Bigmoose, I was thinking the exact same thing ,when I read Harrell’s testimony,I ll add him to CM’s list , for Bubba’s roomate. "“MOve Over Bubba…There’s gonna be a Party Tonite”
[QUOTE=New Orleans Lady;37407]Larry King is hosting Disaster in the gulf now[/QUOTE]
Larry King and CNN makes me sick.
I thought BP is supposed to be paying for everything, why in the hell are they collecting donations?
What CNN needs to do is [U]act[/U] like a real news organization and do solid investigative journalism. They just created a 20 billion dollar fund, that money needs to go to those that need it, not take more money from citizens to pay for BP’s reckless actions.
Hey CNN go investigate Nalco, the Coast Guard leadership, MMS and BP.
CNN calls it the “Disaster in the Gulf” when they want us to donate and a catastrophe all the other times.
It [U]is[/U] a Disaster and FEMA needs to run it. It about time we call them on their crap.
Well, as long as the money goes to help the coastline,i think its ok.
[QUOTE=]Originally Posted by [B]company man 1[/B] 
Sorry Alvis. Check the source of the story. If that is the story those guys are being given then no wonder they think the way they do. Halliburton absolutely did not make the statement that the cement job was good in any way. I wonder if BP has any relationship to BBC or any influence with them?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_…a/10362139.stm
BP said it had indications of a successful cementing operation and the company that was in charge of the cement job,[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=alvis;37364]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10362139.stm
The article says that ‘BP said it had indications of a successful cementing operation’ and Halliburton said ‘it was consistent with that used in similar applications’. It doesn’t say that Halliburton thought the cement job was good.[/QUOTE]
My comments.
This just got me thinking, guess I should have realised this sooner…
one of the reasons that there is no info coming out from anyone but bp will/could very likely be due to the legal work contracts bp has with each of the companies, which will contain clauses re “Public Announcements” and “Confidentiality of Information”.
These clauses will restrict what they can and can’t do or say without bp’s explicit approval.
This could very well explain why bp have this overall command and control over everything going on here.
cmi I saw the mark hafle testimony, on TV. He had a real smart ass attitude. His Hair was spiked, like a 13 year old. He looked like a real supreme ass hole, who would be a real dick for a boss.Move over bubba, and get out your favorite gel for Mr Halfe, so he can keep his hair “spiked”!]I know who Hafle is now. That just sums up the stupidity followed by denial. It sounds like 5-10 in Angola could teach this guy some responsibility & remorse. It sure doesn’t sound like he had any at the hearing.[/QUOTE]
Alf , read the testimonies, a few threads down , from Mark Haffle, and James Harrel…they re certain to get the “penthouse” along with Bubba. I saw Haffle’s testimony a few weeks ago, and he had a very arrogant , know it all, kind of attitde, reminding me of a Horrific boss I once had. He had absolutely no remorse, in his voice, and from everything I ve read, he’s guilty for gross neglegence, in my opinion.Again , that 's just my opinion, and I trust justice will be served. <one way or another>
[QUOTE=New Orleans Lady;37416]Alf , read the testimonies, a few threads down , from Mark Haffle, and James Harrel…they re certain to get the “penthouse” along with Bubba. I saw Haffle’s testimony a few weeks ago, and he had a very arrogent, kknow it all kind of attitde, reminding me of a Horrific boss I once had. He had absolutely no remorse, in his voice, and from everything I ve read, he’s guilty for gross neglegence, in my opinion.Again , that 's just my opinion, and I trust justice will be served. <one way or another>[/QUOTE]
I could see that it might have been his personality. Some of his tiny facial expressions seemed condescending to me. Or his presence could have been a legal maneuver to seem confident, knowledgeable, and with the surety that his well design was correct and he wouldn’t have changed a thing. Like when attorneys depose physicians, they can’t seem to waffle in their testimony lest they be seen as in a position of weakness. I think he was coached really well.
[QUOTE=alvis;37418]I could see that it might have been his personality. Some of his tiny facial expressions seemed condescending to me. Or his presence could have been a legal maneuver to seem confident, knowledgeable, and with the surety that his well design was correct and he wouldn’t have changed a thing. Like when attorneys depose physicians, they can’t seem to waffle in their testimony lest they be seen as in a position of weakness. I think he was coached really well.[/QUOTE]
Still, Alvis, Voice of Reason, Old Buddy, ya still have to have problems with his testimony, right? He deserves a freakin’ Golden Globe. In my humble opinion. I could all but see Suttle’s arm up his backside, ala’ Winchell and Mahoney.
exactly Alvis
[QUOTE=OldHondoHand;37419]Still, Alvis, Voice of Reason, Old Buddy, ya still have to have problems with his testimony, right? He deserves a freakin’ Golden Globe. In my humble opinion. I could all but see Suttle’s arm up his backside, ala’ Winchell and Mahoney.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely I do! I thought he was full of crap. And he seemed very confident of it! 
[QUOTE=Alf;37414]
Originally Posted by [B]company man 1[/B]
I wonder if BP has any relationship to BBC or any influence with them?
My comments.
This just got me thinking, guess I should have realised this sooner… one of the reasons that there is no info coming out from anyone but bp will/could very likely be due to the legal work contracts bp has with each of the companies, which will contain clauses re “Public Announcements” and “Confidentiality of Information”.
These clauses will restrict what they can and can’t do or say without bp’s explicit approval.
This could very well explain why bp have this overall command and control over everything going on here.[/QUOTE]
cm1,
Beg to differ on this one. Most of the companies, on the advice of counsel, concurred in by their CEO’s, crisis manager consultants and their boards (who would be involved in this strategic call) are trying to lie low, keep their powder dry, fly under the radar. Do you want your company to make a big splash in this pool? Now? Want scads of top investigative reporters nosing around? Want to be excoriated, above the fold, on page 1 of the WSJ and the NYT? I thought not.
BP, with nothing to lose, is trying the ‘fickle finger of fate’ trick, which, if you are of a certain age you’ll remember (Laugh-in, right?) Anadarko, with no direct involvement, huge liability and desperate, is taking a different tack–lashing out. And the other majors, as last Tuesday showed, are willing to be fairly candid, in the effort to create space between themselves and BP–like people moving away from the drunk who just threw up.
The Beeb will carry (oily) water for BP: each are essential parts of the pinnacle of the same British establishment. Just watch their stories for the rest of this week. It will be like Alcor, but so much tonier. (Go Slovenia!!)
[QUOTE=New Orleans Lady;37412]Well, as long as the money goes to help the coastline,i think its ok.[/QUOTE]
BP needs to pay out the money to the coast line and the government (who supposedly works for us) needs to ensure it happens now, not later.
Watch Anderson Cooper right now, CNN has reverted to “Catastrophe” instead of “Disaster” to define the event - just like I said.
Only when they want our money do they call it a “Disaster.” When the subject is on government or BP responsibility they call it a Castastrophe.
Important subtleties in propaganda most people miss. A Declared Disaster would be DHS/FEMA responsibility but, this is a “Spill of National Significance” instead.
I hope people wake up to how this is being handled. Ask the 911 responders how well they were taken care of for their service to our country.
I agree, money to residents in the area is a good thing. Everyone just shouldn’t forget who should be paying and who should be running the show and is not.
Alvis, do you think it was a possibility, that the tuna fishing boat, which was 4 young kids, in a 19 ft outboard motor, could have sparked, the methane gas when they raced their engine to escape, prior to the explosion? Because, I read, in one of the reports, they were a possible variable?
[QUOTE=MikeDB;37334]Is this “fringe”?
[B]http://forum.concen.org/showthread.php?tid=31284[/B]
[B]http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2010/05/03/2[/B]
[/QUOTE]
I will vouch for MikeDB first link, above, to ZeroHedge. Takes you right to Congressman Markey’s Attachment#7 and relevant commentary; BP’s own graphic of bent riser w drillpipe and fair detail…with worst case scenarios.
I’m an early adopter over at ZH. For a good time, [call] go to the link. ZH 's Tyler Durden has high credibility.
Got to agree with you. I’ve watched that testimony a couple of times, and couldn’t help noticing his repressed “smirks” and overall smugness.
My comment re the legal working contracts came about because I couldn’t quite understand why only bp was giving out info/data. The confidentiality clauses in all their contracts means bp own whatever info their contractors produce re the well.
I threw it into the pot to help others understand.
[QUOTE=peakoilerrrr;37426]I’m an early adopter over at ZH. For a good time, [call] go to the link. ZH 's Tyler Durden has high credibility.[/QUOTE]
Well, your mileage may vary. I’m wary of Zero Hedge: during the financial crisis, I found that they’re (deliberately) so far over the bleeding edge that their quality varies wildly–to much for my taste. When they’re right, they can be spectacularly so, and very, very early. When they’re wrong…
Plus, there is this: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/08/who-is-tyler-durden_21.html
As with the ‘real’ Tyler Durden in Palahniuk’s book and the movie, the screen name fits: magnetic, can’t not watch, queasy-making, not a model of reliability…
All that said, there’s no problem at all with the linked post.
[QUOTE=bigmoose;37408]Had results of the Cobalt 60 radiography of the BOP. Said on one side the shear ram extended and “locked” with the safety wedge that holds the ram in the closed position. Other side of the shear ram either didn’t move or couldn’t move. Cause unknown. They doubled the hydraulic design pressure on the ram, and still no effect.[/QUOTE]
Thanks bigmoose. I read very early on that they had done some sort of imaging test on the BOP. This is the first I’ve seen of any info re that imaging.
I wonder why they didn’t look at the wedgelock on the other side? Looking only at 1 ram doesn’t give the full picture as the other side could still be wide open if there was a hydraulic failure/interuption somewhere.
I didn’t get to see the MMS & Coast guard testimonies. Could one of you guys send me a link? I can’t believe they got back 58 Bbls. of returns on the negative test & Harrell agreed to displace the riser. This whole thing is past my imagination. This is just a total embarrassment for anyone in the oilfield. One thing sounds for sure. Reading everyone’s account of the testimony given, it will be pretty easy to vet out the guilty & throw them in jail.
[QUOTE=dell;37428]As with the ‘real’ Tyler Durden in Palahniuk’s book and the movie, the screen name fits: magnetic, can’t not watch, queasy-making, not a model of reliability…[/QUOTE]
I thought that sounded awfully Fight Club’by…
[QUOTE=company man 1;37383]Wow! That was a lot of reading. I hate to do this because TO is partly to share in this responsibility also. But the two most important things I took away from the article were that BP had TO change part of its defense mechanism to a test mechanism to save time & money & they clearly stated that at least half of the shear ram piston functioned fully. It sounds as if they did not even check the other half. Would they not want to know if the other half also functioned fully? That was very vague & open ended. There have to be changes made in MMS enforcement ability as well as culture. They must have redundant shear rams as part of a BOP system also.[/QUOTE]
I had idea that conversion of 1 set of [pincer] rams to so-called “test rams” was done so that attached instrumentation could be manipulated inward. Recently saw a post that mentioned the “test rams” were used for in-place “testing” to meet BOP periodic testing requirements, [B]as stand-ins[/B] for tests on the other sets of rams…so tha actual tests on them would be unnecessary. Can anyone straighten me out here?
Note that BT/TO could [B]save much Time[/B] and $ by using 1 “test ram” set as proxy for tests on the other rams.
BTW, also read reference to a “failed piston”,[B] 1 of 2[/B] required to fully actuate ram movement. Hmmm.
Sorry do not have referenced posts to hand.