That is a cool graphic. A good way to put things in perspective. 150 ATM. That's some pressure. :nope:

Ok thank you for clarifying that Xabba.

This may help to sort out the confusion (emphasis added):

Source: http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article213497.ece

By that statement - it would be Transocean who holds the largest responsibility. However, I personally am not willing to let BP off the hook because of it - when they made numerous decisions that created the need for a working BOP in the first place.

Experts double the size of the oil spill.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_...a/10290238.stm

Nice going UK & US. :nope:

Apologies I thought Halliburton owned it.

As a matter of course whether drilling in shallow or deep water a BOP is required and is common sense.

Yes BP as the project owner is responsible and I won't absolve them, however they are stepping up. Transocean is walking away and letting BP take the flack. The BOP didn't work as it was designed to. It was designed to shear older type pipework. Piping materials have improved, got stronger for an equivalent grade than 20 years ago. That is why the BOP couldn't cut the pipe, that is Transoceans responsibility and they should be chucked under the boot along with BP.

Oh someone sort Pelosi out too.

Get Palin to stop railin' about her new neighbor and we'll talk about the Pelosi thing. :DL:O:


Double again that size, just to be on the safe side. Now, if you break it down to the owners and operators of the systems that failed, you get the ones that should probably shoulder the blame. That leaves Transocean and BP. Make it a little more complicated by tossing in the government, who appear to have been dragging ass since April, and we almost have a complete list of suspects. Where's Frank Drebbin when you need him? :DL

What part did Halliburton play in building the platform/riser/BOP/(anything else I missed) system? I heard something about a concrete pour for the BOP, was that it? :06:




Howdy Haplo. *wave*

I don't know. Looking back I don't think Halliburton have that much to do with it.

It is Transocean and BP who are the biggies.

Seriously though on this side of the Atlantic people are getting fed up with Obama's rhetoric and language and can't help feeling the there is an anti-British sentiment being stirred up and coming out of Obama. Saying that I never thought he cared much for the UK as a partner anyway, or anyone else for that matter.

In the final stages of closing the well, a concrete "plug" is poured to seal the well. Farther up, another concrete plug is poured to insure its clamped shut. Haliburton was responsible for the concrete pours. After the first one, they noted some problems in writing to both Transocean and BP because the testing indicated there could be some gas still leaking through. This is why the mud cycle should have run for 8-12 hours minimum (to get the mud at the bottom of the pipe up to be checked for gas absorbtion) and that BP only circulated for 30 minutes - not enough by a mile. Had they done so, they would have known they had a gas leak, and it was unsafe to swap the mud out for seawater (which allowed the gas up the pipe and led to the explosion. Normally the mud isn't swapped until the second plug is in place and tested, but BP did get a permit to only use the one, and ignored the warnings that there was a problem.

I don't blame the UK; I blame Ireland. (J/K) :O: I'm not picking up as much on any anti-whomever sentiment as much as I'm picking up on strong language and a more-relaxed-than-is-confortable approach to a very big and serious problem. I can respect that Obama prefers not to pitch a fit, and I can only imagine what he really thinks about it; but I'm actually seeing (in the news) more action being taken by BP, Bobby Jindahl, and coast residents than is being taken by the feds. The Big O needs to be showing me some real strength in this soon, and something tells me that strength will be coming along with the inquiries. He's meeting with BP Chairman today. Let's see what happens. (Please, Mr. President, hand the man his ass on a silver platter *pray*)

Okay, that clears up a lot for me. The well was in the process of being closed up. BP took a poorly calculated shortcut, against documented evidence (the Halliburton reports) that they should proceed with caution, and ended up sinking a Transocean oil rig, which ultimately cost lives and has released several tens-of-millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Did I get that right?




<vehement rant>
*indescribable verbal abuse* :x
</vehement rant>



:sunny:

She has been busy out endorsing (sucessfully I add) candidates.

But what this has to do with the oil spill I'm not sure.

:rotfl2: Yeah, I wondered too. Not sure how Pelosi fits into the picture, either. Just funnin' with the man. :DL

It will be very interisting to see where this leads...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10291371.stm

Which side, US or Europe? I missed the chance to ask earlier.


From the graph it looks like the dividend would be healthy. Krashkart read article now...

I meant on the UK side of the Atlantic.

Ah, okay. Could you tell me why? I wasn't expecting to have a leader that didn't like the UK. :-?

krashkart - the UK isn't socialist enough for O to like you guys.

He likes venuzeula and cuba though - just watch him try to nationalize the petroleum industry over this mess.....

Jesus loves oil spills.

^^ You crazy bastard! :har::DL

Behold, the true Messiah!

http://current.com/entertainment/com...video-feed.htm

LMFAO!

You have got to be ****ing kidding me. Some people...

http://www.peachygreen.com/wp-conten...c20aa11ea1.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/m...e_1556599c.jpg
http://www.ibrrc.org/images/eagle_wa..._Valdez_89.jpg