======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================


Alex,
you misread what I wrote. Probably I was unclear. If they use an 
explosive (not a nuke, necessarily, which carries seriously far greater 
risks of undermining the sea bed) it would take LONGER to drill the hole 
they are drilling now to relieve the pressure. So no, they "can't do it" 
at this point, but could do so in the future.

Secondly, the so-called "Top Kill" is a method that could work. But it 
*didn't*. Why? Largely because the pressure was so great that the debris 
they were trying to force down the bore-hole got blown out. When the 
pressure is alleviated by the pressure-relief bore holes they are 
sinking...not as far down as the proposed "nuke it" crowd would 
advocate...then Top Kill could work, and should.

That it hasn't isn't proof of conspiracy that they 'could, but won't' 
but that this is difficult shit no one has had to ever deal with. That 
BP 'could be' lying is plausible (and of course, the always lie when it 
suits them) but only if "top kill" would somehow make getting that oil, 
ever, an impossibility. Since the  this isn't the case, the oil can and 
likely will be brought up via these new relief wells (the oil had to go 
somewhere so it will go into BP's coffers), the conspiracy stuff doesn't 
fly that much.

David

________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: [email protected]
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to