NYT:
ABOARD THE RESOLUTE, 50 miles off Louisiana — BP said Thursday it had fixed an equipment leak on a new cap for the runaway well in the Gulf of Mexico, allowing it to move ahead on a critical but delayed test that could halt the gusher of oil.
The test involves closing valves on a new tight-fitting cap to increase pressure in the well, so that BP can assess the rest of the well’s condition. Kent Wells, a BP senior vice president, said he expected the test to begin later Thursday morning.
“We’re looking to start this test as soon as we possibly can,” he said in a conference call with reporters.
Although the notion of shutting off the flow of oil sounds good, it's not without risk. The principal issue is that shutting off the flow increases pressure inside the well, and if the well is damaged, that pressure could create new leaks. On the other hand, while capturing the oil and bringing it to the surface does not run the risk of creating a new leak, there's always the risk of bad weather -- during a hurricane, containment vessels must disconnect from the well, leaving the oil to flow freely in the Gulf during the duration of the storm.
According to The Times, government officials forced BP to take cautious approach than the one BP originally had planned.
Admiral Allen said the government had asked BP for more information on the structural strength of the well. And in allowing the test to proceed, the government stipulated that pressure be allowed to build up in intervals, with acoustic tests to gauge the well’s condition every six hours. That would most likely lengthen the duration of the test, which had been expected to last from 6 to 48 hours.
BP's plan to stop the flow of oil -- instead of capturing it -- seemed to come out of nowhere within the last week. I'd like to believe that they were acting in good faith, but given their track record, their sudden interest in shutting down the flow does set off alarm bells, given the risk their plan poses to the well's structural integrity. Obviously, BP would benefit if the flow of oil were cut off completely, not only because it would end their PR nightmare, but also because it would preserve oil in the well for future extraction and profit. (I'm sure their tears are real when they see all that oil and gas being burned at the surface.) Moreover, if BP stops the flow of oil now, we'll never be able to know exactly how much oil was flowing from the well; given that the flow volume will determine the amount of the fines they face, hundreds of millions if not billions could be riding on them not learning that number.
Obviously, if those are indeed motivations for BP it would be quite sinister. But it certainly doesn't seem beyond possibility given that BP has admitted lobbying for the release of the Lockerbie bomber in order to secure an oil deal with Libya. Nonetheless, if they can manage to cut off the flow, nobody is going to complain that the leak has been sealed. But it would be nice if they were doing it for the right reasons and without risking making things much worse than they already are.
For more on this, join the discussion at Fishgrease: Booming Feynman's Ghost. - Barbara Morrill