Return to Transcripts main page
Rick's List
BP's Latest Plan to Stop Oil Leak?
Aired May 14, 2010 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Here we go. This is our LIST.
Topping the LIST right now: Heck of a job, Thad Allen. Admiral Thad Allen got his facts backward today on the Gulf oil spill, and he's about to step out and tell us why he appeared to screw up.
This is a live picture you're looking at right there. That is Biloxi, Mississippi, where we expect to hear from Thad Allen, as he attempts to clarify his statement on BP's effort to plug this leak.
Now, this is symbolic, this which happened today. Let me walk you through it, all right? Allen is the head of the Coast Guard, as you know. He's the president's point man on the Gulf oil spill, the national incident commander, but, as of 10:00 this morning, he was clearly out of the loop. Stay with me here.
This isn't live, folks, is it? Angie, can you hear me? All right, good. I'm wondering why we had him walking out as we were saying he's about to walk out.
Here's that oil that's pouring out of that ruptured pipe a mile beneath the surface of the Gulf. And, as I reported to you yesterday, BP's current plan B is to take a smaller pipe, push it in there, and seal it somehow, right, and then divert the spewing oil to a ship.
Well, that's still the plan, but Thad Allen apparently didn't know that. This commandant didn't know that. Allen came out this morning on national television and said, no, they won't be using that pipe.
What they're actually planning to do, he said, is to use this smaller containment dome, this thing that they have lowered down that they call the top hat. Well, he got it backward, folks, and he's the national incident commander.
Remember "Hell of a job, Brownie"? That's what some people are repeating under their breaths today. And there's something else that I picked up on. I want you here to take a listen to this. Listen to Thad Allen as he's asked whether this spill is, in fact, a -- quote -- "catastrophe."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Do you consider this a catastrophic event at this point?
THAD ALLEN, U.S. COAST GUARD COMMANDANT: Well, I think it has the potential to be catastrophic, and we need to plan that way.
QUESTION: ... not catastrophic yet?
ALLEN: I am going to act as if it is until this thing is done. And we all should.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: All right. So, he didn't say that it's a catastrophe. He said he will treat it as though it is one.
I want to see if he walks that one back as well.
By the way, the president of the United States came out today, and he did have urgency, for the first time, by the way, at least urgency in his speech, in his tone. He used words like crisis, a ridiculous spectacle. He used the word disappointing.
He pointed fingers as much as fingers are being pointed.
Before I go to David Mattingly, listen to what the president had to say earlier today about the situation that's taking place now in the Gulf.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I did not appreciate what I considered to be a ridiculous spectacle during the congressional hearings into this matter. You had executives of BP and Transocean and Halliburton falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else.
The American people could not have been impressed with that display, and I certainly wasn't.
I understand that there are legal and financial issues involved, and a full investigation will tell us exactly what happened. But it is pretty clear that the system failed, and it failed badly. And for that, there's enough responsibility to go around. And all parties should be willing to accept it.
That includes, by the way, the federal government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: It does include the federal government, a hell of an admission from the president of the United States.
David Mattingly's following this story for us from New Orleans.
We're about to see the head of the Coast Guard come out and possibly correct or maybe even change what he said earlier today.
Meanwhile, David, I have got to tell you -- and I think most of the American people would agree with me on this -- this thing's starting to look laughable, I mean laughable. We're reading in "The New York Times" today they may not have had permits when they drilled, or at least the proper permits. We're reading they have not done the proper tests. We're reading that we have been misinformed as to how much oil is actually coming out of this leak.
David, I could go on and on about this situation in the Gulf, which is starting to look like a bad Fellini movie.
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, in so many ways, this disaster is being looked at as a game-changer, politically, economically, engineering-wise, however you might want to look at it.
We're hearing from the president that it's not going to be business as usual, that they're going to make some changes in the regulatory aspect of this. And we heard a week ago, when I talked to the CEO of BP, that this is no doubt going to change the way they look at drilling in deep water wells like this and about how they're prepared for contingencies, this really, Rick, the big game-changer, changing so many aspects of how we seek oil in the Outer Continental Shelf.
SANCHEZ: Well, it's going to maybe have to change the game as far as Congress goes and as far as this administration goes in to how it deals with these multibillion-dollar corporations like BP.
Is there starting to be a sense that some of the same pushback and criticism that was leveled at the Bush administration after Katrina needs to be -- start to be leveled at the Obama administration for taking so long to be outraged, as the president seemed to be today?
MATTINGLY: Well, I can tell you about outrage, Rick.
I have been talking to people for two weeks here on the ground all across the Gulf Coast who are absolutely outraged at this. We're looking at communities -- think about this -- we're looking at communities who are accustomed to dealing with massive disasters, but these are natural disasters, hurricanes that come through. They know how to mobilize. They know how to prepare. They know how to bounce back.
But they're not accustomed to a manmade disaster like this, particularly one so massive as this. So, there is outrage on a level we have never seen before here on the Gulf Coast. We're seeing it from the fishermen who can't fish, the shrimpers who can't go get their shrimp. We're hearing it from the customers who can't buy that seafood.
We're hearing it from the property owners who can't rent their property. We're hearing it from the guides who can't take people out for sport fishing, outrage all across the board here in the Gulf Coast.
SANCHEZ: And we're all left in the middle not knowing exactly what is -- I read a report last night, David, that seemed to intimate that there's so much oil down there, but most of it is somewhere near to the surface of the ocean than it is up top, and that we may not know what it does or how much damage it does until months, maybe years from now.
Part of the -- part of the problem with this story, it seems, David, is that there are so few answers, too many promises, and few of them have been met.
MATTINGLY: Well, here's what we don't know. And we're relying on estimates, this one coming from NOAA about how much oil is actually appearing on the top of the ocean.
Best estimates -- if you want to call this a guess, go right ahead -- but the best estimates so far have been 5,000 barrels a day leaking out. They're able to judge that, they say, by looking at how much oil is floating on the top of the water.
Well, when BP released that picture, that video of that pipe at the bottom of the ocean, and we saw that cloud of oil spewing out, we had other experts chiming in who were taking a look at that. They're saying there's no way that it could be 5,000. They were using their own calculations, saying it could be much bigger, much greater.
And something we really haven't been able to do is wrap our minds around this pipe right now, Rick, and I'm going to try and help you do that right now.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Well, we're looking at it.
MATTINGLY: This pipe is supposed to be...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: We're looking at it, by the way, just so you know. We're going to stay on this picture as you continue to make your description.
MATTINGLY: OK. All right. Let's -- let's stay on that picture. We're looking at that pipe. It's 21, 22 inches in diameter. So, you see that cloud of oil coming out.
SANCHEZ: Right.
MATTINGLY: Now, here, this is what we have picked up. This washbasin is exactly the same size. So, this is how big that pipe is where that oil is spewing out, putting that cloud of oil into the Gulf of Mexico every single second.
So, this is what we're dealing with, a pipe that's this wide, and it's full of oil and gas coming out into the Gulf of Mexico. And in that video, we're able to look. You see the cloud of oil.
Well, also, there's natural gas coming out. That's that lighter stuff that you see there. And BP officials have been talking. They have been saying that this is -- the type of oil this is, it actually comes out and expands when it hits the water, so it's really hard to gauge just by looking at it how much oil is coming out. Plus, it's mixed with all that natural gas coming out as well. Now, really, the only way we may be able to quantify how much oil is coming out of there is when they actually are able to put that device, that insertion tube that they're working on right now inside that pipe, and they're going to seal that pipe up, and they're going to take that oil up to the surface of the ocean to a containment vessel.
Now, perhaps -- and just guessing here on this part...
SANCHEZ: Yes.
MATTINGLY: ... but everybody's been guessing a lot on this -- but we have a vessel that we know exactly how much oil that vessel holds, so it would stand to reason that once we're able to see how much oil and how fast it's going into that vessel, we might finally be able to quantify how much oil has truly been leaking out of there every single day.
SANCHEZ: Wow. Where is the oil, given the fact it seems to be so much of it that is coming out? Why aren't we seeing more of it on the surface? Why haven't they been able to get down there?
Maybe the most important question of all in all of this -- and maybe it's a question that should have been asked before we got into this -- this fiasco that we're in now -- is, why are we allowing people to drill that deep at 5,000 feet.
And now Chad and I have been talking to each other. He sends me e-mails in the evening, as we both do research on this story.
He says there's some that are about twice as deep as this one.
There's Thad Allen, by the way, he's about to get to -- head to the podium and discuss this, because obviously, he's under orders from his commander in chief to try and clarify what the administration's position is. Here he is.
ALLEN: Good afternoon, I'm Thad Allen, commandant of the United States Coast Guard.
Currently, my role is a national incident commander for the response to the current oil spill, due to the collapse of the drilling unit in the Gulf of Mexico.
To give you an idea of what I have been doing for the last couple of days, I flew down on Thursday from Washington, D.C., to New Orleans, and I took a helicopter out, and I boarded the drill rig that's going to start the second relief well. They are on scene today. They're going to begin preparations for the second well.
As you know, the first well's already been started. It's between 3,000 feet and 4,000 feet between -- below the sea bottom right now. This drill rig will actually start a second well. That's a risk mitigator for the first well, to make sure that we can intercept that well, ultimately relieve the pressure and cap it, which is the ultimate fix for the oil that's coming out and threatening the Gulf. In the meantime, a number of operations are under way to try and mitigate the leakage that is going on right now and actually try and stop that in advance of the relief well.
Two things that are happening today and tomorrow, one is what they call a top hat fix. That's the lowering of a funnel-like structure over the leakage area, collecting the oil, and piping it to the surface.
You will remember, a week or so ago, we tried that with a larger containment structure, and it did not work because of gas mixing with water. Pressure and temperature that created ice crystals or hydrates actually caused it to get buoyant and float away.
What they're trying to do with the top hat solution in the next day or so is to create a pipe that's got a canister sealing around it and fill it full of warm water to keep the pipe warm, so the hydrates won't form.
At the same time, they're going to be injecting methanol underneath the top hat dome itself to try and reduce the buildup of hydrates, not unlike putting antifreeze in a gas line for your car.
At the same time, they're looking at what they're calling a hot tap, trying to take a pipe and put it directly into the marine riser and see if they can't extract the oil that way.
Now, these things are going on in parallel. One could happen before the other, but some time in the next 24 to 48 hours, they will attempt both the top hat and ability to put a pipe right into the marine riser.
Both of those are considered mitigating actions to reduce the leakage, not stop the leakage, because it's not thought that they can do that 100 percent.
In addition to that, there are three other options being pursued. One is the junk shot or the top kill you may have heard about. That's actually using hydraulics and manifold to put a bunch of foreign articles into the blowout preventer to clog it up and actually reduce the pressure of flow.
After that, they would be looking at cutting the marine riser above the blowout preventer, and either putting a valve in that could cap it or another blowout preventer above it that would have the same type of purpose.
So, there are three things going on simultaneously, and all three of those things could occur or each one of those could occur. And that's the junk shot or the top kill shot. The second one is to cut the marine riser and install a valve. The third one would be put a new blowout preventer on.
All three of those or in combination or independently could stop the leak. So, the sequence of events is the top hat, the pipe insertion, the junk shot or the top kill, cut the marine riser, install a valve or a new blowout preventer, so five lines of operations going on simultaneously to try and contain the leak and actually stop the leak.
While that's going on, we're also closing in on the protocols that would be needed to allow application of subsea dispersants at the point of discharge. This doesn't do away with the oil, but it disperses it into the water column, so it has less chance of reaching with the surface, where it's much harder to deal with.
The problem with doing dispersants at this depth is that it's never been done before. We want to make sure we understand the testing protocols and how to track the impacts of dispersants in at that water level and what happens to the suspended oil that never reaches the surface.
We realize the toxicity of the dispersants is much less than the oil, but we want to make sure, going forward, we have actually documented what's going on, and if there's any adverse effect on marine life or the environment, we need to understand that and knowingly make that tradeoff.
We're very close to making that final decision. And that will be based on the recommendation by the national response team in Washington, to Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, and myself, the co-chairs of the national response team.
While we're working on all that, as I said, the ultimate solution to this is going to be the relief wells. One has been started and one will be started very shortly.
In the meantime, we're attacking very vigorously the oil that is on top of the water. In case you're wondering the fate of the oil on top of the water, a couple things happened to it. A good -- good deal of it is evaporated and some of it is absorbed into the water column naturally.
We are using mechanical skimmers. When we have the conditions, we're using in situ burning and we're applying aerial dispersants. Regarding the aerial dispersants, we're approaching or just going over now 500,000 gallons of dispersants used since the start of this response.
While dispersants have been used for many, many years now and we have pre-approval to use them, we have never used dispersants in that amount of volume in the history of spill response in this country. So, in addition to the effect of dispersants on the subsea floor at 5,000 feet, we're concerned about long-term effects of the dispersants that are now in the water column because of the surface applications.
We continue to apply it, again, because the toxicity of the dispersants is less than the toxicity of the oil, but these are not good tradeoffs, and you would rather not have oil on the water at all, because once oil is on the water, nothing good happens.
I will say this. I don't think we are not dealing with a large monolithic slick anymore, because, the oil comes up, and, on some days, the wind will be one direction or the other. It has separated and gone into different directions. And on some days, we're able to attack the oil with in situ burning, dispersants or mechanical skimming.
Because of that, we have a very large perimeter around concentrations of oil with a large amount of water in between where you won't see anything. And I guess the bad news is that's a very large perimeter. The good news it's in smaller quantities, so when it does come ashore, you're not dealing with a very, very large slick that you would have to contend with, and so we're having to manage smaller amounts of oil, but in other locations.
That leads me to the final thing. That's requiring us to have boom almost from central-southwestern Louisiana almost to Pensacola, Florida, either in the water or ready to put into the water. And sooner or later, if we have a mass of the oil because of weather condition that comes ashore, we may have to make tough decisions on reallocation of boom to the places that need it the most.
If you can imagine, we have an enemy out there that's kind of massed, don't know where they are going to strike, so it's, where do you put your forces to respond to that and how do you redeploy them in the most agile, flexible manner possible? And so we will continue to move and do the things we have to do.
I'm here in Biloxi today. I just talked to some of our people that are putting the boom out and maintaining the boom. One of the challenges we have, while the boom is out there, it's subject to the wind and the sea and the wave action. And you actually -- the boom wears out and gets damage, so it has to be tended.
So, while we're waiting for the chance that oil might come ashore, there's actually a maintenance overhead associated with maintaining that boom, and trying to get a sense of a sustainability over the long haul while we wait to see what this oil really does offshore.
I have been in Dauphin Island this morning. And we have reports of some tar balls coming ashore, in -- not only in Mississippi, but in Alabama. We have investigated these. And, in some cases they're not related to the oil spill. This could be due to national -- natural seepage. In some cases, they are. In any case, we respond with a short cleanup assist team called a SCAT. They go out and they make a determination. If a cleanup is needed, they send a team out to do that.
And that's kind of the modus operandi we're using right now. The reason the tar balls may be coming ashore of any -- any other type of slick or oil is, they sink to the bottom, they congeal together, and they kind of roll along with the current, just like seashells might come up on the shore.
And that could be moving in advance of the slick on the surface. So, we're dealing with that as it comes in. But, so far, it has not been substantial.
With that, I would be glad to take any questions you have for me.
QUESTION: We continue to wonder why a less toxic form of dispersant isn't used. "The New York Times" reported this morning that Exxon and BP both have executives on the (INAUDIBLE) board, and they're buying dispersants basically from the oil industry.
And there are less toxic dispersants that work more effectively on Louisiana oil, Dispersit being one of those. Why do we continue to use this Corexit, when there are options that are better at breaking up oil, according to EPA records?
ALLEN: The option on what dispersant we used is not made at a national level. They're required by their response plan to have dispersant available for use.
And we make that the responsibility of the people that have the response plans are supposed to maintain them. We don't direct them to a certain source of supply. If there are issues related to that, we're glad to take a look at it. But we don't directly tell them what they have to use. We establish the effect they're needed to achieve.
But I will -- I will take your question back, and we will get -- we will get an answer to you.
QUESTION: Why keep -- that's what we heard from the EPA the other day, that they would take a look at this. Has anyone taken a look at it and decided maybe somebody else...
(CROSSTALK)
ALLEN: I will -- I will get in touch with Lisa Jackson, and we will give you a statement.
QUESTION: Admiral, can you describe what you have done...
SANCHEZ: Thad Allen coming out and doing some clarification of exactly what the situation is in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course, the problem is, as you heard him, there are still no definitive answers. He says there are four processes that are under way. He talked about the junk shot, which, as ludicrous has it may sound, actually involves taking junk, literally junk, and throwing it at the hole where the oil is, the leak is, and trying to plug it up somehow.
The second avenue now is using a valve to somehow redirect the oil coming out from the leak. And then the third, as you heard him say, is a brand-new blowout preventer, which is the reason we have this leak to begin with, maybe put a brand-new blowout preventer there again.
He also, then, came back to the whole top hat idea, which we thought had been extinguished, still unclear about that. Interestingly, he just said there are 500,000 gallons of dispersants that have now been used in the Gulf. Did you catch that? He said it's the most that's ever been used in the history of these types of operations. And they also said that they have a boom that now reaches from all the way from the Louisiana coastline all the way to Pensacola. This is all very interesting stuff.
Obviously, we are in a situation where we're trying now to deal with what is a fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico. But here's the question. Why did it happen? Did it have to happen? Was somebody not paying attention? Were the companies involved in this, both the oil company and the rig company, were they doing what they were supposed to do, from a maintenance standpoint, from a testing standpoint?
When we come back, I'm going to talk with a man who has worked on oil rigs for years. He says the oil industry routinely lies, yes, lies, about the tests on their equipment that would have prevented something like this spill from happening. You're going to hear him right here when we come back.
You're also seeing some more violence, again, deadly violence, in Thailand, police firing tear gas at the Red Shirts, back and forth. And a reporter today, doing his job, was shot and injured in the middle of the melee.
All this, and a whole lot more on your national conversation. This is your LIST. This is RICK'S LIST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez. I want to bring you up to date on this situation that's going on in the Gulf of Mexico. It seems to get worse every single day. As far as clarity goes, so the American people could even understand the problem, it's just as bad as well. The process, the strategies change on a daily basis, and so far we can assure you that none of them have worked.
In fact, none of them have even come close to working. But then we ask the question about how we got into this mess in the first place, and that's where I bring in my next guest. His name is Mike Mason. He's accused BP of cheating on testing these blowout preventer. Remember, the blowout preventer is that -- that mechanism that, as soon as there is a leak, should, boom, seal the tube that goes through, so it closes it up so that the oil doesn't shoot through.
I know that was kind of a primitive explanation, but it's the best I can do with my hands.
Mr. Mason, thank you, sir, for joining us.
MIKE MASON, ALASKAN FREIGHT HAULER: Good afternoon, Rick. How are you?
SANCHEZ: Fantastic.
What did you do in Alaska that would make you an expert on knowing whether or not companies like BP were following their directives or not? MASON: Well, I worked in the oil industry on the drilling rigs for 27 years up here in Alaska on the North Slope and the Cook Inlet offshore.
SANCHEZ: What do you accuse BP and other companies of not doing that they should have done with these blowout preventers?
MASON: Well, as for state regulations, they're supposed to do an integrity test on the blowout preventers once a week. And they would have a state inspector witness the test at times, but there weren't enough inspectors, so probably about half the time, they would waive the witness and the oil company was left to do it for themselves.
And they were supposed to do pressure up to 5,000 PSI on all of the different valves, rams and other components of the BOPs. And what they would do is -- they were supposed to pressure up on them for five minutes. And what they would with the paper charts that they use, it would kind of like a seismograph-type chart type thing, where the ink pen would go on the paper.
SANCHEZ: Right.
MASON: And -- yes. And what they would do is pressure up for 10, 20, 30 seconds and see that it was holding at 5,000, and they would take their finger and move the chart five minutes, and then they would bleed the pressure off and go on to the next valve by saving time doing that.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: What you are -- what you are -- have just explained to us is dishonest. Essentially, it's what we would normally refer to as cheating.
You're saying they cheated on the tests to make it look like their equipment, these blowout preventers, like the one that's caused this mess in the Gulf of Mexico fact, when in fact they didn't. Did I get any of that wrong?
MASON: No, sir, you did not.
SANCHEZ: So, did you ever bring this to the attention of anyone at the board that certifies these companies that work off the coast of Alaska?
MASON: Yes, I did.
I testified in a deposition on a different lawsuit, and it was brought to the attention of the AOGC and the state regulator commissions in Alaska, and they did do an investigation.
SANCHEZ: And what came of that investigation?
MASON: It was an internal investigation. And a neighbor's drilling manager admitted to falsifying the test and said that BP company reps and other company reps had witnessed this and OKed it and that he was fired because he wouldn't turn any of them in or name names.
SANCHEZ: How often would this happen? Would you say this was an isolated incident that you may have just witnessed because someone got lazy on one or two days? Or would you say that this was a consistent practice?
MASON: Yes, it was a consistent practice. When the state witness was not there, they would do it on a normal -- normal basis.
SANCHEZ: Well, let's suppose the state witness was there. Did you ever get a sense that the witness -- which I imagine, for the sake of clarity, we can call a regulator, right? Did you ever feel like the regulators were kind of knowing this was going on and yet allowing it to happen?
MASON: I have heard instances where, you know, just from somebody saying it that, in the old days, the state regulator -- one state regulator even allowed them to do that. But I can't confirm that.
SANCHEZ: All right.
Now, let's get to the bottom of the problem here, which is, why would they feel that they can get away with something like that? Why would a company that makes, on average, something between $20 billion and $25 billion a year, why would they damage their reputation and their operation and their viability by cheating on these tests that are so important that could create this kind of disaster like we have in the Gulf of Mexico?
Can you explain that to us or at least give us some reference?
MASON: Yes. I would say it's a culture. It's time is money.
And what they would do is, they would do these tests, and they are supposed to last a certain amount of time. Well, of course, they don't when they cheat, so then they would change the books and go on and do other things to be ahead of -- you know, for the next drilling process.
SANCHEZ: But -- but, when they do that, they're creating a situation where neither they nor we know whether that machine is -- has integrity, whether it's going to work if there is, in fact, a disaster like we have seen in the Gulf of Mexico.
It's no different -- I made, Mr. Mason, this analogy yesterday to my viewers. I don't like having to service my car. I don't like having to put in new valves and change all the liquids or whatever the hell the mechanics do to my car. But I know that I have to do it if I'm going to put my children in my car and make sure the brakes don't go out and that they're safe.
I mean, this is just commonsense responsibility. I'm almost bothered I'm having to say this, but it sounds like what you're saying is that they weren't being responsible or safe or using common sense. For the sake of what? MASON: Money. Time is money.
SANCHEZ: Money.
MASON: They...
SANCHEZ: Go on.
MASON: They -- they also cut corners in other areas as far as maintenance. Spills, they hide spills at times, you know, not major ones, but there's been many different incidents in different aspects of the drilling operations that they do this same thing.
SANCHEZ: Wow. Is there -- I know you have another interview to get to, and I want to let you go. My thanks to you, sir, for being courageous enough to go on the air and share this story with us.
Have you gotten a lot of heat since you've been talking about this, being that, you know, you're criticizing one of the biggest corporations in the history of the world?
MASON: No. I live in a remote area, so I really haven't had any yet. I've been -- I was fired in 2006, so basically been oil field- free, as you say, four years. So, it's just coming back because of this incident and, you know, the history of what I testified to.
SANCHEZ: Well, are you, you know, some people are going to be listening to hearing you saying you're fired and he's a fellow upset at the company and he's going to do anything he can to hurt them to get back at them. How would you answer that charge? I'm not saying it's come about yet, but in case it does.
MASON: Well, I expect that from BP, because that's their culture. I expect them fully to try to smear me as much as possible. But I don't do it for that reason. I do it because of the 11 men that died and because of the culture that BP has, the refineries and the 15 people killed there. That's my only concern.
SANCHEZ: It's a hell of an interview and a heck of a thing to share with the American people. Mr. Mason, we thank you, sir, for taking time to come on and share some of these extremely disturbing and revealing facts with us. We appreciate it.
MASON: I appreciate it, too, Rick, thank you.
SANCHEZ: We should tell you, too, that we invited BP to join us, but they say they're declining to comment at this time on this story, noting an investigation of the incident is still ongoing, stop quote.
Meantime, take a look at this --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Monster, monster wet tornado on the ground. Right here. Back up.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't tell where it's moving.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: What's it like to be inside a tornado? We are going to show you some unbelievable video. That is next, right here. This is your national conversation. I'm reading your tweets. This is "RICK'S LIST." We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez coming to you from New York today.
I've got some of the scariest tornado video yet of all those strings of tornadoes that we've been watching coming out of the Midwest, especially Oklahoma. Now, it's in Oklahoma, and they don't call that "tornado alley" for nothing, by the way. Crank up the volume. Watch and listen. Dan, go ahead and show them this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There goes the door.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, it tipped over the van.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need the storm shades. It found me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look at that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here comes the bumper.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We got the horse channel's number? I know we're doing work tomorrow.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That didn't sound good.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That was something on this building.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Looks like a scene out of "The Wizard of Oz," doesn't it? I mean, look at it. This is the plain shot. This is May 10th, and not a good day in tornado alley. Storms killed at least five people in Oklahoma and Kansas, left thousands of families without power.
Was it really a tornado? It almost looks like a straight-line wind, probably not the smartest thing to do standing by a window, right? These guys sound like they're having fun watching the tornado from this window. Tornado predictor said this was one that just came right through and it was indeed one of the many tornadoes that ripped through this area. We'll stay on top of that as well for you.
Meanwhile, take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was clear to us soon after it took place that this simply was just not true. Just the evidence just didn't support the story he had given.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: All right, that guy right there, he's no hero, trust me. He says that he was shot by two black men -- two, not one. Turns out he's a liar. He was lying. So, what happens to him now? I'm going to tell you. That's ahead.
Also, chair versus gun, part of "Fotos" today. But if you think that's cool, wait until you see what I found last night that I'm going to be showing you. This is about a giant shark being eaten by an octopus. I'm not kidding. I have video of a shark -- big, giant shark -- being eaten by an octopus. And I'll give you the story behind it.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I found this one last night. So, let me start with this question. What has eight arms, one beak, and several rows of really sharp teeth? The answer? Let's do "Fotos."
So, there's this aquarium where they have a problem. It seems like fish carcasses are showing up at the bottom of the aquarium. They didn't know what was doing it and suddenly they put a camera out to see if they can capture what is going on.
It turns out -- watch -- it's an octopus. Not only was he just grabbing small fish, he got this huge shark. I mean, took care of him like mincemeat. The shark doesn't even have a chance. Puts him away, wraps him up, then gets ready to gobble him up, and literally walks away with him. Giant shark that you'd think would eat the octopus. No, it's on the other they are way around. The octopus eats the shark. Look at him twitching. Bye-bye, Mr. Shark. Wow. What video.
Also, smoking out a pesky rodent or a shifty suspect -- California officers cornered a bank robbery suspect. The tear gas drove him to his knees. But their solution to one emergency sparked another one. Oh, no. The tear gas, well, it was a hot day, and it started a fire. So they had to call in the -- you understand. It was a calamity without the Jane.
To England now. Patrons at this betting shop in Leeds were wagering on all kinds of things. But the smart money was on rugby. Amateur player Martin Richardson thwarted an armed robbery. He doubled down, the crook pulled it, and the gun turned out to be a fake. He knew when to hold 'em until the police showed up, and then things were taken care of for him.
And you can see all the "Fotos" online, by the way, if you go to my blog at CNN.com/RickSanchez.
More, more of this today -- Thai troops have been firing bullets, mostly rubber bullets, we're told, at anti-government protesters, and explosions rocked the heart of Bangkok. Police are firing tear gas at the protesters, who are getting hit with rocks and homemade rockets. A reporter was even shot. We've got the video.
The red shirt leader was shot by a sniper yesterday. So far at least seven dead today, more than 100 people wounded. Why is it happening? We're going to take you through this story. That's ahead.
SANCHEZ: Also, what's it like when you are nominated as a Supreme Court justice. Well, everyone wants to ask you questions. No, but I mean, what's it like? What's it like to actually walk into those rooms and talk to these people? Are good questions asked? Are any answers given?
This is an experiential, first-person look at what Elena Kagan is going through. Wait until you see this piece. Stick around. It will be worth the wait. Your list comes right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: This is one of those stories that's just so well told. Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez, and this is "RICK'S LIST."
Elena Kagan, as you know, is nominated to be the next potential Supreme Court justice. But what's it like to really walk in her shoes, to go through what she has to go through now, essentially be checked out by all these senators to see if she really fits the bill?
This is a wonderfully put-together story as she meets with some of these senators, and you literally get to go along. The reporter is my colleague, Dana Bash.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DANA BASH: Elena Kagan's very first meeting here in the Senate is in friendly territory. It's right here in the office of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. We're going to follow her.
SEN. HARRY REID, (D-NV) SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: We're grateful that you've agreed to accept this assignment from the president.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Thank you very much.
BASH: Why are liberals so skeptical of you?
Well, we tried to ask a question of Elena Kagan, but didn't get very far. She didn't actually say anything in that meeting, which is not unusual. That's very much the tradition of these meetings. The ritual is that Supreme Court nominees come, they sit, they smile with senators, and don't say a whole lot.
Miss Kagan, how does it feel to be here?
We're now waiting for Elena Kagan's second meeting here in the Capitol, and it's a very different audience. It's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, who just moments ago went on the Senate floor right over there and said that he's worried that President Obama nominated Kagan in order to rubber stamp his policies while on the court.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, (R) SENATE MINORITY LEADER: I know this will be a challenging process to go through. It always is for a lifetime appointment of this consequence.
BASH: Will you reassure the senator you won't be a rubber stamp for Obama policies?
Now, behind that door, the real meeting is taking place. What we saw was just the beginning, and she may not have answered our questions, but one-on-one with the senator without the cameras there is a different story.
How are your meetings so far?
KAGAN: It's been fun.
BASH: Now she's going to meet with the man who is going to be in charge of her confirmation hearings, the Senate judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY, (D) JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Somebody will ask a wild question because that's what they're paid to do but then --
KAGAN: Just ignore it.
LEAHY: Yes.
BASH: How about this question, are you dying to talk?
How important are these meetings today?
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, (R) JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: I think they're important. I think it gives an opportunity to really see the human being behind all the print in the media and the TV hype that's out there, and I look forward to it. I think it is helpful.
BASH: And that's a key point we just heard from the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions, who is having Elena Kagan right now, and that is that these courtesy calls do give senators who will decide her fate an early sense of what questions they will still have later on and ultimately whether they can support her.
Dana Bash, CNN, Capitol Hill.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody went nuts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Pictures never seen before of the night before President Kennedy was shot and killed. That's ahead.
A journalist is shot in the middle of a protest in Thailand. We have got the video. We will show you that and the rest of the chaos there. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. Let me take you to some of the pictures of the unrest in Thailand that we've been following for you since yesterday.
I'm going to get to violence in just a minute, but first, let me give you the background on this situation, because it's so easy sometimes to just look at pictures from other countries without truly understanding what's going on there.
It's about a political party that leans toward the elite. It came to power by military coup, trying to keep law and order while supporters of the former governing party protest in the streets.
Now, let me tell you a story a different way. It's about a party that was put out of office, and instead of respecting the transition of power, they are violently provoking action on the street.
I didn't even mention the king. The king as you heard on this show yesterday is very well-respected but old. And the worry is the prince who would take over in Thailand is just not up to the task.
It's somewhat confusing, but as you look at the pictures you begin to understand what's going on in Bangkok. What's important to understand is that supporters of the ousted government, these red shirts that we've been telling you about, the ones that have been firing and fighting against these troops you see running right there, they've been gathering by the thousands for the past month.
The prime minister gave an ultimatum to vacate this particular intersection. The red shirts disregarded the Wednesday deadline, and the confrontation began.
Yesterday, and we warn you, this is disturbing video, the opposition leader was shot. You see him right there. He was actually shot through the head. The army claims they had nothing to do with it.
Now, today the situation has also gotten increasingly violent. Troops have been firing rubber bullets at protesters and explosions of rock at the heart of Bangkok. Reports of at least eight deaths today and more than 100 people wounded.
And then there was this. What you're looking at there is a journalist, a journalist who was shot covering this story. He's Canadian. They waved something white trying to stop the shooting to no avail. The shooting continues.
They eventually get up and run but they get hit again. Even though they're rubber bullets even from a distance they can certainly cause injury, even death.
A lot going on right now in Thailand. We've been following it for you for the better part of the last 24 to 48 hours. We'll stay on top of this story and keep you updated as the information comes in.
Now look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was clear to us soon after it took place that this simply was just not true. The evidence didn't just support the story he was giving.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: I put him that guy right there on my list that you don't want to be on for lying, making up a story about two black men who shot him. Well now Randi Kaye follows up with what's happened to him. Wait until you find out. That story is ahead right here on "The List."
Also, look at this incredible film not seen for nearly 50 years. That is JFK and his first lady. That video not seen before was shot the night before he was assassinated in Dallas. I'm going to show it to you in just a little bit. Stay there. This is your national conversation. This is your list. This is "RICK'S LIST."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: At the top of the hour, our historical list. Footage never been seen before, President Kennedy in Texas. This is the night before his assassination. This is eight millimeter film, by the way, remember that? It was made nearly 50 years ago.
It's been sitting in a chest of drawers in a Texas home. It's of an impromptu visit from the president and the first lady. You see the first couple. They seated with the mariachis singing right there behind them.
The president turns to the first lady, who knew Spanish, by the way. We're told that she appears to be explaining and translating what's going on behind them at the time.
The very next day on the tour of Texas, it was their fateful trip through Dallas. The owner of the film would like to give it to the National Archives. JFK Presidential Library called the film is called "a national treasure" and would like to include it in their archives. Wow.
Welcome back. Hour two -- time to pick up the pace of today's list for those of you now checking in.
