On 7/19/10 7:12 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jul 19, 6:12 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...






On Jul 19, 3:16 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...


On Jul 19, 2:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:42:30 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Testing of BP well integrity "detected seep a distance from the
well"
in
the
Gulf of Mexico, Ret. Adm. Thad Allen says.

I am not sure why they don't open the valve now that they have a
good
cap and produce the oil to the surface. That will take off the
pressure and still be safe/clean. After all that was the
point in
drilling the well in the first place.
I think they are pressing their luck trying to top kill this
with
the
cap. Something that would have been fine at the production
pressures
may rupture with it sealed and put us back 2 months.

I agree... not an oil engineer, but it seems to make sense. I
think
they
just don't want to have to record the flow rate, so the fine is
lower.
Too
bad for them. I think Allen should force them to do that.

Open pipe flow rate can be determined by calculation if the
pressure,
pipe diameter, and a few other factors are known, and they all
are at
this point. That does not tell us how much oil has escaped, since
except for a few hours the leak has never been in a free flow mode.

Any measured flow would be through the valves and hoses that
would be
connected from the cap to the surface ships, which once again
tell us
nothing about the escaped oil, or the fine to be levied. That only
tells us how much flow those connections can accept.

The only thing you are correct about is that you are no "oil
engineer"... or any kind professional that requires critical,
scientific thinking.

In that case, mister moron, how come just about everyone who is an
oil
engineer who doesn't work for BP is saying that's the likely
reason they
don't want to do that?? Yes, you're a jerk as well as a moron.

You wrote, " I think they just don't want to have to record the flow
rate...", but that's not the issue at all. If they are to hook up the
pipes to the surface, they have to open the well back up, letting oil
again flow into the gulf for days. That's what BP doesn't want to do,
it has nothing to do with recording any "flow rates".

"The apparent disagreement began to sprout Saturday when Allen said
the cap would eventually be hooked up to a mile-long pipe to pump the
crude to ships on the surface. But early the next day, BP chief
operating officer Doug Suttles said the cap should stay clamped shut
to keep in the oil until relief wells are finished."

"The government's plan would ease pressure on the fragile well, but
would require up to three more days of oil spilling into the Gulf."

"But the company very much wants to avoid a repeat of the live
underwater video that showed millions of gallons of oil spewing from
the blown well for weeks."

Oh, and one "expert" that the idiot Olbermann dug up who said the crap
you stated does not come anywhere close to "everyone"... you do
realize that's not news, it's entertainment for idiots, right? You
should really stop watching that crap on TV... it's rotting your
brain. Oops, too late.

Here you go your moronic brainiac.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...6688083.shtml-

Brilliant! That link does absolutely *nothing* to shore up your
assertion. ~snerk~

You're a moron:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/88bde5ee-7...44feabdc0.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37573643...r_in_the_gulf/
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0715/lea...er-flow-rates/
http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/...-doesnt-matter


Sure... BP has no interest in obscuring how much oil is actually
flowing. After all, big corporations are good for America:

§ 1321 of The Clean Water Act of 1990 (33 USC § 1251 et seq.) is the
main section of the Act outlining the liability of offshore facilities.
This section provides, among other things, that there should be no
discharge of oil and also sets forth the owner/ operator's liability
including penalties for discharge of up to $1,000 per barrel of oil
discharged ($3,000 per barrel of oil discharged in the event of gross
negligence).

Penalties are capped at $50 Million unless the operator/operator is
grossly negligent. Under this gross negligence scenario, BP's potential
penalty liability under the Clean Water Act of 1990 could be as high as
$180 Million Per Day. This penalty is in addition to other damages owed.
The penalty calculation of $180 Million Per Day assumes a discharge of
60,000 barrels per day and a $3,000 per barrel penalty. The present
estimated flow of 5,000 barrels per day may be a gross underestimate.
BP, despite having the ability to obtain a very accurate flow rate
through ultrasound, does not want a more accurate measurement according
to recent reports.




It's important to keep in mind that BP's interests are opposite those of
the citizens of hte United States. BP wants to protect its stock price
and its stockholders. It has from the beginning and even now kept
information from the government. Virtually nothing BP says should be
accepted as "the truth."