Tony Hayward Watch

vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#121
Report 8 years ago
#121
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
You completely fail at arguing anything to do with this.

What proof is there that the company who did the modifications have a past record of this type of thing. Just because you use a company in China does not mean the work was done to a poorer standard, just that it was cheaper.

If there is none, BP could not anticipate it and so it is not negligent. The end.

Now would you like to try again and actually answer the question this time?
You absolutely make me chuckle... they went with the China option because it was cheaper... regardless of if it was inferior is irrelevant... they went with the cheaper option and they asked for the modification...

By the end result we know that it was inferior... end of story... therefore they got what they paid for... an inferior product.
It is you that has no concept of liability and are relying on... wait for it... the culprits of the crime to say they did not do it... heheheh brilliant strategy, what are they supposed to say... yeah we did it? SIGH

Also The Times of London have documented that BP profited from the release of the Libyan prisoner being released... argue with them if you don't believe them... you trying to prove me wrong will not change those facts:

1. That on the evidence according to Transocean BP requested the modifications on the BOP which blew up which caused the rig to sink etc.

2. The Times of London (you know the British paper that everyone considers to be the gold standard) wrote that the British government allowed the Libyan prisoner to be transported home to Liyba, and immediately afterwards BP got the contracts, contracts that they were previously denied.
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#122
Report 8 years ago
#122
(Original post by vnupe)
You absolutely make me chuckle... they went with the China option because it was cheaper... regardless of if it was inferior is irrelevant... they went with the cheaper option and they asked for the modification...

By the end result we know that it was inferior... end of story... therefore they got what they paid for... an inferior product.
It is you that has no concept of liability and are relying on... wait for it... the culprits of the crime to say they did not do it... heheheh brilliant strategy, what are they supposed to say... yeah we did it? SIGH

Also The Times of London have documented that BP profited from the release of the Libyan prisoner being released... argue with them if you don't believe them... you trying to prove me wrong will not change those facts:

1. That on the evidence according to Transocean BP requested the modifications on the BOP which blew up which caused the rig to sink etc.

2. The Times of London (you know the British paper that everyone considers to be the gold standard) wrote that the British government allowed the Libyan prisoner to be transported home to Liyba, and immediately afterwards BP got the contracts, contracts that they were previously denied.
Going with something which is cheaper does not mean you are liable unless it is proven they had a poor track record. China is cheaper because they can produce things cheaper than the US or any other country at a lower price and maintain quality. Don't be such a disguisting snob and look down on China, you make yourself look a joke. It is usual for BOP's to be send to China.

I asked for records to prove they did so.

You have provided none.

STFU with the chuckle stuff, the only think you should be chuckling at is how stupid you are looking to the whole forum.
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#123
Report 8 years ago
#123
Lets face it here, you clearly lack intelligence.

You do not understand the concept of liabiliy in the slightest. To be liable you have to be shown to have prior knowledge that something was of a inferior standard. It is common in the industry for BOP to be sent to China, end of.

Because you did something in China is not evidence, half the crap in the world is made in China because it is cheaper, if it was all inferior the world would be ****** by now.

Come back with some real evidence which would work in court or shut your trap, I have had enough of your failed ramblings and it is starting to get tiresome.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#124
Report 8 years ago
#124
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
Lets face it here, you clearly lack intelligence.

You do not understand the concept of liabiliy in the slightest. To be liable you have to be shown to have prior knowledge that something was of a inferior standard. It is common in the industry for BOP to be sent to China, end of.

Because you did something in China is not evidence, half the crap in the world is made in China because it is cheaper, if it was all inferior the world would be ****** by now.

Come back with some real evidence which would work in court or shut your trap, I have had enough of your failed ramblings and it is starting to get tiresome.
The evidence is the fact that the BOP did not do its job.... what other evidence do you need... No one is bashing China and their products, by what Transocean and Cameron stated, the industry standard is not to modify the BOP from China, which is what BP requested... SIGH and chuckle... you sir are grasping at straws, and no matter how much you insult me, I will chuckle rather than retort... because I will not stoop to your childish level...

SO BP should have taken reasonable care when it asked for the modifications... ask any expert about BOPs they will tell you that they are speced a certain way for a certain reason... to change the spec especially when dealing with a well of that depth, is to play with fire... they were even warned by the Transocean people on the rig, but they disregarded the warning... this alone shows reckless disregard.. plus I.F. we went over this over a month ago, when you were spouting similar nonsense... SMH
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#125
Report 8 years ago
#125
(Original post by vnupe)
The evidence is the fact that the BOP did not do its job.... what other evidence do you need... No one is bashing China and their products, by what Transocean and Cameron stated, the industry standard is not to modify the BOP from China, which is what BP requested... SIGH and chuckle... you sir are grasping at straws, and no matter how much you insult me, I will chuckle rather than retort... because I will not stoop to your childish level...

SO BP should have taken reasonable care when it asked for the modifications... ask any expert about BOPs they will tell you that they are speced a certain way for a certain reason... to change the spec especially when dealing with a well of that depth, is to play with fire... they were even warned by the Transocean people on the rig, but they disregarded the warning... this alone shows reckless disregard.. plus I.F. we went over this over a month ago, when you were spouting similar nonsense... SMH

I just looked it up and the part of the BOP which did not work, was not made or changed in China.

Oh and please look it up, it says all over the internet that many companies send them to China.

Will you please now accept your complete failings and apologise for being so un-educated in the matter?
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#126
Report 8 years ago
#126
(Original post by loafer)
i realised that yesterday
He has been arguing for the last day that because the blow out preventer was modified in China it was BP's fault.

I now find with one google search that the part which failed was not changed in China or even touched.

I wish i was as intelligent as you and had stopped instead of wasting my time on this clown.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#127
Report 8 years ago
#127
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
He has been arguing for the last day that because the blow out preventer was modified in China it was BP's fault.

I now find with one google search that the part which failed was not changed in China or even touched.

I wish i was as intelligent as you and had stopped instead of wasting my time on this clown.
Again with the name calling ... hehehe you and your boy loafer.... I chuckle at both of you... I wish both of you understood the purpose of the BOP... and how it works in relation to the well casing etc...

Maybe this link will give you some insight:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33026791/Hayward-BP-2010-6-14
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#128
Report 8 years ago
#128
(Original post by vnupe)
Again with the name calling ... hehehe you and your boy loafer.... I chuckle at both of you... I wish both of you understood the purpose of the BOP... and how it works in relation to the well casing etc...

Maybe this link will give you some insight:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33026791/Hayward-BP-2010-6-14
Shhhh... come back when you educate yourself for a start.

Saying because it was modified in China, BP are liable, when the bit that failed wasn't even touched :rofl:

Oh the smell of fail is in the air.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#129
Report 8 years ago
#129
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
Shhhh... come back when you educate yourself for a start.

Saying because it was modified in China, BP are liable, when the bit that failed wasn't even touched :rofl:

Oh the smell of fail is in the air.
I guess you didn't read the article... too challenging? Its called building a case... but you wouldn't know anything about that... tsk tsk... If the BOP (Blow Out Preventer) didn't fail, the rig would not have sank and there would not have been an explosion... SMH

It obviously didn't prevent... wait for it... wait for it... a blow out, as it was supposedly designed for... (openly laughing now) which was compounded (if you don't know the word look it up) by other design flaws that were stated in the letter... get a clue and get to bed ... its way past your bedtime... hehehehhe
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#130
Report 8 years ago
#130
(Original post by vnupe)
I guess you didn't read the article... too challenging? Its called building a case... but you wouldn't know anything about that... tsk tsk... If the BOP (Blow Out Preventer) didn't fail, the rig would not have sank and there would not have been an explosion... SMH

It obviously didn't prevent... wait for it... wait for it... a blow out, as it was supposedly designed for... (openly laughing now) which was compounded (if you don't know the word look it up) by other design flaws that were stated in the letter... get a clue and get to bed ... its way past your bedtime... hehehehhe
So now you are going off the point it was modified in China because I showed you too be a nasty little liar?

Another of your fails is exposed and you move onto the next area you read about yet know nothing about.

I wish you could neg everyday.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#131
Report 8 years ago
#131
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
So now you are going off the point it was modified in China because I showed you too be a nasty little liar?

Another of your fails is exposed and you move onto the next area you read about yet know nothing about.

I wish you could neg everyday.
Again you havent read the article so are spouting venom and hate... how does it feel to be exposed and the only retribution you have is to neg rep... This is you: 'I can't argue on merit so I want to neg rep... boo hoo...' grow up, learn how to make a non-circular argument and get a clue...

One other thing this is the internet, get a life and please don't take it and yourself so seriously... no one else takes you seriously... SMH
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#132
Report 8 years ago
#132
(Original post by vnupe)
Again you havent read the article so are spouting venom and hate... how does it feel to be exposed and the only retribution you have is to neg rep... This is you: 'I can't argue on merit so I want to neg rep... boo hoo...' grow up, learn how to make a non-circular argument and get a clue...

One other thing this is the internet, get a life and please don't take it and yourself so seriously... no one else takes you seriously... SMH
Please respond to the china comment and be quiet.

I have got more green rep from this thread than any other I have posted in, so no offense.. but speak for yourself when you say no one takes me seriously . Its very rude to speak for other people. When no one speaks out to defend you, why don't you back off and accept your wrong? No one is coming in to back up your points.

Also while you are at it. Please can you correlate Tony Haywards replies to that letter that was sent to him, filter out the points he answered for and then leave me the rest so I can analyse. I await your reply.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#133
Report 8 years ago
#133
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
Please respond to the china comment and be quiet.

I have got more green rep from this thread than any other I have posted in, so no offense.. but speak for yourself when you say no one takes me seriously . Its very rude to speak for other people. When no one speaks out to defend you, why don't you back off and accept your wrong? No one is coming in to back up your points.

Also while you are at it. Please can you correlate Tony Haywards replies to that letter that was sent to him, filter out the points he answered for and then leave me the rest so I can analyse. I await your reply.
yeah I will correlate Tony Hayward's replies to that letter:

I do not recall...

I have no direct knowledge of that...

And any variation along that theme... I saw the entire spectacle unfold on my tv...

IN regards to your pos reps on here... it shows that people share your bloviated non nuanced shallow point of view.. nothing new there... they think Hayward s a hero for what was described as 'thumbing his nose to the yanks'... to correlate it even further.. I bet the same people thought that Moat was some sort of hero... ... shows how much TSR or the people pos repping you have in touch with the real world... hehehehe

Oh yeah, I already responded to the China comment... just because you choose not to accept my answer, does not make it any less valid... Also when I am wrong I readily admit I am wrong... I have on many occasions.. on TSR... SIGH
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#134
Report 8 years ago
#134
(Original post by vnupe)
yeah I will correlate Tony Hayward's replies to that letter:

I do not recall...

I have no direct knowledge of that...

And any variation along that theme... I saw the entire spectacle unfold on my tv...

IN regards to your pos reps on here... it shows that people share your bloviated non nuanced shallow point of view.. nothing new there... they think Hayward s a hero for what was described as 'thumbing his nose to the yanks'... to correlate it even further.. I bet the same people thought that Moat was some sort of hero... ... shows how much TSR or the people pos repping you have in touch with the real world... hehehehe

Oh yeah, I already responded to the China comment... just because you choose not to accept my answer, does not make it any less valid... Also when I am wrong I readily admit I am wrong... I have on many occasions.. on TSR... SIGH
That is a cracking argument there, not.

Now please get me the detailed answers he gave to questions about the well's development, cross reference them with the letter and put forward a good argument, not this tosh you have been giving out.

So you admit you were wrong when you said no one is taking me seriously?

Your response to the China comment was ****, you have not shown how something going to China which was not touched or modified there makes BP liable.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#135
Report 8 years ago
#135
[QUOTE=Idiot-Finder]That is a cracking argument there, not.

Now please get me the detailed answers he gave to questions about the well's development, cross reference them with the letter and put forward a good argument, not this tosh you have been giving out.
I will play your game and not get self-righteous like you do and swear and curse and say 'Do your own research... grumble... grumble... you have google just like me... don't be so lazy... admonish... admonish...'

Here is the guardian's take on Hayward's response to the questions... but I guess you will take umbrage with that as well:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...yward-congress

But the committee's search for answers was repeatedly frustrated by Hayward, who denied any involvement in or prior knowledge of the ill-fated decisions about the well that led to the blow-out.

"I was not part of the decision making process on this well," he said. "I had no prior knowledge."

Hayward had multiple variations on the same theme: that he had no direct involvement or knowledge of problems on the Deepwater Horizon, even though engineers lower down in BP's hierarchy had spoken about a "nightmare well".

He clung to his argument that it would be premature to comment until investigations had run their course. However, he did allow that BP was pursuing seven lines of inquiry into the disaster, focusing on the cement casing of the well and well control procedures, as well as the failed blow-out preventer safety device. 'Failed blow-out preventer'... his words not mine...


So you admit you were wrong when you said no one is taking me seriously?
Have I struck a nerve... this coming from a person that has called me everything under the sun except a child of God... rich... rich indeed...

Your response to the China comment was ****, you have not shown how something going to China which was not touched or modified there makes BP liable.
Again, Cameron and Transocean have stated to the US government that BP modified the Chinese BOP... if you have umbrage with the statement, take it up with them.. after all they are the hateful US company that are dragging BP down... blah blah blah...

If BP modified the BOP (which Transocean and Cameron are stating) and the BOP didn't work, compounding the other documented design issues, then who is at fault when the rig explodes? And Hayward himself stated that the blow-out preventer failed...

EDIT:

Here is yet another British news source that claims the same thing as the guardian:

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/eva...32b9e.html?x=0
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#136
Report 8 years ago
#136
Do you see what I am doing?

I have acted like you for the last two posts and already you have taken the huff, you asked me to show evidence 1,000 times, I do it twice and you go in a mood haha.

What you linked me to is not what I want, I want his actual replies to questions and then that compared to what is in the letter, he did answer some questions. So what he said which argues against what is in the letter and what is the same as the letter I need to be shown. I would appreciate that, thank you.

So if I change the tyres on my car and then the engine breaks, I am at fault for the engine breaking is in effect what you are saying right? Well I am not.

The part they modified had nothing I repeat nothing to do with it not closing. So please stop going round in circles as usual and give an intelligent answer for once.
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#137
Report 8 years ago
#137
[QUOTE=Idiot-Finder]Do you see what I am doing?

I have acted like you for the last two posts and already you have taken the huff, you asked me to show evidence 1,000 times, I do it twice and you go in a mood haha.
My you are so clever... hehehe

I said ok I will play your game, which is not going off in a huff, it tells you I recognize what you are trying to do... SIGH

What you linked me to is not what I want, I want his actual replies to questions and then that compared to what is in the letter, he did answer some questions. So what he said which argues against what is in the letter and what is the same as the letter I need to be shown. I would appreciate that, thank you.
OK I guess I am clairvoyant now... heheheh OK I will look for what you want and try and get it for you, now that you have made yourself clear...

I can not find a letter from Hayward in response to Congress' letter to him... but if you have such a letter I would gladly peruse it to digest its content.

But I did find this letter from a Mr. Bly:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/docu...2010.05.26.pdf

If indeed you are referring to this letter, then I ask you to look at the date of the letter, May 26th, 2010... and that the letter from Congress was dated June 14th, 2010... which is after the Bly letter... so please advise....

So if I change the tyres on my car and then the engine brakes, I am at fault for the engine braking is in effect what you are saying right? Well I am not.
What are you on about? Oh wait I think you are trying to say if the tyres are different, how does that affect a totally different part of the car (in your example, the engine)...

There is something called cause and effect... if the tyres are the wrong ones or are defective, then they will affect the performance of the car, causing strain on the engine... if enough strain is placed on the engine, eventually it will break... thus my example of a litany of design flaws and errors, which eventually led to the BOP failure, which directly led to the explosion and the sinking of the rig... SMH

The part they modified had nothing I repeat nothing to do with it not closing. So please stop going round in circles as usual and give an intelligent answer for once.
I am merely asking the same questions that the US Congress was asking... the same questions that Mr. Hayward refused to answer or danced around... we have already discussed Mr. Bly's letter, which was sent before the US Congress' letter to Mr. Hayward...

I await your reply, which hopefully include Mr. hayward's response to Congress' letter which I can not find... I guess in Mr. Hayward's letter he will state that all of BPs tests have been conducted and they have concrete finds...
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#138
Report 8 years ago
#138
No. I want Tony Haywards replies to the issues in the letter dated 14th June which you showed me, and how his replies compare to the contents of the letter. It was during the meeting, it was not in a letter. If you can't find them whats the point us discussing this letter when it is like me showing BP's website as evidence, biast and without the other side of the argument.

It is said that the BOP did not fail because of what happened in China, leave it at that.

Please answer me this, you say congress have an issue with the well cementing. Explain to my how a well with bad cementing according to congress, is withstanding a pressure of 6,700psi every second and has not broken. Does not sound badly cemented to me..
0
quote
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#139
Report 8 years ago
#139
[QUOTE=Idiot-Finder]
No. I want Tony Haywards replies to the issues in the letter dated 14th June which you showed me, and how his replies compare to the contents of the letter. It was during the meeting, it was not in a letter. If you can't find them whats the point us discussing this letter when it is like me showing BP's website as evidence, biast and without the other side of the argument.
As far as I know there has been no response of Tony Hayward to the congressional letter, he was to give a verbal response... in which he dodged and evaded answering any and all questions, as was previously documented... if you can provide an actual letter I would be happy to see it...

What I think you are doing is squirming out of replying, by stating:
'If you can't find them whats the point us discussing this letter when it is like me showing BP's website as evidence, biast and without the other side of the argument.'
Intellectually and otherwise you know you have lost the argument so you are trying to play children's game and deflect... I am chuckling again...

I
t is said that the BOP did not fail because of what happened in China, leave it at that.
What siad this, if such a document exists then please provide it.. cause again I can't seem to find it... and if it does say that then I will gladly like to see it... but again, you are misquoting what I said (no surprise there, that is what intellectually dishonest people do)... I stated what Transocean and Cameron stated.. that BP requested the modification, by the Chinese manufacturers... I was making no statement whatsoever about the chinese craftsmanship etc... go back and re0read their statement and mine...

Please answer me this, you say congress have an issue with the well cementing. Explain to my how a well with bad cementing according to congress, is withstanding a pressure of 6,700psi every second and has not broken. Does not sound badly cemented to me..
I am not an engineer, but if the industry standard is to do it one way and BP decided to do it another way as a way of cutting cost, and the result is an explosion and sunken rig, you tell me what happened... everything is documented in the enclosed link (which details specific questions congress had in regards to well design etc:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33026791/Hayward-BP-2010-6-14

I specifically refer you to page 2 to the section labeled 'Well design'

According to the letter the well didn't withstand the pressure for very long as the final section of the well was installed the day before the explosion... so...
0
quote
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#140
Report 8 years ago
#140
He did not dodge and evade all questions, he answered a majority. I want the answers to them please.

There is no evidence that the significant modifications to the blowout preventer (BOP), which were carried out in China in 2005, caused the equipment to fail. - Guardian 18th July
I just sunk your battleship :rofl:
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (169)
18.59%
No (554)
60.95%
Not really bothered about them (186)
20.46%

Watched Threads

View All