Son of a Bee, BP pulled the old switcheroo. Please Watch

[General of Darkness]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oaf998FwQVI&feature=player_embedded

[I am me, I am free]

Bump for more exposure.

Still don't know what to make of this, I don't think the fellow who got interviewed by 60 minutes lied about them abandoning well A. One thing is for sure, BP has and will fuck EVERYONE EVERY WHICH WAY they can, except for their corporate pardners in crime (which includes the USG and all of its agencies).

[Saul Mine]

There are many questions that need to be answered following the most devastating man made environmental disaster in history.

Excuse me, this may be the most intensely reported disaster, but in terms of measurable output it is only #19.

[Cebu_4_2]

BP is the fall guy IMO and a diversion of the true facts/at fault parties. All propaganda, look at this hand while I shove something with the other hand.

[DMac]

Bump. So, was Simmons right after all? Did he pay for this info with his life?

[the riot act]

Bump. So, was Simmons right after all? Did he pay for this info with his life?


Could you list the PROOF that justified your statement "So, Simmons was right after all"?

"Did he pay for it with his life"? Well he held $20 shorts on BP.(a lot of them) When it hit $40 the other day, (and still going up) that would make for some very serious stress. He played 'red' and it came up 'black'.

[DMac]

Bump. So, was Simmons right after all? Did he pay for this info with his life?


Could you list the PROOF that justified your statement "So, Simmons was right after all"?

"Did he pay for it with his life"? Well he held $20 shorts on BP.(a lot of them) When it hit $40 the other day, (and still going up) that would make for some very serious stress. He played 'red' and it came up 'black'.




English 101. Notice the question mark at the end of the sentence, that makes it a question and not a statement.

[the riot act]

English 101. Notice the question mark at the end of the sentence, that makes it a question and not a statement.

I will ignore the :sarc: and just apologize for not seeing the (?).

[DMac]

|--0--|

[Spectrism]

Something that struck me as odd... recall how the old BOP was leaning for thean the tower of Pisa? I think it was more than 12degrees.

When they put the new BOP on top of the new cap and "old" BOP, the lean was gone! How'd that happen?

[keehah]

When they put the new BOP on top of the new cap and "old" BOP, the lean was gone! How'd that happen?
About a month ago I remember seeing some video of them adding wedge like supports in the gap around the flexible joint to keep it fixed upright.
____________

Matt Simmons: “There’s Another Leak, Much Bigger, 5 To 6 Miles Away”

Source of Gulf Oil Plumes: 7 Miles from Deepwater Horizon (http://worldvisionportal.org/wvpforum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=931)
http://worldvisionportal.org/images/LeaksID.gif

DISTANCES OF THE OIL LEAKS TO DEEPWATER HORIZON

Using the identified sea floor leaks in the Biloxi Dome crater rim along with the BP Deepwater Wellhead position, and then overlaying that NOAA map with Google Earth, the following image reveals a very clear and startling picture:

Each verified oil leak along the crater rim of the Biloxi Dome is tagged with numbers 3 through 9. Here are the calculated distances between each identified leak and BP's Deepwater Horizon well #1 along with the Latitude and Longitude locations of each oil leak. Credit goes to Alexander Higgins for the calculations:

No. / Latitude / Longitude / Kilometer distance / Mileage distance
#3 / 28°40’38.71″N / -88°24’51.74″W / 08.26 km from BP Well / 5.13 miles from BP Well
#4 / 28°40’14.87″N / -88°24’34.36″W / 08.63 km from BP Well / 5.36 miles from BP Well
#5 / 28°41’39.42″N / -88°29’05.44″W / 12.59 km from BP Well / 7.82 miles from BP Well
#6 / 28°41’00.14″N / -88°28’33.90″W / 12.36 km from BP Well / 7.68 miles from BP Well
#7 / 28°40’51.22″N / -88°27’04.30″W / 10.49 km from BP Well / 6.51 miles from BP Well
#8 / 28°40’19.30″N / -88°28’04.34″W / 12.38 km from BP Well / 7.69 miles from BP Well
#9 / 28°39’28.11″N / -88°27’24.13″W / 12.59 km From BP Well / 7.82 miles from BP Well

The average distance between all seven oil leaks and the Deepwater Horizon well is 6.8 miles or 11 kilometers.

APNewsBreak: New, giant sea oil plume seen in Gulf
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/27/gulf-oil-spill-new-plumes_n_591994.html)MATTHEW BROWN and JASON DEAREN
The Associated Press
NEW ORLEANS [May 27, 2010]- Marine scientists have discovered a massive new plume of what they believe to be oil deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico, stretching 22 miles from the leaking wellhead northeast toward Mobile Bay, Alabama.

The discovery by researchers on the University of South Florida College of Marine Science's Weatherbird II vessel is the second significant undersea plume recorded since the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20.

The thick plume was detected just beneath the surface down to about 3,300 feet, and is more than 6 miles wide, said David Hollander, associate professor of chemical oceanography at the school.

Hollander said the team 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 two separate days this week.

The discovery was important, he said, because it confirmed that the substance found in the water was not naturally occurring and that the plume was at its highest concentration in deeper waters. The researchers will use further testing to determine whether the hydrocarbons they found are the result of dispersants or the emulsification of oil as it traveled away from the well.

The first such plume detected by scientists stretched from the well southwest toward the open sea, but this new undersea oil cloud is headed miles inland into shallower waters where many fish and other species reproduce.

Post last week here by another member:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/30/4781973-why-is-bps-macondo-blowout-so-disastrous-beyond-patch-up-

[Awoke]

There are many questions that need to be answered following the most devastating man made environmental disaster in history.

Excuse me, this may be the most intensely reported disaster, but in terms of measurable output it is only #19.


Measurable and still increasing almost exponentially.

It's not over yet.

[k-os]

Bump. So, was Simmons right after all? Did he pay for this info with his life?


Could you list the PROOF that justified your statement "So, Simmons was right after all"?

"Did he pay for it with his life"? Well he held $20 shorts on BP.(a lot of them) When it hit $40 the other day, (and still going up) that would make for some very serious stress. He played 'red' and it came up 'black'.


While I appreciate your logic, I'd like to don my tinfoil hat for a moment. I think having Matt Simmons suicided is in itself a form of proof that he was on to something that BP didn't much appreciate being exposed.

[Phoenix]

BP is the fall guy IMO and a diversion of the true facts/at fault parties.


British Petroleum has been a criminal enterprise since its inception.

[the riot act]

British Petroleum has been a criminal enterprise since its inception.


And the "Investment Banker" (think Goldman Sucks type here) is any better?

They both are criminals along with the u.s. government.

I'm not taking anyone's side here. I think that Simmons lost it and acted like a fool. That said,


The only people who have anything to gain from Simmons' death *at this point* are conspiracy theorists. If some sinister behind-the-scenes cabal, the secret oil industry hit squad, wanted to off him, why on earth wouldn't they have waited six months until the whole Macondo fuss was forgotten by the world beyond the oil patch and Gulf communities? Dying NOW guarantees a wave of sensationalist headlines, and no doubt the woo-woo brigade will be obsessing about this for years to come.

My instant reactions are, WWWOOS? William of Occam might say that the death of a 67 year old man who's been known to have been under considerable stress recently is not really "surprising" or "unexpected", unless he was known to be in great health.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6827#comment-698232

[DMac]

The use of the evil "conspiracy theorists" (booga booga) ad hominem, grinds my gears.




CNBC says it was a heart attack, and so the CT's will run with it.







The only people who have anything to gain from Simmons' death *at this point* are conspiracy theorists. If some sinister behind-the-scenes cabal, the secret oil industry hit squad, wanted to off him, why on earth wouldn't they have waited six months until the whole Macondo fuss was forgotten by the world beyond the oil patch and Gulf communities? Dying NOW guarantees a wave of sensationalist headlines, and no doubt the woo-woo brigade will be obsessing about this for years to come.

[DMac]

Bump. So, was Simmons right after all? Did he pay for this info with his life?


Could you list the PROOF that justified your statement "So, Simmons was right after all"?

"Did he pay for it with his life"? Well he held $20 shorts on BP.(a lot of them) When it hit $40 the other day, (and still going up) that would make for some very serious stress. He played 'red' and it came up 'black'.




The short position he held:


BP: Simmons Still Sees Bankruptcy; Massive Hole at the Well Bore? (Updated) (http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2010/06/15/bp-simmons-still-sees-bankruptcy-massive-hole-at-the-well-bore/)


Simmons has a 4,000-share short sale on BP that he picked up when the stock hit $37. That’s in addition to a prior 4,000-share short sale he made at $48 a couple weeks prior. “It’s going to zero,” he says of BP stock.

[keehah]

Don't believe anything about gold or silver from anyone who has even a fraction of 1% of his wealth invested in it.

And if he dies, it may be because he killed himself when silver dropped 20% last week on short term market news. :sarc:
__________

Washintons Blog: When University Scientists Found Underwater Oil Plumes, the Government Said Shut Up, Don't Tell Anyone ... and Then Tried to Discredit Them (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/08/when-university-scientists-found.html)
AUGUST 10, 2010

As I've previously reported, a senior EPA policy analyst says (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/07/senior-epa-analyst-government-agencies.html) that NOAA and the EPA have been "sock puppets" for BP.

NOAA has repeatedly denied the existence of underwater oil plumes, calculated the spill to be only 5,000 barrels a day, and buried core data on the oil spill.

Now, university scientists have revealed the NOAA used strong-arm tactics to try to silence any information on underwater plumes. As the St. Petersburg Times reports:

The reaction that [the University of South Florida] announcement [of the discovery of huge underwater plumes] received from the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agencies that sponsored their research:

Shut up.

"I got lambasted by the Coast Guard and NOAA when we said there was undersea oil," USF marine sciences dean William Hogarth said. Some officials even told him to retract USF's public announcement, he said, comparing it to being "beat up" by federal officials.

The USF scientists weren't alone. Vernon Asper, an oceanographer at the University of Southern Mississippi, was part of a similar effort that met with a similar reaction. "We expected that NOAA would be pleased because we found something very, very interesting," Asper said. "NOAA instead responded by trying to discredit us. It was just a shock to us."

NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, in comments she made to reporters in May, expressed strong skepticism about the existence of undersea oil plumes — as did BP's then-CEO, Tony Hayward.

"She basically called us inept idiots," Asper said. "We took that very personally."

Lubchenco confirmed Monday that her agency told USF and other academic institutions involved in the study of undersea plumes that they should hold off talking so openly about it. "What we asked for, was for people to stop speculating before they had a chance to analyze what they were finding," Lubchenco said. "We think that's in everybody's interest. … We just wanted to try to make sure that we knew something before we speculated about it."

"We had solid evidence, rock solid," Asper said. "We weren't speculating." If he had to do it over again, he said, he'd do it all exactly the same way, despite Lubchenco's ire.

***

USF's first NOAA-sponsored voyage to take samples after Deepwater Horizon, the one that turned up evidence of the undersea plumes, was designed to gather evidence for use in an eventual court case against BP and other oil companies involved in the disaster. At the end of the voyage, USF turned its samples over to NOAA, expecting to get either a shared analysis or the samples themselves back. So far, Hogarth said, they've received neither.

NOAA's top oil spill scientist, Steve Murawski, said Monday that he was "sure we will release the data" at some point. However, he said, because NOAA has collected so many samples over the past three months, when it comes to the samples from USF's trip in May, "I'm not sure where they are."

A government official named "Lubchenco" strong-arming scientists to tow the party line, and a government agency "losing" samples instead of sharing results with the scientists who had taken them...

[keehah]

TampaBay.com: USF says government tried to squelch their oil plume findings (http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/usf-says-government-tried-to-squelch-their-oil-plume-findings/1114225)

By Craig Pittman, Times Staff Writer Tuesday, August 10, 2010

A month after the Deepwater Horizon disaster began, scientists from the University of South Florida made a startling announcement. They had found signs that the oil spewing from the well had formed a 6-mile-wide plume snaking along in the deepest recesses of the gulf.

The reaction that USF announcement received from the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agencies that sponsored their research:

Shut up.

"I got lambasted by the Coast Guard and NOAA when we said there was undersea oil," USF marine sciences dean William Hogarth said. Some officials even told him to retract USF's public announcement, he said, comparing it to being "beat up" by federal officials.

The USF scientists weren't alone. Vernon Asper, an oceanographer at the University of Southern Mississippi, was part of a similar effort that met with a similar reaction. "We expected that NOAA would be pleased because we found something very, very interesting," Asper said. "NOAA instead responded by trying to discredit us. It was just a shock to us."

NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, in comments she made to reporters in May, expressed strong skepticism about the existence of undersea oil plumes — as did BP's then-CEO, Tony Hayward.

"She basically called us inept idiots," Asper said. "We took that very personally."

Lubchenco confirmed Monday that her agency told USF and other academic institutions involved in the study of undersea plumes that they should hold off talking so openly about it. "What we asked for, was for people to stop speculating before they had a chance to analyze what they were finding," Lubchenco said. "We think that's in everybody's interest. … We just wanted to try to make sure that we knew something before we speculated about it."

"We had solid evidence, rock solid," Asper said. "We weren't speculating." If he had to do it over again, he said, he'd do it all exactly the same way, despite Lubchenco's ire.

Coast Guard officials did not respond to a request for comment on Hogarth's accusation.

The discovery of multiple undersea plumes of oil droplets was eventually verified by one of NOAA's own research vessels. And last month USF scientists announced they at last could match the oil droplets in the undersea plumes to the millions of barrels of oil that gushed from the collapsed well until it was capped July 15.

"What we have learned completely changes the idea of what an oil spill is," USF scientist David Hollander said then. "It has gone from a two-dimensional disaster to a three-dimensional catastrophe."

Now Lubchenco is not only convinced the undersea plumes exist, but she is predicting that some of the spill's most significant impacts will be caused by their effect on juvenile sea creatures such as bluefin tuna. Lubchenco and her staff say they are now working smoothly with USF and other academic institutions in investigating the consequences of the largest marine oil spill in history.

However, Hogarth said, not all is hunky-dory.

USF's first NOAA-sponsored voyage to take samples after Deepwater Horizon, the one that turned up evidence of the undersea plumes, was designed to gather evidence for use in an eventual court case against BP and other oil companies involved in the disaster. At the end of the voyage, USF turned its samples over to NOAA, expecting to get either a shared analysis or the samples themselves back. So far, Hogarth said, they've received neither.

NOAA's top oil spill scientist, Steve Murawski, said Monday that he was "sure we will release the data" at some point. However, he said, because NOAA has collected so many samples over the past three months, when it comes to the samples from USF's trip in May, "I'm not sure where they are."

Lubchenco's agency came under fire last week for a new report that said "the vast majority" of the oil from Deepwater Horizon had been taken care of. Scientists who read the report closely said it actually said half the oil was still unaccounted for.

Lubchenco said anyone who read the report as saying the oil was gone read it wrong.

"Out of sight and diluted does not mean benign," she said.

______________________

WRBL News3: Florida University Draws Ire of NOAA for Gulf Research (http://www2.wrbl.com/news/2010/aug/12/florida-university-draws-ire-noaa-gulf-research-ar-698793/)

By ROB SHAW | Media General News Service August 12, 2010

Bill Hogarth hopes the "us versus them'' mentality is over.

When University of South Florida researchers stood before television cameras and the world in May to announce they had found evidence of vast plumes of invisible undersea oil in the Gulf of Mexico, the dean of the College of Marine Science didn't get kudos from federal officials.

Instead, Hogarth said, he got grief from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"They were concerned about the data and wanted to know if we were sure of what we were saying,'' Hogarth said this morning. "They felt we were making statements that were not substantiated.''

That wasn't the case at all, the dean said. And today, even as the gusher in the Gulf has been capped, he wouldn't change a thing that he and his researchers did.

"We had taken every precaution to make sure what we did was right. As a university, we need to inform the people,'' said Hogarth, himself a former NOAA employee of 16 years. "We reacted quickly and did what we thought was right and best.''

On Monday, Jane Lubchenco, the administrator of NOAA, met with Hogarth and some USF scientists to try to get on the same page. Hogarth described the meeting as productive and said it was something that should have occurred a long time ago.

Hogarth is confident the two sides can work together to share information and help determine the long-term impact of the oil in the Gulf. He and others say that things have improved in their work with NOAA.

But it hasn't always been that way.

"One thing that bothered me is it has seemed it has been the federal scientists versus academia,'' the dean said. "That's not good for anyone. There's a place for both of us.''

USF officials aren't the only ones who have drawn the ire of NOAA.

Samantha Joye, professor of marine sciences at the University of Georgia, had a similar experience when she started talking about what she and others had discovered underwater.

"We felt like our wrists were slapped a little bit when we came forward and talked about the plumes,'' Joye said. "NOAA wanted a vetted, concrete story. We felt we had a concrete story. The plumes were real; the data was very solid.''

Joye is critical of the one-way flow of information that she said has plagued the effort. She said university researchers give plenty of data to NOAA or the Unified Command, but very little comes the other way.

"That is bothersome to me,'' she said. "Everybody needs to be sharing data.''


Joye said she also is puzzled why NOAA won't begin checking for submerged methane gases in the deep waters of the Gulf – something she said her studies have proven exist.

"It seems crazy,'' she said. "There is no reasonable explanation as to why it's not being done. It just doesn't make sense.''

Hogarth said the scope of the disaster was one factor that made it difficult for people from various institutions – government or universities – to work together.

"It got to be such a massive event,'' Hogarth said. "It pitted people against each other. I am hoping we have learned a lot from it.''

Ian MacDonald, a biological oceanographer at Florida State University, faults NOAA for not taking advantage of the vast educational resources that made up the state's oil spill academic task force. That group was created soon after the oil started spewing into the Gulf.

"I would have thought there would have been a close working relationship,'' MacDonald said. "We formed the task force to make our expertise available to anyone who needed it. Nobody at NOAA took us up on our offer.''

The FSU professor said it was ironic that NOAA talked of underwater oil in its report last week that said much of the oil could be accounted for.

"They were quite critical and they specifically challenged the veracity of their methods,'' MacDonald said of NOAA's rebuking of USF efforts. "They questioned the whole possibility. And yet that is what they say in their report.

"That's kind of too little, too late after they have slammed the scientists who were pointing this out quite rightly,'' the researcher added. "I have no idea what the politics of this are, but in terms of the science, this is irresponsible.''

NOAA officials could not be reached for comment.

[keehah]

AP: Feds say well's not dead yet, more drilling needed (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100813/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill;_ylt=AiFIptndAS_jbaO9Pq_2luxn.3Q A;_ylu=X3oDMTM2dDM5dnR1BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwODEzL3V zX2d1bGZfb2lsX3NwaWxsBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb 3MDNwRwb3MDNwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2ZlZHN zYXl3ZWxscw--)

Last week, BP plugged up the ruptured oil well from the top with mud and cement, and for a while, it appeared that the relief well that BP has been drilling 2 1/2 miles under the sea all summer long in an effort to seal up the leak from the bottom might not be necessary after all. But Allen dashed those hopes after scientists conducted pressure tests on Thursday.

Scientists had hoped that the cement pumped in from the top had plugged the gap between the well's inner pipe and its outer casing. The pressure tests showed some cement was in that gap, but officials don't know enough about what's there — or how much of it — to trust that there is a permanent seal, said Allen, who has repeatedly insisted on an "overabundance of caution" when it comes to plugging the well.

The well spilled an estimated 206 million gallons of crude into the sea before BP finally put a cap on it July 15. But that was always regarded as a temporary fix until the relief well and the bottom kill could be completed.

Bob Bea, a petroleum engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said that given the results of the pressure tests, proceeding with the relief well makes sense.

"Everything we know at this time says we need to continue the work with the relief wells," he said. "We don't know the details of how they plugged the well from the top. We don't know the volume of material they put in the well bore, and without that we can't tell how close to the bottom of the well they got."

Drilling of the relief well began in early May, and the tunnel is now just 30 to 50 feet from the blown-out well. To intercept the well, the drillers must hit a target about the size of a dinner plate. Once they punch through, heavy drilling mud and cement will be injected into the bedrock.

[keehah]

ZeroHedge: Relief Wells Delayed ... New Tests Show "Gap" in Oil "Well Column" Causing Loss of Pressure ... Does the Government Have ANY IDEA What It's Doing? (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/relief-wells-delayed-new-tests-show-gap-oil-well-column-causing-loss-pressure-does-governmen)
Submitted by George Washington on 08/16/2010 13:59 -0500

Fail Mexico NOAA

An oil and gas industry veteran with 30 years experience who goes by the alias Fishgrease gave a pretty good recap (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/12/892536/-Gulf-Recovery:-Booming-the-BP-Magic) of BP and the government's record of failure in capping the oil well:

1. BP does a superhuman job of creating conditions favorable to loss of control of what is very possibly the largest well in the history ot the Gulf of Mexico. Result: Blowout. FAIL

2. For more than a day, BP insists there is no leakage. Result: Wrong. FAIL

3. BP admits that well is leaking. Says leak is 1000 BOPD. Result: Wrong. FAIL

4. NOAA, USCG and independent groups say the leak sure looks more like 5000 BOPD. BP says... DEAL! It's 5000 BOPD! How silly of us! Result: Wrong. FAIL

Round about here, BP succumbs to pressure from ... Congress and other groups and begins to release video feeds of that is happening under a mile of Gulf water, at the damaged well.

5. BP builds a huge metal barn to lower over one of the leaks. Result: G@*!@^$ thing clogs with hydrate ice within seconds. FAIL

6. BP installs Insertion Tube Technology. Result: Captures a very small and day-by-day-smaller portion of the leak. FAIL

7. BP tries Diamond Wire Saw Technology to cut the damaged riser off the top of the BOP, leaving a clean even surface to seat a cap. Result: Wire gets stuck. FAIL

8. BP tries Crunchy... a huge hydraulic Jaws-of-Death to snip the riser. Result: Jagged, bent, uneven surface upon which nothing will seal. FAIL

9. BP lowers cap #4. Steam Punk fans rejoice! Result: This cap is capturing only a minor fraction of the leak. FAIL

10. BP is ordered to increase containment capacity by the USCG. Says it will. Doesn't. Starts piping a portion of the leak to the Q4000 where it is all burned, unmeasured. Result: They're capturing or burning an estimated 50% of the leak, when they were ordered to catch it ALL. FAIL

11. BP is again ordered to increase capture capacity via sternly-worded letter. Finally installs another processing boat. Result: Still not getting much more than 50% of the leak. Makes excuse that there's not enough room in the f*cking Gulf of Mexico to park another boat. FAIL

12. BP installs "Capping Stack Technology" in order to more effectively capture leak. Result: Vented riser immediately freezes off. This is the beginning of the end of capture. FAIL

13. BP comes up with "Integrity Test Technology" which completely shuts in the well to test its integrity. Result: Works... immediately starts leaking... but does stop the leak. BP keeps moving goal line for integrity downward from 9000 psi to 8000 psi to 7500 psi to whatever the hell pressure they're seeing that day....

14. ... Well remains shut in. Leaks are nominal but increasing....

15. BP comes up with "Static Kill Technology" says it can kill well...

Along about here, BP quits releasing data. Video feeds start blacking out and "Rogue ROVs" appear... we can't see the feeds of those. They're assigned to monitor the BOP leaks and anything else BP doesn't want us to see.

16. "Magic Cement Technology!" BP convinces Government to put the question of total capture and measurement out of the question. All work on containment stops cold. BP pushes a sh*tload of mud and cement into well. Result: Even though there's no way on God's Green Earth that they could know where the cement goes, they say they successfully cemented the casing... just the casing... not the annulus. News Media interprets this as a complete plugging of the well and questions whether the relief wells are even needed....

But the well is still leaking, now out of a very energetic leak on the bottom flange seal on the FelxJoint. There is still pressure on the BOP because you can't have leaks without pressure. Plugged wells don't LEAK!

17. BP says they're going to get some pressure readings off the BOP after venting to see if they can establish flow up the annulus... or something. No one can figure out what the hell they're talking about here and they don't elaborate beyond Thad Allen blubbering a bunch of stuff NO ONE understands.... They freeze off their chokes atop the Capping Stack by flowing hydrocarbons through them with a very large pressure drop. ALL feeds showing anything that is going on are blacked out. After promising to release data, BP and Thad Allen.... don't....
Bob Cavnar continues the timeline, bringing us up to date (http://dailyhurricane.com/2010/08/after-all-this-now-theyre-worried-about-the-bop.html):

Things keep getting curiouser and curiouser with the Well that Won't Die. In his presser this morning, Adm Allen announced that they are still trying to decide what to do about the relief well, the weak components on the old BOP, and how they're going to approach the relief well, which is still just sitting there, a tantilizing 3 1/2 feet from the blowout wellbore. Dithering seems a strong word, but one I'll now use. You'll recall that right after BP started the surprise "well integrity test" back in July, they announced the surprise "static kill", characterizing it as low pressure, low risk, and an effort to "stabilize" the well. They pumped that procedure on August 3rd, and, declaring the well "static", then pumped 500 barrels of cement announcing that the entire job went right down the casing and out into the formation. That was 11 days ago.

Since, BP and Adm Allen raised the ominous possibility that there was something mysterious going on in the annulus, the space between the production casing and the intermediate casing. Adm Allen has gone on and on about 1,000 barrels of oil in the annulus, "near ambient" pressure testing, rising pressure, falling pressure, holding pressure, and bleeding pressure, to the bewilderment of everyone, including me. Kent Wells, the star of the BP "Technical" McBriefing's, where no technical data is provided, and only few questions are taken (notice I didn't say answered), has been AWOL since his last appearance 6 days ago. The purpose of the "new ambient" pressure test is still unclear, but, after being hounded for over a week by the DailyKos Gulf Watchers, the Admiral compelled BP to release the BOP pressure readings, but BP left out basic information like starting point, whether the well is shut in at the surface or seafloor, the fluid in the riser, etc, so the data is pretty much useless, like most other information that's been disclosed.

Today, the Admiral admitted that there were three components in the the BOP stack that is of concern; we know which ones those are, since we've been talking about them for over a month. The weak components are the flex joint, right on top of the old stack, the riser adapter, and what they call the transition spool are all rated below the other components in the stack, between 5,000 psi to 6,000 psi maximum working pressure. In each of these procedures that BP has undertaken, the top kill, the well integrity test, the injectivity tests, and static kill, the pressures that BP announced actually exceeded the rated pressures of at least one of those components. After performing all of these machinations, they are now suddenly concerned about pressure on the BOP, and are actually talking about changing out the entire stack before completing the bottom kill. What?

All of this delay and dithering is confusing, at best. Pulling the stack at this point is even more concerning, especially with drill pipe and God know what all inside, including the casing hanger. Had they followed the original plan of set the capping stack, hooking up the risers that were supposed to be completed in mid-July, and producing the well to the surface while they were killing it from below, all of this new discussion would be moot. This static kill, where they really have no idea where the cement and mud went, has only complicated matters, created more uncertainty, and absolutely more delay.

In addition, Admiral Allen said today that new tests show “gap” in “well column” causing loss of pressure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRhCNmVAf_s

Does the government have any idea what it's doing? Does BP?

[the white rabbit]

RIP Matt !!!

[keehah]

As WR posted here (http://gold-silver.us/forum/gulf-oil-disaster/bp-oil-spill-still-leaking/?topicseen)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmGcH_-QgZk

Ah.... the biggest news story of the summer and the MSM tells us after the Labour Day weekend what happened and what was known by BP and agents on the Memorial Day weekend. They talk of the damaged casing (open hole) and volcanic oil seeps from the sea floor, two the things Matt Simmons was telling us about this summer.

I expect the reason they are talking about this 'biggest of concerns' now finally I expect is because after many weeks of the well being shut at the top, the other leaks have not gotten worse with time.

I expect them still to be significant, but should self plug somewhat with time and reservoir pressure drop. These things must tend to self seal, otherwise oil would not be trapped in so many places on the world.