Category Archives: Uncategorized

New York Times: U.S. Allows BP to Keep Well Closed for Another Day

By HENRY FOUNTAIN
Published: July 19, 2010

A pressure test of BP’s undersea well that has kept fresh oil from gushing into the Gulf of Mexico will be allowed to continue for another day, despite concerns about potential new problems near the well, the government official overseeing the spill response said Monday.

Late Sunday, the government ordered BP to step up monitoring of the well after “undetermined anomalies” were discovered on the seafloor nearby. The government’s top official in the Gulf response, retired Coast Guard admiral Thad W. Allen, said that government scientists had talked late Sunday with BP about a seep and the possible detection of methane around the well.

“I authorized BP to continue the integrity test for another 24 hours and I restated our firm position that this test will only continue if they continue to meet their obligations to rigorously monitor for any signs that this test could worsen the overall situation,” Admiral Allen said in a statement.

On Sunday, after three days of encouraging pressure tests, a senior BP official said that the company’s recently capped well in the Gulf of Mexico was holding up and that BP now hoped to keep the well closed until it could be permanently plugged. BP’s plan differs sharply from the one the company and the federal government had suggested only a day earlier, to eventually allow the flow of oil to resume temporarily, collecting it through pipes to surface ships.

If BP succeeds in keeping the cap atop the well closed until a relief well is finished, that would mean the gusher would effectively be over, three months — and tens of millions of gallons of oil — after it began. It would be a major turnaround after weeks of failure for the oil giant, which had been harshly criticized as being unprepared for such a disaster.

“We’re hopeful,” Doug Suttles, the company’s chief operating officer for exploration and production, said in a conference call with reporters Sunday morning.

“Right now we do not have a target to return the well to flow,” he said.

The federal government was more cautious, saying Sunday in a letter to the company, that tests had detected a seep — usually a flow of hydrocarbons from the seafloor — “a distance from the well.” A seep could be evidence that oil or gas or both are escaping from the well up to the seafloor. But seeps also occur naturally.

And while the letter said the federal government would allow the test to continue for now, the discovery of a seep and the unspecified anomalies suggest that the well could be damaged and that it may have to be reopened soon to avoid making the situation worse.

The pressure testing, which began Thursday with the closing of valves on the cap and is designed to assess the condition of the well, was originally expected to last 48 hours. “We need to be careful in predicting how long it will go,” Mr. Suttles said.

If a problem crops up, he said, collection systems could be restarted, some within a few hours. In a few weeks there should be enough capacity to collect more than the high estimate of 60,000 barrels a day. But Mr. Suttles said that if valves on the cap were reopened to restart collection, oil would pour anew into the gulf for up to three days.

If the well is not reopened, it could mean that the precise volume of oil that leaked — the well has been estimated to be flowing at a rate of 35,000 to 60,000 barrels a day — may never be known. That raises the question of whether the company might escape some liability for the spill.

It has been an encouraging several days for BP, but it comes after many engineering efforts that produced little but a lexicon of strange terms, all defining failure: containment dome, junk shot and top kill among them.

Even the good news about the test and the new cap, which was installed last week, left many wondering why the project could not have happened earlier.

BP has pointed out that the concept — essentially, putting a new blowout preventer atop the existing one that failed when the Deepwater Horizon drill rig exploded on April 20, killing 11 workers — had been in the works since shortly after the disaster occurred. They have said, and diaries and other documents tend to bear out, that ideas were worked on in parallel, with those that were easier to accomplish and had a greater chance of succeeding being tried first.

In a discussion with a reporter in mid-May, Kent Wells, a senior BP vice president in charge of the subsea work, and others described in broad terms an option to install a second preventer if the top kill, in which heavy drilling mud was to be pumped into the well to stop oil and gas from coming up, did not work.

The top kill failed and one proposed explanation at the time was that the well was damaged. That put a halt, for a while, to talk of putting another blowout preventer or other tight-sealing cap on the well, out of concern that a buildup of pressure could further damage the well.

But the idea was revived, and in June BP considered using the blowout preventer from the Development Driller II rig, which was working on the second relief well, for the job. The company halted drilling of the well, aiming to bring the blowout preventer to the surface. But the federal government intervened and ordered BP to continue drilling the well as a backup in case anything went wrong with the first relief well.

The cap that was eventually used was designed and built more or less from scratch, although off-the-shelf valves and rams were used. And as with any engineering project, particularly one being conducted by remotely operated submersibles a mile underwater, installation procedures had to be devised and practiced.

That practice appeared to pay off last week when the cap was installed. It was by far the smoothest operation of the many that had been undertaken in the three-month disaster.

With the valves on the cap closed and the gulf still free of fresh oil on Sunday, Mr. Suttles said that skimming ships near the site were collecting far less oily water. Only one controlled burn was conducted Saturday, compared with 19 the day before, he said. And there were no new reports of oil reaching the shore.

“There is less and less oil to recover,” he said.

Barring bad weather, the relief well, which will be used to pump heavy mud, followed by cement, into the blown-out well to seal it permanently, may be ready by the end of July, although it may take several more weeks for the process to be completed, Mr. Suttles said.

Jack Healy contributed reporting from New York.

Times/Herald: House may have votes to put an amendment on ballot banning oil drilling. Contact your rep on Monday!

Note that House leaders still plan on blocking the vote. It is imperative that we generate thousands of calls to House members and get out to their offices on Monday to deliver a strong message that they must let the voters decide this issue.

– Frank Jackalone, Sierra Club frank.jackalone@sierraclub.org

July 16, 2010

By Mary Ellen Klas, Lee Logan, Steve Bousquet and Cristina Silva, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau
Next week’s special session may test Republican leaders’ brawn.
TALLAHASSEE – Fearing a major victory for Gov. Charlie Crist, Florida Republican leaders are prepared to take drastic action – even blocking a historic vote on a constitutional amendment banning offshore oil drilling.
Legislators are expected to reluctantly convene a special session next week called by the governor, then swiftly reject a plan that would attract his supporters to the polls.
A survey of House Republicans shows the party’s caucus is so deeply divided over the amendment that leaders fear it would be difficult for Republicans to stand up to Crist and vote against bringing the issue to the voters.
At least 14 Republicans and one Democrat who supported legislation in 2009 to open Florida waters to oil drilling now support asking voters to decide on a ban, according to a survey of legislators by the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald.
Combined with 43 Democrats who are expected to support the constitutional amendment, there are at least 58 solid votes in support. Another eight Republicans, most of them in coastal districts, declined to state a position and 23 Republicans could not be reached.
”If we vote on it, I believe it will pass,” said Rep. Carlos Lopez-Cantera, a Miami Republican and majority whip, who last year supported a plan to open Florida waters from three to 10 miles off shore to oil and gas drilling.
He said that if he were voting on the constitutional ban, he would be ”leaning yes,” but instead is angered that the governor called the session ”for selfish reasons.”
Legislators need 72 votes in the House and 24 votes in the Senate to put the amendment on the November ballot, but rather than take up the governor’s proposal and soundly defeat it, the House is expected to convene and adjourn without taking a vote.
Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Oviedo, wants them to at least vote on her bill to chastise Crist for wasting taxpayer money by calling for what she considers an unneeded session.
Rep. John Tobia, R-Satellite Beach, echoed the comments of many Republicans about Crist’s proposal, calling it ”nothing more than a political stunt.”
Even legislators who support the ban are critical of Crist for failing to use the session to address more immediate needs, such as passing legislation to give economic relief to businesses and families in northwest Florida.
Rep. Anitere Flores, R-Miami, said that while she supports putting the amendment on the ballot ”you have to question the governor’s motives.”
Rep. Marcelo Llorente, R-Miami, said that while he would like to vote to put the amendment on the ballot, taxpayer money could have been better spent to ”address all those issues while we are up there.”
Tuesday’s no-vote would mark a new low in the steadily deteriorating relationship between the former Republican governor and GOP lawmakers.
Since Crist abandoned the Republican Party in April and announced he is running for U.S. Senate as a non-party candidate against former House Speaker Marco Rubio, a Republican, and Democrats Kendrick Meek and Jeff Greene, he has hinted he would call a special session in time to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot by the Aug. 4 deadline.
But the sharply partisan House leadership stonewalled the governor, even refusing to answer his phone calls. Meanwhile, Senate leaders suggested they were open to a special session, especially one that would also provide economic relief to regions crippled by the oil disaster.
Crist instead scheduled the four-day session to deal with the constitutional amendment alone, saying there was no urgency to the economic issues.
”For them to put their animosity toward me above the will and what’s right for the people of this state would be stunningly shortsighted,” Crist told theTimes/Herald.
Democrats also believe Republicans are out to punish Crist and prevent him from using the issue to drive supporters to the polls. ”It’s a bunch of kids that want to take their ball and go home,” said Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando.
Some legislators oppose using the Constitution to impose a ban, while others say it is wrong to preclude future generations – especially since there are the known deep natural gas reserves along Florida’s Gulf Coast.
”Safe offshore oil drilling ought not to be prohibited in our Constitution,” said Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, who is also chairman of the Republican Party of Florida.
He acknowledged that the party has conducted a poll on the issue but the decision to not take a vote on the proposed amendment was not intended to offset popular support for a ban, but to give voters more time to determine the causes and consequences of the oil spill before amending the Constitution.
”Why rush into approving a constitutional amendment when we already have a statute that bans oil drilling,” he said.
Other lawmakers lament the bitterness the issue has spawned.
”There’s not going to be any winners out of this special session,” warned Rep. Mike Weinstein, R-Jacksonville. ”We’ll all be looked upon as wasting the taxpayers’ money and time because we don’t have our act together.”
Rep. Clay Ford, a Gulf Breeze Republican agreed. By not allowing voters a voice on the oil ban, ”It may intensify the anti-incumbent feeling already out there,” he said. ”It’s sort of a calculated risk. I don’t think it’s worth taking that risk. Most of us are up for re-election.”
Mary Ellen Klas can be reached at meklas@MiamiHerald.com

Here’s how House Republicans contacted by the Times/Herald said they plan to vote on the proposed constitutional ban on oil drilling if it comes before them. Nearly all 44 House Democrats are expected to support the proposal.

Yes:
Rep. Marti Coley, Marianna
Rep. Faye Culp, Tampa
Rep. Greg Evers, Baker
Rep. Anitere Flores, Miami
Rep. Clay Ford, Gulf Breeze
Rep. Jim Frishe, St. Petersburg
Rep. Ed Homan, Tampa
Rep. Marcelo Llorente, Miami
Rep. Carlos Lopez-Cantera, Miami
Rep. Peter Nehr, Tarpon Springs
Rep. Jimmy Patronis, Panama City
Rep. J.C. Planas, Miami
Rep. Ron Schultz, Homosassa
Rep. Juan Zapata, Miami

No:
Rep. Sandy Adams, Oviedo
Rep. Dean Cannon, Winter Park
Rep. Larry Cretul, Ocala
Rep. Steve Crisafulli, Merritt Island
Rep. Chris Dorworth, Lake Mary
Rep. Rich Glorioso, Plant City
Rep. Eddy Gonzalez, Hialeah
Rep. Denise Grimsley, Lake Placid
Rep. Alan Hays, Umatilla
Rep. Ed Hooper, Clearwater
Rep. Mike Horner, Kissimmee
Rep. Mike Hudson, Naples
Rep. Kurt Kelly, Ocala
Rep. Paige Kreegel, Punta Gorda
Rep. Debbie Mayfield, Vero Beach
Rep. Seth McKeel, Lakeland
Rep. Dave Murzin, Pensacola
Rep. Pat Patterson, DeLand
Rep. Scott Plakon, Longwood
Rep. Ralph Poppell, Vero Beach
Rep. Ron Renuart, Ponte Verda Beach
Rep. Julio Robaina, Miami
Rep. Matt Gaetz, Fort Walton Beach
Rep. Will Snyder, Stuart
Rep. John Tobia, Satellite Beach
Rep. Will Weatherford, Wesley Chapel
Rep. Mike Weinstein, Jacksonville
Rep. Rich Workman, Melbourne

Declined to answer/unsure:
Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff, Fort Lauderdale
Rep. Adam Hasner, Delray Beach
Rep. Doug Holder, Sarasota
Rep. John Legg, Port Richey
Rep. Marlene O’Toole, Lady Lake
Rep. David Rivera, Miami
Rep. Rob Schenck, Spring Hill
Rep. Kelli Stargel, Lakeland

Could not be reached:
Rep. Janet Adkins, Fernandina Beach
Rep. Kevin Ambler, Tampa
Rep. Tom Anderson, Dunedin
Rep. Gary Aubuchon, Cape Coral
Rep. Steve Bovo, Hialeah
Rep. Jennifer Caroll, Fleming Island
Rep. Carl Domino, Jupiter
Rep. Brad Drake, Eucheeanna
Rep. Eric Eisnaugle, Orlando
Rep. Erik Fresen, Miami
Rep. Tom Grady, Naples
Rep. Dorothy Hukill, Port Orange
Rep. Charles McBurney, Jacksonville
Rep. Bryan Nelson, Apopka
Rep. Steve Precourt, Orlando
Rep. Bill Proctor, St. Augustine
Rep. Lake Ray, Jacksonville
Rep. Ron Reagan, Bradenton
Rep. Ken Roberson, Port Charlotte
Rep. Nick Thompson, Fort Myers
Rep. Charles Van Zant, Keystone Heights
Rep. Trudi Williams, Fort Myers
Rep. John Wood, Winter Haven

Yes only if it is temporary ban
Rep. Baxter Troutman, Winter Haven

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Press Register: BP buys up Gulf scientists for legal defense, roiling academic community

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/bp_buys_up_gulf_scientists_for.html

Published: Friday, July 16, 2010, 5:00 AM Updated: Friday, July 16, 2010, 4:14 PM
Ben Raines, Press-Register

For the last few weeks, BP has been offering signing bonuses and lucrative pay to prominent scientists from public universities around the Gulf Coast to aid its defense against spill litigation.

BP PLC attempted to hire the entire marine sciences department at one Alabama university, according to scientists involved in discussions with the company’s lawyers. The university declined because of confidentiality restrictions that the company sought on any research.

The Press-Register obtained a copy of a contract offered to scientists by BP. It prohibits the scientists from publishing their research, sharing it with other scientists or speaking about the data that they collect for at least the next three years.

“We told them there was no way we would agree to any kind of restrictions on the data we collect. It was pretty clear we wouldn’t be hearing from them again after that,” said Bob Shipp, head of marine sciences at the University of South Alabama. “We didn’t like the perception of the university representing BP in any fashion.”

BP officials declined to answer the newspaper’s questions about the matter. Among the questions: how many scientists and universities have been approached, how many are under contract, how much will they be paid, and why the company imposed confidentiality restrictions on scientific data gathered on its behalf.

Shipp said he can’t prohibit scientists in his department from signing on with BP because, like most universities, the staff is allowed to do outside consultation for up to eight hours a week.

More than one scientist interviewed by the Press-Register described being offered $250 an hour through BP lawyers. At eight hours a week, that amounts to $104,000 a year.

Scientists from Louisiana State University, University of Southern Mississippi and Texas A&M have reportedly accepted, according to academic officials. Scientists who study marine invertebrates, plankton, marsh environments, oceanography, sharks and other topics have been solicited.

The contract makes it clear that BP is seeking to add scientists to the legal team that will fight the Natural Resources Damage Assessment lawsuit that the federal government will bring as a result of the Gulf oil spill.

The government also filed a NRDA suit after the Exxon Valdez spill.

In developing its case, the government will draw on the large amount of scientific research conducted by academic institutions along the Gulf. Many scientists being pursued by BP serve at those institutions.

Robert Wiygul, an Ocean Springs lawyer who specializes in environmental law, said that he sees ethical questions regarding the use of publicly owned laboratories and research vessels to conduct confidential work on behalf of a private company.

Also, university officials who spoke with the newspaper expressed concern about the potential loss of federal research money tied to professors working for BP.

With its payments, BP buys more than the scientists’ services, according to Wiygul. It also buys silence, he said, thanks to confidentiality clauses in the contracts.

“It makes me feel like they were more interested in making sure we couldn’t testify against them than in having us testify for them,” said George Crozier, head of the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, who was approached by BP.

“It makes me feel like they were more interested in making sure we couldn’t testify against them than in having us testify for them,” said George Crozier, head of the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, who was approached by BP.

Richard Shaw, associate dean of LSU’s School of the Coast and Environment, said that the BP contracts are already hindering the scientific community’s ability to monitor the affects of the Gulf spill.

“The first order of business at the research meetings is to get all the disclosures out. Who has a personal connection to BP? We have to know how to deal with that person,” Shaw said. “People are signing on with BP because the government funding to the universities has been so limited. It’s a sad state of affairs.”

Wiygul, who examined the BP contract for the Press-Register, described it as “exceptionally one-sided.”

“This is not an agreement to do research for BP,” Wiygul said. “This is an agreement to join BP’s legal team. You agree to communicate with BP through their attorneys and to take orders from their attorneys.

“The purpose is to maintain any information or data that goes back and forth as privileged.”

The contract requires scientists to agree to withhold data even in the face of a court order if BP decides to fight such an order. It stipulates that scientists will be paid only for research approved in writing by BP.

The contracts have the added impact of limiting the number of scientists who’re able to with federal agencies. “Let’s say BP hired you because of your work with fish. The contract says you can’t do any work for the government or anyone else that involves your work with BP. Now you are a fish scientist who can’t study fish,” Wiygul said.

A scientist who spoke to the Press-Register on condition of anonymity because he feared harming relationships with colleagues and government officials said he rejected a BP contract offer and was subsequently approached by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with a research grant offer.
He said the first question the federal agency asked was, “‘is there a conflict of interest,’ meaning, ‘are you under contract with BP?'”

Other scientists told the newspaper that colleagues who signed on with BP have since been informed by federal officials that they will lose government funding for ongoing research efforts unrelated to the spill.

NOAA officials did not answer requests for comment. The agency also did not respond to a request for the contracts that it offers scientists receiving federal grants. Several scientists said the NOAA contract was nearly as restrictive as the BP version.

The state of Alaska published a 293-page report on the NRDA process after the Exxon Valdez disaster. A section of the report titled “NRDA Secrecy” discusses anger among scientists who received federal grants over “the non-disclosure form each researcher had signed as a prerequisite to funding.”

“It’s a very strange situation. The science is already suffering,” Shaw said. “The government needs to come through with funding for the universities. They are letting go of the most important group of scientists, the ones who study the Gulf.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Alexander Higgins blog: NOAA Admits Toxic Corexit Dispersants May Be In BP Gulf Oil Spill Seafood

NOAA Admits Toxic Corexit Dispersants May Be In BP Gulf Oil Spill Seafood


Posted by Alexander Higgins – July 16, 2010 at 2:18 am –

I originally wrote about an investigation into the safety of Gulf seafood that raised some shocking concerns on July 2nd.

I followed up on that with a warning from CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta who warned us that contrary to the Government’s claims no one can assure as that Gulf seafood is safe.

Today at a congressional hearing NOAA admitted that the neurotoxin pesticide Corexit that BP has used to disperse the Gulf oil spill may be in Gulf seafood and that the organization really does not care to much about testing for it.

During the hearing NOAA also admitted that unlike previously reported that the toxic dispersants bioaccumulate in the food chain.

Here is a transcript of the start of video below retrieved from Florida Oil Spill Law.

Rush Transcript Excerpts (Apologies for all caps)

Senator Lisa Murkowsi (R-AK):

HAVE YOU DETECTED ANYTHING THAT IS NOTICEABLE OR REPORTABLE IN THE SEAFOOD THAT YOU’VE BEEN TESTING?

Larry Robinson, assistant secretary of Commerce for oceans and atmosphere/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

OUR SEAFOOD TESTS ARE MORE ALL — IT’S WHAT IS DISPERSED ON OUR PROTOCOLS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT DISPERSANTS OR THE BYPRODUCTS OF DISPERSANTS.

Senator Murkowski:

ARE YOU INTENDING TO DO THAT [testing seafood for dispersants]?

NOAA Assistant Secretary:

I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT THING TO CONSIDER BECAUSE WE’RE LEARNED FROM THIS SITUATION THAT THERE ARE OTHER POTENTIALS HERE, PERHAPS EVEN FROM BIOACCUMULATION OF DISPERSANTS AND THEIR BYPRODUCTS INTO SEAFOOD. SO THAT’S SOMETHING WE HAVE ON OUR LIST OF THINGS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT.

Senator Murkowski:

IS FDA TESTING THIS… ARE THEY TESTING FOR DISPERSANTS?

NOAA Assistant Secretary:

I DON’T THINK THE PROTOCOLS, PRESENTLY CALL FOR THE TESTING OF SEAFOOD, WITH REGARD TO SEAFOOD SAFETY WITH REGARD TO DISPERSANTS OR BYPRODUCTS.

IT’S REALLY THE OIL THAT WE’RE — AND THE OIL BIPRODUCTS THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IN SEAFOOD AT THE MOMENT.

Picking up the transcript where the the previous transcript left off.

Senator Murkowski:

Then how can we give the consumer the assurance that the seafood that is coming from the Gulf in these waters is safe for consumption?

NOAA Assistant Secretary:

The evidence that we presently have is that the dispersents are broken down rather quickly and biodegrades fairly quickly.

Rather quickly? I don’t consider the reported 28 days it takes to break down to be fairly quickly.

NOAA Assistant Secretary:

We don’t know with absolute certainty senator that there are no traces of dispersant in seafood.

Our tests, however, looking at the more toxic agents in seafood focused on the oil and the oil by products.

More toxic? Corexit is far more toxic than oil and so is the arsenic that scientists are sounding the alarm is on the rise in the Gulf of Mexico because of the BP Gulf Oil Spill.

In fact a fisherman merely splashed with Corexit sufferred from rectal bleeding and G4 has reported that Corexit is eating through boat hulls as well causing damage to internal organs.

Senator Murkowski:

I understand that but it seems to me that we have got an issue here where we are not certain.

I mean the administrator was not able to tell me with certainity wether or not that we consider these dispersants as pollutants if they get into that food chain at whatever level.

Seriously, NOAA will not even admit that Corexit is a pollutant. Amazing.

Senator Murkowski:

Are we testing for this?

It sounds like at this point in time, NO.

We are looking for the oil products on the fish, that’s one thing most certainly.

But it would seem to me as we to the reasearch on the effectiveness on these dispersants and the trade off YOU HAVE to consider the impact to our fisheries, to mariculture as a whole when we are looking at this.

I want to be able to give a level of assurance that whether your are eating wild Alaska salmon from Prince William Sound or wether you are taking it from the Gulf that the dispersants have not had an impact on the safety.

So if we are not testing for that I would certainly hope that we be doing that now, yesterday.

That is something, a level of assurance, that we need to be able to provide the consumer and give them that certainty.

These dispersants, the purpose of them, is to disperse the oil quickly.

If we have dispersed the oil but we have replaced it with another substance that has toxicity levels that impact that seafood that is something that we all need to be concerned about.

Special thanks to Erika Biddle

Trueslant.com: by Osha Gray Davidson “More ‘bad behavior’ from BP”

http://trueslant.com/oshagraydavidson/2010/07/16/more-douche-baggery-from-bp/

I try to cover BP press conferences via phone, but I wasn’t able to dial in to this morning’s technical briefing (conveniently held at 5:30 AM PDT time). Following company advice, I called BP’s Houston press office for an update.

I was transferred to BP spokesman Tony Odone.

Here’s the exchange, taken from my admittedly rough notes made while we talked.

——————————————————————————–

Me: Can you tell what the pressure is currently in the well integrity test?

Odene: I don’t know. Why would you want that?

Me: Isn’t the pressure reading the most important information from the test?

Odene: Yes.

Me: Well, that’s why I want to know.

Odene: [BP spokesman] Kent Wells said at this morning’s briefing the pressure was 6,700 psi.

Me: OK, so at the time of the briefing it was 6,700 —

Odene: — No, he announced at the briefing that the pressure was 6,700.

Me: The pressure reading was taken when?

Odene: At some point before the announcement.

Me: But you can’t tell me what it is now?

Odene: (Incredulous) Look, we are not about to give a minute-by-minute update on what the pressure reading is!

Me: What about hour-to-hour, since it’s so important?

Odene: (growing more petulant): It does…not…have….any significance. A team of experts is looking at it and interpreting it. Why do you want to know?!

Me: At the briefing, Wells said to call this number if we have any questions before the next presser, so that’s what I did. I’m trying to get an update.

Odene: A pressure reading will be announced at the next press conference, at 2:30. (CDT — four hours from this point.)

Me: But nothing until then.

Odene: (Steely, now) We will give you the information when it is necessary.

Me: What determines when it’s necessary?

Odene: When we feel it is required. Are you an engineer?

Me: No, I’m a reporter.

Odene: Well, you will get the information as it is required.

Special thanks to Osha Davidson