this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
503 points (99.0% liked)

Today I Learned

18086 readers
94 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinidad_Petroleum_Holdings#Paria_Fuel_Trading_Company_diving_tragedy

Of course, there is no direct admittance of "we knew it would be cheaper to let them die."

Instead, they say "we had no legal obligation to rescue them." That's the answer for the people who were born yesterday.

Big oil truly is a disgusting thing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FanciestPants 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I worked on pipelines for part of my career in maintenance planning, not in construction. I've been trying to guess at how a rescue operation could have been attempted in this case. I'm not aware of any mechanism for cutting into the pipe at the depth the divers were stuck that wouldn't immediately result in flooding the pipe, or risk cutting through the divers. The only rescue option that I could guess at is divers going in from the end of the pipe, swimming down through the length of it, and somehow pulling the trapped divers out.

Maybe the owner/state should have let rescuers give it a try, but that rescue option sounds terrifying as hell.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Thanks. I actually don't know much about pipelines or diving.

I kind of assumed that it would be possible to cut into the pipe to free the divers. Since it's such a large pipe, I don't think cutting through the divers is a big concern. But, I'm not sure what depth this pipe is located at. While having a ton of water rush into you is not ideal, if it's not so deep that they are crushed by the pressure or can't resurface before running out of breath, then it seems like that would've been that appropriate solution.

It seems to me that the company thought it would be cheaper to flush the bodies out with water than to cut into the pipe and have to repair it later.

[–] Dasus 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Maybe the owner/state should have let rescuers give it a try

"Maybe"?

[–] FanciestPants 1 points 7 months ago

I meant "maybe" in the context of it seeming like a significant gamble to attempt the rescue. It certainly doesn't always work out for the potential rescuers. https://slate.com/technology/2013/05/rescuers-turning-into-victims-lessons-from-first-responders-on-saving-people.html

So my hedging with the word "maybe" is because I certainly don't have the expertise to know the risks with attempting the rescue, but then again "maybe" any potential rescuers shouldn't have asked for permission.