"When falsehood is repeated with such glaring exact wrong details by so many, it cannot be accidental negligence that led to this mega disaster" ~ anonymous.
Summary of the official version of BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster story
All the investigative reports suggested that the base cement of the well was breached by the bottom hole blowout at 21:45 CDT 20 April 2010, thereby allowing massive uncontrollable free flow of crude from the Macondo Reservoir directly into the well. It was the massive flow of oil up the riser to the drilling rig (DWH) that fed the monstrous rig fire until DWH finally sank at 10:22 CDT on 22 April 2010. All the mainstream media, oil industry experts and their blogs, echoed this fearsome scenario.
On the first 2 days, the experts were all saying that the DWH rig was anchored and held tightly by the riser to the BOP on the seabed. They opined that all hell would break loose once the riser broke off from the burning rig with oil spewing out of the BOP at depths. One animation in a video interview showed a floating DWH wreck causing considerable havoc and damage to pipelines on the seabed as it dragged a trailing 5000ft riser away from the Macondo wellhead. Detailed analyses were presented all over the internet on how the well could be breached at the bottom hole by the poor cement job, how the faulty BOP was to be blamed and all the aggressive cost-cutting measures that led to this mega oil spill disaster.
While we are not saying all these did not matter, we do think that red herrings had been thrown in to cover their tracks.
Looking at the Big Picture first.
To get at the simple big picture, let us forget the small details first. They can come in later. Here are some of the important facts that everyone can agree on.
- There were only smoke plumes from the burning DWH right up to the evening of 22 April 2010 (more than 2 days after the first well blowout).
- There was no massive crude oil slick on the sea surface or around the burning DWH.
- Fuel oil from the 700,000 gallons stored on board spilled and formed oily sheen around the burning DWH.
- The fire was visibly diminishing in intensity as the hours dragged by.
- By the time DWH sank after 17:24 CDT (not 10:22 CDT as reported by BP) the fire on the water was largely confined to the perimeter surrounding the sinking DWH wreck.
- Massive oil slicks were reported only on 24 April 2010. On the 25 April satellite photo, the oil slick was reportedly 580 sq miles.
- The oil slicks observed from satellite photos, did not continuously grow in extent but changed shapes and size (aerial extent) on different days.
- On the morning of 23 April 2010, Adm Mary Landry categorically stated that there was no oil emanating from BOP, riser, wellhead or the seafloor in the vicinity of the well.
- After the riser broke (between 10:22 – 10:24 CDT, 22 April) there was no sign of crude leaking from the broken riser.
- There was no crude leaking out at the kink of the bent riser until mid May (20 days later).
- This is a real mystery. There is simply no possible explanation for this unless BP did a “switcheroo”; where by the broken bent riser was reattached to a new BOP (referred to as BOP#2) placed over well A. Until now, BP has not been able to explain how they could turn on and off the oil gush from the BOP without switching wells (that is another deep-hole falsehood BP had dug themselves into with their lies…future articles).
- The riser was broken in many places (at least 4 segments) and not in one continuous twisted “pretzel” as charted by NOAA.
You know that something is amiss when the obvious questions on the big picture, are systematically ignored in all the investigations. Here are some of the most important ones:
- If the well was freely flowing from the first blowout at 21:45 CDT 20 April, crude would have overflowed into the sea surrounding DWH. The massive fire would have spread to the oil floating on the water surface.
- It would have been impossible for the crew who jumped into the sea after the explosion, to escape the burns by the fire on the water surface.
- At a modest flow rate of 50,000 bpd (barrels per day) or 1,458 gallons per minute, the oil slick (200 micron / 0.008 inch thick) around DWH should be at least 15 sq miles (2.2 mile radius) in the first 24 hours.
- In the first 14 minutes 486 barrels (or 20,417 gallons) would have spilled onto the deck and into the sea, forming at least 0.15 sq mile of slick (200 micron thick) or a radius of 0.22 miles (1162 feet) around the rig.
- The crew started to abandon the rig after the first explosion at 21:59 CDT (or 14 minutes after the blowout).
- All eye-witnesses mentioned gas, mud, drilling fluid and water but not black crude over-flowing out of the drill derrick, following the blowout. If oil was gushing out at a very high pressure from the reservoir (as claimed by so many pro-BP experts) the total absence of massive crude oil in the eye witnesses’ accounts seems such a contradiction.
- The fire could not have consumed 1,458 gallons per minute of crude oil.
- None of the survivors recovered from the water were covered with crude oil. Diesel fuel from the spilled 700,000 gallons stored onboard yes, but no one mentioned black or orange crude oil.
- When the riser broke at between 10:22 to 10:24 CDT on 22 April 2010, there was no report of new crude slick forming on the sea surface. If the riser had been filled with crude (89,974 gallons or 2,142 barrels) that massive volume would have resulted in a sheen area 131.5 sq miles (at 1 micron thick).
- For comparison, the recent 10 sq miles (1 x 10 miles) sheen spotted between Ursa and Mars platforms, was reported by Shell to be only 6 barrels (a more realistic estimate is 163 barrels or 6,843 gallons).
- 1 barrel of oil produces 0.06 sq miles of sheen at 1 micron thick.
- Thus 6 barrels of oil would have produced only 0.37 sq mile of sheen.
- Shell underestimated by 27 times the volume of oil. This proves again oil companies habitually lie to suit their intentions.
Even without the more complicated technical facts, the above 13 points are enough to cast doubts on the scary “bottom hole well blowout that started the uncontrollable oil gush from the Macondo reservoir at a tremendous high pressure”.
Our investigation by a team of experts over the course of 1½ years, concluded that the blowout at 21:45 CDT 20 April 2010 was a normal gas well blowout from a shallow gas (gas saturated sub formation) zone not more than 10,000 feet deep below the mud line (BML). Like any other shallow gas blowout, the limited shallow gas reservoir would have depleted itself within days or at the maximum a couple of weeks. Even if deeper gas reservoir (possibly the Rigel Gas field) continued to leak gas into the GWSF zone, the recharge would need time to charge up to the explosive level subject to the permeability of the leaking faults and leak out to the seabed.
Given this most probable shallow geological scenario, how did hundreds if not thousands of experts, main stream journalists and blogs, all arrive at the same illogical conclusion with the exact wrong details within days of the incident? This by itself, is as scandalous as Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World scandal.
A planned "blacked out of the critical site information”, "military enforced no fly zone over the disaster site" and a worldwide media blitzkrieg of falsehood seem impossible to achieve without the underhand “carrot and stick” tactics employed by the leaders of the industry, government response agencies and political supporters of BP. Any responsible and accountable administration would have resigned for letting the ball slipped through the goal post. Either they were too incompetent to see it coming or were complicit in this plot. There is simply no excuse given the fact that the White House was fully briefed by BP on the Macondo near fatal accident on 13 February 2010, 2 months before the disastrous incident.
The intense efforts to suppress this alternative and more logical explanation of the blowout (2 years later) fit in perfectly well with the misrepresented facts of the first few days of the disaster.
Can this really be an accident caused by negligence alone? Random accidents do not, as a rule, lead to a predetermined destination. When they do, there must be a mysterious guiding force. Period!