the wiki article is pretty clean on all this, by the way.
Well it doesn't make your mistake of discussing a "closed, hard-sided vessel" as if the terms 'hard' and 'closed' were absolute. What's 'hard' is relative to the pressure applied to the object so a structure may be 'hard' when subjected to 200 ibs psi but soft when subjected to 2,000 ibs psi such that the structure caves in. Because pressure in water is relative to depth BP used remotely operated vehicles (ROV's) knowing that man can't operate in or out of structures at 5,000 feet on account of the pressure at that depth.
Lied - no... carp said that all they did was not dissent from industry estimates before anyone was in a position to measure the spill....
… carp said?
And keymaker? Did he say anything?
Yep , I said nothing like that Pablo
Anyway BP went with what NOAA , first said after viewing (satellite Imaging) just after the spill , NOAA estimated at that time about 5,000 barrels per day . Later videos of the spill it self became (mile below) , showed the spill to be much much more .
Simply I don't fault BP for going with the NOAA estimate (from Space) at all --- I do fault BP for after the under water videos of the BOP where presented to the public and reports that the spill was much much greater --> that BP still continued to use the NOAA claim of 5,000 barrels per day .
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.