The same dark glass covers the engineering processes and decisions carried out by BP to cap the well. This delay of installing the new cap to debate the consequences of the well pressure on the bore hole should have been completed and settled weeks ago. Why is the science and assessment running behind the construction and installation of the cap? Is BP working from a multi-scenario model, projecting good, bad, and worse results? How is data being collected and assessed? Is sound theory driving the containment effort? Why does BP spend millions on advertising but will not open its doors to view how its teams use the most powerful tool in containing the well, the multiple disciplines of applied science?
I, for one suggested, using conventional weapons and naval systems to implode the well; exactly what President Clinton suggested during an interview from South Africa. While the Times examined a nuclear option, the most sensational and unsafe of all the explosive methods, it did not explore with detail or careful consideration, non-nuclear options, how they were assessed, or why they were rejected, and by whom.
I’ve read blogs in which people have reported that Florida’s marine biologists are reporting the death of the plankton, but have seen no follow ups or confirmations.
There has been no investigative reporting on why BP developed three caps, only the last of which is intended to fully seal the cut pipe.
There have been no reports on why the relief well, now within 400 feet of the main well, will take three to four weeks to finish.
The reporting of the science and the applied scientific processes being employed to seal the well has been dismal. The failure to use science reporting as leverage, to enhance transparency and offer insights has been an opportunity missed. Somehow it has added to the confused feelings and growing anger I have about the uncapped well.
I trust the science more than BP’s PR. I wish I knew more about it, and somehow were better informed.