If you’re reading this post, you should check out a New York Times article that explicitly focuses on the actions of the top level BP employeers on the rig. It cites primary evidence (internal interview notes from BP) and factual testimony from federal hearings. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/us/08rig.html?pagewanted=all)

The physical and publicly available evidence presented in the NY Times shows that the BP company men actually did have concern with a pressure test and that it was actually a BP employyed that raised concerns with a superior engineer in Houston. The BP employee’s concern on the initial pressure test is what led him to eventually calling for a second pressure test, which has been understood as providing sound evidence that didn’t raise any concern for additional analysis. Unfortunately, this distinction is left out in the post written above, and the reader is led to believe that the BP employees were acting recklessly in the face of obvious risks.

The NY Times article accurately describes a much more realistic actuality (confirmed by testimonies from all sides) where the BP employees and the other players were acutely aware of their respective responsibilities and that the tragedy was a calculated and safe process that relied on faulty information derived from highly technical engineering complexities