ascendingstarseed
15th August 2010, 12:09
Matt Simmons died believing the well is not capped, Dahr Jamail has interviewed many fishermen who are seeing more oil coming in now than ever before and there are others who are now coming forward voicing the concern that BP has been lying about successfully capping the well and the static kill.
Here are two just articles that are raising some very good concerns and questions about what's really going on....
Will BP Skip the Relief Well, Declare Mission Accomplished, and Abandon Ship Without Permanently Killing the Oil Leak?
by Washington's Blog
Global Research, August 12, 2010
Washington's Blog
Yesterday, I pointed out that - while everyone is claiming that the oil well has been capped - it hasn't really been capped.
AP is reporting:
BP, U.S. mull whether to skip 'bottom kill'
***
The federal government and BP have recently raised the possibility that they won't need to perform the operation at all, since the well was plugged last month with mud and cement pumped in through the top.
Bottom kill is, of course, just another phrase for the relief wells.
Oil industry expert Robert Cavnar has a must-read piece today on the situation:
For the last several days, I've been trying to figure out what BP is doing and what is the actual condition of BP's MC252 well after their "static kill" and cementing procedure last week apparently didn't work. You'll recall that when Kent Wells announced this procedure, he actually used the words "killed" and "dead".
***
To add to the argument to go ahead with the kill, Adm. Allen said in his July 22nd briefing:
Cont'd
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20597
[B]Adm. Allen Confused - So, Now, Everybody Else is, Too
By eljefebob on August 12, 2010
For the last several days, I've been trying to figure out what BP is doing and what is the actual condition of BP's MC252 well after their "static kill" and cementing procedure last week apparently didn't work. You'll recall that when Kent Wells announced this procedure, he actually used the words "killed" and "dead". In his July 19th McBriefing, he said,
"If we can do the static kill, it might kill - might kill just in the casing, it might kill in the annulus, it might kill both but it should accelerate or at least complement improve the relief well."
Then during his July 21st McBriefing, Wells said this:
"So one thing I want to stress is the static kill in no way slows down the relief well activity. That's continuing exactly as planned. We're looking at the static kill as an option to actually accelerate the final killing of the well. Now, depending upon - because we don't know whether the flows up the casing, the annulus or both, it's difficult for me to predict what the static kill could do. But I would put it in the range of it could go from - it could kill the well all the way to it couldn't kill the well. But in either case, what I want to stress is we will continue on with the relief well and even if the static kill had killed the well, we will confirm that with the relief well or if it hadn't killed the well, then we would kill it from the bottom. So I'd like us to think of it - it's a very good option to accelerate the killing process without getting in the way of the relief well." (emphasis added)
So, the narrative building here is that the static kill was low risk, could kill the well from the top, and that it could actually speed up the relief well. I knew, from the very first moment this was mentioned, that BP would do the new top kill, rebranded as the "static kill".
Cont'd
http://dailyhurricane.com/2010/08/adm-allen-confused---so-now-is-everybody-else.html
Here are two just articles that are raising some very good concerns and questions about what's really going on....
Will BP Skip the Relief Well, Declare Mission Accomplished, and Abandon Ship Without Permanently Killing the Oil Leak?
by Washington's Blog
Global Research, August 12, 2010
Washington's Blog
Yesterday, I pointed out that - while everyone is claiming that the oil well has been capped - it hasn't really been capped.
AP is reporting:
BP, U.S. mull whether to skip 'bottom kill'
***
The federal government and BP have recently raised the possibility that they won't need to perform the operation at all, since the well was plugged last month with mud and cement pumped in through the top.
Bottom kill is, of course, just another phrase for the relief wells.
Oil industry expert Robert Cavnar has a must-read piece today on the situation:
For the last several days, I've been trying to figure out what BP is doing and what is the actual condition of BP's MC252 well after their "static kill" and cementing procedure last week apparently didn't work. You'll recall that when Kent Wells announced this procedure, he actually used the words "killed" and "dead".
***
To add to the argument to go ahead with the kill, Adm. Allen said in his July 22nd briefing:
Cont'd
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20597
[B]Adm. Allen Confused - So, Now, Everybody Else is, Too
By eljefebob on August 12, 2010
For the last several days, I've been trying to figure out what BP is doing and what is the actual condition of BP's MC252 well after their "static kill" and cementing procedure last week apparently didn't work. You'll recall that when Kent Wells announced this procedure, he actually used the words "killed" and "dead". In his July 19th McBriefing, he said,
"If we can do the static kill, it might kill - might kill just in the casing, it might kill in the annulus, it might kill both but it should accelerate or at least complement improve the relief well."
Then during his July 21st McBriefing, Wells said this:
"So one thing I want to stress is the static kill in no way slows down the relief well activity. That's continuing exactly as planned. We're looking at the static kill as an option to actually accelerate the final killing of the well. Now, depending upon - because we don't know whether the flows up the casing, the annulus or both, it's difficult for me to predict what the static kill could do. But I would put it in the range of it could go from - it could kill the well all the way to it couldn't kill the well. But in either case, what I want to stress is we will continue on with the relief well and even if the static kill had killed the well, we will confirm that with the relief well or if it hadn't killed the well, then we would kill it from the bottom. So I'd like us to think of it - it's a very good option to accelerate the killing process without getting in the way of the relief well." (emphasis added)
So, the narrative building here is that the static kill was low risk, could kill the well from the top, and that it could actually speed up the relief well. I knew, from the very first moment this was mentioned, that BP would do the new top kill, rebranded as the "static kill".
Cont'd
http://dailyhurricane.com/2010/08/adm-allen-confused---so-now-is-everybody-else.html