against the risk of an oil spill as significant as this one (such as investing in booms), I don't know: I assume risk assessments are carried out, but I'm both ignorant of them and entirely unqualifed to comment on their accuracy.
Also, I'd prefer to see criticisms from experts willing to waive their anonymity. I understand why experts might not want to criticise one of their biggest prospective employers, but anonymous criticism is generally less believable, in my opinion. His refusal to talk to the media is also a strike against his credibility, I'd argue.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Also, I'd prefer to see criticisms from experts willing to waive their anonymity. I understand why experts might not want to criticise one of their biggest prospective employers, but anonymous criticism is generally less believable, in my opinion. His refusal to talk to the media is also a strike against his credibility, I'd argue.