[A sequel to our article,
"The Mystery of BP's Deepwater Horizon"]

By: S.R. Shearer

President Obama, Deep Water Horizon and Generals Petraeus, Odierno and McChrystal


In recent weeks there has been growing evidence of secret collusion between the White House and BP; much of this evidence centers around the effort by both the White House and BP to limit information regarding the MASSIVE extent of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. For example, Jeremy Peters of The New York Times reports that when the operators of Southern Seaplane in Belle Chasse, La., called the local Coast Guard-Federal Aviation Administration command center for permission to fly over restricted airspace in the Gulf of Mexico, they made what they thought was a simple and routine request: A pilot wanted to take a photographer from The Times-Picayune of New Orleans to snap photographs of the oil slicks blackening the water. The response from a BP contractor who answered the phone late last month at the command center was swift and absolute: Permission denied.

Southern Seaplane

Rhonda Panepinto, the wife of the owner of Southern Seaplane recalls that -

"We were questioned extensively. Who was on the aircraft? Who did they work for? The minute we mentioned media, the answer was: 'Not allowed'. "

Journalists struggling to document the impact of the oil rig explosion have repeatedly found themselves turned away from public areas affected by the spill, and not only by BP and its contractors, but by local law enforcement, the Coast Guard and government officials.

Peters quotes Representative Edward J. Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts who fought BP to release more video from the underwater rovers that have been filming the oil spill, as saying: "I think they've been trying to limit access for some strange reason," implying that there were deeper reasons behind the effort of both the White House and BP to limit public access on what's going on.

Journalist Karl Burkart writes:

"Contacts in Louisiana have given me numerous, unconfirmed reports of cameras and cell phones being confiscated, scientists with monitoring equipment being turned away, and local reporters blocked from access to public lands impacted by the oil spill. But today CBS News got it on video, along with a bone-chilling statement by a Coast Guard official: 'These are BP's rules. These are not our rules'."


CBS being denied access to the spill


Peters continues:

"Scientists, too, have complained about the trickle of information that has emerged from BP and government sources. Three weeks passed, for instance, from the time the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on April 20 and the first images of oil gushing from an underwater pipe were released by BP."


But beyond these somewhat "understandable" PR reasons for limiting information regarding the oil leak to the media, there seemed to be something else; a more sinister reason that goes far beyond anything having to do with normal "cover-your-ass" PR reasons linking BP's drilling operations in the Gulf to, for instance, hefty campaign contributions from BP to the Obama presidential campaign of 2008; and that is this: That BP was "willy-nilly" testing a theory concerning something called ABIOTIC science - that oil is produced inside the Earth and is not simply the result of rotting dinosaurs and old plants (aka "fossil" fuel). If this is true, then it could be fairly said that what BP was attempting to "tap into" was an ocean of oil that is probably as large as the Gulf itself.

NOTE: ABIOTIC science postulates that the oil under the Gulf of Mexico didn't appear because it was a giant dinosaur graveyard. It was not a prehistoric jungle 20 miles high and 500 miles wide. This oil is abiotic and is produced by geological actions in the earth itself. The theory of Abiotic oil hypothesizes that oil is created by intense pressures on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and sulphur. The sort of pressures required to create oil are natural as one gets down to a certain depth under the heavy crust and in the upper layers of the mantle. In some ways oil is the natural lubrication system for the crust and the upper layers of the mantle as it shifts and orbits the planet's core.

These underground oil oceans are under far more pressure than their ground well brethren and contain much more oil. At the depth of the Deepwater Horizon well, one mile under the sea, the per inch pressure is 2640 pounds per square inch, and heaven only knows the amount of pressure this oil is under 5-6 miles below the sea bed where the oil is actually located. The odds are the Gulf's underground oil ocean exists between 15,000 and 30,000 psi at all points. Unfortunately, today's oil equipment is not made to handle the upper end of this pressure spectrum. So caps blow off, plugs fail AND ALMOST NOTHING CAN STEM THE FLOW OF OIL NOW SPILLING INTO THE GULF OF MEXICO.

One should take note of the fact that there are areas where abiotic oil is close to the surface and can be safely "tapped into," such as Ghawar in Saudi Arabia; but none of these areas are easily accessible to the U.S.

NOTE: What all this suggests is that the two relief wells now being drilled by BP in the Gulf are probably not a good idea, because unlike a ground well this may not "divide" the pressure and create 3 wells with manageable 5,000 psi flows. In fact, depending on the size of this ocean of oil, twenty or thirty relief wells might still only bring the psi down to 10,000! So the relief wells may just create 3 leaks where there was one before.

It's in connection with all this, that rumors are flying in both far-right and far-left circles that the catastrophe in the Gulf can be tied to a "wink-wink, nod-nod" understanding between BP and the White House to test the theory of ABIOTIC oil by tapping into a reservoir of oil in the Gulf of Mexico that hitherto had been too deep to get at.

It's here that we must differentiate between the two schools of ABIOTIC oil theory: The hard-liners and the soft-liners; the hard-liners are of the belief that it would be extremely dangerous to tap into a reservoir of abiotic oil that is in the depths of the ocean because of the pressure the oil is under – pressure that could not be controlled by today's technology; soft-liners believe that there are pools of abiotic oil in the ocean that can be safely tapped into. Then, of course, there are those who feel that the oil reservoir under the Gulf of Mexico is just another pool of oil generated by dinosaurs (i.e., the "fossil fuel" theory).


Most scientists at BP (as do most geologists everywhere) "buy into" the theory that the oil reservoir under the Gulf is just another fossil fuel pool of oil; then there are those who harbor the thought that even if the oil under the Gulf is abiotic, it is still safe to drill into because the inflow of oil into the pool is not so high that if anything does go wrong, relief wells could relieve the pressure on the well-head (see note above on abiotic oil).

Atlantis - the sister platform of Deepwater Horizon - is the world's deepest moored semi-submersible platform. Considered one of BP's most technically challenging projects ever, the Atlantis platform is currently the deepest moored floating dual oil and gas production facility in the world, and weighing in at 58,700t, it is also one of the largest. The platform is located 190 miles south of New Orleans in 7,070ft (2,150m) of water.

However, there are some few at BP who have cautioned against drilling into this pool of oil: That it would unleash a monster that could not be contained by today's technology; that no amount of relief wells could reduce the pressure on the well-head. Moreover, there is some indication that a heated discussion had broken out on the rig a few days prior to the disaster – and that the dispute had very little to do with safety issues per se as it did with the fact that there were growing indications from pressure readings that Deepwater Horizon was drilling into a massive pressure-cooker, and that Deepwater Horizon would not be able to manage the pressure no matter what safety precautions were taken.


Two rigs were specifically developed by BP to attempt to reach this bonanza: Deepwater Horizon and Atlantis. Both rigs began actual drilling operations in the Gulf about a year ago, and there can be no doubt that the White House was well aware of what BP was up to in these endeavors. Indeed, it appears that the Obama Administration was so "into" what BP was trying to do that it issued permits allowing BP to skirt normal safety concerns.

To say, as some are attempting to do, that those in the White House were not aware of the gamble that BP was taking is just plain stupid, and very, very naοve; this is not to say, however, that the White House distinctly approved the gamble, it's only to say that there was – as we stated earlier - a "wink-wink, nod-nod" agreement between the two.

NOTE: Sadly, at least for BP, the "wink-wink, nod-nod" basis of the agreement that BP had with the White House has now permitted the White House to lay all the blame for the oil spill on BP and cast it to the wind – "Chicago-style."


The fact is, the Obama Administration saw in the BP effort to tap into this pool of oil a chance to secure America's oil requirements on an ad infinitum, ad nauseum basis – forever freeing the U.S. from dependence on Central Asian or Middle Eastern oil. SDAI-TECH1 reports:

"Once this reservoir is tapped, the political and military dynamics under which the U.S. is presently operating change forever. By tapping oil here in our own waters we no longer need Saudi Arabia's or Iraq's oil."

It's in this connection that we should note the fact that Obama and those who surround him are deeply and very earnestly committed to peace; to the proposition that American hegemony over the world is something that should end; that America should seek its place as just one of many nations on this earth; that diversity should be celebrated. But Obama is well aware of the fact that many people – perhaps a majority of Americans – are opposed to these views, AND THAT THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY THE AMERICAN MILITARY IN THEIR OPPOSITION. [We URGE you to see our article on the very real and consequential differences between the Left and the Right in this country, "The Left: Seeking to Destroy the Right – Root and Branch."]


LEFT verses RIGHT: Please see our article, "The Left: Seeking to Destroy the Right - Root and Branch." There are very real differences between the would-view of Obama and that of the evangelical Right just as there are very real differences between the world-view of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Rev. John Hagee.


Obama and those who surround him saw in this gamble a means of forever clipping the wings of the military by eliminating much of the need for its existence: Which is to say, maintaining American access to the oil fields of the Middle East and Central Asia. [We URGE you to see our recent article, "The Mystery of BP's Deepwater Horizon."]


Rolling the dice on BP's gamble in the Gulf.

It seems, however, that the gamble has failed, and as the oil from the broken well-head beneath the grave of Deepwater Horizon pours out into the Gulf in a toxic, unstoppable flow of goo and gunk that is poisoning the Gulf and Atlantic coasts (at least eventually), and destroying the livelihoods of millions and millions of people, the Left's dreams of freeing itself from America's "Military-Industrial Complex" (President Eisenhower's words in his "Farewell Address" to the nation in 1961) are being "killed-off" just as surely as the flora and fauna on America's coastline. IT IS IN THIS CONNECTION THAT ONE SHOULD NOTE THE FACT THAT THE WEAKENING OF THE AMERICAN MILITARY AND ITS REDUCTION TO THE RELATIVELY SMALL SIZE THAT CHARACTERIZED IT IN THE YEARS PRECEEDING THE SECOND WORLD WAR ARE GOALS FOR WHICH THE LEFT WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY JUST ABOUT ANY PRICE. [Please see our article, "MK-ULTRA: The Search for the Manchurian Candidate."]

Moreover, the failure of the Left's "wink-wink, nod-nod" gamble with BP has left its policy of gradual disengagement from America's wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan in a shambles. Had the gamble succeeded, Obama's policy of disengaging the American military from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and essentially leaving the people of the area to fend for themselves – would have had about as much consequence to the American people that America's disengagement from the war in Vietnam had. It would, of course, hurt the pride of the American military and America's so-called "super-patriots," but what do Obama and the Left care about that. They don't!

But what makes America's military engagement in Central Asia and the Middle East so different from her military engagement in Vietnam is OIL, and even Obama knows, if some of his cohorts don't, that America must have access to oil. Only after America has secured access to some other source of oil, could Obama's policy of "benign neglect" work for the Middle East.


The American military - stabbed in the back again

And there can be no doubt that the policy of "benign neglect" for Central Asia and the Middle East is EXACTLY the policy that Obama is pursuing. David Eshel, an IDF (Israeli Defense Force) veteran and experienced writer in the world's leading defense publications, writes:

"Now that President Obama and his aides have announced their plan for the United States to withdraw its troops from Iraq by August 31, 2010, they must consider what the forces engaged against the coalition and the Iraqi government plan to do ... In fact, any decent strategic analyst, looking into the Middle East future, must ask: 'What if the other side won't cooperate'? What about al-Qaeda and its Salafi-Wahabi support, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Quds force, Hezbollah from Lebanon ... will they ignore this rare opportunity to act?

"According to Obama, by that magical date of August 31, 2010, Iraq's own forces should then be able to control their county. But as any experienced military analysts will tell, to train the fledgling Iraqi security forces to fight a brutal sectarian counter-insurgency war ... might at best be wishful thinking by an overoptimistic and inexperienced U.S. president. Based on historical examples, not too distant to memory, such a statement is either totally shortsighted or sheer ignorance on existing facts in this unpredictable region. Once President Obama's 'orderly withdrawal' starts in earnest, there will be hell to pay, all over Iraq and very rapidly spilling over it's borders, engulfing much of this already explosive region ..."


McChrystal's insubordination regarding Obama's policy of "benign neglect" in the war in Afghanistan parallels in many respects the insubordination that General Macarthur evidenced against President Truman in Korea some sixty years ago.

As things stand right now, it is reliably reported that both General Petraeus, the commander of CentCom, and General Odierno, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, are furious at Obama's plans to withdraw from Iraq. They believe that in withdrawing from Iraq in the manner proposed by the president, the U.S. military will be giving up all its hard-fought and bloody gains in the region.

And then there is the question of Afghanistan – where Obama has tied the hands of General McChrystal to such an extent that, according to a report in The New York Times, President Hamid Karzai has lost faith in America's determination to fight on there, and he is making plans to form a government with the Taliban.  The article by Dexter Filkins reads in part:

"Mr. Karzai has lost faith in the Americans ... to prevail in Afghanistan ... As a result, Mr. Karzai's has been involved in secret negotiations with the Taliban outside the purview of American ... officials ... 'Karzai told me that he can't trust the Americans to fix the situation here', said a Western diplomat in Kabul, who spoke on condition of anonymity. 'He believes they stole his legitimacy during the elections last year. And then they said publicly that they were going to leave'."

All this has led General McChrystal to do what is normally considered unthinkable for a U.S. military commander: To challenge the policy of the president – and NOT in secret and behind closed doors, but out in the open, and in a foreign country to boot.

Alex Spillius, The Daily Telegraph's (UK) Washington Correspondent, reports:

"The relationship between President Barack Obama and the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan has been put under severe strain by Gen Stanley McChrystal's comments on strategy for the war.

"According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

"In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 NATO forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda. He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favored by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to 'Chaos-istan'. When asked whether he would support it, he said: 'The short answer is: No'.

"The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen ... In an apparent rebuke to the commander, Robert Gates, the Defense Secretary, said: 'It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately' ...

"Some commentators regarded the general's London comments as verging on insubordination. Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: 'As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements'. He added that it was highly unusual for a senior military officer to 'pressure the president in public to adopt his strategy'." [We URGE you to see our article, "The Generals' Revolt against the Obama Presidency."]


The U.S. military: "Stabbed in the back by Democrats in Congress." The Generals want no more of this!! - and here they would probably even have the support of General Colin Powell who himself saw the army disgraced in this fashion in Vietnam.

What this cabal of generals – i.e., Petraeus, Odierno and McChrystal - fears most of all is that in bringing the troops home before "victory is secured" in the Middle East and Central Asia the country will be repeating the mistake it made in Vietnam thirty-five years ago – A MISTAKE THAT CANNOT HELP BUT LEAD TO A REPEAT OF THE DISASTER (AND EVEN DISGRACE) THE DEMOCRATS INFLICTED ON THE ARMY THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO WHEN - AFTER THE ARMY HAD FINALLY PACIFIED THE COUNTRYSIDE IN SOUTH VIETNAM AT A COST OF 57,000 LIVES - IT SAW ALL ITS GAINS THROWN AWAY BY DEMOCRATIC PARTY "PEACENIKS" WHO - FUELED BY THE WATERGATE FIASCO - WERE EMBOLDENED TO VOTE AGAINST ANY FURTHER AID TO THE SOUTH. Since then, the army has borne an undying HATRED towards the Democratic Party - a hatred that burns in the heart of just about every member of the officer corps.


WITH THE FAILURE OF OBAMA'S "WINK-WINK, NOD-NOD" AGREEMENT WITH BP TO GAMBLE ON TAPPING INTO THE OIL WEALTH OF THE GULF OF MEXICO, HIS POLICY OF "BENIGN NEGLECT" INSOFAR AS THE MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA WILL NOW BE IMPOSSIBLE TO SUSTAIN. The simple fact of the matter is, there is simply no way that so-called "renewable energy" sources can replace oil as the fuel that makes the world work – at least not in our life-time. His presidency is now ruined - wrecked as a result of his policy of "benign neglect" in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wrecked as a result of the ever-expanding oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico, an oil slick that is threatening to foul not only the Gulf Coast, but eventually the Atlantic Coast as well.

AND IN THE MIDST OF ALL THIS, THE "GENERALS" ARE CIRCLING OBAMA LIKE A LION CLOSING IN ON ITS PREY, READY TO GO IN FOR THE KILL WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS ITSELF.  [Please see our article, "The Men Who Gathered Themselves together at Clint Murchisan's Dallas Home Forty-five Years Ago."]

More next time!

God bless all of you!

S.R. Shearer,
Antipas Ministries

We pray that you will remember the Word of God:




We need your help to spread the word concerning Antipas Ministries and the eschatological viewpoint it represents; WE NEED YOUR HELP BECAUSE WE DO NOT "LINK" WITH OTHER SO-CALLED "CHRISTIAN" WEBSITES which are, for the most part, "in the tank" insofar as their loyalty to the United States is concerned - a loyalty that has made them partners in the BLOODY trail the American military has left in its TERROR-RIDDEN rampage throughout the world, as well as making them partners in the abject poverty that American corporations have imposed on the peoples and nations the American military machine has ravaged - A BLOODY, TERROR-RIDDEN RAMPAGE THAT HAS TO A LARGE DEGREE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THE "PRINCE OF PEACE." [Please see our articles, "The Third World as a Model for the New World Order," Inside the American New World Order System" and "The American Empire: The Corporate / Pentagon / CIA / Missionary Archipelago."]



© Antipas Ministries