- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/31/14 at 11:41 am to mmcgrath
quote:
But given the limited number of inspectors who can't even physically keep up with statutory inspections
quote:
you can see how a lot of these reports that include spills of thousands of barrels of various stuff can become an internal investigation simply signed off on by the inspectors.
no. Just no. That simply isn't reality. You are making thing up in you mind. quote:
The ATP report you mentioned is regarding a rig that was engineered to automatically put dispersals in the water following normal operations
No. No. It wasn't. Not at all. That was a "field" modification. If you knew anything, you'd know that a Surface Facility Permit is required to show all product flows. quote:They weren't "pipes". They were instrument tubing And, actually, it made it harder to catch. The dispersant kept them from generating a sheen visible from the air.
I think that is a step beyond under reporting of incidents and is obviously much easier to catch given that they had pipes connecting a reservoir of dispersant to a discharge pipe
Posted on 10/31/14 at 11:42 am to lsu13lsu
quote:
It is a really short article (advertisement) so not sure how you missed this:
me elither! 
quote:i made no such claim. I said I didn't know it, and asked if it actually happened. It did!
You are the one who said BP doesn't use this PR tactic.
This post was edited on 10/31/14 at 11:50 am
Posted on 10/31/14 at 11:45 am to lsu13lsu
quote:Wrong claims. I was talking about the breathless media "experts" claiming the well was spilling 50,000 BOPD And stuff like that. The piece cites more specific examples of some of the non-performant claims, though it certainly isn't exhaustive.
Unless you are totally unfamiliar to this entire process they were told by the Plantiffs and Judge this (fraud) would happen and they agreed to it anyway. They said they didn't care they just wanted to pay up and move on and make it right.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 11:46 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
They weren't "pipes". They were instrument tubing And, actually, it made it harder to catch. The dispersant kept them from generating a sheen visible from the air.
From the article:
quote:But I guess you are hung up on varied definitions of "pipes" and "tubing" and whether "field modifications" would constitute "engineering". But I guess it is understandable given your demonstrated inability to find a simple reference in a short article shown above.
A BSEE inspection of the ATP Innovator in 2012 revealed alleged unlawful discharges of oil and a piping configuration that routed an unpermitted chemical dispersant into the facility’s wastewater discharge pipe to mask excess oil being discharged into the ocean.
This post was edited on 10/31/14 at 11:47 am
Posted on 10/31/14 at 11:48 am to lsu13lsu
quote:I love the reference to "sweet" crude oil they used as if they were spilling sweat tea into the Gulf of Mexico.
lsu13lsu
Posted on 10/31/14 at 11:50 am to Taxing Authority
quote:Weren't you they guy who recommended that everyone should read Bernays' book Propaganda in the beginning of this thread?
Taxing Authority
Yet you read that article from the BP exec and found it semi-legit?
Posted on 10/31/14 at 11:54 am to mmcgrath
quote:You should have read the actual investigation report. And yeah... There is a lot of difference between installing piping and installing some instrument tubing. One can be done by a operator crew without telling anyone and the other requires a work crew, welding, supports, etc.
But I guess you are hung up on varied definitions of "pipes" and "tubing" and whether "field modifications" would constitute "engineering".
quote:Missing something while skimming on an iPhone pales to the ignorance you've shown in this thread. Sorry to be personal, but if we're going to question each other's intelligence...
But I guess it is understandable given your demonstrated inability to find a simple reference in a short article shown above.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 11:55 am to mmcgrath
quote:
mmcgrath
Posted on 10/31/14 at 11:55 am to mmcgrath
quote:
I love the reference to "sweet" crude oil they used as if they were spilling sweat tea into the Gulf of Mexico.
Wow....
Posted on 10/31/14 at 11:56 am to Taxing Authority
quote:I think the boat has sailed on this one
but if we're going to question each other's intelligence...
Posted on 10/31/14 at 11:57 am to C
quote:
I love the reference to "sweet" crude oil they used as if they were spilling sweat tea into the Gulf of Mexico.
Wow....
Posted on 10/31/14 at 12:07 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Wrong claims. I was talking about the breathless media "experts" claiming the well was spilling 50,000 BOPD And stuff like that. The piece cites more specific examples of some of the non-performant claims, though it certainly isn't exhaustive.
I apologize.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 12:09 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
I love the reference to "sweet" crude oil they used as if they were spilling sweat tea into the Gulf of Mexico.
If you twitter, you should follow that guy. He is a riot. It is unbelievable he works for a large corporation and his job is to attack people openly like he does and spread misinformation.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 12:12 pm to STEVED00
quote:
If people realized how much oil naturally seeped out of the ground in the GOM then they would realize how much of a non issue this is.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 12:15 pm to SpidermanTUba
You can multiply that natural seep # by the last million or so years if you would like.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 12:27 pm to STEVED00
quote:
You can multiply that natural seep # by the last million or so years if you would like.
I could multiply it by any number, actually. I have a calculator right here.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 12:31 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
According to the link, about 1.4 million barrels a year, which is less than the 2.6 - 4.2 million barrels estimated to have been spilled in a single area in a short amount of time by BP.
You could dump the entire world's oil supply into a single square mile in the Gulf, certain types of people will still maintain its A-OK!
Posted on 10/31/14 at 12:34 pm to SpidermanTUba
Would you care sharing the amount of oil that has made its way into the GOM over the last million years then?
Posted on 10/31/14 at 12:36 pm to SpidermanTUba
You do understand that oil spreads out and is not confined in 1 centralized spot? People were finding traces of the spill from Texas to Florida.
The Valdez was so bad bc it was an enormous volume of oil spilled in a very small confined area. The BP spill was a constant substantial spill that was able to dissipate throughout the massive water space that is the GOM.
The Valdez was so bad bc it was an enormous volume of oil spilled in a very small confined area. The BP spill was a constant substantial spill that was able to dissipate throughout the massive water space that is the GOM.
This post was edited on 10/31/14 at 12:39 pm
Page 3 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News