FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
BP's Immaculate Deception - CONFIRMED!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 38, 39, 40  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8144

PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finally a mainstream print newspaper
covers the "Nuke" angle on this blowout:

Today's London Financial Times:

Quote:
Tactics shift to containing gulf spill‎

Financial Times - 31st May, 2010

"....Matthew Simmons of the specialist energy investment bank Simmons
& Co has suggested using a nuclear explosion to close the hole;
a technique occasionally ..."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f5a5e596-6c4a-11df-86c5-00144feab49a.html

It's a subscription article, so all I've got so far is that
snippet above pulled out of the article by Google News.

But the print media silence over the last two three days
since the Matt Simmons cable TV interviews is eerie.

This is all Google News has: "Matt Simmons" or "Matthew Simmons"

I suppose it's a bit of a PR problem to admit that
a low yield nuke is a better solution at this point.
Confused

That admission would give Joe Public an idea of just how bad this is.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.


Last edited by Fintan on Mon May 31, 2010 8:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
duane



Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 554
Location: western pennsylvania

PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fintan said

"As a point of info Matt Simmons was formerly
Pres. George W. Bush’s energy adviser.
Dunno if that's relevant."


well, that gives me all the confidence i need Very Happy

on the first video Mr. Simmons said

"we need to send a weapons systems (nuke) 18,000 ft down the well bore to seal the leak"

1. how long to build the system (i assume these are not standard "off the shelf items" ? it has to fit inside the 21 inch pipe

2. how do you get it down the well bore with all the oil coming out. this was the problem with top-kill , the pressure coming up prevented anything going down

3. or do you drill a another well to insert the "device"

4. either way i think the capture rather the disperse line of handling of the oil should be pursued because the end isn't in sight

_________________
Birth is the first example of " thinking outside the box"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8144

PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well Simmons is only saying what many independent
oil contractors are privately saying, as far as I can see.

They would have to drill in a nuke channel.
A few kilotons nuke blast at the right depth
would glassify the rock and seal the well.

I'm not advocating this, just reporting it.

Quote:
The energy of the nuclear explosion is released in one microsecond. In the following few microseconds, the test hardware and surrounding rock are vaporised, with temperatures of several million degrees and pressures of several million atmospheres. Within milliseconds, a bubble of high-pressure gas and steam is formed. The heat and expanding shock wave cause the surrounding rock to vaporise, or being melted further away, creating a melt cavity. The shock-induced motion and high internal pressure cause this cavity to expand outwards, which continues over several tenths of a second until the pressure has fallen sufficiently, to the level equal to the level roughly comparable with the weight of the rock above, and can no longer grow. Although not observed in every explosion, four distinct zones (including the melt cavity) have been described in the surrounding rock. The crushed zone, about two times the radius of the cavity, consists of rock that has lost all of its former integrity. The cracked zone, about three times the cavity radius, consists of rock with radial and concentric fissures. Finally, the zone of irreversible strain consists of rock deformed by the pressure. The following layer undergoes only an elastic deformation; the strain and subsequent release then forms a seismic wave. A few seconds later the molten rock starts collecting on the bottom of the cavity and the cavity content begins cooling. The rebound after the shock wave causes compressive forces building up around the cavity, called a stress containment cage, sealing the cracks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_testing


I've located an original media report of the finding of the big slick
by a "research vessel" a few miles away from the video link site.

And the finding of a second big underwater slick.

Quote:
La. scientist locates another
vast oil plume in the gulf


By David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin Washington Post - Friday, May 28, 2010; 4:37 PM

A day after scientists reported finding a huge "plume" of oil extending miles east of the leaking BP well, on Friday a Louisiana scientist said his crew had located another vast plume of oily globs, miles in the opposite direction.

James H. Cowan Jr., a professor at Louisiana State University, said his crew on Wednesday found a plume of oil in a section of the gulf 75 miles northwest of the source of the leak.

Cowan said that his crew sent a remotely controlled submarine into the water, and found it full of oily globules, from the size of a thumbnail to the size of a golf ball. Unlike the plume found east of the leak -- in which the oil was so dissolved that contaminated water appeared clear -- Cowan said the oil at this site was so thick that it covered the lights on the submarine.

"It almost looks like big wet snowflakes, but they're brown and black and oily," Cowan said. The submarine returned to the surface entirely black, he said.

Cowan said that the submarine traveled about 400 feet down, close to the sea floor, and found oil all the way down. Trying to find the edges of the plume, he said the submarine traveled miles from side to side.

"We really never found either end of it," he said. He said he did not know how wide the plume actually was, or how far it stretched away to the west. He said the plume was found in an area that had already been closed to fishing by the federal government.

Cowan's finding underscores concerns about oil moving under the surface, perhaps because of dispersant chemicals that have broken it up into smaller globules. BP officials have played down the possibility of undersea oil plumes.

This discovery seems to confirm the fears of some scientists that -- because of the depth of the leak and the heavy use of chemical "dispersants" -- this spill was behaving differently than others. Instead of floating on top of the water, it may be moving beneath it.

That would be troubling because it could mean the oil would slip past coastal defenses such as "containment booms"
designed to stop it on the surface. Already, scientists and officials in Louisiana have reported finding thick oil washing ashore despite the presence of floating booms.

It would also be a problem for hidden ecosystems deep under the gulf. There, scientists say, the oil could be absorbed by tiny animals and enter a food chain that builds to large, beloved sport-fish like red snapper. It might also glom on to deep-water coral formations, and cover the small animals that make up each piece of coral.

"You're almost like a deer in the headlights when you're watching this. You don't know what to say," Cowan said. He said the oil's threat to undersea ecosystems "is really starting to scare us."

In the discovery described Thursday, scientists aboard a University of South Florida research vessel found an area of dissolved oil east of the leak that is about six miles wide, and extends from the surface down to a depth of about 3,200 feet, said Professor David Hollander.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010


Here's the original research vessel report
from the Tampa Trib. and AP:

Quote:


USF researchers find second oil plume

By RAY REYES | The Tampa Tribune - May 27, 2010

ST. PETERSBURG - The discovery in the depths of the Gulf of Mexico was so unsettling University of South Florida marine scientists ran two tests this week just to make sure.

Data from an array of instruments was conclusive: a team on board the USF research vessel Weatherbird II had discovered a vast new plume of oil about 3,300 feet beneath the waves.

The blob, more than 6 miles wide, is stretching inland toward the shallower waters off Alabama, where many fish and other species reproduce, said David Hollander, associate professor of chemical oceanography at USF.

"The first ecological impact of this spill is the effect on coastal habitats, including marshes, beaches and estuaries," Hollander said. "The second threat to nature would be the impact on the food webs. That is what's at risk."

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday that computer models showed oil from the spill was about 75 miles southwest of Pensacola and 305 miles from Clearwater.

The first plume detected by scientists after the offshore rig Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20 flowed southwest to the open sea from the gushing well 5,000 feet below the surface.

For weeks, scientists with various agencies have been trying to determine the size and amount of the ooze in deep water. Satellite imagery only shows oil on the surface.

The team on the Weatherbird II detected the thickest amount of hydrocarbons, likely from the oil spewing from the blown-out well, at about 1,300 feet in the same spot on Tuesday and again on Wednesday.

Repeating the tests proved that the substance found in the water was not naturally occurring and that the plume was at its highest concentration in deeper waters, Hollander said.

Scientists need to do more tests to determine whether those hydrocarbons are from the 850,000 gallons of chemical dispersants used to break up the ooze or the emulsification of oil as it flowed away from the gushing well.

The research team also discovered no oil had been pulled into an unpredictable current that could have brought slicks and tar balls to West Florida shores.

Samples of water taken from the so-called loop current showed that there was no weathered oil on the surface or plumes of oil in the deep water dragged into the eddy. On Tuesday, scientists with NOAA said the loop current has split in half, diminishing the threat to Florida.

The current moves and grows in size every few days, USF oceanographers said. Typically, the U-shaped current surges north before turning south toward the Florida Keys. From there, it joins with the powerful Gulf Stream and swings north along the east coast of the United States.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/may/27/280000/


Quote:
DAVID HOLLANDER: Yes. I think there's two current theories about why we would have such large subsurface hydrocarbons.

Of course, the -- you know, most oil spills are two-dimensional spills, where it is coming from the surface, a ship failure or a pipeline failure. But this, where there is a blowout at such great depths, there's a couple of -- there's natural process called emulsification, where you can have a reaction between -- at high pressures between the gas, the seawater and the petroleum, which could actually create sort of an oil-water hybrid which behaves not like oil, but behaves more like water, and could essentially become neutrally buoyant in seawater.

In other words, it could be residing stably in the subsurface. That's one hypothesis. Another hypothesis is that, with the use of dispersants, which essentially are a cocktail of organic solvents and detergents, with the unprecedented use of the dispersants at great depth.......

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june10/oil3_05-28.html

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
duane



Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 554
Location: western pennsylvania

PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi fintan,

i agree that options are limited.
this is the first "blow-out" at this underwater depth and new wrinkles are added to the scenario

this would be the first nuke at this underwater depth and something tells me that new wrinkles will show up here also

"They would have to drill in a nuke channel. "

so we're talking months after the decision to use nukes
maybe around election time in November (not that it means anything)
after all, this is too serious of a situation for politics to be involved

"The following layer undergoes only an elastic deformation; the strain and subsequent release then forms a seismic wave."

so a seismic wave is induced by a nuclear blast beneath a giant bowl full of water, what could possible go wrong?

_________________
Birth is the first example of " thinking outside the box"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8144

PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
duane:
"what could possible go wrong?"


Well, you could use too small a nuke and fail to "spot weld" the leak.

Or too much and cause (further?) fracturing of the rock strata.

That could release much more oil - radioactive oil too. Confused

The issue is that we still have no video to show if the explosion
fractured the sea bed. If so, we are in deep trouble.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8144

PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Relief for Gulf is 2 months away with another well

(AP) – 39 minutes ago

NEW ORLEANS — The best hope for stopping the flow of oil from the blown-out well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico has been compared to hitting a target the size of a dinner plate more than two miles into the earth, and is anything but a sure bet on the first attempt.

Bid after bid has failed to staunch what has already become the nation's worst-ever spill, and BP PLC is readying another attempt as early as Wednesday to capture the oil, this one a cut-and-cap process.
But the best-case scenario of sealing the leak is two relief wells being drilled diagonally into the gushing well - tricky business that won't be ready until August.

"The probability of them hitting it on the very first shot is virtually nil," said David Rensink, incoming president of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who spent most of his 39 years in the oil industry in offshore exploration. "If they get it on the first three or four shots they'd be very lucky."

For the bid to succeed, the bore hole must precisely intersect the damaged well. If it misses, BP will have to back up its drill, plug the hole it just created, and try again.

The trial-and-error process could take weeks, but it will eventually work, scientists and BP said. Then engineers will then pump mud and cement through pipes to ultimately seal the well.

As the drilling reaches deeper into the earth, the process is slowed by building pressure and the increasing distance that well casings must travel before they can be set in place.

Still, the three months it could take to finish the relief wells - the first of which started May 2 - is quicker than a typical deep well, which can take four months or longer, said Tad Patzek, chair of the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas-Austin. BP already has a good picture of the different layers of sand and rock its drill bits will meet because of the work it did on the blown-out well.

On the slim chance the relief well doesn't work, scientists weren't sure exactly how much - or how long - the oil would flow. The gusher would continue until the well bore hole collapsed or pressure in the reservoir dropped to a point where oil was no longer pushed to the surface, Patzak said.

"I don't admit the possibility of it not working," he said.

A third well could be drilled if the first two fail.

"We don't know how much oil is down there, and hopefully we'll never know when the relief wells work," BP spokesman John Curry said.

The company was starting to collect and analyze data on how much oil might be in the reservoir when the rig exploded April 20, he said.

BP's uncertainty statement is reasonable, given they only had drilled one well, according to Doug Rader, an ocean scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund.

Two relief wells stopped the world's worst peacetime spill, from a Mexican rig called Ixtoc 1 that eventually dumped 140 million gallons off the Yucatan Peninsula. That took nearly 10 months beginning in the summer of 1979. Drilling technology has vastly improved since then, however.

So far, the Gulf oil spill has leaked between 19.7 million and 43 million gallons, according to government estimates.

In the meantime, BP is turning to another risky procedure federal officials acknowledge will likely, at least temporarily, cause 20 percent more oil - at least 100,000 gallons a day - to add to the gusher.

Using robot submarines, BP plans to cut away the riser pipe this week and place a cap-like containment valve over the blowout preventer. The company hopes it will capture the majority of the oil, sending it to the surface.

"If you've got to cut that riser, that's risky. You could take a bad situation and make it worse," said Ed Overton, a Louisiana State University professor of environmental sciences....

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIXWYBTpLtSayJtg41LKXpxSxVPAD9G22FP80


Quote:
Proposed Solution(s) to Gulf BP Oil Spill

May 31, 2010 - 05:50 AM - Dr Stephen A Rinehart

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article19923.html

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8144

PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Big Oilmance - BP Oil Spill

Listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQrN56fczgc

We want your money
You make us so rich
Get on your knees
Cause you are our bitch
We are BP....
Oil Oil Oil Oil......
We are BP......

We drilled and drilled
And nobody cared.
Until we spilled
Now you are all scared.
Its not that bad
OIl Oil Oil
maybe a tad

You know that we own you..
You have no choice..
You need my oil. Bad. Bad.

We take your money
Then kill all your plants
Fish and Birds, all an oily mess
No more spring break
no more fishing trips
Your plans are spoiled by our small dicks.

Oil Oillll
Caught in a big oilmance.
Oiiiiillll
Caught in a big oilmance.
We tried to stop it
We told a few lies
There is no ending
So don't be surprised
The gulf is oil...
oil. oil. oil.
Engulfed in oil.

Boycott my stations
Tweet all your friends
Ill make a billion
Before this song ends
We are BP
Sneaky Sneaky ky ky......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQrN56fczgc

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8144

PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


How's this for BS?

Quote:
BP’s Tony Hayward:
Hospitalized dispersant workers
are suffering from “food poisoning”


This week, at least nine men working with BP’s Corexit dispersant were taken from the coastal cleanup site — some by helicopter — to West Jefferson Medical Center in Marrero, where they complained of various respiratory ailments, including shortness of breath and nosebleeds.

Yesterday, BP CEO Tony Hayward proffered a unique explanation for their ailments; the men were suffering from food poisoning:

Corexit, a dispersant, is being sprayed into the Gulf to break down the oil. The safety data information sheet from the manufacturer states that people should “avoid breathing in vapor” from Corexit, and that masks should be work when Corexit is present in certain concentrations in the air.
BP has not supplied workers with masks when they work near the oil and dispersants. …

Tony Hayward, the chief executive officer of BP, offered another explanation for the fishermen’s illness: spoiled food.

“Food poisoning is clearly a big issue,” Hayward said Sunday. “It’s something we’ve got to be very mindful of. It’s one of the big issues of keeping the Army operating. You know, the Army marches on their stomachs.”


An expert on foodborne illness cast doubt on Hayward’s theory.

Headaches, shortness of breath, nosebleeds — there’s nothing there that suggests foodborne illness,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. “I don’t know what these people have, but it sounds more like a respiratory illness.”

http://blogofneworleans.com/blog/2010/05/31/food-poisoning/
Also:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/31/oil.spill.order/index.html


Quote:
Shrimpers: At Least 2 More Ill From Oil Dispersant

La. Shrimp Association Asks BP, Government To Provide Breathing Devices


POSTED: 12:19 pm CDT May 30, 2010

VENICE, La. --

The Louisiana Shrimp Association called a news conference on Saturday to report that at least two more oil spill cleanup workers had to be taken to a hospital.

Officials said the workers were suffering from nausea, headaches and dizziness after low-flying planes dropped chemical dispersants within a mile of where they were working.

"Under these conditions, the oil is sprayed with Corexit 9527A, which contains a dangerous chemical, and it can contain up to 30 to 60 percent of this dangerous chemical," said Clint Guidry, the president of the LSA.
The LSA is calling on BP and the federal government to provide the workers with breathing devices.

http://www.wdsu.com/news/23739277/detail.html

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8144

PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This story came out mid-May before the
current public discussion of the nuke option.


Quote:
Barack Obama sends nuclear experts
to tackle BP's Gulf of Mexico oil leak


By James Quinn in Louisana
Published: 7:57PM BST 14 May 2010

The US has sent a team of nuclear physicists to help BP plug the "catastrophic" flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico from its leaking Deepwater Horizon well, as the Obama administration becomes frustrated with the oil giant's inability to control the situation.

The five-man team – which includes a man who helped develop the first hydrogen bomb in the 1950s – is the brainchild of Steven Chu, President Obama's Energy Secretary.


President Obama yesterday promised a "relentless" effort to resolve the problem as he criticised the "cozy relationship" BP and other oil companies have with US regulators in Washington.

He also denounced the attempts by executives from BP, Transocean and Haliburtion to blame each other during this week's congressional hearings into the rig disaster. "I will not tolerate more finger pointing or irresponsibility." Mr Obama said.

The five scientists visited BP's main crisis centre in Houston earlier this week, along with Mr Chu, and are to continue to work with the company's scientists and external advisers to reach an answer.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Hayward said the five-hour meeting involved a "very deep dive" into the situation at hand, with "lots of nuclear physicists and all sorts of people coming up with some quite good ideas actually."

Pressed further about the meeting, he said they had "come up with one good idea" but declined to elaborate.

The five include 82-year-old Richard Garwin, who designed the first hydrogen bomb, and Tom Hunter, head of the US Department of Energy's Sandia National Labs.

In addition, Mr Chu has already despatched Marcia McNutt, the head of the US Geological Service, to the oil company.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7726142/


Here's some vintage USSR propaganda showing us how they extinguished
a gas leak fire. The Russians used nukes to put out fires like this a total of
5 times.

But, a fire is a fire. This is not a fire.
And it's a heckuva way down under water.
Nevertheless............

Quote:


In 1966, a nuclear explosive was detonated at Urtabulak gas field in Southern Uzbekistan in order to extinguish a gas well fire that had been burning for almost three years and had resisted numerous attempts at control.

The gas fountain, which formed at pressures of almost 300 atmospheres, had resulted in the loss of over 12 million cubic metres of gas per day through a 200 mm casing – enough to supply a city the size of St Petersburg. Two 445 mm holes were drilled that aimed to come as close as possible to the well at a depth of about 1500 metres in the middle of a 200 metre thick clay zone. One of these came to within about 35 m of the well and was used to emplace the special 30-kiloton charge which had been developed by the Arzamas weapons laboratory. Immediately after the explosion the fire went out and the well was sealed.

This was the first of five PNEs [Peaceful Nuclear Explosions] used for this purpose, and all but one was completely successful in extinguishing the fire and sealing the well. No radioactivity above background levels was detected in subsequent surveys of any of the sites.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/PNE-Peaceful-Nuclear-Explosions-inf126.html


However, there are some wrinkles:

Quote:
Past underground nuclear tests in Yucca Flat and on Pahute Mesa have
fractured the ground surface above the explosions, causing displacement
of the surface along preexisting faults adjacent to explosion sites.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/ugt-nts.htm

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.


Last edited by Fintan on Mon May 31, 2010 10:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8144

PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's BP's cam link:

http://www.bp.com/rov_stream.html

But you can also put this into your Windows Media Player
or similar and get a larger and better pic:

http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:46245.asx

Or this one:

mms://a246.l9789246245.c97892.g.lm.akamaistream.net/D/246/97892/v0001/reflector:46245

To figure out what is going on try this IRC

http://webchat.freenode.net/

Pick a nickname and join channel: #theoildrum

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3862

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


Is BP trying to cap the Gulf oil well, or keep it flowing?

http://www.naturalnews.com/028898_British_Petroleum_Gulf_Coast.html

Monday, May 31, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) Today, I spent my time interviewing people on the Gulf Coast from Mississippi to Louisiana. Several of those interviews were conducted on camera, and you'll be seeing those videos as early as tomorrow here on NaturalNews.

Interestingly, it turns out that a lot of the people living on the Gulf Coast have a history of working with oil companies -- and even on oil rigs. I spoke to several people who have a work history with BP, and two of them told me they are certain that British Petroleum is NOT trying to stop the oil coming out of the well. What they are trying to do, I was told, is SAVE the oil well so that they can capture the oil and sell it.

This claim stands in direct contradiction to what BP says. The company insists it's trying to stop the flow of oil from the well. But if you look at BP's actions, what they're really trying to do is siphon off the gushing oil where it can be pumped to a tanker ship and sold as crude. It is a simple matter, by the way, for oil companies to separate water from oil. They do it all the time in oil fields all across America. So if they can siphon off the oil from the Deepwater Horizon well -- even if it's mixed with water -- they can sell it for potentially billions of dollars.

It raises the question: Is the economic promise of captured oil causing BP to avoid using its best effort to cap the well?


Tapping, not capping

Notice that the new device they're lowering onto the well is designed not to close it off but to pump the oil to an awaiting ship. This is a plan to "capture" the oil, not to seal off the well.

The mainstream media hasn't picked up on this yet, by the way. To my knowledge, no one is yet reporting this story that BP may have never had any intention of actually capping the deep sea well.

We already know BP has been extremely dishonest with the media about this entire situation. By distorting the truth and lying to the public, BP has lost all credibility with almost everyone (Governors, Senators, journalists, etc.). So how can we trust that BP is actually trying to cap this well when there's so much money to be made from allowing it to keep spilling oil that can soon be captured?

In other words, it's in BP's financial interests to avoid capping the well and claim the well can't be capped when, in reality, what they may be trying to do is buy more time until they can lower a "capture containment device" onto the well head that can direct all the outflowing crude oil to BP's awaiting tanker ships.

In talking to the people face to face here on Gulf Coast, I learned that Gulf Coast people don't trust BP, and they don't trust the company's intentions. Today was the first I had heard of the BP agenda to "keep the well flowing" yet suddenly this theory makes sense. BP, after all, went through all the trouble and expense to drill the well. Why wouldn't they want to cash in on the crude oil coming out of it?

To collapse the well and plug it for good would destroy BP's chance to siphon off oil and sell it for profit (until at least August, when the pressure relief wells are expected to be completed). And that is perhaps the single most important reason why oil is still flowing out of that well right now.

As one person I interviewed today put it, "Why should a British petroleum company care about what happens to America's shores?" After all, the financial payoffs to the businesses hurt by the spill may pale in comparison to the billions of dollars in profit to be had from tapping -- not capping -- the well and turning crude oil into raw cash.

There will be more to this story. Let's see if the mainstream media picks up on this angle.

By the way, I don't yet have conclusive proof that BP's intentions are to avoid capping this well. It's just a working theory based on people I've talked to here on the Gulf Coast who appear to know what they're talking about. BP would obviously deny this, but then again BP has denied many things that we know to be true (like the fact that the beach cleanup crews specifically cleaned the beach on Grand Isle before Obama showed up, then left promptly as soon as he left).

If you haven't yet, check out my CounterThink Cartoon on the BP oil spill at www.CounterThink.com

Also, watch for video interviews with the people on the Gulf Coast. We'll be publishing them here on NaturalNews starting as early as tomorrow.

I'm headed to New Orleans tomorrow to check out the local scene there and see what else I can find out by talking to the locals on the front lines.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8144

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well they cut of the blowout cap and riser
from the rest of the trailing riser:

Quote:

Now at 10:12pm June 1 they're prepping to cut the riser
again --close to the blowout flange to leave just a stub.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 38, 39, 40  Next
Page 3 of 40

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.