Skip to main content

View Diary: 'Top Kill' confusion (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I understand this is trial and error (0+ / 0-)

    However, Thad Allen made comments suggesting all was well.

    I understand this is an experiment just like mixing dispersant at the well head. However, we need clarity and an explanation of status. What we have gotten is bull about the flow rates. We have gotten incompetence in booming.

    The engineering is impressive until you look at the scope of the disaster. I understand it takes time to get the logistics in place. I understand this is trial and error. However, I am sick of the positive assessments. And by the way, BP described adding junk shot last night.

    Please help the people of Haiti

    by DWG on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:34:38 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I never felt what he said was (0+ / 0-)

      we've got this solved. I always took everything positive he said as "we're ok so far, we'll try to proceed to the next step", and I took the fact that at a certain point they stopped injecting as a setback, something was not going as planned. Most importantly, until the cement is injected, any stop in the oil flow is just a transient condition based on the mud injection. You can't take any announcement that oil flow has been stopped as being permanent, which is what it seems like most of the above posters were doing.

      On junk shot, it's being used as a description for the stuff itself, ie:

      We're injecting 'junk shot' with the mud,

      and also as the name of a particular type of operation, where they will cut the bop open and inject 'junk shot', ie:

      If this top kill operation fails then we will have to try the junk shot operation.

      Not the best choice words, but it is what it is.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site