The only problem with some of these posts is they drift into "what if". Perhaps under 180mins rule with an engine failure "what if" the opposite wing fell off!
I deal in facts. I flew for 35 years, 20 on the Trident and 15 on the 757,767, and 777. In that time I never had an engine failure on the aircraft, thousands on the simulator, but none on the aircraft.
ETOPS (or EROPS as it used to be called) whether it is 120,180 or 207 is all about risk. Obviously there are risks heading out across the pond, across Canada or across Russia on two engines but surely it is about level of risk. Ignoring fuel contamination (which would affect a 747/340) the chances of both engines failing on one flight is so remote as to be ignored.
I only know one chap personally within the airline who shut down an engine half way across the pond on a 767. After having his meal disrupted (and the actual shutdown procedures) the only problem was that there was very little to do during the 90mins "on one". It's all in the mind, looking at the single engine whirring away normally, but is that not what thousands of private aviators do all their lives?
It would seem on this forum that there are so many that fit in to the (humorous) bracket of a friend on 747 who stated "Wouldn't get me across the pond on a twin. The only reason I bid for the 747 was that there was nothing in the airline with five engines"
Bring a little more reality into this discussion and a little less sensationalism, leave that to the tabloid press.