- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 9,796
- Reaction score
- 2,590
- Location
- out yonder
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I refuse to drink any wine that doesn't have a screw off top.
Bah, if taking out the cork wastes too much time getting to the joy juice, I just whack the bottle neck on the counter. Quick and efficient.
YOU SIR are a ****en infidel. And should be banned from EVER entering Sonoma Valley.TWIST OFF...geeese.
Obviously someone is trying to lay blame on Halliburton for the 2010 blowout.
YOU SIR are a ****en infidel. And should be banned from EVER entering Sonoma Valley.TWIST OFF...geeese.
No need to wonder what was destroyed if any of you are willing to do so much at 30 seconds of google searching...
According to the government, Halliburton recommended to BP that the Macondo well contain 21 centralizers, metal collars that can improve cementing, but BP chose to use six.
The government said that, during an internal probe into the cementing after the blowout, Halliburton ordered workers to destroy computer simulations that showed little difference between using six and 21 centralizers.
Halliburton Pleads Guilty To Destroying Gulf Oil Spill Evidence
A centralizer is nothing more than a ring that helps to guide a pipe down so that it can place something more precisely, in this case, the pipe that was to pump the cement down into the well. 21 of them would have allowed the cementing to be more precise, but of course, at the cost of a lot more time spent installing the centralizers.
My guess is that the government overreached in this case...the simulations weren't really germane to identify a cause or causes for the blowout, since they indicated that 6 vs. 21 centralizers wouldn't have compromised safety. But anything related to the disaster becomes evidence, and since Halliburton got rid of this information, it makes them appear that they are hiding something.
Also, they are on the hook for a 200k dollar fine, and volunteered to donate $55,000,000 to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
It's not my fault you cant deal with the truth..
I have more respect for socialists that admit they're socialists rather than closet socialists such as yourself.
Then again maybe you don't understand socialism?
Hopefully this puts to rest the notion in people's brains that companies don't destroy evidence.
Why is anyone supposed to care?Video @: Halliburton admits guilt in Gulf spill case - YouTube
Halliburton getting caught to cover up its mess in the gulf oil spill case. Typical. Halliburton is one of the most corrupt companies out there and i personally believe they should be charged way way more for their actions. Disgusting.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
I tend not to engage hyperbole addicts like yourself however, I took the time to read this because well: I don't even know what a "closet socialist" is. Then again, you're the Libertarian who got so confused in his attempt to paint himself in the color of the founders that he basically agreed that owning people was okay. Which is - you know - in refutation of your raison d'etre. But please, please tell me you know what a "closet socialist" is. I'd love to hear what it is. Maybe it'll make more sense than why I should care that some jobless Libertarian with a hard on for Ayn-Rand doesn't respect me enough.
Yes we do. We knew this very early on.I wonder what the payoff is, because no one knows exactly how the blowout happened.
Yes we do. We knew this very early on.
A high concentration of hydrates began flowing up the pipe. This caused alarm and the emergency BOP control was activated, but the BOP itself failed to execute, allowing the hydrates up the pipe, which then exploded at sea-level air-pressure and temperature, killing 11 instantly. Secondary fires spread rapidly, compromising the structure of the rig, causing it to sink.
Encountering hydrates is typical, not surprising at all. What was different was how concentrated this deposit of hydrates were, which was still predicted given the depth they were drilling to. It was expected.
Halliburton's part in this is that it was Halliburton's responsibility to maintain the BOP. It was a Halliburton BOP, it had failed inspections and was used anyway. Halliburton knew about this in advance but let it slide. Had Halliburton properly maintained the BOP then we would never have heard of the Deepwater Horizon.
BP is also culpable because they knew the BOP failed inspection. Transocean, the owner of the rig, may not have known about the BOP because they simply build and lease rigs to companies who then go out and drill. It's like renting a truck from Enterprise and then not properly securing a load; Enterprise doesn't monitor your activities, they just lease you the truck.
The concrete wall itself never failed.Thr BOP stack doesn't control the casing, so if the pressure kick vame up between the casing, there's no way the BOP would have stopped the blow out.
That was one of several attempts over the 3 months, yes.Also, the story has been all along that they were trying to weigh down a gas kick with sea water vice heavy weight mud.
Yes we do. We knew this very early on.
A high concentration of hydrates began flowing up the pipe. This caused alarm and the emergency BOP control was activated, but the BOP itself failed to execute, allowing the hydrates up the pipe, which then exploded at sea-level air-pressure and temperature, killing 11 instantly. Secondary fires spread rapidly, compromising the structure of the rig, causing it to sink.
Encountering hydrates is typical, not surprising at all. What was different was how concentrated this deposit of hydrates were, which was still predicted given the depth they were drilling to. It was expected.
Halliburton's part in this is that it was Halliburton's responsibility to maintain the BOP. It was a Halliburton BOP, it had failed inspections and was used anyway. Halliburton knew about this in advance but let it slide. Had Halliburton properly maintained the BOP then we would never have heard of the Deepwater Horizon.
BP is also culpable because they knew the BOP failed inspection. Transocean, the owner of the rig, may not have known about the BOP because they simply build and lease rigs to companies who then go out and drill. It's like renting a truck from Enterprise and then not properly securing a load; Enterprise doesn't monitor your activities, they just lease you the truck.
The concrete wall itself never failed.
That was one of several attempts over the 3 months, yes.
Yes we do. We knew this very early on.
A high concentration of hydrates began flowing up the pipe. This caused alarm and the emergency BOP control was activated, but the BOP itself failed to execute, allowing the hydrates up the pipe, which then exploded at sea-level air-pressure and temperature, killing 11 instantly. Secondary fires spread rapidly, compromising the structure of the rig, causing it to sink.
Encountering hydrates is typical, not surprising at all. What was different was how concentrated this deposit of hydrates were, which was still predicted given the depth they were drilling to. It was expected.
Halliburton's part in this is that it was Halliburton's responsibility to maintain the BOP. It was a Halliburton BOP, it had failed inspections and was used anyway. Halliburton knew about this in advance but let it slide. Had Halliburton properly maintained the BOP then we would never have heard of the Deepwater Horizon.
BP is also culpable because they knew the BOP failed inspection. Transocean, the owner of the rig, may not have known about the BOP because they simply build and lease rigs to companies who then go out and drill. It's like renting a truck from Enterprise and then not properly securing a load; Enterprise doesn't monitor your activities, they just lease you the truck.
Halliburtons cementing was involved in a major blowout in SE Asia prior to Deepwater.
You didn't know how the blow out happened, so I told you, and now you're mad because you thought you were an expert. What's this thread supposed to be about anyway? Halliburton bad? I ask again, why should anyone care?Another correction: the water from the "C-boats" caused the rig to sink. Engineers had told the Coast Gaurd to let it burn, but they wouldn't listen snd forced thr C-boats to keep spraying water, filling the hull with water.
If this thread is about 'Halliburton bad' then that's on topic.What's that have to do with this?
Why wouldnt you care?Why is anyone supposed to care?
You didn't know how the blow out happened, so I told you, and now you're mad because you thought you were an expert. What's this thread supposed to be about anyway? Halliburton bad? I ask again, why should anyone care?
If this thread is about 'Halliburton bad' then that's on topic.
Why wouldnt you care?
:lamoBecause he's a Conservative and doesn't hate the private sector.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?