More ROV evidences of shallow faults & drilling problems- Part IIb of Root Causes.

This posting shows the ROV video confirming the faults and heavily cemented seafloor. The cement could have only come from previous drilling, most probably as far back as Oct 2009 when BP took a month just to drill 4025 ft at Well A. This awfully slow drilling must have been plagued by problems at the shallow end.

Why? Because Well A could not have been positioned at a more "ideal location" if you are sincerely looking for a nightmare well from Hell. That figures.

So what you are saying - which is what most already suspected, it was a head I win tail you lose bet. If there is no disaster they win, and if there is one, they also win. Except they did not anticipate the scale of it? They did not realise the little fire could spread into a catastrophe. My, that is pure evil.

Eth

We hit it right on the nail then?

Below is a brief summary I submitted to www.nexus.fr at the request of their journalist.

The first direct proof for the 3rd well is the Deepwater Horizon wreckage. The first article that explains this is
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/17/4913304-the-art-of-mass-deception-part-1-ballistic-analysis-of-dwh-riser-wreck

Basically, the main DWH wreck is either too far (1000ft if the riser is broken) or too near (if the riser is intact ie approx 4,000 - 5000ft) from well A. For the riser wreck to be standing 1500ft above the seafloor, it could have only occurred as analysed in the CSI forensic of the DWH wreckage, see diagrams in
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/14/4884549-dwh-blowout-csi-why-it-could-not-have-happened-as-reported-by-bp-

The first few ROV videos in May also showed the gas/oil gushing from a broken pipe in a seabed crater, which matched the coastguard log of 714 ft NW of Well A. My forensic analysis estimated 720ft. BP accidentally exposed the truth when they lied that burning DWH had drifted. DWH could not have drifted in calm weather and because there was no slack in the steel riser. The accurate distance of 714 ft could have only been calculated using coordinates obtained from the ROV. But the coordinates were measured close to BOP at seabed not at the burning DWH on the sea surface. So BP was caught lying - http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/15/5116468-bp-caught-lying-while-deepwater-horizon-burns-part-5-aomd.

The broken pipe dips into the ground towards the north with the open gushing end facing south. So oil was flowing from north to south. If there is no riser connection from Well A, 714ft further south, how could the gushing oil have come from the BOP at Well A? This is the most important discrepancy in BP's official story.

With these 4 main points, the whole picture becomes clearer. More conclusive evidences are provided by the 2nd underwater explosion, logs, MMS emails & application to spud etc in http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/12/5096273-conclusive-evidence-well-a-is-not-the-well-that-blew-up-on-20-april-part-3-aomd

Working backwards, it makes sense since Well A could not continue after the drilling rods were stuck by the formation cave-in at 4000-5000ft open bore. Then BP moved to Well B which again encountered problems and a near-blowout after drilling down to 13,100 ft. It had to stop and plugged the well 750 ft above the open bottom. To side track wide enough to avoid the problem zone, the well would miss the oil target. If the well was not sidetrack wide enough it would still have the same problem.

Thus, BP had to drill from a 3rd well location. There are some more evidences but these are the main points.

This 3rd well was not reported, and no permit applied for it. So it is not authorised.

BP tried to apply for it a few days before the blowout occured on 20 April 2010. But it was too late. In any case the blowout was so severe, there was no hope of sealing the well with a broken well head. So since Well A was leaking gas and oil (it was not properly plugged due to the stuck drilling rods) BP used well A to fool the world that it was the leaking well and pretend to "kill it". Well A was only 5000 ft. So they could kill it much earlier like in May. But they cannot pretend to kill well A in May when the 3rd well was still openly gushing oil out. The relief well C was not ready to kill it yet from the bottom. So BP had to pretend and wait until the Relief Well C can reach the bottom of the 3rd well.

If Well A was killed in May, and the sea still filled with oil, BP's Mass Deception would be exposed. IT is simple logic.

The main cause of the blowout was the gas-saturated weak sub-formation (GWSF) zone which did not allow the well to be properly cemented and sealed. That is why I am showing all the ROV evidences which confirmed there were massive losses of drilling mud and cement which resurfaced through the faults up to the seabed. The well-cementing had not effectively sealed the well annulus with the formation, allowing the drilling fluid (drilling mud, gas and some oil) to freely flow outside the well.

When the Equivalent Circulation Density (ECD) was lowered (replacing drilling mud with salt water) gas from the GWSF zone forced back into the well through the leaks and caused the blowout. But the initial blowout was not that strong - a lot of gas to cause the fire but the well head, BOP and riser were still intact. 2 days later, the bottom cement plug kaputt and this time the oil forced out from the reservoir like a "hydraulic piston". This toppled and broke the well head, jammed up the drilling rods and toppled the BOP. The steel riser of course broke off (as shown in my CSI illustration) into 2 parts to form the odd twisted, standing riser wreck.

This interpretation fits everything so perfectly, it cannot be wrong. Maybe some 10-20% details still missing but 80-90% right. BP's official version is very inconsistent and does not make any sense at all. That is why I do this analysis to prove that BP is lying and covering up the magnitude of the disaster.

Below is a brief summary I submitted to www.nexus.fr at the request of their journalist.

The first direct proof for the 3rd well is the Deepwater Horizon wreckage. The first article that explains this is

http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/17/4913304-the-art-of-mass-deception-part-1-ballistic-analysis-of-dwh-riser-wreck

Basically, the main DWH wreck is either too far (1000ft if the riser is broken) or too near (if the riser is intact ie approx 4,000 - 5000ft) from well A. For the riser wreck to be standing 1500ft above the seafloor, it could have only occurred as analysed in the CSI forensic of the DWH wreckage, see diagrams in

http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/14/4884549-dwh-blowout-csi-why-it-could-not-have-happened-as-reported-by-bp-

The first few ROV videos in May also showed the gas/oil gushing from a broken pipe in a seabed crater, which matched the coastguard log of 714 ft NW of Well A. My forensic analysis estimated 720ft. BP accidentally exposed the truth when they lied that burning DWH had drifted. DWH could not have drifted in calm weather and because there was no slack in the steel riser. The accurate distance of 714 ft could have only been calculated using coordinates obtained from the ROV. But the coordinates were measured close to BOP at seabed not at the burning DWH on the sea surface. So BP was caught lying - http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/15/5116468-bp-caught-lying-while-deepwater-horizon-burns-part-5-aomd.

The broken pipe dips into the ground towards the north with the open gushing end facing south. So oil was flowing from north to south. If there is no riser connection from Well A, 714ft further south, how could the gushing oil have come from the BOP at Well A? This is the most important discrepancy in BP's official story.

With these 4 main points, the whole picture becomes clearer. More conclusive evidences are provided by the 2nd underwater explosion, logs, MMS emails & application to spud etc in http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/12/5096273-conclusive-evidence-well-a-is-not-the-well-that-blew-up-on-20-april-part-3-aomd

Working backwards, it makes sense since Well A could not continue after the drilling rods were stuck by the formation cave-in at 4000-5000ft open bore. Then BP moved to Well B which again encountered problems and a near-blowout after drilling down to 13,100 ft. It had to stop and plugged the well 750 ft above the open bottom. To side track wide enough to avoid the problem zone, the well would miss the oil target. If the well was not sidetrack wide enough it would still have the same problem.

Thus, BP had to drill from a 3rd well location. There are some more evidences but these are the main points.

This 3rd well was not reported, and no permit applied for it. So it is not authorised.

BP tried to apply for it a few days before the blowout occured on 20 April 2010. But it was too late. In any case the blowout was so severe, there was no hope of sealing the well with a broken well head. So since Well A was leaking gas and oil (it was not properly plugged due to the stuck drilling rods) BP used well A to fool the world that it was the leaking well and pretend to "kill it". Well A was only 5000 ft. So they could kill it much earlier like in May. But they cannot pretend to kill well A in May when the 3rd well was still openly gushing oil out. The relief well C was not ready to kill it yet from the bottom. So BP had to pretend and wait until the Relief Well C can reach the bottom of the 3rd well.

If Well A was killed in May, and the sea still filled with oil, BP's Mass Deception would be exposed. IT is simple logic.

The main cause of the blowout was the gas-saturated weak sub-formation (GWSF) zone which did not allow the well to be properly cemented and sealed. That is why I am showing all the ROV evidences which confirmed there were massive losses of drilling mud and cement which resurfaced through the faults up to the seabed. The well-cementing had not effectively sealed the well annulus with the formation, allowing the drilling fluid (drilling mud, gas and some oil) to freely flow outside the well.

When the Equivalent Circulation Density (ECD) was lowered (replacing drilling mud with salt water) gas from the GWSF zone forced back into the well through the leaks and caused the blowout. But the initial blowout was not that strong - a lot of gas to cause the fire but the well head, BOP and riser were still intact. 2 days later, the bottom cement plug kaputt and this time the oil forced out from the reservoir like a "hydraulic piston". This toppled and broke the well head, jammed up the drilling rods and toppled the BOP. The steel riser of course broke off (as shown in my CSI illustration) into 2 parts to form the odd twisted, standing riser wreck.

This interpretation fits everything so perfectly, it cannot be wrong. Maybe some 10-20% details still missing but 80-90% right. BP's official version is very inconsistent and does not make any sense at all. That is why I do this analysis to prove that BP is lying and covering up the magnitude of the disaster.

What can I say? What does HAZMAT stands for?

Silly me. Could not figure out what MAT stands for? Thought it was Materials-Abnormally-Toxic.

Would recommend visiting the link below on the discussion of the ROV Video

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread587933/pg263#pid9724900

Okay this is interesting and more like the "natural gas seeps" we normally see at seabed. When I say natural I am only referring to the gas escaping and not the "high pressure hoses" going into the seabed.

It means there is a steady stream of gas – not a bubble type of fluid accumulation. That means the fissure is pretty narrow. Notice the jet stream is moving from one point to another in a linear manner. Also notice that the gas and some bubbles of oil goes straight up. That means very little dispersant and relatively still water; resulting in a “tornado” swirling column but only above the leak point.

Posted by: pino | June 4, 2010 Wherein Offshore Drilling Reduces Oil in the Oceans

And this is easy to blame on BP; heck, I am even blaming BP.

We are not blaming BP just because BP was the last one holding the short end of the stick. There are sufficient evidence (if the govt wants to) to hang BP for the many crimes they had committed under the shroud of secrecy. For a start, they drilled 3 wells instead of 1 and the 3rd was unauthorised,unapproved and unreported. If that is not illegal then what is.

The well that blew was 714 ft NW of Well A. BP lied by reporting that the Burning DWH moved (in calm w ater?) by itself. Giving false evidence is a crime by itself. The steel riser cannot extend that distance without breaking. In any case, the blown-out well could not have moved 714 ft NW from well A on the seabed.

To be clear, there may be micro-fault that we find. We may find, through investigations, that someone at some point failed to turn knob "A" or pull lever "B". There may be a valve that should have been there and wasn't. An order should have been given but wasn't. The specific failure will almost certainly be found. But that's not the blame I'm talking about.

The Macro-fault doesn't exist.

Pino, that is w here you are totally wrong. The micro-faults in so many systems could not have all developed suddenly all at one time. The fish rot from the head. Like a pyramid, the lower rung micro-faults must have sprung from a common source. BP's main fault was reckless exploration management that went like an express train bent on a collision course; irrespective of the feedback of near-misses, nightmare drilling a well from hell, massive drilling mud and cement losses, unreal geological expectations despite what the mudlogs are telling on the contrary, etc etc. These are the hallmark of a dangerous, greedy, aggressive and imprudent corporate that had been cited for numerous safety violations and past disasters.

If a drunk driver can be booked and jailed for being a potential danger to others, I do not see how a corporate drunken with power, bribery and greed complete with a proven record of being a hazard to the environment, workers and other inhabitants of this earth, can still be allowed to roam freely to cause hurt to others.

We know , w hen dealing w ith systems, there is going to be a failure at some point.

All systems w ill fail at one point due to poor regulations or w hen the controlling heads have failed to exert reasonable control and regulations. In a failed state like Zambia do you fault the individual citizens or do you fault President Mugabe w hich by the w ay had a PhD. Tony Hayward has a PhD in geology. BP's Macondo exploration project had clearly failed not in finding the oil but in its HSE management even by its own inhouse HSE standards (see http://bklim.newsvine.com/_new s/2010/09/14/5108635-one-month-late-5-days-before-blow out-part-4-aomd)

But the ironic thing? Off-shore drilling might actually reduce the amount of oil that finds its w ay into the ocean:

This is one of the silliest thing I have heard. If there is so much natural seepage, why would oil companies spend millions USD in trying to get oil from some of the harshest, deepest and inaccessible parts of the earth. Why go to war over oil? I have been working in the geohazards survey industry for 30 years. If there had been so much natural oil seepage I would know. The fact is less than 20% of all sites surveyed are in danger of any immediate shallow gas hazards. Oil is even less. In one seabed sediment sampling of over 200 cores, not even one had any visible oil traces.

This fallacy is being propagated and funded by BP in preparation for the vast amount of oil that will wash ashore in months to come after the runaway well had been supposedly killed and sealed. In reality, they had not. If not why would BP spend millions trying to grout the fissures in the vicinity of the Macondo Wells?