pushing for a "bottom kill" for the past few months, claiming it was the only way to be sure the well was really shut down.
This afternoon, Allen will be calling for cancelling the bottom kill.
Did Allen change his mind or did the White House decide it was too risky, politically?
Is cancelling the bottom kill the right move? If so, based on what expert guidance?
My deep source inside BP reports to me:
Right now, the US Gov't and Thad Allen want to avoid a bottom-kill, if possible. They're afraid of blowing the casing apart and creating a monumental disaster (once the casing is exploded, the hole can't be plugged).
BP is pushing, hard, to bottom-kill the well; they don't want to have to come back. BP is prepared to embark on a PR campaign to get 'the people' to push for a bottom-kill - and I think the campaign would be structured to give BP some kind of plausible deniability if things go wrong, as in, "We were neutral, but we'll do what the residents of the Gulf Coast want."
We can seek scientific experts to get their opinions, but so many of them have been bought by BP.
We know that the government agencies that are supposed to police oil drilling have been impaired.
OpEdNews.com writer Chris Landau
has raised concerns and alarms.
I don't have an answer, but one thing I am sure of is that full transparency should be given to the decisions being made.
For months, Thad Allen, Obama's point man on the gulf oil disaster, has been
|The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.