Unfortunately, the supposed reasons why it would be nicer are obscure - no wonder BP aren't taking any notice of them... measurements of what?

km

No, I'm teaching at the moment.

km

I've discovered that you've been right in many things you say about km that i thought were exaggerations on your part. From some time to now i have been discovering what you mean in a number of cases.

km can be exasperating and self centered, insulting, but you can be really mean and rude, full of rage, in your answers (funny and creative too), and i wouldn't like to position myself as your firing target.

I can understand that you both are always clashing.



…and, thanks, but i already ignore him by answering or not at my pleasure.

It's incredible how absurdly childish you can be!

From: BP's "meastimates" as you call them. to: why we need an accurate measurement of the rate of flow.

There's nothing childish about it - the article is self-contradictory.


According to the article:

"Wereley told msnbc.com on Tuesday: 'I do not know how BP can make that assertion when they don’t know how much oil is escaping'".

So how is anyone else going to know? If your so called scientists put themselves in BP's position they're not going know either.

With the work BP has to do and the responsibilities they have to their workforce the company would be failing in its duty in my opinion if it took any notice of people who can't even join up their own tendentious ramblings with some sense of coherence.

km

Such as?

km

How many barrels a day was BP extracting before the explosion?

I find it interesting that according to the figures today, they're recouping more barrels per day than BP had estimated as the upper limit of what was gushing out.

Interesting is one word for it.

Everyone knows BP increased its estimate when they were in a better position to know.

km