| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
wonderful
Testing of BP well integrity "detected seep a distance from the well" in the
Gulf of Mexico, Ret. Adm. Thad Allen says. -- Nom=de=Plume |
wonderful
On 18/07/2010 7:42 PM, 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. If true, not good news. BP better get a pipe on that well and let it blow out oil to lower the top pressure some. If oil has fractured around the well head, they will be in a world of grief for years dealing with this as real disaster. Lets see how far BP stock drops tomorrow, if this is a real issue, $5 off the top easy. I hear BP is looking for cleanup workers. All you have to do is make sure they have a suit your size and you can get a job! -- Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common sense? |
wonderful
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 18/07/2010 7:42 PM, 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. If true, not good news. BP better get a pipe on that well and let it blow out oil to lower the top pressure some. If oil has fractured around the well head, they will be in a world of grief for years dealing with this as real disaster. Lets see how far BP stock drops tomorrow, if this is a real issue, $5 off the top easy. I hear BP is looking for cleanup workers. All you have to do is make sure they have a suit your size and you can get a job! I guess you think Allen is lying because he represents the gov't. I guess letting BP do whatever it wants isn't such a great idea. Fortunately, the GOVERNMENT has so far not agreed to let them leave the seal in place. Therefore, the oil disaster is Obama's fault. You're a moron. Even if they let you into this wonderful country, you would not have the brain power to work on the cleanup. Why? You'd have trouble figuring out how to put on the suit. |
wonderful
On 18/07/2010 9:47 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 18/07/2010 7:42 PM, 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. If true, not good news. BP better get a pipe on that well and let it blow out oil to lower the top pressure some. If oil has fractured around the well head, they will be in a world of grief for years dealing with this as real disaster. Lets see how far BP stock drops tomorrow, if this is a real issue, $5 off the top easy. I hear BP is looking for cleanup workers. All you have to do is make sure they have a suit your size and you can get a job! I guess you think Allen is lying because he represents the gov't. I guess letting BP do whatever it wants isn't such a great idea. Fortunately, the GOVERNMENT has so far not agreed to let them leave the seal in place. Therefore, the oil disaster is Obama's fault. You're a moron. Even if they let you into this wonderful country, you would not have the brain power to work on the cleanup. Why? You'd have trouble figuring out how to put on the suit. Hint, I used to work in the oilfield on the techncial side up to 1984. But will admit, it was on shore but a BOP is a BOP more or less. Did make it once to an offshore rig once in Stavager Norway though. Unlike Allen, I don't have to clense my views to heir Obama. He is an admiral, the closest he has been to a real well head is Exxon gas pump or a on ship drive by in the Gulf.. If it is really a seep/leak, bad news. I stand by it. If memory serves me, the BOP closed pressure is about 12000 PSI fluid. A little leak somewhere will become a big one just given time. And a big leak will keep becoming bigger until it is a full flow that the pressure lets it. Needs to be fixed or repaired ASAP. -- Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common sense? |
wonderful
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 18/07/2010 9:47 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 18/07/2010 7:42 PM, 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. If true, not good news. BP better get a pipe on that well and let it blow out oil to lower the top pressure some. If oil has fractured around the well head, they will be in a world of grief for years dealing with this as real disaster. Lets see how far BP stock drops tomorrow, if this is a real issue, $5 off the top easy. I hear BP is looking for cleanup workers. All you have to do is make sure they have a suit your size and you can get a job! I guess you think Allen is lying because he represents the gov't. I guess letting BP do whatever it wants isn't such a great idea. Fortunately, the GOVERNMENT has so far not agreed to let them leave the seal in place. Therefore, the oil disaster is Obama's fault. You're a moron. Even if they let you into this wonderful country, you would not have the brain power to work on the cleanup. Why? You'd have trouble figuring out how to put on the suit. Hint, I used to work in the oilfield on the techncial side up to 1984. But will admit, it was on shore but a BOP is a BOP more or less. Did make it once to an offshore rig once in Stavager Norway though. Unlike Allen, I don't have to clense my views to heir Obama. He is an admiral, the closest he has been to a real well head is Exxon gas pump or a on ship drive by in the Gulf.. If it is really a seep/leak, bad news. I stand by it. If memory serves me, the BOP closed pressure is about 12000 PSI fluid. A little leak somewhere will become a big one just given time. And a big leak will keep becoming bigger until it is a full flow that the pressure lets it. Needs to be fixed or repaired ASAP. -- Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common sense? Unlike Allen, who is actually a hero, you're a loser moron who can't hold and can't get a job. You're someone who can't even get into the US, and honestly, we don't want you here. You hate America and you've said as much more than once. |
wonderful
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... Testing of BP well integrity "detected seep a distance from the well" in the Gulf of Mexico, Ret. Adm. Thad Allen says. -- Nom=de=Plume Seepage of oil through the bedrock is acknowledged to be a naturally occurring event according to the announcement. With the well currently closed off, the pressure within the oil reservoir should now be the same as it was before the well was drilled. The reported seepage is two miles away from the well. Not to defend BP, but how are they responsible for a naturally occurring leak? Seems to me that the seepage would occur well or no well. The part that is scary is that if true, permanently filling the well with mud and cement is not going to stop the seepage through the bedrock. Only thing to do is to allow the oil to be harvested, thereby reducing the backpressure. |
wonderful
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. |
wonderful
"Charles C." wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... Testing of BP well integrity "detected seep a distance from the well" in the Gulf of Mexico, Ret. Adm. Thad Allen says. -- Nom=de=Plume Seepage of oil through the bedrock is acknowledged to be a naturally occurring event according to the announcement. With the well currently closed off, the pressure within the oil reservoir should now be the same as it was before the well was drilled. The reported seepage is two miles away from the well. Not to defend BP, but how are they responsible for a naturally occurring leak? Seems to me that the seepage would occur well or no well. The part that is scary is that if true, permanently filling the well with mud and cement is not going to stop the seepage through the bedrock. Only thing to do is to allow the oil to be harvested, thereby reducing the backpressure. I agree that there's no absolute certainty it's from the BP site. In any case, the only reason I can see that they don't want to open up the cap and capture the oil at the surface is because they want to limit their liability. |
wonderful
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. |
wonderful
"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. |
wonderful
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. |
wonderful
On 7/19/10 5:41 PM, Jack wrote:
On Jul 19, 3:16 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 2:25 pm, 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. Jackoff *believes* BP's PR... snerk |
wonderful
"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". According to many experts that has to do with it exactly. "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." Because of bad press and because the flow can't be accurately determined. 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. Never listened any expert on Olbermann... sorry. Feel free to google for this from the experts. You should really grow up and stop defending BP. |
wonderful
"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/...n6688083.shtml |
wonderful
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~ |
wonderful
On Jul 19, 6:10*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
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. Never listened any expert on Olbermann... sorry. Feel free to google for this from the experts. Yeah, polly, right... you're repeated exactly what the KO "expert" Bob Cavnar, a left-wing blogger, said. No one else is saying that, unless they're repeating this KO garbage, like you. |
wonderful
"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. |
wonderful
On Jul 19, 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...hinks-flow-rat... Sure... BP has no interest in obscuring how much oil is actually flowing. After all, big corporations are good for America: Congrats on doing your homework assignment. Unfortunately, you fail. All of your links are old news and irrelevant except for the "rawstory" one that features your olbermann "expert". None of them, except the moonbat, back up your assertion that they are leaving the cap on now to avoid measuring flow rates. They (BP and the gov) already have all the data they need to figure out approximately how much oil has come out. The monetary fines will be astronomical. Why would you want them to spill millions of gallons more now when this thing may be permanently capped next week? You hate our planet? As long as there is no sudden pressure drop, let it stay capped. |
wonderful
On Jul 19, 2:26*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Charles C." wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... Testing of BP well integrity "detected seep a distance from the well" in the Gulf of Mexico, Ret. Adm. Thad Allen says. -- Nom=de=Plume Seepage of oil through the bedrock is acknowledged to be a naturally occurring event according to the announcement. *With the well currently closed off, the pressure within the oil reservoir should now be the same as it was before the well was drilled. *The reported seepage is two miles away from the well. * Not to defend BP, but how are they responsible for a naturally occurring leak? *Seems to me that the seepage would occur well or no well. The part that is scary is that if true, permanently filling the well with mud and cement is not going to stop the seepage through the bedrock. Only thing to do is to allow the oil to be harvested, thereby reducing the backpressure. I agree that there's no absolute certainty it's from the BP site. In any case, the only reason I can see that they don't want to open up the cap and capture the oil at the surface is because they want to limit their liability. That will spill millions of gallons more oil into the Gulf. Why would you want to do that? |
wonderful
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." |
wonderful
Canuck57 wrote:
On 18/07/2010 7:42 PM, 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. If true, not good news. BP better get a pipe on that well and let it blow out oil to lower the top pressure some. If oil has fractured around the well head, they will be in a world of grief for years dealing with this as real disaster. Lets see how far BP stock drops tomorrow, if this is a real issue, $5 off the top easy. I hear BP is looking for cleanup workers. All you have to do is make sure they have a suit your size and you can get a job! It's Obama's fault. |
wonderful
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 6:10 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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. Never listened any expert on Olbermann... sorry. Feel free to google for this from the experts. Yeah, polly, right... you're repeated exactly what the KO "expert" Bob Cavnar, a left-wing blogger, said. No one else is saying that, unless they're repeating this KO garbage, like you. Whatever you say moron. Keep pimping for BP. Makes you look really hip. |
wonderful
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 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...hinks-flow-rat... Sure... BP has no interest in obscuring how much oil is actually flowing. After all, big corporations are good for America: Congrats on doing your homework assignment. Unfortunately, you fail. All of your links are old news and irrelevant except for the "rawstory" one that features your olbermann "expert". None of them, except the moonbat, back up your assertion that they are leaving the cap on now to avoid measuring flow rates. They (BP and the gov) already have all the data they need to figure out approximately how much oil has come out. The monetary fines will be astronomical. Why would you want them to spill millions of gallons more now when this thing may be permanently capped next week? You hate our planet? As long as there is no sudden pressure drop, let it stay capped. Keep pimping and lying for BP moron. |
wonderful
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 2:26 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Charles C." wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... Testing of BP well integrity "detected seep a distance from the well" in the Gulf of Mexico, Ret. Adm. Thad Allen says. -- Nom=de=Plume Seepage of oil through the bedrock is acknowledged to be a naturally occurring event according to the announcement. With the well currently closed off, the pressure within the oil reservoir should now be the same as it was before the well was drilled. The reported seepage is two miles away from the well. Not to defend BP, but how are they responsible for a naturally occurring leak? Seems to me that the seepage would occur well or no well. The part that is scary is that if true, permanently filling the well with mud and cement is not going to stop the seepage through the bedrock. Only thing to do is to allow the oil to be harvested, thereby reducing the backpressure. I agree that there's no absolute certainty it's from the BP site. In any case, the only reason I can see that they don't want to open up the cap and capture the oil at the surface is because they want to limit their liability. That will spill millions of gallons more oil into the Gulf. Why would you want to do that? Come on. If you believe BP, it's just a trickle. MORON alert! |
wonderful
|
wonderful
wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:16:45 -0400, Harry ? wrote: 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." I really think BP USA will be bankrupt from this. It is the soundest business decision they could make. They are compartmentalized to the point that BP Mexico and BP Canada would be isolated from the damage and the other operations around the world would be totally immune. The only question will be how many assets they can spirit away before the walls come down. This might also be some kind of takeover where the incoming company negotiates a top limit on the liability they are taking on. I never underestimate the ability of corporate lawyers to get their clients off the hook and shed liabilities.. Thanks I think. :) |
wonderful
On Jul 19, 9:18*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 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...feabdc0.htmlht....... Sure... BP has no interest in obscuring how much oil is actually flowing. After all, big corporations are good for America: Congrats on doing your homework assignment. Unfortunately, you fail. All of your links are old news and irrelevant except for the "rawstory" one that features your olbermann "expert". *None of them, except the moonbat, back up your assertion that they are leaving the cap on now to avoid measuring flow rates. They (BP and the gov) already have all the data they need to figure out approximately how much oil has come out. *The monetary fines *will be astronomical. *Why would you want them to spill millions of gallons more now when this thing may be permanently capped next week? *You hate our planet? As long as there is no sudden pressure drop, let it stay capped. Keep pimping and lying for BP moron. Tell us why it would be preferrable to have millions of gallons spill into the Gulf instead of capping it safely and permanently. Do you think that BO and his czars would not have it under control? "BP continues to work cooperatively with the guidance and approval of the National Incident Commander and the leadership and direction of federal government including the Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Federal Science Team, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard and secretaries Ken Salazar and Steven Chu." Damn, sounds like the feds are up their butts, and have the data they need. If you have data showing otherwise, lay it out. Otherwise, STFU... skank. |
wonderful
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 9:18 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 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...feabdc0.htmlht...... Sure... BP has no interest in obscuring how much oil is actually flowing. After all, big corporations are good for America: Congrats on doing your homework assignment. Unfortunately, you fail. All of your links are old news and irrelevant except for the "rawstory" one that features your olbermann "expert". None of them, except the moonbat, back up your assertion that they are leaving the cap on now to avoid measuring flow rates. They (BP and the gov) already have all the data they need to figure out approximately how much oil has come out. The monetary fines will be astronomical. Why would you want them to spill millions of gallons more now when this thing may be permanently capped next week? You hate our planet? As long as there is no sudden pressure drop, let it stay capped. Keep pimping and lying for BP moron. Tell us why it would be preferrable to have millions of gallons spill into the Gulf instead of capping it safely and permanently. Do you think that BO and his czars would not have it under control? So perhaps there isn't a massive and uncontrollable leak elsewhere in the system. But, you knew that. You're just being an ass. "BP continues to work cooperatively with the guidance and approval of the National Incident Commander and the leadership and direction of federal government including the Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Federal Science Team, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard and secretaries Ken Salazar and Steven Chu." Damn, sounds like the feds are up their butts, and have the data they need. If you have data showing otherwise, lay it out. Otherwise, STFU... skank. You are a moron, but keep calling me names if it makes you feel more like a man. |
wonderful
On Jul 20, 2:10*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 9:18 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message .... On Jul 19, 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...feabdc0.htmlht...... Sure... BP has no interest in obscuring how much oil is actually flowing. After all, big corporations are good for America: Congrats on doing your homework assignment. Unfortunately, you fail. All of your links are old news and irrelevant except for the "rawstory" one that features your olbermann "expert". *None of them, except the moonbat, back up your assertion that they are leaving the cap on now to avoid measuring flow rates. They (BP and the gov) already have all the data they need to figure out approximately how much oil has come out. *The monetary fines *will be astronomical. *Why would you want them to spill millions of gallons more now when this thing may be permanently capped next week? *You hate our planet? As long as there is no sudden pressure drop, let it stay capped. Keep pimping and lying for BP moron. Tell us why it would be preferrable to have millions of gallons spill into the Gulf instead of capping it safely and permanently. *Do you think that BO and his czars would not have it under control? So perhaps there isn't a massive and uncontrollable leak elsewhere in the system. But, you knew that. You're just being an ass. And I've shown you to be an uneducated parrot. "BP continues to work cooperatively with the guidance and approval of the National Incident Commander and the leadership and direction of federal government including the Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Federal Science Team, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard and secretaries Ken Salazar and Steven Chu." Damn, sounds like the feds are up their butts, and have the data they need. *If you have data showing otherwise, lay it out. Otherwise, STFU... skank. You are a moron, but keep calling me names if it makes you feel more like a man. Does all the name-calling you do make you feel more manly? ~snerk~ |
wonderful
On 7/20/10 9:01 AM, Jack wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:10 am, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 9:18 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 7:12 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 6:12 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 3:16 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 2:25 pm, 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...feabdc0.htmlht...... Sure... BP has no interest in obscuring how much oil is actually flowing. After all, big corporations are good for America: Congrats on doing your homework assignment. Unfortunately, you fail. All of your links are old news and irrelevant except for the "rawstory" one that features your olbermann "expert". None of them, except the moonbat, back up your assertion that they are leaving the cap on now to avoid measuring flow rates. They (BP and the gov) already have all the data they need to figure out approximately how much oil has come out. The monetary fines will be astronomical. Why would you want them to spill millions of gallons more now when this thing may be permanently capped next week? You hate our planet? As long as there is no sudden pressure drop, let it stay capped. Keep pimping and lying for BP moron. Tell us why it would be preferrable to have millions of gallons spill into the Gulf instead of capping it safely and permanently. Do you think that BO and his czars would not have it under control? So perhaps there isn't a massive and uncontrollable leak elsewhere in the system. But, you knew that. You're just being an ass. And I've shown you to be an uneducated parrot. "BP continues to work cooperatively with the guidance and approval of the National Incident Commander and the leadership and direction of federal government including the Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Federal Science Team, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard and secretaries Ken Salazar and Steven Chu." Damn, sounds like the feds are up their butts, and have the data they need. If you have data showing otherwise, lay it out. Otherwise, STFU... skank. You are a moron, but keep calling me names if it makes you feel more like a man. Does all the name-calling you do make you feel more manly? ~snerk~ Gee, jackoff, if you bought a strap-on dildo and wore it, would you feel more like a man? |
wonderful
On Jul 20, 9:05Â*am, Harry  wrote:
On 7/20/10 9:01 AM, Jack wrote: On Jul 20, 2:10 am, Â*wrote: Â*wrote in message .... On Jul 19, 9:18 pm, Â*wrote: Â*wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 7:12 pm, Â*wrote: Â*wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 6:12 pm, Â*wrote: Â*wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 3:16 pm, Â*wrote: Â*wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 2:25 pm, Â*wrote: Â*wrote in message news:4ct7469pgiksefoqo8er4e1bop164ck9p ... On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:42:30 -0700, "nom=de=plume" Â*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. Â*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. Â*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. Â*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. Â*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. Â*Oops, too late. Here you go your moronic brainiac. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...6688083.shtml- Brilliant! Â*That link does absolutely *nothing* to shore up your assertion. ~snerk~ You're a Â*moron: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/88bde5ee-7...feabdc0.htmlht...... Sure... BP has no interest in obscuring how much oil is actually flowing. After all, big corporations are good for America: Congrats on doing your homework assignment. Unfortunately, you fail.. All of your links are old news and irrelevant except for the "rawstory" one that features your olbermann "expert". Â*None of them, except the moonbat, back up your assertion that they are leaving the cap on now to avoid measuring flow rates. They (BP and the gov) already have all the data they need to figure out approximately how much oil has come out. Â*The monetary fines Â*will be astronomical. Â*Why would you want them to spill millions of gallons more now when this thing may be permanently capped next week? Â*You hate our planet? As long as there is no sudden pressure drop, let it stay capped. Keep pimping and lying for BP moron. Tell us why it would be preferrable to have millions of gallons spill into the Gulf instead of capping it safely and permanently. Â*Do you think that BO and his czars would not have it under control? So perhaps there isn't a massive and uncontrollable leak elsewhere in the system. But, you knew that. You're just being an ass. And I've shown you to be an uneducated parrot. "BP continues to work cooperatively with the guidance and approval of the National Incident Commander and the leadership and direction of federal government including the Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Federal Science Team, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard and secretaries Ken Salazar and Steven Chu." Damn, sounds like the feds are up their butts, and have the data they need. Â*If you have data showing otherwise, lay it out. Otherwise, STFU... skank. You are a moron, but keep calling me names if it makes you feel more like a man. Does all the name-calling you do make you feel more manly? Â*~snerk~ Gee, jackoff, if you bought a strap-on dildo and wore it, would you feel more like a man? I wouldn't know... how does it make you feel? |
wonderful
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jul 20, 2:10 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 9:18 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 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...feabdc0.htmlht...... Sure... BP has no interest in obscuring how much oil is actually flowing. After all, big corporations are good for America: Congrats on doing your homework assignment. Unfortunately, you fail. All of your links are old news and irrelevant except for the "rawstory" one that features your olbermann "expert". None of them, except the moonbat, back up your assertion that they are leaving the cap on now to avoid measuring flow rates. They (BP and the gov) already have all the data they need to figure out approximately how much oil has come out. The monetary fines will be astronomical. Why would you want them to spill millions of gallons more now when this thing may be permanently capped next week? You hate our planet? As long as there is no sudden pressure drop, let it stay capped. Keep pimping and lying for BP moron. Tell us why it would be preferrable to have millions of gallons spill into the Gulf instead of capping it safely and permanently. Do you think that BO and his czars would not have it under control? So perhaps there isn't a massive and uncontrollable leak elsewhere in the system. But, you knew that. You're just being an ass. And I've shown you to be an uneducated parrot. "BP continues to work cooperatively with the guidance and approval of the National Incident Commander and the leadership and direction of federal government including the Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Federal Science Team, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard and secretaries Ken Salazar and Steven Chu." Damn, sounds like the feds are up their butts, and have the data they need. If you have data showing otherwise, lay it out. Otherwise, STFU... skank. You are a moron, but keep calling me names if it makes you feel more like a man. Does all the name-calling you do make you feel more manly? ~snerk~ You're the one who's lying and pimping for BP. Check this out if you dare... they lied and they're continuing to lie. http://www.americablog.com/2010/07/b...f-command.html |
wonderful
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jul 20, 9:05 am, Harry  wrote: On 7/20/10 9:01 AM, Jack wrote: On Jul 20, 2:10 am, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 9:18 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 7:12 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 6:12 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 3:16 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 2:25 pm, wrote: wrote in message news:4ct7469pgiksefoqo8er4e1bop164ck9p ... 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...feabdc0.htmlht...... Sure... BP has no interest in obscuring how much oil is actually flowing. After all, big corporations are good for America: Congrats on doing your homework assignment. Unfortunately, you fail. All of your links are old news and irrelevant except for the "rawstory" one that features your olbermann "expert". None of them, except the moonbat, back up your assertion that they are leaving the cap on now to avoid measuring flow rates. They (BP and the gov) already have all the data they need to figure out approximately how much oil has come out. The monetary fines will be astronomical. Why would you want them to spill millions of gallons more now when this thing may be permanently capped next week? You hate our planet? As long as there is no sudden pressure drop, let it stay capped. Keep pimping and lying for BP moron. Tell us why it would be preferrable to have millions of gallons spill into the Gulf instead of capping it safely and permanently. Do you think that BO and his czars would not have it under control? So perhaps there isn't a massive and uncontrollable leak elsewhere in the system. But, you knew that. You're just being an ass. And I've shown you to be an uneducated parrot. "BP continues to work cooperatively with the guidance and approval of the National Incident Commander and the leadership and direction of federal government including the Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Federal Science Team, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard and secretaries Ken Salazar and Steven Chu." Damn, sounds like the feds are up their butts, and have the data they need. If you have data showing otherwise, lay it out. Otherwise, STFU... skank. You are a moron, but keep calling me names if it makes you feel more like a man. Does all the name-calling you do make you feel more manly? ~snerk~ Gee, jackoff, if you bought a strap-on dildo and wore it, would you feel more like a man? I wouldn't know... how does it make you feel? Liar. You know how it feels, since you're the one who's just gotta prove he's got something bigger between his legs than a noodle. |
wonderful
|
wonderful
On 19/07/2010 3:43 PM, Harry  wrote:
On 7/19/10 5:41 PM, Jack wrote: On Jul 19, 3:16 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 2:25 pm, 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. Jackoff *believes* BP's PR... You believe Obama';s big mouth? LMAO. -- Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common sense? |
wonderful
Jack wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:10 am, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 9:18 pm, wrote: wrote in message .... On Jul 19, 7:12 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 6:12 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 3:16 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 2:25 pm, 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...feabdc0.htmlht...... Sure... BP has no interest in obscuring how much oil is actually flowing. After all, big corporations are good for America: Congrats on doing your homework assignment. Unfortunately, you fail. All of your links are old news and irrelevant except for the "rawstory" one that features your olbermann "expert". None of them, except the moonbat, back up your assertion that they are leaving the cap on now to avoid measuring flow rates. They (BP and the gov) already have all the data they need to figure out approximately how much oil has come out. The monetary fines will be astronomical. Why would you want them to spill millions of gallons more now when this thing may be permanently capped next week? You hate our planet? As long as there is no sudden pressure drop, let it stay capped. Keep pimping and lying for BP moron. Tell us why it would be preferrable to have millions of gallons spill into the Gulf instead of capping it safely and permanently. Do you think that BO and his czars would not have it under control? So perhaps there isn't a massive and uncontrollable leak elsewhere in the system. But, you knew that. You're just being an ass. And I've shown you to be an uneducated parrot. "BP continues to work cooperatively with the guidance and approval of the National Incident Commander and the leadership and direction of federal government including the Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Federal Science Team, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard and secretaries Ken Salazar and Steven Chu." Damn, sounds like the feds are up their butts, and have the data they need. If you have data showing otherwise, lay it out. Otherwise, STFU... skank. You are a moron, but keep calling me names if it makes you feel more like a man. Does all the name-calling you do make you feel more manly? ~snerk~ The jury is out on that posters gender. He/she is best ignored. |
wonderful
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:59:36 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 19/07/2010 12:52 AM, wrote: 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. Probably because everything has to go through government. And the only way to do that is if it does not make any sense. the right wing model 1. govt doesnt do anything and lets the company handle it... right wingers scream that the govt has been bought by the oil company and has abandoned people 2. govt steps in the right wing screams that the poor oil company is a victim of socialism and it should be able to do what it wants (as, indeed, canuck has said several times) damned if you do... |
wonderful
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 19/07/2010 3:43 PM, Harry  wrote: On 7/19/10 5:41 PM, Jack wrote: On Jul 19, 3:16 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 2:25 pm, 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. Jackoff *believes* BP's PR... You believe Obama';s big mouth? LMAO. I know you're a moron. There's really no comparison between you and our president. He's actually an adult. |
wonderful
"Larry" wrote in message ... Jack wrote: On Jul 20, 2:10 am, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 9:18 pm, wrote: wrote in message .... On Jul 19, 7:12 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 6:12 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 3:16 pm, wrote: wrote in message ... On Jul 19, 2:25 pm, 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...feabdc0.htmlht...... Sure... BP has no interest in obscuring how much oil is actually flowing. After all, big corporations are good for America: Congrats on doing your homework assignment. Unfortunately, you fail. All of your links are old news and irrelevant except for the "rawstory" one that features your olbermann "expert". None of them, except the moonbat, back up your assertion that they are leaving the cap on now to avoid measuring flow rates. They (BP and the gov) already have all the data they need to figure out approximately how much oil has come out. The monetary fines will be astronomical. Why would you want them to spill millions of gallons more now when this thing may be permanently capped next week? You hate our planet? As long as there is no sudden pressure drop, let it stay capped. Keep pimping and lying for BP moron. Tell us why it would be preferrable to have millions of gallons spill into the Gulf instead of capping it safely and permanently. Do you think that BO and his czars would not have it under control? So perhaps there isn't a massive and uncontrollable leak elsewhere in the system. But, you knew that. You're just being an ass. And I've shown you to be an uneducated parrot. "BP continues to work cooperatively with the guidance and approval of the National Incident Commander and the leadership and direction of federal government including the Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Federal Science Team, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard and secretaries Ken Salazar and Steven Chu." Damn, sounds like the feds are up their butts, and have the data they need. If you have data showing otherwise, lay it out. Otherwise, STFU... skank. You are a moron, but keep calling me names if it makes you feel more like a man. Does all the name-calling you do make you feel more manly? ~snerk~ The jury is out on that posters gender. He/she is best ignored. Yet you just can't... you're a LOSER! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:02 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com