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.

km

Yeah, and I'm probably the poster boy. But I've selected the "ignore" function again, and this time won't even try to guess what he writing. It's like giving my head and my stomach a spa treatment.

Good, because a break from your prurient vulgarity will be like a holiday for all of us.

km

Surely you can't be that dense? I'm out of this.

Good, so am I - the surface collection rate has gone up to 10,000 barrels a day by the way... strange given your theory that it should all be staying down there.

km

This would not have happened if they told the truth in the first place and not lied about it.

Right on! They lied about the amounts of spilled oil, and they lied about the oil plumes!
Make them pay!!

Lied - no... carp said that all they did was not dissent from industry estimates before anyone was in a position to measure the spill....

km

… 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 .