Donuel, are you trying to restore some sense to the thread?
Some (too many) only want to argue nonsensically (is what's his name right or wrong) when there are other sources that they are too lazy or dumb to google for.

Would the acoustically triggered valve have worked? Possibly!
I agree that the latest devices should be mandatory when drilling at the cutting edge of ability, and when the target source is unknown in its characteristics.

Lets review a bit-
Reporters (Wall Street Journal) correctly report that "U. S. regulators don't mandate the use of the remote-control device on offshore rigs, and the Deepwater Horizon, hired by oil giant BP PLC, didn't have one. With the remote control, a crew can attempt to trigger anunderwater valve that shuts down the well even if the oil rig itself is damaged or evacuated."
Now note this-
"The efficacy of the devices is unclear. Major offshore blowouts are rare, and it remained unclear.... whether acoustic switches have ever been put to the test in a real-world accident. .......
"Remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which havw been tested in simulations, are intended as a last resort."
"Nevertheless, regulators in two major oil-producing countries, Norway and Brazil, in effect, require them...."
Norway has required them since 1993.

"The U. S. Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) says it decided the remote control device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans. to cut off a well."
"The UK, where BP is headquartered, doesn't require the use of acoustic triggers."

Now for some comment. The rig cost about $560 million. The device and controls costs $500,000 as Donuel stated.
Not using the latest devices seems to be cost-cutting pennies that endanger a huge investment- the rig plus the exploration research by many expert employees plus operation of the rig, transport, etc.- including many minor expenses of $500,000 or more.

Moreover, the well verges on the experimental; 5000 feet of water, total depth 35,000 feet, a target whose characteristics were unknown.
It seems to me that extreme care and the latest equipment should have been used.

Most of the offshore wells drilled in the past 20 years are to easily reached targets most of whose characteristics can be predicted fairly safely. Perhaps the device is not needed for these wells. But the target, in this case, like 3-4 others drilled by BP, are not to predictable targets using long-tested equipment .
This well hit a high-pressure formation that ejected its fluids with unexpected force.

The article is notable for some excellent diagrams- take a look!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442350475212031417936798.html
Or just get the Wall Street Journal online, Apr 20, 2010, report by Gold, Casselman and Chazan, "Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device."

Would the device have saved the well? An unknown situation. Dunno!

Who was head of the Department of Interior in 1993 (or earlier) when the device was engineered?
It is stupid to blame Obama, Cheney or other politician without knowing the chain of command and the history of the decisions by MMS.