

BP oil rig modelling software showed cement unstable days before blast - DMPenfold2008
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3248321/deepwater-horizon-modelling-software-showed-bp-cement-conditions-unstable/

======
jared314
I like the subtitle better: Oil giant decided data was unreliable and took
other steps.

Just remember this when the reverse happens, where the model is wrong and they
ignore all evidence to the contrary.

~~~
scott_s
But did they decide the data was unreliable because they didn't like the
conclusion, or because they had genuine reservations about the validity of the
model and/or data? And if they did, why check the model, anyway?

What worries me about the mentality of "I'm not confident in this data, but
let's check the model anyway" is that being irrational creatures, we're likely
to use a positive result from the model as evidence that everything is okay,
but ignore a negative result because the data is unreliable. That is,
different results, same conclusion. This is not logically valid, but we're
irrational creatures and it takes discipline to avoid the fallacy.

~~~
Retric
I assume they did not like the conclusion.

 _The company conducted a separate negative pressure test...

The test was failed, but was – for an unexplained reason – deemed a “complete
success” by both BP and rig owner Transocean at the time, a presentation on
Monday said._

------
z92
It's rate of false positive that really matters. When that software says
something is wrong at magnitude-X and with a very low false positive rate that
thing is really wrong at that scale, then I shall agree it was BPs fault for
ignoring it.

