Log In | Register
-
BK Lim et al (first drafted in June 2010, revised 29 Jan 2012)
Why would BP spend more than 100 millions USD on PR media blitzkrieg to change public perception of the massive oil spill? Remember the famous doctored photos which BP admitted to?
http://gizmodo.com/5592836/bp-photoshops-another-official-image-again-terribly
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/jul/23/bp-oil-spill-pictures
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/oil/7904221/BP-admits-it-Photoshopped-official-images-as-oil-spill-cut-and-paste-row-escalates.html
2010 July 30- why-is-bps-macondo-blowout-so-disastrous-beyond-patch-up
4 What you don’t see can be covered up.
Perhaps the botched-up “photochop-chop” photos put up by BP was just a test. To see how keen the public eyes were in following BP’s clean up efforts. It would be hard to believe BP paid professionals for such a shoddy job. We should give BP more credit than that (remember the shares issues)? Let’s play dumb and the problems will go away.
Many experts in the oil industry were surprised and questioned the rationality of capping the well when the relief wells were so close to achieving their “bottom kill” objectives. They could have installed the TOP CAP much earlier. This means that BP knew if the gushing well was completely shut at the top, the oil and gas would spread beneath the sea floor and gas seeps would start appearing. So the TOP CAP had to be placed just before the relief well was ready for the “magic show”. Hurricane Bonnie spoilt the show and the delay is already showing signs of stress (gas seeps).
This could also mean that BP was getting less and less confident that the relief wells would work. The relief wells were held up as the last Trump card. If it fails in full (ROV) view of the concerned public throughout the world, BP’s shares would drop like a stone. There are good geological reasons why the chances of the relief wells’ success are less than 30%. But that would be in the next posting.
So instead “of going on a public stage with a final trump card of 30% chance of success” and risking everything BP stands for, a magic show will be set up so that what ever happens, it will be a success. How?
With a gushing well in full view, a successful bottom kill would show oil slowing down to eventually a tickle. With the cap on, it would be easier to manipulate the data. Thus botched-up photos were a test to check the keenness of the public eye. If the bottom kill fails, there is no independent monitor to prove it. BP could quickly pack and leave the site. Without ROVs’ video, the world is blind. Independent scientific researches later on could be disputed or controlled in post-recovery mopped up battle plan.
The TOP CAP had to be installed and the integrity pressure tests used as an excuse to completely shut down the flow. There is no need to prove the well is leaking. It is already a fact. David Copperfield could not have performed better.
~~~end of quote ~~~~
A primer on QC analyses of doctored ROV videos. What? BP doctored ROV videos?
It is almost unbelievable that a respectable global giant like BP could be so unethical. If you can't make it, fake it. That was what BP did. So far we have been proven right. There is a lot more. Each time we dig, we found more dirt. Many had also wondered how we could tell the difference especially in the light of so many doctored videos released by BP. And why isn't the mainstream media keeping so quiet on BP's data frauds.
With some fundamentals, you can also be your own detective. Here is the how.
Time & space, cannot be created or subtracted but flow continuously in unison. For example, if an ROV moves from point A to B and then to C, its movement can be described by time, motion, speed and position. You cannot substitute C by A without screwing up the consistency of the all the time-spatial relationships. BP substituted well A coordinates on videos which had been recorded previously at the 3rd well location showing the BOP and Bent Riser. You might wonder why? Such elaborate deceptions played in frontal view of world's audience cannot be just for an April Fool's joke. See later articles coming up on the series.
Essentially it means that you can lie to some people some of the time but you cannot lie to all the people all of the time.
As you add more factors or constrains, the narrow path of lying becomes even narrower. It is like broadening the stage prop. Remember in the Art of Mass Deception, the stage prop is meant only for the front view audience. Look beyond the stage prop and you will see the flaws. The depth variation constrain was added to our analyses which apparently the fraudsters (not being surveyors) were largely ignorant of.
All of the video footage handed to us have their time-spatial details embedded in them. Adulterating them (by us) would leave graphic evidence no matter how professionally done, especially with videos. Our job here was to prove inconsistencies and adulteration of time-spatial details. We do not adulterate videos submitted to us for analyses in order to fit our analyses. There are many ways to check this but this is not included in our primer here for obvious reasons.
BP's raw video feeds were recorded independently without embedding the time-spatial details. Hence it would have been very easy for BP's technicians to broadcast even live video feeds with superficially generated time-spatial details. This is what we suspected they did generally but not all the time. Each video in question has to be examined on case to case basis.
Depending on operators, the date format can sometimes switch from American (mm dd yy) to British (dd mm yy) and feet to metric. The coordinates are all in feet, but depth and altitude can be in feet or metres. The depth here refers to the ROV Depth or the height of the water column above the ROV (measured by a depth pressure sensor which had to be correctly calibrated). If there is a bulk error (say 30ft) it should rightly appear in all depths displayed. Thus, by subtracting the bulk (or datum error) we can retrieve back the right depth. Altitude, depth, coordinates, heading, are all designed for automatic input from the sensors without human intervention once the system is calibrated, up and running. Any human intervention thereafter is likely to be for fraudulent purposes other than normal operation.
The water depth at the ROV location is the sum of the altitude (measured by an ultrasonic transducer to the seabed) and the ROV depth. This is where the bathymetric chart (in BP's exploration plan) comes in handy. Both well A and B have the same water depth at 4992 ft (+/- 5 ft). The third well being up slope, has a water depth of about 4960 ft. An error range of 5 -10 ft is acceptable but the sensitivity (or variation) when the ROV is stationary should not be more than 1 ft. Heading (Hdg) is the direction of the ROV, measured by the gyro, in degrees from 0 to 360. Be aware that the ROV cameras have both zoom and tilt capability. Some of the ROVs (we are told) have hind cameras mounted on them as well. Still that does not explain the motion and orientation discrepancies in the video; resulting in obvious disconnect between the motion in the video and relative position of the recording ROV.
What we have been unable to demonstrate on still snaphots are the inconsistencies in the motion, speed, direction or orientation so obvious in the playback of these doctored videos? For example on a stationary viewport showing the spewing well, the recording ROV could not have move by hundreds of feet without affecting the area of view. With a stationary ROV (coordinates variation < 1 feet) the object in view (within the viewport) should move in opposite direction to the camera's rotation. For example, if the ROV is rotating to the starboard (increasing heading degrees, to the right facing the bow) the object in view should move towards the left and out of the viewport. But in BP's doctored videos, you will see the disconnect caused by superficially adding the navigation information after the field recording.
One BP schill commented that BP might have accidentally merged the wrong navigation information from other dives. Perhaps. But why do these “wrong navigation information” consistently get merged for only certain sensitive locations and events? Consistency in the “accidental errors” could only mean intent to cheat under the guise of “naturally occurring” accidents or errors.
In many doctored videos, you will see the heading change significantly but the BOP remained stationary within the viewport. You can demonstrate this by using a narrow beam pen-torch light shinning on an object. Of course there are the classic time skips (forward and backwards in time), coordinates jumps of more than hundreds of feets etc etc. Hopefully you can have some fun watching these ROV videos with the right perspective.
BP could only fool the world because the world allows BP to.
Having established some fundamentals, we now analyse figure 165-5, an early video example where the actual ground details were recorded, unadulterated. (So far we had not found any on these sets of videos but readers are welcome to feed us back if we had missed out on any). As a comparison to doctored videos, see Figure 165-5a Recycled Data, Frauds & BP's Gulf Disaster.
All the 3 snapshots extracted from different videos show the famous blowout crater with the huge black oil plume, gushing out to the south (see red arrow in the RT video, bottom left). BP misled the world in claiming that this was just a leak on the broken riser. It was not. It was the blown crater of the third well, which they labeled as well BE. Why would they label the well that blew on 20 April 2010 as well BE and not well A? There is a lot more in depth details in figure 165-5. This is just the tip of the iceberg (frauds in the industry). See later articles for more amazing deception by BP.
We can be quite confident on the direction of the oil flow (from the north) as the picture frame is almost parallel to the pipe (casing). The video snapshot on the lower left was captured from RT broadcast dated on 30 May 2010. The top snapshots were extracted from video recorded on 23 April and 5May(blurred?) 2010. All 3 snapshots show the supposedly 2nd leak on the riser in a crater, referred to as Leak(2).
Based on our past analyses and cross-references, we beg to differ. We had argued from different angles, that leak(2) was in fact the blown crater of the third well (BE) which they intentionally blew shortly after 1700 CDT (2220z) on 22 April. Besides trying to misrepresent the third well (BE) as well A, this “missing massive explosive event” was one of the main reason BP's official story was so ludicrously inconsistent.
The main story (BP's Deception in the Gulf, exposed) will explain further but for now we want to demonstrate the consistencies in the un-doctored videos on an obviously same oil-spewing crater.
The graph on the right bottom is a to-scale plot of the location of the 3 wells. The red text gives the details of the ROV position as per the coordinates in the snapshot. On this video, the ROV was 43ft west of the well BE crater. Thus the heading of 97 deg is about right. The water depth (4957.7 + 4.7) of 4962 ft is much closer to the depth of well BE than well A or well B.
Both the top photos show the yellow pipe (casing) to be dipping northward into the “cemented sediment” with the oil plume gushing out south. Thus all the 3 photos are consistent with each other. The fact that no coordinates were displayed for the videos on 23 April 2010, strongly suggest that BP was well aware of the sensitivity of that information. On some of the earlier videos, the coordinates were displayed as blanks or zeros. In later videos, the coordinates were falsified.
What is the chance of a falling 5000ft long super strong riser (with a 3.5 million pound load-carrying capacity) breaking into two at exactly the same location the DWH burning rig was reported to have drifted to? And where is the other half of the broken riser in the crater? It could not have floated away if it was heavy enough to dig itself into more than 5m of cemented seafloor. The probability must be astronomical, considering that BP made the report (that the burning DWH rig had drifted 714 ft NW from well A) at 220402z (23:02 CDT 21 April); less than 2 days after the discovery of the blown crater. How did BP know beforehand the 5000ft riser was going to break at that point? More amazingly, could a burning rig drift in a dead calm sea, as evident from independently taken photos? BP acknowledged the semi-sub was “anchored” in place by the riser attached to the BOP at the wellhead. Is this not inconsistent with the Drift Theory? How come none of the fire fighting vessels noticed the drift at sea? Why did the reported drift came from BP's Command Centre and not from the coastguards in the field?
As there is negligible slack in the non-stretchable riser, the burning rig had to sink by at least 50ft for it to move that distance. The burning DWH was observed to be listing from the morning of 22 April with the riser still intact. The DWH did not start to sink until the riser was (intentionally) severed at or around 10:22 CDT 22 April. Such precise timing!
This was what we wrote on 25 Aug 2010.
Twisted tale of the missing 3rd well that blew on 20 April 2010.
DWH never moved 714ft NE as reported by BP to the Coast Guard. BP had to come up with something to explain why the burning DWH was in that location. The sea was calm and DWH had no power to move. This further confirmed DWH was sitting on top of the S20BC location as correctly predicted by the seabed debris forensic analysis. BP had to move the fallen BOP and placed it on Well A in the aftermath of the blowout. This is one of the many reasons BP cannot release the video footage of the BOP immediately after the second explosion blew off the BOP and broke off the bottom fifth of the riser string as detailed in The-mystery-of-the-april-20-blowout-revealed and in The-art-of-mass-deception-part-1.
While many missing parts to the giant jigsaw puzzle have yet to be put in place, it is evident we are getting very close to the truth. Hence the intensified attacks and cointelpro on us. We had been confident enough since July 2010 to boldly publish what insiders can only whisper in private.
The significance of figure 165-5.
It confirms that the crater with the massive oil plume which BP claimed to be the second leak on the riser was indeed the blown 3rd well. The unadulterated videos are “consistently” consistent with our earlier assertions that the 3rd well that blew its top (BOP, well casing etc) and ended up as an open crater, gushing massive oil directly from the Macondo Reservoir 18,360 ft below. It is time the American public, victims and the world know the truth. BP had pulled wools over America's eyes with the fabricated 1 well - 3 leaks on the riser story long enough.
You have to wonder why BP spent more than 100 million USD to mercilessly pound their fabricated lies into the mainstream media and cyberspace to conceal the truth. The massive oil spill in the Gulf is only one of their Planned-To-Happen series of disasters. It is not for fun. These disasters including 911 were planned and triggered to serve their multiple global agenda of controlling the world. The late Matts Simmons sacrificed his life to bring the American public the truth of the BP's Gulf Disaster. His death and scores of those fallen heroes, must not be in vain. We will continue to suffer as victims (one way or another) of past and yet to materialise Inside-Job disasters.
God help us all if the truth continues to be suppressed. The next disaster may be much worse than just a massive oil spill.
A sneak preview of the startling truths in the Gulf disaster in the coming articles.
The making of BP’s Mega Oil Spill in the Gulf
There was no mega oil spill before 1700 CDT 22 April. The mega oil spill could have been averted with several run of the mill options. The 20 April incident was the sort of controllable rig-blowout fire situation the industry expects and routinely trained for. It could have been recovered safely without ending in a disastrous mega oil spill. The facts will show that an explosion within the well was purposely detonated on the evening of 22 April 2010 to induce a second blowout that unleashed the high pressure oil gush from the Macondo reservoir. The second bottom-hole blowout, breaking of the marine riser and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH), were clear subterfuge from within. How could the official investigations into the causes of this environmental disaster, miss out on all these?
The initial gas blowout (20 April 2010) which killed 11 drilling crew on the burning Deepwater Horizon rig, did not unleash the massive oil spill as BP and the government regulators had wanted us to believe. A detonated explosion within the well on the evening of 22 April, shortly after 2200z (1700 CDT) did.
BP’s Killing Spree in the GOM
Irrefutable proofs and connections of the dots would be presented in the later parts of this series dubbed “BP’s Killing Spree in the GOM”. The articles would show that BP knowingly drilled into 3 hazardous (high risk) well locations (not 1 well as BP officially declared before the US Congress) without adequate risk aversion precautions.
It is like having repeated unprotected sex with a confirmed HIV positive partner despite being forewarned. The evidence would also show that BP’s killing spree in the gulf, unmistakably started as early as March 2010. Pro BP apologists argued the abnormal high number of stranded cetaceans (> 60 dolphins and whales) in March 2010 (a month before the blowout in April) was proof that the cetaceans were stranded from unknown natural causes before the mega oil spill. The March average for the years 2002-2009, was less than 19. They failed to mention that Methane, Hydrogen Sulfide (commonly encountered in exploration drilling), drilling mud and cement had been spilling in enormous quantities (abnormal circulation losses suffered by BP) into the gulf since February 2010.
The toxicity peaked in March 2010 coinciding with the heaviest drilling losses from the 3 wells at the more problematical shallow zone; from late Feb to early April. BP abandoned well A in mid Feb with hefty drilling losses during an out of well control situation, drilled well B and well BE (3rd well) with even heavier drilling losses from 16 Mar to 7April. There is no necessity to invoke unexplained natural causes as the stranded rate correlates very well with the level of toxicity in the gulf.
The spike for the month of March 2011 was again due to increased toxicity caused by the 9.0 Japan earthquake which shook up more oil discharges into the gulf water from the shallow oil accumulations. The statistics on the stranded dolphins accurately reflect the toxicity in the gulf water as revealed in this article,Mystery Of The New Found Oil Revealed.
