Vatic Note: As I stated before, this situation is fluid and all of us have contributed bits and pieces to what appears to be the big picture, however, it is now becoming refined based on the contributions of those who survived the ordeal. This is narrated by someone who listened to the broadcast, who works with this equipment and adds his own knowledge of the equipment to the broadcast for legitimacy. Please read this and then listen to the broad cast so it makes sense.
Radio Interview with Someone who was an eye witness to BP explosion
UPDATE ON THE RADIO INTERVIEW located at
05/04/10 - by Mike Kemp contribution and added knowledge from working in the business.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1790422&spid=32364
See 2nd interview where he talks about what ignited the gas and first explosion
http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1790422&spid=32364
OK, here goes. I am told that the casing at the sea floor was concreted in-- with 20 feet of concrete-- 24 hours before the event on the rig-- by Halliburton. And that to do that, the blowout preventers (I understand that they use two, like inboard and outboard isolation--I'm not dead certain of that). were closed. That this rig was being prepared to be moved off and a production rig brought in. At that point, they would 'core' the concrete plug, hook up, and the blowout preventers opened and production established.
This means that there was no pathway for nat gas to fill the rig to cause an explosion.
I am told that the blowout preventers are fail-closed hydraulically actuated, with monster actuators. I understand that they essentially function like excess flow check valves. Too much flow starts going through, the valves automatically close without manual intervention.
If you recall, it was reported that the 'acoustically operated blowout preventers' would not respond to a close signal after the explosions and fire on the rig. I am told that this means they have been disabled, one way or another. By explosion, by something. THEY ARE FAIL CLOSED.
I am told that the sea was calm, and that a service boat in near vicinity to the rig heard what they interpreted to be an undersea explosion, and the boat was rocked a short time afterward by a 'surge' on the surface. And then the stuff began to hit the fan. I am led to believe that there are layer upon layer upon layer of redundant fail-safes on this rig, and that the rig is state of the art.
I am told that Boots and Coots, as well as Red Adair's companies (there have been some ownership shuffling in the last years--Halliburton now owns Boots and Coots, as I understand) were point blank refused after the event occurred and these companies offered their services.
And I am told that the word 'bomb' is never, ever used in any respect in the oil bidness. The guy on the radio interview used the word at least twice.
I have no reason to doubt what I am told. But I do not have the expertise to fully judge in depth either the mark levin story or the story I have been told. I understand the equipment being described, but my expertise in HOW the equipment is employed is lacking. I am listening to the 2nd part of the radio call again. He definitely used the word 'bomb' at least twice.
This is what I know, or have been told, as of now. and therefore I am again left in the dark as to what actually and truly happened. And I am led to believe that the drilling rigs in the Gulf (not yet at this
point the production rigs) have been shut down.
Mike Kemp
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
"It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little." ~ Sydney Smith
Pages
▼
2010-05-04
6 comments:
Vatic Clerk Tips: After 7 days, all comments to an article go into the moderation queue for approval which happens at least once a day. Please be patient.
Be respectful in your comments, keeping in mind that these discussions will become the Zeitgeist of our time that future database archeologists will discover. Make your comments worthy and on the founding father's level in their respectfulness, reasoning, and sound argumentation. Prove we weren't all idiots in our day and age. Comments that advocate sedition or violence are not encouraged. Racist, ad hominem, and troll-baiting comments might never see the light of day.
Here's a fairly safe rule of thumb: "When two or more anomalies occur together, they're probably related."
ReplyDeleteAnomalies #2 & 3: Goldman Sachs bet short on oil rigs in the Gulf the day before an oil rig in the Gulf blew up.
Anomaly #3: It appears to have been caused by a bomb.
If you're not a conspiracy theorist, your not paying attention.
I couldn't agree more. In listening to the survivor of the rig accident, he mentions "bombs" twice, however, he quickly clarifies it.
ReplyDeleteYet another survivor says that the supply ship, this guy was talking about had a whole new crew, rather than even one of the regulars they were used to.
Then we read yesterday, Goldman Sachs shorts on the oil company stock 24 hours before the accident. We are back to wondering if in fact all is as it seemed on the surface. Keeping the shorts in mind, I find it hard to believe this was an accident, but with this survivors story, I will withhold final judgement until I know if he is real or part of some deception to stop the flow of speculation based on Goldmans investment decisions. I am leaning as you are, toward "no coincidence especially since 9-11 and other such investment decisions before major events apparently known about in advance.
While I'm not shutting out the possibility of there being more than meets the eye vis-a-vis the Oil Rig Explosion, I will say that I listened quite carefully to the radio program you mentioned (20 minutes of my life I'll never get back) and it's so abundantly clear that the caller's use of the word "BOMB" is utterly unrelated to the sensationalistic term (an engineered explosive device) that is so often bandied about by those, on either side of the argument, hopeful to create "sensation." Given Vatic's advanced level of intellect and your ability to communicate in a precise manner, I believe it was disingenuous (in an reverse-orwellian sort of way) to even suggest otherwise. When you slip over the line, we not only lose the moral highground, we all lose respect and that's something that most of us care to retain - especially when the uninitiated look at us as if we have 3 heads.
ReplyDeleteChris
I refuse to edit what anyone else says. The person who provided the recording and has equipment experience in the oil business is the one who heard the interview like we did and USED HIS NAME and suggested the bomb comment was a freudian slip rather than intentional because he immediately corrected himself and did it twice now. I believe personally, which I did not say, that:
ReplyDelete1. added to the other survivor on the rig, who saw the supply ship come in with a totally different crew and none of the regulars, and
2. The fact that no one bothered to tell us who this guy is or was, and
3. add to that who the interviewer is, and
4. add to that BP is owned by Rothschild and Rockefeller through a merger back in 1998, and
5. add to that Halliburton was there only 20 hours before the explosions,
6. and add to that the fact that the closure valve should have worked as they are made to do so at unlimited pressure, and its located down where the work by Halliburton is located, then
7. Add to that the offers rejected to come in and fix this by coots and boots and by Red , oops forgot his name, but the same guy who does derricks on fire who saved our tushes in the past. The rejection by the banker owned leaders of our nation,
8. Add to that the fact that Goldman sachs also partially owned by Rothschild shorted the gulf on a derivatives bet, the day before while Halliburton was doing their thing, and now has made billions off that bet. Hmmmmmm
Then you do not have to be in intellectual giant to develop such an opinion based on circumstantial evidence, just look at all the people sitting in prisons right now on a lot less evidence.
And thank you for the compliment as well as the criticism. Its appreciated both ways. Sometimes I will even agree with you that I may have gone too far, i will also at times not agree but I will always agree to disagree.
there is sufficient circumstantial evidence
Oh, further, what the provider of the audio stated since he works in the field, is that AN EXPERIENCED RIG WORKER "NEVER" WOULD USE THE "BOMB" WORD even by accident. Its a bad omen when they do that, so it had to be a feudian slip. In other words he knew that was what happened and said so from his subconscious.
ReplyDeleteBy itself, I still would not have surmised this was a false flag when they tried to blame it on N. Korea. But added to the rest, I have no doubt something went down that was not right. We may never know exactly how, but something did. It would need an independant investigation not controlled by the neocons for us to get at the truth.
OK, here is more updated information on the Goldman Sachs investment, or shorting as they call it, on the company that owned the rig.
ReplyDeleteCheck it out.
Goldman shorts TransOcean
Just add this to other bits that we already have links on and it gets harder and harder to deny something is wrong.