Return to Transcripts main page
Rick's List
President Obama on the Attack; Tea Party Leader Ousted; Capping the Oil Disaster; Help for the Unemployed; Kicked out of the Tea Party
Aired July 19, 2010 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez. This is RICK'S LIST, your national conversation.
I'm going to dive right head into this battle that is brewing up in Washington. I want you to listen quickly to the president of the United States today speaking. Here he is speaking and -- about extending federal benefits for the millions who are unemployed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Over the past few weeks, a majority of senators have tried, not once, not twice, but three times to extend emergency relief on a temporary basis. Each time a partisan minority in the Senate has used parliamentary maneuvers to block a vote, denying millions of people who are out of work much-needed relief.
These leaders in the Senate who are advancing a misguided notion that emergency relief somehow discourages people from looking for a job should talk to these folks.
That attitude, I think, reflects a lack of faith in the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: A lack of faith in the American people, that's a heck of an accusation to make against his opposition.
Of course, many say it's all but a foregone conclusion, by the way, that Senate Democrats will somehow pass this unemployment extension tomorrow. They will get the vote they need to break the Republican filibuster when Robert Byrd's successor is finally sworn in. Interesting.
In other words, the Senate won't pass the extension because the president told them to. It's simply a matter of numbers.
Point two -- and this is what we're going to talk about a little bit later -- but, first, I want you to listen to Republican Tom Price on this very same thing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. TOM PRICE (R), GEORGIA: Republicans aren't opposed to unemployment insurance. Republicans are opposed to unemployment insurance that's not paid for.
If we're borrowing money from China in order to pay our citizens unemployment coverage, unemployment insurance, that's just wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: So, the Republicans say, sure, they will all -- they're all for not -- helping the unemployed, but what they're also saying is they will refuse to vote for these benefits unless we also cut the budget by an equal amount that's called deficit neutral.
Now, if you add X amount, then you also have to subtract X amount. It doesn't add to the deficit, deficit neutral. Well, that's not the end of the story, because then there's the issue of tax cuts for the more wealthy among us.
Stay right there. The RNC will join us in a few minutes to take us through their reasoning on then -- on this, again, the GOP version of the reasoning behind these decisions that are taking place today in Washington.
And let's take a look at the Dow. How did it end up? Closed up 59 today. We have been watching this throughout the day. Where are we at? Oh, 56. Sorry. I misread that.
And, as we get started, I want to tell you something else. As we begin this next hour, I'm honored to report that we are the news of record for American Forces Network, and we want to welcome all the troops that are watching from overseas.
Here is your national conversation, America.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ (voice-over): Here is what is making your LIST today.
A bold accusation: The president of the United States says Republicans have given up on America.
OBAMA: That attitude reflects a lack of faith.
SANCHEZ: A Tea Party movement leader who sounded racist last week with comments like this --
MARK WILLIAMS, ORGANIZER, TEA PARTY EXPRESS: Racists have their own movement. It's called the NAACP.
SANCHEZ: -- over the weekend, he takes it to a whole new level. Wait until you hear what got him booted.
Vice President Biden nailed for campaign finance violations. What list do you think he's on?
They wear camouflage, patrol the desert, and carry semiautomatic weapons.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There are 11 less illegal aliens in this country thanks to us.
SANCHEZ: They claim they round up illegal immigrants, happy to do it. Their leader? A neo-Nazi.
The lists you need to know about. Who's today's most intriguing? Who's landed on the list you don't want to be on? Who's making news on Twitter? It's why I keep a list.
Pioneering tomorrow's cutting-edge news right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: I know what you want to know.
You want to know, hey, the government capping of the leak in the Gulf of Mexico, did it work or did it not work once and for all?
Rick Sanchez, last Thursday, you said in 48 hours, we're going to know definitively. We're going to know one way or the other, 48 hours passed. Then we got another extension, another 24 hours. You're asking now, well, why did you add those 24 hours? Well, I didn't add it, but the government seemed to. Why did they add it? They think that there might be an issue. What kind of issue? That there might be some kind of seepage somewhere.
Not sure what it is or what it exactly means, but there is something there that is keeping them from saying, this thing is definitively capped, done deal.
Let me bring Chad Myers in real quick.
As we look at this, we still don't really know, right?
CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: No.
SANCHEZ: I mean, there is no definitive here.
MYERS: No.
And Admiral Allen will tell us, we hope, in moments. Obviously, there are some things that have happened. The pressure continues to rise. There has been some seepage or leakage from the ocean floor. What is that? We don't know.
(CROSSTALK)
MYERS: We think it's methane, the gas. It would be the easiest thing to come out.
SANCHEZ: Let's ask Don Van Nieuwenhuise. He's a petroleum expert from the University of Houston, good guy, been with us before. He's joining us once again. Professor, what do you think is going on here? What's with this seepage thing we're hearing about that nobody seems to be able to define?
DONALD VAN NIEUWENHUISE, GEOLOGIST, UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: Well, exactly right now, they can see that they have got methane coming up off the surface, and there's two possibilities for that.
It could be a natural seep, or it could be seepage from a deep leak out of the wellbore. Now, if it was a leak out of the wellbore, they should be able to see the transmission of that or the movement of that oil and gas towards the seepage area with their seismic.
SANCHEZ: What -- why would there be seepage from the wellbore?
VAN NIEUWENHUISE: Well, as we all may remember, the -- there's a couple weak points in the wellbore. One is just below the 18-inch casing point and the other one is below the nine-and-seven-eighths- inch casing. And, also, the pressure that they're seeing in the cap could be strongly indicative of drawdown or depletion, or it could be a leak just below that 18-inch casing.
And it's very hard to tell the difference, except that, if there is a leak, you should be able to see the oil and gas infiltrating into a rock unit at about that level, and they have not seen that.
SANCHEZ: Well, that's good. Well, let -- let's tell our viewers what the danger is here.
Chad, you know, there's a lot of folks speculating that, well, if you keep the pressure on there too long and there really is the sign of a leak, then you could have some kind of catastrophic bust-out from the other side.
MYERS: I suppose.
SANCHEZ: Is that -- is that a real possibility?
MYERS: I -- I think so. I think that's a real possibility, that there could be something.
Doctor, I guess we wanted -- David Mattingly came up with this a little bit ago.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
MYERS: And -- because you and I talked about this.
SANCHEZ: Uh-huh.
MYERS: That BP has said that even if we wanted to hook those lines back up to the blowout preventer or to the cap, it would take three days to vent this pressure off before they could do anything.
What's that about?
SANCHEZ: Hmm.
VAN NIEUWENHUISE: Well, I would like to know myself, but the --
MYERS: OK.
VAN NIEUWENHUISE: Oh.
MYERS: No, that's fine. I'm glad you don't know -- understand either, because we can't figure that one out.
VAN NIEUWENHUISE: Yes, the -- because they do have flow lines that are actually attached. And those flow lines that are now attached could actually produce some of the oil and reduce some of that pressure.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: We're talking about -- by the way, we're talking -- just -- just so the viewers know what we're talking about, you have that up there. Could you show them, Chad, real quick? We're talking about the very top of the new blowout preventer with three or four different cutoffs, right?
MYERS: Yes.
There is a cap up here, and then this is the old blowout preventer that failed. It's right on the surface. There are lines that are attached that go up to ships, or at least I believe they could still go up to ships.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
MYERS: They tried to pump mud down those lines to fill this up with very heavy mud and stop the oil from coming out. That didn't work. Remember, we tried this top kill, they called it.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
MYERS: But what I couldn't understand from David Mattingly and from BP that, OK, there's pressure in this line -- now we know it -- all the way down and it's up to 6,800 PSI. But wouldn't you just like start to crack the valve and let some of that oil out and then almost like a pressure relief valve bring that number down to 6,400 and then let it go?
Maybe not. Maybe there's so much -- does -- Professor, does natural gas fill up on the top because it's lighter and would go up the column? Is that's what's going to happen?
VAN NIEUWENHUISE: Yes. They could get natural gas. But they should be prepared for that natural gas. And they do have a way of flaring that natural gas as it comes.
As you know, we have wells that produce nothing but natural gas. And they have flow lines on that lower marine riser package, as you were pointing out. MYERS: Yes.
VAN NIEUWENHUISE: And those things are there and they're hooked up to the Q4000 and also on the other production facility that they have out there.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Before we let you guys go, by the way, we have just gotten word that the news conference with Thad Allen, the incident commander, is pushed back. It's now going to be at 15 minutes after the hour.
So, about -- we're about seven, eight minutes away from it.
Professor, last question. The possibility, as some people raise it, that there could be some kind of explosion if the pressure builds and that that's a real danger at this point, is it?
VAN NIEUWENHUISE: The real danger is if you hold that pressure for a long period of time, what could happen is, if there is a leak, the leak could get bigger and bigger through time. It appears that if there is a leak, it would be deeper in the well, so the danger of an explosion deep in the well is not as critical as if we had a leak near the surface.
A leak near the surface would be the most critical issue because the confining pressure at that point is very low and therefore the pressure difference in the well is very high, and it would come out with almost explosive-like forces.
SANCHEZ: OK.
Both of you, hang tight. Can you come back to us as soon as we're done hearing or as we begin this news conference? It's starting in six or seven minutes. And maybe -- cross our fingers -- we're --
MYERS: Yes.
SANCHEZ: -- hoping to hear that this thing has been capped definitively and that that situation down under that we were hearing about, the seepage situation, is just a red herring, we hope. We hope.
All right. All that Tea Party movement unity gone with the dismissal of Mark Williams. We have more on this developing story and that incredible blog that led to his downfall, along with reaction from his supporters and detractors.
Also, have you seen the flash flooding in Kentucky? We have got the pictures. We will show them to you.
Stay right there. This is your national conversation. I'm Rick Sanchez. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SANCHEZ: Before we continue with our regular programming, I want to get to a shot of what's going on right now. Thad Allen should be coming out any moment.
And I do believe we have got that shot. Can we -- there it is. As soon as we see Thad Allen come out and stand behind that podium with the other members of the Coast Guard, et cetera, et cetera, and BP, you will hear what they have to say. And we may be moments away from finding out whether there is actually a stoppage of the leak in the Gulf of Mexico or whether that seepage that we have been hearing about over the last 24 hours is more significant than we possibly thought.
All right. We are going to be all over that.
Meanwhile, we call this a list, and every day do something called the roundup list.
First an update on that story out of Utah we have been following for you. Utah's attorney general says he expects to launch a formal investigation into the leak of personal information, information on 1,300 alleged illegal immigrants.
We're talking names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, pregnancy due dates. The leak may involve violations of both state and federal privacy laws in Utah.
Number two: The Federal Elections Commission is fining Vice President Joe Biden's presidential campaign $219,000. The FEC says the vice president's camp accepted $106,000 in contributions that went over the legal limit of $2,300 and they failed to repay a million in over-the-limit contributions. They didn't pay adequately for three people on staff who flew a private plane on -- from New Hampshire to Iowa.
A spokesperson for the vice president says the fine amount is small and common for candidates who run in presidential campaigns.
Also, the U.S. intelligence community has become so large, so unwieldy that it is unmanageable and inefficient. That is the new conclusion of a two-year "Washington Post" investigation. This gets a bit scary. It says that, since 9/11, the intelligence community in the United States has grown and grown with about 10,000 locations in the United States. There you see some of them.
"The Post" estimates 854,000 people hold top-secret security clearance now -- that's a lot -- and adds that no one knows how much money it all costs or even if it's working. "The Post" did leave out top-secret information deemed too sensitive by the intelligence community and they agreed not to put addresses in their story.
A militia group fueled by hate, those are the words of an Arizona sheriff, not me. The Arizona sheriff says they are fueled by hate. He's concerned about a band of self-appointed border patrol agents that are running around his jurisdiction with guns. Brooke Baldwin is looking at who these guys are to see if there's a neo-Nazi link. Stay with us. We will take you through this.
And then the president says that Republicans don't trust unemployed Americans to keep looking for jobs if their unemployment benefits run dry. Well, what do Republicans say about this? And then there's the question of tax cuts. To be continued? You bet you, right here on the list. We're coming right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: There is this big argument that is going on right now in this country, and we have talked about it. It's about aid to the unemployed, to Americans who are out of work and want to collect.
Senate Republicans are holding that up. They're saying that, look, if we as a nation have to give X amount to the unemployed -- in other words, we all reach into our pockets and we give this money to the unemployed -- then we also need to go into the budget and cut that much, so that we could be, you know, deficit neutral.
Well, here's what the president said today. You might say he's trying to call out the GOP on this one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, the same people who didn't have any problems spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are now saying we shouldn't offer relief to middle-class Americans like Jim or Leslie (ph) or Denise (ph) who really need help.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: You know, that's interesting.
I want to bring in Doug Heye. He's the communications director for the Republican National Committee. The president is making an interesting point. And, you know, it's up to you to refute it and for Americans to listen in, but the president is saying, you guys aren't willing to give the unemployed money because you're afraid it's going to increase the deficit, but isn't that exactly what you did during the Bush years, when Republicans decided to give this much of a tax break to Americans? Doesn't that also -- that also cuts into the deficit, doesn't it?
DOUG HEYE, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Well, certainly, when we were in control of Congress, we extended jobless benefits to unemployed Americans. And it's what we want to do again. We have seen the budget deficit -- the debt -- excuse me -- explode over the past --
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Hold on. I just asked you a question and you completely ignored it. So, let me try it again.
The president just said -- oh, darn it. Here goes Thad Allen.
Can you hold on, Doug? Hold on. We will get to you in just a moment. And we will continue this.
Here's -- here's Thad Allen.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
ADMIRAL THAD ALLEN (RET.), NATIONAL INCIDENT COMMANDER: Let me state right away that our priorities are to plug this well, so the number-one priority is to finish these relief wells out. I can talk about that status in a minute.
In the meantime, containment options are our next priority, followed by response to the oil on the water. Over the last several days, we have been watching the pressure in the capping stack that was put on last week. That pressure now sits at 6,811 PSI. It continues to gradually rise several pounds or a pound or so every hour. And that's a positive trend.
As we know, the overall pressure itself was lower than what was expected. That's one of the issues we continue to discuss between our science team and BP as we move forward.
We have agreed that we will go forward with another 24-hour period from today to tomorrow. This is contingent on a reply to a letter that I sent to BP yesterday laying out requests for some extensive information regarding the various aspects of the relief wells' containment the and current operations, including how we are conducting monitoring to make sure there is no seepages or leaks associated with the well integrity tests that would lead us to believe there might be a problem with the wellbore integrity.
That would include vigorous and robust visual monitoring, seismic monitoring, acoustic monitoring with the NOAA vessel that is out there, and also sensors that are already in place, sonar associated with the working of the well itself, hydrophones and so forth.
As a condition of moving forward with the well integrity test, BP is to report to us any anomalies and acts on those within four hours. We continue to work through that process. And I will go over some of the anomalies we have encountered and how we're dealing with them moving forward.
At the same time there has been an interaction with the seismic research vessels and the acoustic research vessels and our need to build out long-term containment. We had talked before the capping stack went on of the need to build capacity out to 60,000 or 80,000 barrels per day by the end of July.
We have necessarily had to make some tradeoffs between allowing the seismic vessels in and finish things like the vertical riser associated with that system. We continue to negotiate with BP right now the best trade-off and how we best want to prioritize our long- term containment as it relates to the well integrity test. Long-term containment is the second goal following the relief wells, as I noted earlier. As I said, we have granted 24 more hours for BP to come back and provide us a response. There will be a science meeting later on this evening in Houston that will take a look at the data and the timelines provided by BP, and we will be assessing that as we move forward through the next 24 hours as well.
Some key things we're working on -- and these have been discussed before -- I will start with the big one related to the pressure being lower than we thought. This has to do with a discussion about whether or not we're dealing with depletion of the reservoir vs. some other reason why that pressure might be lower. The most notable reason for that would be some kind of a leakage in the wellbore itself.
There are different views on how this could come about. There's not a resolution moving forward, but we continue to discuss that. One reason we are continuing to discuss that is, we do have the robust response and the monitoring that's going on as we requested from BP.
There have been three general areas of anomalies that have been detected since the 17th of July. The first one was a seepage about three nautical miles from the wellhead itself. We do not believe that is associated with this particular well integrity test or the Macondo well. However, we are continuing to look at baseline data associated with past activity that's in the area and we will continue to monitor that moving forward.
We also have picked up some anomalies within several hundred meters of the wellhead itself and we are continuing to take a look at that and what that might portend. And, finally, we do have some bubbles that have arisen around the base the legacy blowout preventer. And then late last night, we established that there was some leakage in the capping stack itself.
I have got a picture and a schematic of the capping stack. Let me just tell you right away, because this happened overnight. As you know, we had a connector piece of equipment that we established in to allow us to put the capping stack on. These are the three rams that are associated with the capping stack.
This is a schematic of those three rams. The leakage is occurring in a flange that's located right about here. And there is hydrate formation up here on this side of the capping stack as we move forward. We do not know, but we do not believe this is consequential at this time, nor does it appear that the hydrate formation is inhibiting any operation of the capping stack.
This is something we will continue to monitor as we move forward. So, we have the things that we're seeing right around the blowout preventer and the capping stack itself. There are a couple anomalies that have been detected within 100 to 200 meters around the well itself, and then the anomaly was detected on the 17th of July out to three kilometers.
Again, there is no indication at this time that this is any indication of a significant problem in the wellbore, but we are running every one of these anomalies down. One of the reasons we're starting to find these, most likely, is that during the time that the well was open, it would be impossible to get those sensors in there and detect it with all the amount of hydrocarbons and noise that was being generated.
So, we had the opportunity to see in a very quiet environment what the bottom of the ocean looks like there. And some of these conditions should be preexisting, and trying to sort this out as something we're dealing. But it is the collective opinion of the folks that are talking about this that the small seepages we are finding right now do not present at least at this point any indication that there is a threat to the wellbore.
If we think that was going to happen, we would be taking immediate action. Now, having said that, if there is any indication of a precipitous drop in pressure or any reason why we might need to do something about it, we would need to have to vent immediately to let -- relieve the pressure on the well and move to longer-term containment.
And one of the requests that we have made to BP -- and they will be answering in a letter we will get today -- is a detailed timeline of what it would take to restart containment operations should we need to do that. And this is -- gets a little more complicated than it would appear, because, with the capping stack being shut down for the time that it has been, we would have to, first of all, lower pressure and create the conditions to be able to bring the Q4000 and the Helix Producer back online.
This could take several days because there's concerns about sand buildup in the oil column and the need to maybe make sure we treat these systems and get them operational before we bring the production back online.
That said, we have asked for a detailed timeline on the interaction between the seismic testing, the acoustic testing, long- term containment, so we understand the interaction of the sensors that are out there right now and our need to continue to build out long- term containment as we move forward.
And, with that, I would be glad to take your questions.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) with CNN.
You mentioned that the pressure (OFF-MIKE) you anticipated, and that there was some depletion -- whether --
ALLEN: No.
QUESTION: There is a disagreement as to whether it is a depletion at the reservoir or leakage elsewhere and that there are differing views on this.
Are differing views -- is there a federal government camp and a BP camp? Is there a way to describe this? Or are there differing views throughout all parties here? ALLEN: Well, I think there are differing views between everybody in the science community.
And let me make sure I state this correctly, because this was the initial pressures when the well was shut in. The pressures have continued to rise in a way that would lead some to believe that the well is holding pressure. The problem is, the pressure we started at was much lower than we thought we were going to be when the well was shut in.
So, that leads to the discussion of, why was the pressure low to begin with? We were thinking that somehow it needed to be around 7,500 or 8,000 PSI, and we started out around 6,000, and we're up to 6,000 and change. We're up to 6,811 today.
So, the question is, what caused that initial low pressure? Even though it's following a pattern that is consistent with a well with integrity, what has happened, and could there be leakage? Or is there an issue of well depletion? And there are arguments to be made on both sides.
And those discussions continue. And we're trying to develop information that will allow us to do that. One of them is whether or not the well has been depleted and there is just less oil down there to create pressure, or is there an aquifer somehow related to this oil field that would still provide a way for the oil to rise and have pressure underneath it?
So the question whether or not this oil field is related to an aquifer is one of the questions they're dealing with right now. And that gets back to the seismology and the geology around the area and the testing, and that continues to be under discussion as we move forward.
QUESTION: Could you also elaborate a little bit on the seepages? You found this one three nautical miles from the wellhead.
ALLEN: Three kilometers.
QUESTION: Three kilometers -- and one closer in. I presume that all of these are hydrocarbons. Do you know what is seeping out? Is the one closer in believed to be related to this oil field? And how did you detect it? And do you know what type of volumes --
(CROSSTALK)
ALLEN: Yes. The reason we're looking -- what we're actually looking for in this case would be methane gas, which is -- that is sometimes a precursor to oil actually rising up through the formation.
So, if it is methane, and you can establish that it is that, that would be an indication you might need to look further. There is some indication that the seepage three kilometers away may not be related to this well. And we're going back through background data and taking a look at that. The only thing we're doing is, in closer to the well, we're actually taking samples of the gas itself and testing it for if there are any hydrocarbons in it. There was some trace of methane in some of the gas that was coming out near the base of the blowout preventer, not a lot.
But we're taking extra samples, and we're sending those ashore to be tested right now.
SANCHEZ: So, here's the news.
Another 24 hours is going to be -- is going to -- they're going to have to go through another 24 hours before they can have any kind of definitive information. They have got some findings. They're going to be taking those findings back to Houston.
Speaking of Houston, Professor Van Nieuwenhuise is joining us now once again.
You know, it's interesting. I heard him talking about two interesting things, some kind of leakage just right at the capping stack. And he actually showed us that. He pointed to that little place there on that thing.
We'll turn that sound around in just a little bit. And then he is also talking about taking some of the data about the methane gas.
Chad, I don't know if you heard him talk about this as well.
It almost sounds like there's a little bit of a leakage and then a seepage.
Did I hear him wrong, Professor?
NIEUWENHUISE: Oh, yes. I think you heard him correctly.
They think that the one that's far away has nothing to do with this well. They're wondering if the one that's within a couple hundred yards happens to be related to the well. And then, also, the one at the cap of course is related to the well for sure.
SANCHEZ: So there's one right there at the cap.
NIEUWENHUISE: Right.
SANCHEZ: And that can't be too serious, because when we look at pictures -- we've got live pictures, we're looking at it now -- you don't see any oil coming out, right?
(CROSSTALK)
NIEUWENHUISE: No. And of course he said he didn't think at this point in time any of those are serious, and there is a good chance that none of them will become serious.
SANCHEZ: And then he talked about the other one, but he said that seepage "is not a threat." He said not a threat. That makes me feel pretty good.
NIEUWENHUISE: Right.
SANCHEZ: Chad, did you hear anything there that -- other than the fact that we're going to wait another 24 hours to make sure everything is good, take it back to the experts at Houston, experts like Professor Nieuwenhuise? Did you hear anything there? Are you looking at your notes?
CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: You know, I did hear him say that it might be a couple days before production goes back on line because there may be sand in the column. We addressed that.
SANCHEZ: What does that mean?
MYERS: Doctor?
SANCHEZ: Well, you know what was interesting? He said at one point we don't know if it's an aquifer or maybe the fact that we've just finally depleted some of the oil in that area. You know, when I heard him say that I said, "Wow, has all the oil that was in that area actually gone out already?"
Is that what he is suggesting?
NIEUWENHUISE: Yes. What normally happens, if I can answer, is that when you draw down pressure from that high flow, you end up getting a considerable drawdown on the pressure, and it's like a vacuum in the wellbore. And it essentially sucks in all the oil, and it actually starts to deplete the oil supply around the wellbore. And, of course, in the far reaches of the reservoir the pressure is still high, and it takes a while for that pressure to transmit from the edges to the wellbore, itself.
So it takes a while for it to build back up.
SANCHEZ: David Mattingly standing by as well.
David, let me bring you into this conversation. We're here with Professor Van Nieuwenhuise, and, of course, Chad. We've been at this for such a long time.
David, is it starting to feel to you out there covering this story like if we're not at the end, we're getting close to the end?
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We're definitely in the end game right now, Rick. I mean, every day that goes by, they try to build up just a little bit more confidence that the course of action they've taken with this well is the right one.
So far, they're not seeing anything that tells them oh, we're going to have to open this well back up. Even though they're getting prepared for that just in case, at this point they're not seeing anything bad enough to tell them that they've taken a wrong step here. So that in itself is very good news. But you keep hearing Admiral Allen saying the end of this well is that relief well. That's what's going to kill this. Everything they're looking at right now is just temporary.
SANCHEZ: Yes, but Chad raised an interesting question. And I'll let him raise it to you, because we talked about this earlier, and I just heard Thad Allen suggest that they're getting ready for that eventuality, and that is that they'd have to start the containment again.
Right? That they somehow need to open something up?
MYERS: Well, David brought this up. That's where I got the question from, was that it could take three days to open it up to get it back on line, get the Helix Producer back on line, to get the Q4000 back on line.
And David, you heard it, right?
MATTINGLY: Right.
SANCHEZ: Why? Why three days?
MATTINGLY: You've got 6,800 pounds of pressure built up in there right now.
SANCHEZ: Why three days?
MATTINGLY: You've got 6,800 pounds of pressure built up in there right now. It's going to take then a while. They're going to have to vent that out, and then it takes them a while to get everything hooked back up and get those things on the surface working again.
Remember how long it took them to get everything working before they started this? They're going to have to start that process again.
A lot of those ships are not even in the immediate vicinity at the moment to get them into that 80,000 barrel range. They've had to keep some of those vessels on the perimeter, and sort of waiting because they didn't want any traffic in there while they're conducting all this seismic testing to keep an eye on this well.
So, it's just going to take some time. This is a big operation.
You keep hearing Thad Allen talking about how there is a lot of moving parts. There are some huge moving parts on the surface of the ocean up there that they've got to get just in the right place, and to work just in concert with each other to make sure everything works efficiently.
MYERS: Professor, hey, it's Chad. I have a question for you.
SANCHEZ: By the way, just one quick thing, Chad. We are not saying, for those of you just -- I know sometimes you guys get home around this time. You just got home from work and you're hearing David Mattingly sound like he's reporting that they're going to have to redo containment and get all these -- we're not saying that's going to happen. We're saying that's a possibility that they don't want to exclude.
There is still a chance that within 24 hours, they'll say this thing is capped well enough, we're going to trust it, we're going to wait until the relief well is done, and they won't have to let any more oil out. Just wanted to get that on the record.
Go ahead.
MYERS: I just have a random question from, you know, thinking about 48 days ago. Why don't we do a top kill now? We have the oil stopped. Why don't we just pump all that heavy mud in we tried the first time?
NIEUWENHUISE: Yes. One of the reasons why they don't want to do that is because that would be very difficult, again, because they're pushing against that 6,800 PSI at the top now. And obviously one thing that I learned in this conference was that the flow lines that they do have connected cannot withstand 6,800 PSI.
MYERS: Ah-ha.
NIEUWENHUISE: And therefore, they couldn't do what you just said because the pipes would not be able to handle that kind of pressure. And so they're going to have to relieve some of the pressure before they can start flowing on those lines that are already connected. And that answers a question that I had about the equipment they had in place.
SANCHEZ: David Mattingly has been doing yeoman's work out there following this development from the source. Professor Van Nieuwenhuise has always been there for expert information. And Chad has been taking us along every step of the way on this thing.
Well, look, guys, it sounds like we've got another 24-hour wait and then we'll have to reassess and see where we are. But I'll tell you, I don't know if you guys disagree, but everything to me sounds like they're saying the right things for us to remain optimistic.
MYERS: The oil stopped.
SANCHEZ: So we're good.
Professor, we're good?
NIEUWENHUISE: Yes. Yes.
SANCHEZ: David, good?
MATTINGLY: I'd give it a thumbs up so far, Rick.
SANCHEZ: OK. We'll wait and see what the really smart guys there at Houston like the professor come out with as they look at this data. If we get any numbers on that we'll share it with you. Meantime, when we come back, the president of the United States came out today all fired up, and he's basically saying to Republicans, you guys are complaining that we're going to bring the deficit up if we give the benefits to the unemployed in the United States, but you don't complain when the deficit goes up when you give tax cuts to the wealthy Americans. You can't have it both ways.
That's what the president says. That's his accusations.
When we come back, I'm going to ask that question. I'm going to ask Doug Heye if he follows that logic and what the response is to the president from the GOP. That's why we have him here. That's why we have a national conversation.
This is your list. I'm Rick Sanchez.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right. Let me set this up again.
And Doug, I apologize for saying that you're ignoring my questions before the Thad Allen thing, because there is a very good chance that I may not have been very artful in my asking of the question. So allow me to take that back on myself, not on you.
DOUG HEYE, RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Sure.
SANCHEZ: The president of the United States -- it's like two guys arguing on a golf course. It was not a bogey.
Anyway, the president of the United States is essentially saying to you, as a Republican, look, why is it you guys complain about us increasing the deficit when we're talking about the unemployment benefits of regular Americans, but you don't complain about increasing the deficit when you're talking about tax cuts for very wealthy Americans?
That's his question. What's your answer?
HEYE: Well, two things.
One, Republicans have always been very concerned about the deficit and the debt. It's something that we complained about a lot even when we were in power.
But the other thing is Republicans believe that tax cuts create more money, create more wealth. Not just for taxpayers, but it means that more money is going into the Treasury, and certainly --
SANCHEZ: But it didn't.
HEYE: -- from 2000 to 2008, we saw more money going into the Treasury. SANCHEZ: Well, but hold on, man. I've got to tell you, 2008 was a disaster. It was the closest this country has ever come to a meltdown. It was the closest we've ever seen to a depression in this country, and some people will argue that it was a direct result of the type of economy we had during that "lost decade."
HEYE: Well, you know, I don't know about a lost decade, but one thing I would point out, Democrats conveniently forget this, that in 2006 -- and I can tell you, working a Senate campaign in 2006, I was on the receiving end of that Democratic wave -- Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were put in power in 2006. So, for the last two years of the Bush presidency, when he was already a lame duck president, you had Democrats in control, and that's a reality that Barack Obama doesn't really ever seem to acknowledge.
Having watched the remarks --
SANCHEZ: But is it possible, Doug, that both parties are wrong? Look, as far as I'm concerned, if my wife and I sit down, and this is where our budget is -- right? -- if we spend above that pencil line, then we're in deficit. If we give away money for things that we can't afford, then we're also above that deficit line.
Whether you give a tax cut or increased spending, you're basically increasing the deficit either way. So I guess the point I'm making is Democrats maybe need to stop spending so much and Republicans need to come to terms that at some point we might either have to stop giving tax cuts or actually even increase taxes.
Or am I crazy?
HEYE: Well, I certainly don't think you're crazy, Rick. Come on.
But I'll tell you, as a Republican, I tend to think that tax increases really represent a bailout for the government. The government spends too much money, and then it has to bail itself out from my wallet and your wallet and wallets throughout this country. And that's a problem.
Another problem is the fact that the Democrats don't have a budget and they don't plan on having a budget. And even though we have a Budget Committee in the House and the Senate, Democrats aren't doing anything about the budget.
And, again, you know, you look at Obama's event today, we know that the bill is probably going to pass tomorrow. So this was just a naked appeal for crass politics.
The president said that there are times when elections should be put aside. But the last time you and I talked, he was in Missouri raising money for a Democrat candidate, attacking Republicans again.
SANCHEZ: There's certainly a lot of --
HEYE: His vice president Joe Biden -- our vice president, Joe Biden, is on the campaign trail today. So, if we're going to put elections aside, the president needs to stand up and say when he is going to do that.
We've had 187 political events from the president and the vice president. If we're going to put elections aside, that is how we start doing it. Maybe the president should cancel his fund-raiser with Alexi Giannoulias if we're going to talk about fat-cat, Wall Street-type bankers. Then the first thing you ought to do is cancel a fund-raiser with a fat-cat banker like Alexi Giannoulias who cost us hundreds of millions of dollars.
This administration is tone deaf.
SANCHEZ: But the problem is the Republicans have in fact filibustered the unemployment benefits. I mean, that's on the record, that you've -- and a lot of Americans out there have heard some Republicans, not all, but some Republicans, say that the folks out there who are collecting unemployment are lazy, or the suggestion of that.
Is that the kind of language you want to be using from the party who hasn't been afraid to give tax cuts to wealthy Americans who are doing pretty darned good?
HEYE: Well, one would want to give tax cuts to all Americans, but certainly that kind of language that anybody is lazy is something that we would never use here. I know my friends in the House and Senate who I talk to every day about this don't use that.
There is a real problem. It's not just unemployment.
You know, we focus on unemployment every day. Record high unemployment in Nevada yet again. But it's also the underemployment rate.
So many people in America have stopped looking for jobs. They've stopped looking for work and they've given up on that key Obama word that he promised all of us, and that word is "hope."
SANCHEZ: Yes. Well, we're still -- well, we're pretty close to double-digit unemployment in this country, and it's something we all were told we're just going to have to deal with as we go through this situation.
HEYE: Well, Rick, keep in mind we were promised that if we passed the stimulus bill, that -- we now have signs touting our government spending all over the country -- if we passed the stimulus bill, unemployment was going to be at what, 8.5 percent? It's not there.
SANCHEZ: Well, no. We were told it wouldn't reach double digits. And so far it hasn't reached double digits, although there is still a possibility it might.
We'll continue to follow it.
Hey, Doug, enjoyed the conversation. Thanks for being patient.
HEYE: Always.
SANCHEZ: It's always that you have news breaking in the middle of news, so we cover it as best we can. We'll talk again. Appreciate your time.
HEYE: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: All right.
We'll be right back. Stay with us.
This is your national conversation, and THE LIST scrolls on.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Wolf Blitzer is joining us now to bring us up to date on what he is going to be talking about at 5:00.
There seems to be a lot of news out there on this day, this --
(CROSSTALK)
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: It's big news.
SANCHEZ: -- between some members of the Tea Party and the news on what's going on in the Gulf of Mexico.
Which is your favorite part of this today?
BLITZER: Well, the news -- the most important news involves what's happening in the Gulf of Mexico right now. This is another critical day.
You just heard Thad Allen, the national incident commander, right in this hour, on your show, announce they're going to go through another 24 hours of testing. Carol Browner, the president's energy adviser, she's going to be joining us to -- I'm going to try to press her on some of the specifics -- the methane gas, the bubbles, some of the seepage. What does that mean? What doesn't it mean?
We're also going to get into this whole issue of the moratorium on deepwater drilling, because you know a lot of folks in the Gulf of Mexico and Louisiana and Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, they're very worried that they're going to be losing their jobs long term if this moratorium continues for many more months. Some of those oil rigs are already being moved to Nigeria and elsewhere. They're afraid they'll never come back.
So, this is a serious issue I want to get into with her as well.
SANCHEZ: To hear Thad Allen speak, I don't know what your impression was, but you can usually get a pretty good feel when you hear somebody describing something. It seems to me that they're being overtly cautious, almost like checking every little -- crossing every potential T and dotting every potential I. Does it not?
BLITZER: Yes. Absolutely, as they should be, because these are really uncharted territories that they're going into right now.
They don't know what putting this cap on is eventually going to mean. It might work for three, four, five, six days, but after a week or two, who knows what the consequences will be? So they want to be very careful.
They don't want to declare victory, "Mission Accomplished," until they know for sure that that well has been killed. And they won't know for sure until those relief wells are completed by early-to-mid August, when they're hoping to complete them.
So these are really touch-and-go moments for all of us right now, and the stakes, as you know, Rick, are enormous.
SANCHEZ: Yes. It's an interesting story to follow. I'm so glad we've got some folks here who have been able to take us through it.
My colleague and the host of "THE SITUATION ROOM," Wolf Blitzer.
Look forward to seeing you, Wolf. Take care.
BLITZER: Looking forward to Thursday night, when you start at 8:00 as well, 8:00 p.m. Eastern in prime time, THE LIST with Rick.
We'll be watching.
SANCHEZ: That's nice. Yes. RICK'S LIST in prime time. I didn't know you noticed.
I always appreciate it, Wolf. We'll look forward to catching up with you once again.
Meanwhile, a defiant Mark Williams took on the NAACP and he lost. We're going to break down all of the offensive moves that led to his downfall. And what's happened now is there's a rift in the Tea Party itself as a result of what he said.
We're going to explain all of this to you. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All kinds of people like to watch RICK'S LIST, and one of those that we take pride in being one of our viewers is Gladys Valley (ph).
You see her right there on the right? You know how old Gladys is? She's 99 years old. And she is kicking, baby. She is doing just fine.
Say hi, Gladys (ph).
GLADYS VALLEY (ph), VIEWER: Hi.
SANCHEZ: Look at her -- spunky, ready to go.
We're so glad you're here, Gladys (ph). God bless you.
Ninety-nine years old.
All right. I want to close with this.
There are those who take an argument and carefully argue their point while respecting the other side. Then there are those who decide the only way to win an argument is to use a bludgeoning tool.
I'm about to take you through the elements of the Tea Party movement versus the NAACP debate. And because the character at the center of this debate has been such a provocateur, he finds himself on "The List U Don't Want 2 Be On."
You know the background, right? After seeing images like these with people holding fake monkeys at Tea Party events and showing signs of the president dressed up as an African voodoo doctor, and having black lawmakers called the N-word, African-Americans became offended enough to pass a resolution asking the Tea Party movement to control racist elements within its ranks, which is what Memphis Tea Party founder Mark Skoda artfully dealt with on our newscast last weekend.
Artfully. Here, watch for yourself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK SKODA, MEMPHIS TEA PARTY FOUNDER: We have repudiated racism at every chance. We have gone on record and stated unequivocally that we're against any form of racism or derogatory conversations relative to violence or ostracizing people. And I have personally talked to people when I have seen signs that I deem offensive to just take them away.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: And end of argument, right? The debate continued though on other CNN shows.
This caught my eye when I saw Roland Martin on TV. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I debated a Tea Party leader from Memphis on Rick Sanchez' show, and he did exactly what needs to be done. And that is to say that when people who bring these racist signs, when they hurl these epithets, we tell them we do not want you here. He even said that he has told people, you need to get away, this is not what we are about.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: So, but then things changed. What set Roland off and others?
For that answer, you have to go to another CNN show. I was just talking to him, Wolf Blitzer, "SITUATION ROOM."
Did you see this contentious debate? Here, instead of taking part in a reasoned debate, a Tea Party movement leader uses the opportunity to pour gasoline on the argument. And while he's at it, he ridicules not some members of the NAACP, but the entire organization.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK WILLIAM'S, TEA PARTY EXPRESS SPOKESMAN: That's a real mouthful coming from a guy with -- from an organization with the words "colored people" in its title. The Tea Party --
BLITZER: Let me interrupt for a second. What does that have to do, one thing with the other thing?
WILLIAMS: That's a pretty racist phrase. I was taught as a small child to not use those terms.
But the Tea Parties themselves --
MARTIN: You're basing your whole argument on that word? Trust me, you're --
WILLIAMS: No.
MARTIN: -- you need to know the reality of the historic nature of the organization. So, come on. Don't base your argument on that. That's weak.
WILLIAMS: And that's part of the problem. The NAACP is a bunch of old dusty relics trying to be relevant in the 21st century.
MARTIN: Not true.
WILLIAMS: And they make money off of race-baiting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Ouch. That's Mark Williams. He is just getting started.
Listen to what else he goes on to say here about the NAACP.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: Racists have their own movement. It's called the NAACP.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: "Racists have their own movement. It's called the NAACP."
Did you hear that? He just called the entire NAACP racist.
Did that get him reprimanded? Nope. That didn't happen until over the weekend.
Why? Because he went even further.
On Friday, it was reported that he posted a blog describing a fictitious letter to Abraham Lincoln from the NAACP. It reads, "Dear Mr. Lincoln, We coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us colored people and we demand that it stop."
You think that's it? No. He continued writing the following: "Perhaps the most racist point of all in the Tea Party is their demand that the government stop raising our taxes. That is outrageous," he writes. "How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn?"
Those are the words of Mark Williams, who insists neither he nor the Tea Party movement is racist. In fact, he says those words were satire, essentially saying he was just kidding.
Mark Williams used to be the spokesperson for the Tea Party Express. Over the weekend, he was kicked out and landed instead, to no one's surprise, on this list, "The List U Don't Want 2 Be On."
I want to show you something now. We're looking ahead to tomorrow, aside from the fact that Wolf mentioned we're going to be doing a show at 8:00.
What does Wachovia Bank have in common with the Mexican drug cartel? Now, those are two really different pictures that we just showed right there. Right?
Well, they actually have a lot to do with it. There is a lot being written these days about banks in the United States and where their interests really are. This is a story that turns that argument on its head.
It turns out Wachovia, according to published reports, may have been involved in laundered drug money for some of the Mexican drug cartels.
We're going to drill down on how that happened and why the bank has agreed to pay the U.S. government millions of dollars in penalties. We're following the money for you here on RICK'S LIST.
Before we do anything else, I want Gladys (ph) now to be the one who says, "Wolf Blitzer, to you."
You ready, Gladys (ph)? I want you to say, "Take it away, Wolf."
Go. Gladys (ph), are you there? Say, "Take it away, Wolf."
VALLEY: Take it away, Wolf.
SANCHEZ: You got it. Thank you very much.
