News reports including BP's own press reports such as below, show that the methane hydrate formed and clogged up the top of the dome below certain depth even before the cofferdam was deployed over the leaks at seabed.
Thus, how could the oil have collected within the cofferdam and be the cause of fresh oil leaks 2 1/2 years later?
There are at least 10 other evidence the periodic oil leaks observed over/near the Macondo wells from 2011 to 2012, came from fresh massive oil discharges out of the seafloor rather than from the containment dome (which was never really deployed), pieces of DWH wrecks or the marine riser.
Therefore BP lies again and again; and dare to seek reduction in oil spill fine.
"BP Seeks $3.4 Billion Cut in Potential Oil Spill Fine" -
On 2010, May 8 it was reported:"It plugged up the top of the dome where the oil would come out," on its way to a ship, Suttles said. Suttles said BP continues working on other methods to seal off the spewing oil well, such as injecting the failed blowout preventer on the sea floor with a shot of rubber and other materials. A longer-term solution is also under way to drill a relief well that cuts off the flow.The company is also pursuing several possibilities on fixing the box, sometimes called a cofferdam, but Suttles said it's difficult to say what might work."We're working in 5,000 feet of water, a very difficult, challenging environment," he said.Lowering the cofferdam from a different angle over the leak might prevent the crystals from forming, as well as injecting the box with warming chemicals."Unclogging is not difficult," Suttles said. "All we would have to do is raise it up to a higher depth. The issue is how to keep them from forming again. That's the big challenge."
Quote from BP Press release dated 10 May 2010.
Subsea efforts continue to focus on two fronts: first, reducing the flow of oil spilled by physical containment and second, further work on stopping the flow using a “top kill” option.
The containment dome that was deployed last week has been parked away from the spill area on the sea bed. Efforts to place it over the main leak point were suspended at the weekend as a build up of hydrates prevented a successful placement of the dome over the spill area.
A second, smaller containment dome is being readied to lower over the main leak point. The small dome will be connected by drill pipe and riser lines to a drill ship on the surface to collect and treat oil. It is designed to mitigate the formation of large hydrate volumes. This operation has never been done before in 5,000 feet of water.
Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response | Press release | BPwww.bp.comGulf of Mexico update
- Proof: If the containment dome (that was deployed on 7 May) had been "parked away from the spill area on the sea bed" then it could not have been deployed over the actual "leak" locations.
- Read: "Efforts to place it over the main leak point were suspended at the weekend as a build up of hydrates prevented a successful placement of the dome over the spill area." means the hydrates built up as soon as the dome was lowered down to certain depths due to the "freezing temp".
So even if the dome were to be placed over the gushing leak (as you have seen on the ROV video) the hot oil plume would have unfrozen the methane hydrates and unclogged the top of the dome. This inconsistency again confirmed that the Containment Dome was never intended to trap the crude. It was for show only.
- Now consider this. Many independent experienced drillers had suggested ideas on how to stop the leaks but BP never listen to any one of them. Why? Because if BP had spent years cooking up this "manufactured disaster" the last thing they wanted to is to
- We are doomed to see history repeats itself if we do not learn the lessons. And the time could be near with the North Sea leaks (& shutdown), Shell Kulluk accident, BP Algeria Plant hijacked by terrorists, the impending FEMA surprise and many more. That is why the de-arming of 300 millions of American civilians is so urgent.
Is there a possibility BP actually drilled 3 wells?
Though BP has officially declared having drilled only Well A, there is a possibility that on 6 Feb 2010, DWH drilled Well B instead of reentering Well A which was abandoned on 9 Nov 2009; again without informing MMS. Well B would be just as problematic as Well A, since the same GWSF hazardous condition spans over the three well locations (A, B and S20BC). On the same basis, Relief Well D would be more problematical than Relief Well C which is located at the base of the seabed escarpment. Well A, B, S20BC and Relief Well D are all located within the southern slope face of the escarpment. It is inconsequential whether BP did or did not drill Well B (instead of Well A as officially declared), the fact remains that BP moved to the unreported S20BC location after abandoning the Well A (or Well B as the case may be) in around 17 March 2010. On 20 April 2010, DWH blew at S20BC the unreported mystery location that is still leaking oil and gas into the gulf.
The most important question that begs an immediate answer: Why would BP go through such an elaborate scheme of Mass Deception? They must be pretty sure no one will unravel the truth. There must be more skeletons in the closet.
If you had read my posting on the blowout carefully, the initial gas influx that caused the blowout and fire on DWH was from the extended gas charged pressure (EGCP) zone and not from the bottom of the well as most would have thought. Haliburton would be pleased to know that their bottom cement plug did not fail immediately. There were many technical gaps I had to leave out (for various reasons) until I can find the conclusive evidence. DWH burnt for 2 days fed by gas and oil flowing from the shallow part of the aquifer within the GWSF zone (Why was DWH Blowout so disastrous and beyond patch-up.) This will need more explanation with diagrams in next sequel of Answers to Questions Raised -002.