BP's permit to drill Macondo well was submitted to MMS on 10 March 2009

These videos talking about "something wicked (a depopulation event)" about to happen. Mexico was mentioned many times with reference to the Aztec human sacrifice. They were speculating on a volcanic eruption of some sort. Coincidentally the radio interviews were 20 and 28 of April 2009. So words must have leaked out but details were fuzzy; leaving room for a lot of speculation. Look for the keywords like mass destruction, vaccine, population reduction, mexico etc.

The Macondo well was destined to blow up in Nov 2009 but Hurricane Ida spoiled the plan. The April 2010 blowout event was a backup plan, a retry.

• by BK Lim (first written on 10 Aug 2010, revised on 28 April 2011)

The first few obvious discrepancies to stick out like a sore thumb were the “2 major leaks on the riser” substitution for the real leaks on the seabed. These discrepancies were first raised in the forensic analysis of the Deepwater Horizon wreckage (DWH blowout CSI: Why-it-could-not-have-happened-as-reported-by-BP ) in July 2010.

In figure 157-1, these discrepancies are illustrated diagrammatically. BP's official story on the leaks on the riser are given in figures 157-2 and 157-3. Till this day, none of the main stream media had ever questioned the flaws in BP's story of the two leaks on the riser. One year later, we again bring up the discrepancies to illustrate the physical impossibilities.

To refresh readers, BP claimed that the BOP was largely intact and still standing after the DWH sank on 22 April 2010. The 5,000ft riser was bent but still connected to the BOP at well A. BP claimed that all the oil spilled into the gulf came from two leaks on the riser. The first (1) were several punctures sustained on the riser when it bent as the DWH sank. The second (2) and bigger leak was the severed end of the “riser” 480 ft north of well A. Rov videos and images of the second leak were shown first in early May 2010. The first leak (1) on top of the BOP was only shown weeks later.

Discrepancy #1

It is obvious that the severed casing at 2 had not been bent, twisted and broken off during the sinking of the DWH. If it was, the casing could not have maintained its almost circular shape. It appears more likely to have been either cut or torn-off as in “blown apart”. This itself rules out the severed casing being the mid section of the riser since there would not be any reason for the riser to be blown apart anywhere in its mid section.

Discrepancy #2

The diameter of the casing at 2 is evidently much larger than the diameter of the bent riser at 1. They do not appear to look the same at all. The casing at 2 appears more likely to be part of the casing coming directly out of the seabed than being connected to the riser coming from the top of the BOP.

Discrepancy #3

Assuming BP's official version, how can the second leak (480 ft away from the BOP) have a large volume of oil/gas flow than the first leak (1) directly on top of the BOP? If the oil and gas were flowing out of the same riser pipe, should not the first leak be the larger of the two?

Discrepancy #4

Leak (1) is about 70 ft above the seabed. Could oil and gas flow downwards past the punctured bend at 1 to reach the second leak 480 ft away at seabed level? If some oil and gas did leak through (1), then leak 2 should be spewing less oil and gas than leak (1) – see discrepancy #3. But even BP admitted leak 2 to be the large of the two.

Discrepancy #5

Leak 2 appeared in all videos and images to spew more oil than gas and with more ferocity than leak (1). How can that be when all the pressure would have leaked out at (1)?

Discrepancy #6

Well A and the BOP was south of the second leak location. So if well A was the source, the oil and gas would have flowed northwards. But in all the rov videos, the casing was coming out of the seabed from the north with the oil and gas flowing southwards. So where is the connection?

There are many more discrepancies but the few that I have listed above should be enough to completely refute the official version of 2 leaks on the riser coming out of the BOP at well A. For what reasons must BP lie so blatantly on the 2 leaks on the seabed?

• (20 April 2011)

BP's credibility sank to an all time low with the discoveries of photoshopped images of the gulf response operation centre and recovery efforts. However, perceived as a “responsible corporate citizen” with the promise of doing it right, BP were given the benefit of a doubt that all these adulterated (photoshopped) images were innocently done to improve the image of the company in the face of widespread adverse publicity. As Scott Dean (BP's spokeman) tried to spin, there was nothing sinister in photo alteration as in “improving the beauty of one's face”. See some of the previous reports on photo adulteration using photoshop. A pig with a lipstick is still a pig.

21 July 2010 BP-blaims-photographer-for-photoshop images

When BP got caught altering one of the photos on their Gulf response press page, whom did they blame? "A photographer."

Washington Post: "Scott Dean, a spokesman for BP, said that there was nothing sinister in the photo alteration and provided the original unaltered version. He said that a photographer working for the company had inserted the three images in spots where the video screens were blank."

AP: "He [Dean] says the photographer was showing off his Photoshop skills and there was no ill intent."

The photographer's name shows up on the image's meta data. He's been doing work for the company since at least 2004. "Showing off his Photoshop skills?"

21 July 2010 BP Photoshops Another Official Image Terribly

This week it came to light that BP had photoshopped—poorly—an official image of their crisis command center. Apparently, that wasn't an isolated incident. Let's take a closer look at this view from a helicopter, shall we?

The photo, sent in by a tipster and entitled "View of the MC 252 site from the cockpit of a PHI S-92 helicopter 26 June 2010," shows up here, a section of BP's website that hopes to explain their response effort through pictures. This one, sadly, is fabricated.

The Macondo blowout killed 11 drilling crew and many others directly or indirectly due to the consequences of the ensuing oil spill. That makes the wells drilled and all the information related to the incident, criminal evidence. Manipulating and tampering with criminal evidences is a crime, is it not?

There had been many previous articles giving examples and instances of how the ROV coordinates and details had been manipulated. Why is it necessary for BP to manipulate the information if not to hide the truth? One year later, we are still discovering more and more discrepancies in the official information, ROV data and photo images released by BP to the public. More examples from our archives will be released in stages.

Part 153:1 The case of the “travelling” blown-out crater with oil gushing out of the riser from the north.

Figure 153-1a to 1d show the “larger of the 2 leaks on the broken riser” from 8 May to 17 May 2010. This was the first and only oil gush location shown until 15 May 2010 when videos of the second leak on the “bent riser attached to the BOP” was later released. Videos of rov inspection at the source location (well A if that was truly the well that blew on 20 April 2010) were never released until after mid June, more than a month later. Why would BP show the “leak on the riser 480 feet from the top of the blowout preventer (BOP)” and not the critical BOP itself? Wasn't the BOP and the location of the blown-out well more critical than the “end of the riser leak”? By hiding the critical videos, BP appear to be criminally guilt of a serious crime of mega proportions. Is BP not bound to show the critical rov videos on the BOP and blown well location in the first few weeks following the blowout incident under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? Is it not an offense to hide/dispose/deny data or information from a criminal investigation on the crime scene? There are lots of questions which the Oil Commission Investigators apparently forgot to ask. More of this in another article. In this article, we want to focus on the adulteration of information or deliberate manipulation of data with the purpose of disseminating misinformation.

Though all the four videos given at BP's official you-tube website show the same “oil spewing location”, the information contained in the videos and accompanying description showed vastly different locations. The seabed spew location seems to be travelling southwards to as far as 2,813 ft SE of Well A. These “errors” in the coordinates seemed deliberate as they cannot be logically explained by instrument malfunction, inaccuracy or random noise.

See the tabulated summary in figure 153-2. Amazingly all the four videos were downloaded on 27 May 2010. Either these misinformation were meant to create public confusion or the BP's department that uploaded the videos was technically incompetent with regard to the basic notion of time and space.

Using the coordinates imprinted on the rov videos, the same leak location on the seabed was computed to be:

515 ft NW of well A location on 8 May 2010,

1,533 ft SW of well A location on 11 May 2010,

2,813 ft SE of well A location on 17 May 2010.

Honestly, could a LEAK LOCATION ON THE SEABED, have travelled that far and wide. Did BP think the Public would be so stupid not to notice?

Amazingly none of the oil companies, with all their technical expertise and promulgated environmental (HSE) protection policies, had publicly condemned BP on their unprofessional misconduct and blatant deceptive dissemination of information on the disaster. Do birds of the same feathers flock together? Can the public trust these giant oil companies to carry out exploration activities responsibly, if they can so irresponsibly turn a blind eye to BP's blatant deceptions and environmental destruction? Is it not time to get rid of the black sheep in the oil industry? Or are the black sheep in the oil industry the majority and public mass deception has been the normal practice all along? So help us GOD.

To be continued with ….

Part 153:2 - ROV Northing coordinates adulterated by 2,300 ft, revealed another blowout location (?).

Part 153:3 - The amazing morphing of the LMRP cap.

Part 153:4 - Oil-gas flow defy physical laws of fluid dynamics.

Part 153:5 …....

But is the industry truly ready to go back to work? A couple of points make one uncertain. For starters, assurances that BP was the only bad actor aren't good enough, and verge on the naïve -- all actors in the Gulf knew or should have known that any accident by anyone would affect all.

What about the spill containment equipment? As described, this is an impressive bit of work. Yet it also has a distinct political quality -- in order to get working again in the United States, the industry was forced to take such action; otherwise no one would be convinced it is serious about the environment. But we see no word of such equipment being deployed elsewhere in the deepwater world, such as in Angola, Brazil, Canada, Nigeria and Norway. Are we to believe that the Gulf of Mexico is the only place at risk of a big spill?

Truth will always prevail in time; the only problem is, “Can we afford the time?”. In the chaotic aftermath of any disaster, the baby (truth) sometimes get thrown out with the bath water. While it was obvious from the very start that so much oil could not have spewed out from only one well, BP was still very adamant that well A was only spewing 1,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd). Although the spew rate was later revised to 5,000 bpd then 20,000 bpd to as much as 75,000 bpd, a single well spewing double that amount still could not account for so much oil on the sea surface.

The late Matt Simmons was among the first to shout that oil could be spewing out of blown-out vents at the fault zones and the precarious edges of the many salt domes in the region. Though evidences had been forwarded in support of Matt Simmons' assertion, the official story of “only one well that blew and spewed” remains. One year later, our conviction that a lot more oil spewed out through the 3 wells drilled by BP, the open blown vents at the fault zones and the precarious edges of the salt domes is even stronger. One year later, we dig up evidences that had been overlooked by the mainstream, wrongly interpreted, simply ignored or lost in the information overload days following the disaster.

Figure 152-1 shows the odd shaped oil slick 3 days following the second and more powerful blast on 22 April 2010. This was reported by Mail Online in Visible from space, the giant oil slick oozing towards America's Gulf Coast on 28 April 2010.

The enormous spill, which was caused by the April 20 explosion and subsequent sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform, is now around 48 miles long and 80 miles wide. It is believed to be around 600 miles in circumference. Meanwhile, the glistening sheen of sweet crude continued to grow and began forming long reddish-orange ribbons of oil that, if they wash up on shore, could cover birds, white sand beaches and marsh grasses.

The spill covered an expanding area about 48 miles long and 80 miles wide, but with uneven borders, making it roughly 3,840 square miles. If the well cannot be closed, almost 100,000 barrels of oil, or 4.2 million gallons, could spill into the Gulf before crews can drill a relief well to alleviate the pressure. By comparison, the Exxon Valdez, the worst oil spill in US history, leaked 11 million gallons into Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989.

The company said it would begin the drilling by tomorrow even if crews could shut off oil leaking from the pipe 5,000 feet underground. Robot subs have tried to activate a shut-off device, but so far that has not worked. Company spokesman Robert Wine said the drilling would take up to three months and be done from a rig now in place near where the Deepwater Horizon sank. Louisiana-based BP spokesman Neil Chapman said 49 vessels - oil skimmers, tugboats barges and special recovery boats that separate oil from water - were working to round up oil.

Theoretically, a low surface current of 1 knots would need less 3 days to push the elongated slick 50 km north-east from the Macondo wells (see figure 152-2). It is however, harder to explain the odd-jagged shape slick pattern that seemed to hover above the nearby salt domes and shelf edges. Although periodic changes in surface currents could produce step-like long narrow streaks of oil, there is a problem in explaining how a 10-25 km saw-tooth swathe slick could be pushed by surface currents alone. Also the Macondo Well A location sits at the south-western edge of the continuous giant slick. No matter how strong the surface currents, it was impossible to sweep clean any slick south-west of well A. Clearly the surface currents had no part in the odd-shaped giant oil slick.

The odd-shape oil slick would however, fit in nicely with the faults and salt dome occurrences if the oil had spew through them as Matt Simmons had asserted almost a year ago. See figure 145-1 which shows the major fault lines and the earlier observed oil slicks compiled in October 2010. The figures and oil slick pattern speak for themselves.

So did all the oil in the gulf really spew out of only one well as officially promulgated. Judge for yourself who has been lying?

UPDATE - another addition to this list since posting it 2 days ago:

April 2, 2011 -Tucker Mendoza, a gulf truth activist, was shot early this morning 4
times through the door of his home in Laplace. He was hit 3 times in
the chest and once across the forehead. With him was a niece, he
reports she was struck in the neck and bottom. http://bpoilslick.blogspot.com/2011/04/dispatch-tucker-mendoza-gulf-truth.html

• by BK Lim (23 Feb 2011) email: bklimgeohazards@gmail.com

Is there a common factor between the quake off Fort Morgan on 18 Feb 2010 and the recent swarm of quakes occurring in the vicinity of the New Madrid Fault zone? You are right if the BP Mega Oil spill and the Deepwater Horizon blowout on 20 April 2010 comes to mind.

They are all quakes similar to the disastrous 22 Feb 2011 quake that occured close to Christshurch in New Zealand. Their shallow epicentres are off the main tectonic (or intra-plate) main fault lines. There are significant differences though, especially in magnitude and tectonic plate settings. The recent NZ disaster was more devastating than an earlier quake 11 times more powerful with its epicentre on the plate margin.

Since the 2Aug 2010 quake at Louisiana, we have been warning of more occurrences of such shallow low magnitude quakes. See figure 145-1 which shows some of the hidden series of NW-SE strike-slip fault lines typical of intra-plate movement. The fault chart (prepared in August and updated only with annotations) was only published on 10 Nov2010, Update On BP Rigs Location & the Fault Connection. The consequence of the continuing corosive erosion along these faults by leaking hydrocarbons from deep reservoirs (not only from the Macondo prospect) is the release in stresses between the upper and lower crust; resulting in shallow quakes of generally low magnitude. This was mentioned in a recent article, first written on 14 Feb and updated 20 Feb 2011.

~~~start of quote~~~Silencing The Independent Voices Of Truth On The BP's Mega Oil Spill GOM

For millions of years, the south-eastern part of the North American tectonic plate (south-east of the New Madrid Fault line) has been thrusting in a north-easterly direction while the western half of the plate has been moving south along the San Andreas fault line. This is the main reason for the present gulf seabed morphology.

The resultant torsion tension is reflected by the fault pattern illustrated in a previous article BP's Rigs Location & Fault Connection. Besides lateral stresses, vertical stresses also developed between the upper and lower section of the tectonic blocks due to differential upper and lower slide movement. The abnormal occurrences of hundreds of shallow and low magnitude earthquakes since the Macondo blowout are the direct consequence of the continual release of these pent-up stress zones. FEMA recently sent out RFI (request for information) to identify vendors for the emergency supply of food rations, various fuels and hydration in support of disaster relief efforts based on a catastrophic disaster event within the New Madrid Fault system for a survivor population of 7 million to be utilised for the sustainment of life during a 10-day period of operations. Is FEMA having privileged information of an impending disaster in the New Madrid Fault area, 9 months after the BP's Mega-oil Spill disaster?

~~~end of quote ~~~~

What is the area extent of these continuing leakages of hydrocarbons along these faults , vaporisation of methane hydrates due to warming effect of these leaking hydrocarbons and rapid mass depletion caused by continuing sub-seabed erosion? Judging by the number of reported quake-swarms, we are pretty close to the point of no return if we have not passed that point yet.

So far the quakes had been low magnitude between 2 to 4 on the Richter Scale. FEMA is expecting a major quake disaster similar to the recent Christchurch Quake in New Zealand. As we have seen, the shallow quakes are more devastating than a deep one at the base of the crust. The New Madrid Fault is an intra-plate tectonically stressed zone. It behaves very differently from the tectonic plate margins.

Since these shallow intra-plate quakes had been unleashed by the drilling and blowouts at the Macondo prospect, it makes sense to monitor closely the seafloor and the continental shelf edges. Mapping the gas vents in the vicinity of these faults and shelf edges would go a long way to making accurate predictions of what to expect in the vicinity of the New Madrid Fault zone. More powerful need not necessarily be more devastating but one thing for sure, the disaster has not ended yet despite what you have been told. Christchurch was hit by a hidden fault (???)

~~~ start of quote ~~~~

New_Zealand_Earthquake_Science By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer–Tue Feb22, 6:10pmET

No one died in that early morning quake — which was 11 times stronger — mainly because it was centered farther away, about 30 miles west of the city center. It was also twice as deep as Tuesday's aftershock. Shallower quakes tend to be more damaging.

LOS ANGELES – The latest New Zealand earthquake was a deadly combination of distance, depth and timing. While weaker than the one that rocked the area last September, it did more damage and cost lives, primarily because of its location. Tuesday's magnitude-6.3 quake was centered about 3 miles from the populated hub of Christchurch, toppling buildings, killing dozens and trapping others. It was also only about 3 miles deep and occurred during the middle of a workday when commercial buildings were filled with employees.The jolt "is squarely beneath the city itself," said seismologist Egill Hauksson of the California Institute of Technology. "All the old historic buildings are being shaken more violently than they were built to withstand." Scientists classified it as an aftershock of the powerful magnitude-7 that struck last Sept. 4.

A series of videos presentation by Ian R Crane showing the Connection between V President Dick Cheney, Goldman Sachs, BP and Haliburton behind the Disaster. BP company man refused to shutdown the well although strongly recommended by Schlumberger team. The Schlumberger team was shipped out at 11 am, 10 hours before the blowout. Convincing evidence the DWH blowout was planned to happen to trigger a disaster.

You need to see these videos.

Part 1/11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQc19IB6YA4&feature=related

Part 2/11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jHT_tb9P5c&feature=related

.....

Part 11/11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kApLcHIx6NU&feature=related

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Above is a letter which I have written to two US Congressmen/Chairmen regarding some geohazard/seafloor developments at the Macondo Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico, the location of last year's BP Oil Spill.

I have posted many articles on the internet on the geohazardous conditions at the Macondo site (see http://bklim.newsvine.com and http://phoenixrisingfromthegulf.wordpress.com). Those of us working in the Oil and Gas Industry know how dangerous oil exploration can be and the disastrous consequences of any blowout, especially those that had reached their targeted reservoirs. The number of near disasters and oil spill disasters in recent years is not, and can never be, good for our industry. The safety of our working colleagues and the future of the oil industry are dependent on improving, not deteriorating safety standards and compromising preventive pre-drill planning, management and geohazards assessment.

We must also prove to the world our sincerity, our responsibility and our accountability towards preserving the global environment and leaving the world in a better place for our children. To those who know me or have worked with me in the past, I would deeply appreciate your support in emailing some words of verification that I (BK Lim) am a real person (not virtual) and a professional geohazards specialist working in the offshore Oil and Gas Industry. If appropriate, you might want to address any similar issues or incidents that would validate a pattern of conduct which led to the Macondo Blowout, as well as many similar situations that have occurred throughout the history of offshore oil and gas drilling.

To those who have not met me in person, but have come across my past work and contribution to the industry, please spare some time to write to:

Dr. Tom Termotto, National Coordinator

Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference

Tallahassee, FL

"Oil Spill Solution"

We greatly need the world's support in the remediation of the BP Oil Spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Who would be better to lend support to this international community endeavor than those whose livelihoods depend on the Gulf's future, and those who understand the true state of affairs wherever oil and gas drilling are conducted in the oceans of the world.

Kind regards,

BK Lim

Links to video mentioned in the letter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aDI2X5hMOo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF5pWTvu5L4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_DgHYF8rKg&feature=related

On December 1, CCF published a special Dr. Tom Termotto Gulf disaster report, titled "The Gulf of Mexico is Dying." He's National Coordinator for the Tallahassee, FL-based Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference (International Citizens' Initiative). Its disturbing findings are discussed below. He published them so "the world community will come together to further contemplate this dire and demanding predicament." Future generations depend on it.

Termotto's entire report can be accessed here.
http://mathaba.net/go/?http://phoenixrisingfromthegulf.wordpress.com/
In an early July statement, he called the Gulf disaster "a tragic violation of the public trust," adding:

"The BP Gulf Oil Spill was created by man; it was not an act of God....It was an utterly manmade event; not an accident....where fate would have everything accidently go wrong that could go possibly so wrong....We wonder out loud about whether it is now time to establish a Regional Citizens' Initiative....to step in where government and industry have completely failed and betrayed the people."

His current assessment is based on seven months Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference work, "disseminate(d) with the authority and confidence of those who have thoroughly investigated a crime scene." A compelling body of evidence, including photo-documentaries, portrays the Gulf's true state - what BP, Washington, and major media reports suppressed.

In Brussels, the European Commission proposed a moratorium, which was fiercely opposed by the North Sea oil industry. The moratorium was defeated by MEPs, however, unanimously backed by the Labour, SNP, Conservative and Liberal Democrat members from Scotland.

This resulted in fierce criticism from the Scottish Green Party, who dubbed them "the shameful six". The spill also put the spotlight on BP's safety record in the North Sea, with the Sunday Herald revealing in June that the company had broken vital health and safety rules 54 times over the past five years.

"The Gulf oil spill focused attention on plenty of areas that the oil industry would rather no-one was thinking about," said Dr Richard Dixon, the director of WWF Scotland.

FRIENDS of the Earth Scotland pointed out that it was the poor communities that bore the brunt in the US. "It was only when oil started to reach Florida, rather than Louisiana, that the US took it seriously," said the group's head of campaigns, Juliet Swann.

BP, meanwhile, is busy trying to repair its damaged reputation. It has said sorry, taken responsibility for the clean-up and ploughed untold public relations resources into "making it right". The question is, could it happen again?

Nearly 400 feet long, the Horizon had formidable and redundant defenses against even the worst blowout. It was equipped to divert surging oil and gas safely away from the rig. It had devices to quickly seal off a well blowout or to break free from it. It had systems to prevent gas from exploding and sophisticated alarms that would quickly warn the crew at the slightest trace of gas. The crew itself routinely practiced responding to alarms, fires and blowouts, and it was blessed with experienced leaders who clearly cared about safety.

On paper, experts and investigators agree, the Deepwater Horizon should have weathered this blowout.

This is the story of how and why it didn't.

The biggest deception in the BP’s Mega Oil Spill disaster has been the existence of the third well (S20BC); the only well that actually reached BP’s targeted reservoir at 18,300 ft below mudline (bml). A gushing well drilled deep into the highly faulted fragile Gulf-Salt Geology would be difficult to kill even under the best of conditions. Of the 3 wells drilled, the shallowest and easiest well to kill (Well A) was chosen to be the star of the greatest magic show on earth; a multibillion “state of the art” Mass Deception Production that needed the full cooperation of the world’s most powerful government and main stream media to produce.

But the featured magic stunt was proving difficult to perform with an unwilling and unpredictable star well. Although drilled only 5000ft (13,000ft short of BP’s targeted oil reservoir), Well A is located in the vicinity of the intersection of a shallow E-W normal shallow fault and the major NW-SE strike-slip fault zone. Well B which was drilled deeper (13,300 ft bml) intercepted this E-W fault and the Rigel Gas reservoir. Therefore Well A is well-supplied with gas and oil from both faults as its last 1000ft (from 4000 – 5000ft bml) was never cased. Does this explain why Well A is so difficult to “kill”, especially with a >3,000 ft drill-string stuck at the bottom of the open well?

Does the short and open bottom well explain the many mysteries of the leaking well? In particular, the low capped well pressure which maxed out at 6900 psi; far short of the expected pressure range of 8000-9000 psi. Or the mysterious 40% cement loss when 500 barrels of cement were pumped in for the top static kill on 3 Aug? All the unexplainable observations at Well A made no sense simply because it was not the 18,300ft well that reached the targeted reservoir. BP’s managers who knew the truth, must have laughed out their asses at the pro-BP Schills leading intricate expert discussions on how to kill the star well that never quite reach the reservoir. Now does that make sense?

Understandably Well A which was unceremoniously laid to rest on 8 Nov 2010, will not lay dead for long. A steady stream of gas bubbles, deep gashes around the wellhead, black clouds of oil seeping through the fault crevices and a couple of bulging mounds waiting to explode are reminders that the Zombie Well will spring back to life.

Meanwhile the real gusher well at S20BC marked by a giant solitary piled tombstone lays eerily silent in a middle of a devastated seafloor. Devoid of life, the wasted seabed scarred by trenches, scattered pieces of wrecks, potholes, craters and an artificial turf of cement-drilling mud mixture, is reminiscent of a bombed out battlefield. But is the gusher well really dead or has it morphed into a “multiple-headed hydra” deep beneath the seafloor that is even more difficult to kill.

BP’s simplistic and geologically unrealistic aim of plugging a single tubular hole in a solid mass of rocks is as unreal and unstable as a “sand castle on the beach”. After months of spewing a corrosive mix of gas, oil and brine into the fragile faulted Gulf Salt-Geology, even the most optimistic geologists would come to the grim conclusion that the 18,300 ft well is no longer the only vertical conduit out of the reservoir. In all probability, a complex multi-pathway monster (more akin to the mythical multi-headed Hydra that Heracles tried to slay) has developed in its place. As said many times before, there is simply no way to plug the genie back into the bottle.

BP’s failure to stop oil and gas escaping from the reservoirs is confirmed by increased (not decreased) work activities at the Macondo site. Officially BP declared they were winding down and packing up after their purported successful permanent bottom kill by the relief well on 19 Sept. Their “victory cry” rang hollow when an additional drilling rig (West Sirius) arrived without notice at the Macondo Site in mid October.

Why would 4 very expensive rigs, each costing more than 1 million USD/day, be milling around in the Macondo prospect after the MC252 Well was long declared dead? Why should dozens of expensive vessels still be working with multi-million dollar ROVs scanning the dead seabed for signs of life, months after well A was capped and top-killed?

Is such extravaganza on a dead well warranted? See the contradictions? Why spend tens of millions of dollars per day grouting, combing the seafloor just to observe a couple of eels, spraying chemicals (presumably dispersants) if the oil-gas leaks from the reservoirs had been successfully sealed? Why idle 4 expensive rigs (which were presumably not drilling) around a supposedly dead well?

BP had repeatedly said they would make it right. Yes, right by whom? On the other hand, you have millions of unpaid bills, thousands of unemployed gulf victims waiting in vain for their miserable compensation from BP’s 20 billion dollar fund and thousands of miles of abandoned oiled coastlines waiting for rehabilitation. Does this sound right? The script of this disaster movie is getting more and more absurd by the day.

Shouldn’t the “main stream media” at least ask what the hell is going on at the Gulf? Their silence on the grieving Gulf is indeed deafening! There are abundant contentions for investigative journalism. But where are the big boys?

Perhaps the script writer of this Disaster Movie got the script mixed up with the Cinderella Story? Lock up the Cinderella Gulf victims on the coast while the Evil BP Sisters vine and dine on the luxurious drilling rigs at sea. Or did the Marie Antoinette of BP Palace say “let them eat cakes”? Whatever it is, the dead corpses are beginning to stink. The script writers were running out of “spinning story lines” to explain the “rotting smell” coming out of the closet.

The nightmare tale of “BP’s Three Wishing Wells” is one of mega extremes. Plagued with massive cost over-runs, the ill-conceived B-rated movie production was forced to change its script each time Mother Nature refused to play ball. It is truly a mega-disaster movie of epic proportions, one with a predictably bad and sad ending for the victims of the gulf and Mother Nature as the impotent corrupted regulators watched helplessly on the side stage.

In the original script, the movie was supposed to have ended soon after the carnage of the disaster was exposed and the villains brought to justice. But the script changed to protect the villains when the hawks won over the boardroom. Instead of genuine recovery and containment efforts, the emphasis switched to covering up BP’s criminality and limiting their financial liabilities.

Why else would BP so readily declare that the relief wells would take more than 3 months to drill when 2 months would be more than sufficient? Although BP publicly displayed full confidence in killing the gushing well with their relief well efforts; privately they had reservations. The discrepancy between Publicly Displayed Confidence and Private Reservation is apparent from several angles. Would they have bought the additional buffer time so secretly if they were so confident of success, operation wise? An open heart surgery in full view of a live world audience would prove BP’s confidence and do wonders for BP’s stocks. On the other hand, unexplained covert relief well efforts with many reversals would make BP look BAD; a total mockery of BP’s professed guaranteed success.

But why would BP want to publicly flaunt the confidence they did not have?

Most independent experts rated the Relief Well Kill efforts to have less than 30% chance of success. Why would there be such a large disparity in predicted success rate? Previous relief well efforts in past disasters achieved their objectives of controlling and killing the wild wells after several failed attempts spanning several months.

So either BP was very naïve or the “race had been rigged” to produce the predicted winner. With little evidence of naivety, it was more likely the polls had been rigged to provide the right winning number. The evidence for this can be deciphered from the many discrepancies between BP’s mass destruction at site and “Bogus Good Intentions” made by BP.

Public confidence is an essential ingredient in any scam. Nobody had expected BP to be perfect in dealing with a mega disaster never experienced before. A 50% chance of success would have been perfectly acceptable. In trying to project 100% false confidence in an uncertain circumstance BP had only itself to blame for its relief well failures.

Many chapters of BP’s Art of Mass Deception manual had been heavily borrowed from the world’s financial bubbles guidebooks. Less than 2 months into the disaster, many independent observers were puzzled by BP’s inconsistent recovery efforts. BP’s capping and relief wells efforts were seen by many, as distractive magic shows. The deliberate efforts to cloud the situation with misinformation were clearly parts of BP’s scheme of Mass Deception.

Why Is Bps Macondo Blowout So Disastrous Beyond Patch Up …29 July 2010

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?

Deception is however a double edge sword. Coded errors are genetic finger-prints which provide valuable clues of bad intentions. Measured against standard professional practices, unethical misconducts stand out like sore thumbs beneath the charade.

The disconnect between the promulgated bogus “good intentions” and the actual mass destruction at ground zero (seafloor 5000ft below) is clearly documented by the ROV videos. Although adulterated, valuable information can still be deciphered from the video footages. By why adulterate the videos in the first place? It only meant that BP had a lot to hide.

To prevent uncensored versions and information from getting out, BP had to impose stringent security measures and heavy clampdown of “dissidents”. Unadulterated insiders’ videos had to be smuggled out using innovative means. If this is not an “Independent Police State” operating within the United States, then authoritarian states like North Korea and other of the world must be Freedom Paradises. What a paradox? The world’s foremost champion of freedom of information sanctioning pockets of “communist regimes” within her sovereign borders?

What are the chances of 3 accidental deaths of 3 prominent figures closely associated with the disaster in the last 3 months? The late Matt Simmons died in a hot water bath on 8 Aug; Ex-Senator Stevens in a plane crash in Alaska on 10 Aug and Jim Black, a BP incident commander for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill response team in a plane crash in Florida on 24 Nov 2010. No doubt more deaths will follow.

Perhaps crime does pay but only for those at the very top. The top engineers of the disaster have until today remained free and have gotten their luxurious yachting life back but not the millions who had been sentenced to a life of the walking dead. Thousands are thrown off their normal livelihood with no means of getting them back. But for the perpetrators of the crime of the century, they were amply rewarded with golden parachutes. Heck, this is more rewarding than big time bank robberies. So watch out for more “block buster” mega disasters in the near future. Which unscrupulous criminal wouldn’t? “State-sponsored” crimes of mass destruction carried out with impunity.

Of course these crimes of mass destruction could not have materialized if the internal check and balance had not been compromised; if not for lapses of judgment, compromised principles and integrity, corruptions and expediency at every level of planning and operation within the industry. Industrial safety standards would not have deteriorated to this low level if only the general population had been more concerned and better informed. Oil companies like BP should not be left to their own devices. Like financial bubbles, these white collar crimes of mass destruction will “bubble and burst” if they are allowed to proliferate with impunity. The most favorite excuse of all time: no concrete evidence of wrong doing.

Well how concrete do you want the evidence to be? We have already seen video images of the giant solitary piled (concrete) tombstone for the third missing well (S20BC). We have already presented images of large scale mass destruction at the Macondo site. Concrete evidences of increased work activities like grouting were recorded long after the Macondo well was declared dead. This was contrary to BP’s own declared intention of winding down the “killing works” after the reportedly “successful top static kill” on 2 Aug. The forensic analyses of the Deepwater Horizon wreckage, BP’s Macondo bathymetry chart and geohazards assessment showed that all the irregularities and inconsistencies could not have been accidental mistakes. Nobody especially a technological giant with thousands of technical experts could be that STUPID. The trail of premeditated, cleverly disguised “mistakes” can only lead to one conclusion; willful negligence and greed.

If the tens of pages of documented evidence are too tedious to read, just consider the most recent blatant lie by BP. Main stream media all over the world reported BP’s press statement that the relief well finally intercepted the rogue well on 15 Sept after months of waiting just 10 feet from the well. With that, BP declared the crisis to be finally over and the world rewarded BP with a price hike in BP’s stock.

Now for what obvious reason would BP need to lie about the relief well intercept? Although we have long suspected the relief well fiasco much earlier in July, there was a need to keep “radio silence” for obvious reasons. We could only start releasing the concrete ROV evidence in The Hole Truth Nothing But The Truth On The 3rd Hole from 15 Nov 2010 onwards, after BP had clearly shown their “cards”.

Recent insiders’ information also confirmed that Relief Well C had indeed intercepted the rogue well in the first week of July 2010.

Figure 139-1 shows the smoking gun of the third well (S20BC). Were the relief well efforts to kill the rogue well unsuccessful as predicted by independent experts in the first week of July? BP obviously could not show the “casing removal operation” video dated 29 July, as that would confirm the existence of the third missing well BP has denied since day 1. If the relief well had managed to stop the flow (as evident in the video), surely it would have been advantageous for BP to announce it. That was precisely the problem BP faced with the magic show at well A. BP cannot “show the oil leak from the reservoir has been licked” while enormous amount of oil clouds was still spewing uncontrollably through the crevices in the fault zones.

See segment 3:38-5:50 of the 10:33 mins video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0u9bT7VbK0.The incriminating video segment had to be embedded between the publicly broadcasted video to escape detection.

BP realised then, their bottom kill by the relief wells would not work as many had earlier feared. Was their silence on the relief well efforts a tacit admission of defeat? Two and a half (2 ½ months) is a long delay by any standard.

Was the sudden announcement that “the well was finally intercepted and permanently killed” on 19 Sept compelled by political pressure before the mid-term election? Given BP’s admission that the bottom Kill operation required weeks of logistic preparation and analytical calculations, wasn’t the surprised 19 Sept Announcement a “prepack virtual instant kill”; only to be microwaved for serving at a moment notice. That surprised announcement of success took the wind out of BP’s fans who had been waiting anxiously for months to see the exciting grand finale. Suddenly they were told the final match was over. Many felt cheated and disappointed as was Thad Allen who had announced a week earlier, the grand finale postponement. So much for BP’s promise of transparency and accountability. Obviously Thad Allen was not the one calling the shot. Who would want his own credibility shot to pieces, by announcing the week before that the permanent kill via the relief well intercept would not happen until mid October due to “undisclosed problems”?

Was the fanatic extensive grouting effort during the 2 ½ months before the final announcement on 19 Sept anything to do with the extensive oil spewing out of the crevices in the fault zones?

The evidence seems to suggest this was indeed the case. Five days after the 29 July “Well Casing Removal OPS”, the rogue 3^rd well was actively spewing coloured fluid again on 3 Aug. What happened on 2 Aug? What triggered the shallow Mag 3 Earthquake at Louisiana on 2 Aug? Coincidentally BP started pumping in cement to “static top kill” Well A on 3 Aug. Does this confirm the fault connection between Well A and the third well at S20BC?

With all the mysteries and coincidental fantasies, this disaster movie is as credible as “Alice in Wonderland”. With all these discrepancies and outright lies, can we ever trust BP or any other oil company again?

No crime is ever committed without motives. Disasters do not occur out of the blue without the seeds of destruction being sowed first. Half-baked and blinded investigation in the BP’s mega oil spill disaster will just sow the seeds for future disasters. Unfortunately both the BP’s official and the Presidential Investigations seem to be just that; a blinded and half-baked investigative show to absolve BP of criminality and limit BP’s financial liability. Both investigation reports never mentioned the 2^nd or 3^rd wells despite the overwhelming evidences. Any investigation which does not address the obvious damage to the well casing seen in figure 139-1 would be as trustworthy as a fox guarding the chicken coop. Would it be any surprise the main stream media are just as loudly silent on the injustices done to the Gulf Victims and Mother Nature?

- dedicated to Borehead, Fishwarrior and others fighting for the oppressed “small people” fishing businesses.

A crime is not a crime unless you are caught with your pants down. Yet you wonder why the “big people” don’t go to jail for perjury, for insider trading, murder and other crimes even when caught red-handed. On the other hand, the lesser people or “small people” as BP chairman referred to were punished disproportionally. See the many articles highlighting the high-handed punishments meted out to poor fishermen for failing to observe NOAA’s stringent catch quota and NOAA/NMFS’s unfair treatment of fishermen and the Federal Government’s takeover and redistribution of marine resources at Bore-head007 and fishwarrior columns at Newsvine.com

Nowhere is the disparity in double standards more evident than in the regulators’ kid glove treatment of BP’s gross violations and repeated misconducts. See ex-EPA attorney’s 12 years wrestle to disqualify BP from receiving billions of dollars in government contracts and other benefits for repeated misconducts. Yet despite the high risk of offshore exploration drilling especially in the delicate deep water shelf edge zone, MMS (Minerals Management Services, the federal agency previously in charge of regulating offshore drilling activities) gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf. See US said to allow Drilling without needed permits.

One would have thought NOAA should be more concerned with BP’s gross negligence and misconduct as any disaster like the DeepWater Horizon blowout would have financial, environmental and social impacts far greater than any accidents involving the small fishing businesses. Drilling into a major strike-slip fault zone and an active mud-volcano would be inviting trouble yet BP was never charged for gross negligence. Drilling into the worst possible high risk geohazardous location must be willful negligence of the highest order. Yet BP was never punished. On the other hand, “excessive fines are normal" said Gloucester-based fisheries attorney Stephen Ouellette. "Regulatory compliance is less important to NOAA than collecting money for their expenses." NOAA Attorney Charles Juliand’s cash demand draws ethic fire.

Would BP a technological multinational giant, admit to not knowing the existence of the NW-SE strike-slip fault and mud-volcano it was drilling into? That would be an admission of gross incompetence since the broken geology, faults and mud-volcanoes are clearly evident even on the basis of publicly available information. It is doubtful BP would publicly challenge the forensic and technical analyses given in bklim.newsvine.com.

BP has long denied ever drilling more than 1 well at the Macondo 252 prospect. That is a complete lie. Images of 2 different well-heads were published on 11 Nov 2010 to prove this. More images captured by BP’s ROVs are given here to provide the conclusive proof that the third and deepest well (S20BC) did exist. That well was the only well (out of the three) to have reached the oil reservoir at 18,300 ft bml. Images to prove that BP had not ceased chemical spraying despite public denials were published on 13 Nov 2010.

So when Tony Hayward swore to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth before Congress, was he not guilty of perjury. If NOAA is toothless in prosecuting BP for their crimes of perjury and mass destruction, then NOAA should also lay off persecuting the “small people” fishing businesses.

The following video-footages and images, establish the fact that the third well (S20BC) exists. Further if the dates on the ROVs’ video are correct then the relief wells must have intercepted the rogue well much earlier than 15 Sept. For BP to be working on the casing of the blown well, the gushing well needed to be bullheaded first by the relief wells. In all probability at least one of the 2 relief wells must have intercepted the rogue well in the first week of July. And while the relief well was bullheading and trying to kill the rogue well, BP was performing a “dog & pony show” on the shallowest well (Well A) which was drilled down to only 5,000ft bml. The whole truth of the 3^rd well is reminiscent of “The Emperor Wore No Clothes” story.

Businessweek - 2010-07-02 Bp’s Gulf Well Ahead Of Schedule To Intercept Leak

The target date for intercepting the leaking well and pumping in mud and cement to permanently seal it is still mid- August, U.S. National Incident Commander Thad Allen said today on a conference call with reporters. The well is within 600 feet (182 meters) of intercepting the leak, he said.

“They are ahead of schedule at this point,” Allen said. “I am reluctant to tell you that it will happen before the middle of August because I think that everything associated with this spill and response recovery suggests that we should under- promise and over-deliver.”

Huffingtonpost - 2010/06/28 BP relief well within 20 ft of Gusher, On schedule

HOUSTON -- BP says the rig drilling the relief well that's the best hope of stopping the Gulf oil spill has made it within about 20 feet horizontally of the blown-out well that's gushing crude. BP Senior Vice President Kent Wells said Monday that the rig is going to drill an additional 900 feet down before crews cut in sideways and start pumping in heavy mud to try to stop the flow from the damaged well. It's currently about 16,770 feet down.

Wells says BP is moving extremely cautiously to make sure everything is lined up correctly and the relief well is still on target to be finished by early August. A second well is being drilled as a backup. Wells says the company has a high degree of confidence in the relief wells.

~~~~~end of quote ~~~~~~~

A normal well takes 3 to 4 weeks to drill. A relief well with an inclined trajectory will probably take 6 weeks. So Relief Well C should have reached the 3rd rogue well at 18,000ft bml by the first week of July as suspected. BP was just playing for time and was not sure if the relief wells could successfully kill the well from below even though publicly they still maintained that the Relief Wells were the surest and most reliable way of plugging the leaks. But BP soon found out the hard way what many independent geologists had been expecting of the broken geology; that it was impossible to put the Genie back into the bottle.

From the first week of July till mid September, BP was lying to the anxious world that the Relief Well C was still waiting to intercept (even though it was less than 20 feet horizontally from the rogue well) when it already had and had been trying to bottom kill it without success. Did Thad Allen “lie (knowingly or unknowingly)” to the shocked world in early Sept that the Relief Well Intercept would not happen until mid October. Then suddenly on 19 Sept BP released an official press statement that the Macondo 252 well “had been successfully cemented” which started unannounced on 15 Sept. All were taken by surprise including the BP’s goons at TOD who had spent months discussing and at times arguing intensely on the intricate details of intercepting the wild well. BP sure fooled the world. Was the 19 Sept press statement prompted by political consideration when nothing had changed with respect to permanently killing of the well or rather the leaks from the reservoir? Now that the truth of the 3^rd Well is blown open wide, NOAA should have no more excuses in prosecuting BP. Not to do so will be an obvious dereliction of NOAA’s duty.

The following videos show the rare footage of the third well (courtesy of BeePeeOildisaster) and its vicinity:

Figure 138-1 - Undated video with no rov information at all. The video is inverted (shown upside down) to confuse.

10 July 2010 (date of video posting) http://www.youtube.com/user/BeePeeOilDisaster#p/u/282/Qq83rFsVzvc

Figure 138-2 – Shows a casing dipping about 10º into the seafloor, next to a turbulent gas column.

5 July 2010 http://www.youtube.com/user/BeePeeOilDisaster#p/u/266/iOE8SjWzP-A

13 Nov 2010 – BK Lim

The MC 252 well has been officially shut since 15 July (BP’s press release and website announcement). As late as Sept 2010, the world was still publicly assured that the bottom kill by the relief wells was the surest and most reliable way of killing (permanently) the oil leak from the reservoir. BP and Thad Alan publicly declared the rogue well was “successfully and permanently” cemented at 18,000 ft below mudline (bml) by the relief wells that started unannounced on 15 Sept 2010. Are these just empty rhetoric and part of BP’s elaborate Mass Deception Act?

First of all, please be informed that the oil leak from the reservoir was never killed and could never be killed. The late Matt Simmons paid with his life to bring us that message. And the world repaid him with words of ridicule in technical blogs around the world.

~~~~~~~quote~~~~~~

Peak oiler, energy blogger, and chemical engineer Robert Rapier has published a series of critical evaluations of Simmons' work, the most recent of which was published -- of all places (!) -- inThe Oil Drum website. The TOD article takes a close look at some of Simmons' recent statements about the oil spill in the Gulf. A careful reader will come away with the clear conclusion that Simmons' credibility is in tatters, blowing in the breeze. Only the truest of Simmons true believers in TOD comments persists in defending the recent incredible and fantastic statements that Simmons had made to the press.

Matt-Simmons-has-had-quite-ride

~~~~end of quote ~~~~~~

We have been lied to, thru and thru. It is very obvious why the activities (besides ramming up the recovery costs to capitalize on the idling rigs) did not decrease after the official “shut down date of 15 July”. The gas-oil spill continues unabated till this day. The capping of well A was just a “dog & pony show” to fool the world. There is a constant need to spray chemicals to disperse and to coagulate the oil and methane leaking into the gulf, to cover up the magnitude of the disaster.

The deception is obvious when BP had to disguise the chemical spraying operations as “Cement OPS” and “Rig Move”; inspection of the grouted seafloor as “biological survey” and intended explosion operations as “gooseneck ops” just to name a few. Any worker can tell that these ROV videos are not recording what the label says. Why is the US government still in denial and the main media completely silent? The official spin is that we do not need anymore bad news to derail the financial recovery. This is just as bad as Burma’s Generals with their chests full of fake medals. (See Burma Bummer – by Dean Johns). Would a few more disasters spur the economy?

Admittedly one crow does not make a new sun rise. But tens of concrete evidences of criminality and still no prosecution? People of the humane First World were shocked by the immense sufferings and atrocities committed by the authoritarian regimes of Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Somalia and many other 3^rd world countries. Powerful first world countries are unwilling to act for various political and economic reasons. But genocide being carried by a multinational corporate right in the backyard of the world’s most powerful nation and blatantly ignored by the world’s main media? What the hell is going on? Does the world not care a single bit on the mass destruction of the marine life and condemnation of millions to a life of the walking dead? And we call ourselves civilized? Hilter would pale in comparison.

Capping the well and bottom-killing it with relief wells were the wrong moves. See The High Risk Of Capping BP’s Gushing Well. Despite sending them all the emails and copies of my articles, BP and those in control never responded and never listened. Now we are living out a mega disaster with urgency as the worst is yet to come.

The evidences at hand clearly debunk that hollow premature victory cry on 19 Sept10. Would BP admit defeat at the hands of Mother Nature? No. Keeping with the same reckless spirit that drove the Macondo Wells to destruction and disaster, BP is now speeding the world into an irreversible ecological catastrophe; one that will start us on the express highway to the eventual destruction of world civilization. Not the planet itself as Mother Earth is more resilient than the human beings renting the living accommodation on its land surface.

The images of mass destruction and deception in the Gulf are brought to you by concerned citizens of the world. See for yourself, the future of this planet flashing before your eyes in the comfort of your living room. You have been forewarned. In generations to come, you have to answer to your children why nothing had been done to avert their untold miseries.

(Pictures are updated from time to time in no particular order …last update 13 Nov 2010).

9 Nov10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utmcsJ5CDKg

9 Nov10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVQZr1OQcEQ

9 Nov 10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgje868NAUs

10Nov10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaa6wy55aA8

10Nov10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8D_aEc1ti0

10Nov10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF5pWTvu5L4

05Nov10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ftMwI4Y9w

05Nov10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZytL6IZFqM

21Oct10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7twypJ0QRCQ&feature=related

12 Nov 2010.

On the 204^th day of the continuing BP’s Oil Spill disaster, BP quietly informed through a teleconference on 10 Nov that the “plug and abandonment of the Macondo 152 well” was completed on 2 days ago. This was reported by the Voice of America (VoAnews.com) with the title “BP abandons Damaged Gulf of Mexico Oil Well”.

BP restorethegulf.gov/release/2010/11/10/transcript-operational-update-fosc-rear-adm-paul-zukunft

Paul Zukunft: Good morning. This is Admiral Paul Zukunft. This is the 204th day of the Deepwater Horizon response. One milestone that probably most people were not aware of this week – two days ago, the plug and abandonment of the Macondo 252 well was complete. And in fact, when it was completed, the cap that went over it has 11 stars on it to memorialize the 11 lives lost during that tragic explosion on April 20.

But what was most interesting was the picture they chose to display for the article. See figure 136-1.

Not only was the still image of the “well” outdated by more than 157 days (8 June 2010) it is also the wrong image of the well. On 8 June 2010, oil and gas were still gushing out of the first LRMP cap on top of the BOP after the riser had just been cut. See CNN video dated 8 Jun 2010 BP-releases-new-hd-video-of-leaking-oil-well.

Voice of America might not be aware that the date on the Oceaneering ROV is on dd-mm-yy British not American format. Thus 08-06-10 is 8 June 2010 and not 6 August 2010. One must wonder why was this particular image chosen?

There are so many ROV images of the capped well (well A) right up to 10 Nov 2010, the day the news of the “capped well finally laid to rest” was announced. See Is The Last Rite For The Macondo Well For Real published on 8 Nov 2010. So why choose this particular wrong image of the well? To start off with, it is not even close to the capped well. This is the image of the “smaller container dome” that was supposed to be used to contain the oil spill. The idea was abandoned without even being tried. See The Mystery Of The April 20 Blowout Revealed Answers To Questions Raised 001.

~~~~~~start of quote from previous article~~~~~~~~

Mysteriously, these sincere efforts appeared to diminish as the full financial implication and magnitude of the oil gushes at several reported locations set in. In the 10 May BP’s statement, the giant containment dome parked at the seabed near the spill area was never used at all. One has to wonder why BP would spend all that expenses to build and transport these containment domes and never even try them on before declaring they could not be used. At the same time, BP appeared to be backing off the containment option and preferring the “TOP KILL” option.

BP's Update on GOM Spill Response - 10 May

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. In addition, further work on the blow-out-preventer has positioned us to attempt a “top kill” option aimed at stopping the flow of oil from the well. This option will be pursued in parallel with the smaller containment dome over the next two weeks.

How could the hydrates have built-up at the dome which was not even placed over the gas leak? Was this a Freudian slip? Why were the BOP and the “Top Kill” option mentioned only 20 days after the blowout? Surely BP is no novice to containing a disaster situation? Did the hawks win over the doves in the battle of Evil Self-Interest & Mass Deception Vs Admitted Liability & Sincere Containment?

~~~~end of quote~~~~~~~~~

The reasons are obvious why the actual still images of the capped well cannot be used. The situation at site is now much worse than it was shown before. BP has spent so much time and effort to erase the magnitude of the disaster from public memory. With carefully orchestrated Mass deception moves, the world at large has been hypnotized to think that the Macondo Well has been peacefully laid to rest. Not much sense in waking up public concern with disturbing images of turbulent oil and gas columns, blown craters and other evidences of the failed attempts to contain the oil spill. See the sad evidences shown in figures 136-2 and 136-3.

This is why Voice of America could not use any of the later ROV images of the capped well. The images just would not fit the serene funeral service to “memorialize the 11 lives lost during that tragic explosion on April 20”.

See reports at

http://gozounlimited.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/12/5455115-bp-oil-slams-florida

http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/heartbreaking-discovery-fl-border-massive-amounts-submerged-surface-oil-beaches

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/11/bp-oil-slams-florida.html

11 Nov 2010 – dedicated to Sharyn Burley & Gary Simmons for their efforts to spread the truth.

There have been consistent rumors since the disaster broke out that BP had drilled two wells. Figure 135-1 shows 2 different well heads placed side by side. Lately we have also seen the corrosive effects of the “potent mixture” that is pouring out not only from the broken wells but also through the crevices in the seafloor. Naturally the vessels working the longest would suffer the most corrosion. See the many you-tube video postings on the “rumors” of hull corrosion. The difference in the “age” of the two wells is most telling if you examine in close up view the yellow marker band. Test your observation and investigative skills on the number of differences between these two well heads.

Naturally 2 well heads means 2 well locations which also mean at least 2 wells were drilled, right? However, it might be difficult for some to grasp this obvious logic. See figure 135-2 on the official email reply from BP Press office in UK.

“There was only ever one well drilled on the MC252 lease”….. BP Press Office, London

In case there are doubts the “newer and less corroded” well head at well B location is real, figure 135-3 gives the full details of the well location complete with the signature deceptive movement of the well head. If these videos are fakes or video of other well heads in other parts of the world (not from the Macondo Lease itself as asserted by BP) then the many people who recorded and posted these videos independently on the you-tube, must have been robotically controlled and synchronized within seconds to come out with amazingly identical adulteration.

Just as in genetic decoding in DNA analyses, all mutations leave a pattern of coding errors; a distinct departure from any random errors. We have seen the “flying ROVs”, “time-travel drilling rigs” and many wonderful “time-space magic” technology introduced by BP and company. But can you actually transport a well-head embedded in the seabed through 557ft in less than 16 seconds? We must ask BP to reveal this important technology. If the world is going to be destroyed by all these senseless mass destructive activities, we may need to transport the White House to a safer location. Or we may need to transport ourselves out of this world to another planet. So BP please help, in the name of HUMANITY!

01-Aug-10..….Well A Inspection, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEKyWhPDmwQ

03-Sep-10...……..BOP Recovery, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hnR16azv0Q

02-Nov-10.Well Head Inspection, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2It7vcsQg7s

26-Oct-10……Well A Inspection, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cJZyO7NzWY

29-Oct-10……Well A Inspection, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtS0dh_Y1M4

Figure 134-1 shows the satellite image with the location of the four drilling rigs at the Macondo Site. West Sirius moved out on the morning of 2 Nov 2010 to park at the edge of the Mississippi Canyon, south of Grande Isle. But the position track for the last 1 week, after our articles on the mysteries of the “flying drilling rigs” were out, had been anomalous. West Sirius has been flying all over the place as shown in figure 134-2. The position has been obtained from www.marinetraffic.com. Perhaps the website which receives the vessel update information from BP are not aware of the position discrepancies.

So just as the BP’s ROVs can perform magic by flying all over the places from Macondo site to Atlantis site (240 km distance), BP has also came out with the “same advanced technology” of transporting the massive drilling rigs weighing over 20,000 tons over thousands of km within seconds. BP is truly beyond petroleum. This travel and transport at the speed of light would be necessary for Human next space adventure. This is yet another evidence of mass deception.

So now, we have to take the position of the “flying drilling rigs” with a pinch of salt. Occasionally, we are able to get some reasonable position. How do we verify the rig position? Well, we are not telling at the moment but let just say there are enough people with conscience to feed us.

The updates on 10 Nov 2010 tell us a scary picture. BP appears to have abandoned the triple wells location (Well A, Well B and S20BC) completely. Discoverer Enterprise (DE) is still working at a location it was sitting on for the last 2 months. Notice the red line passing thru this location to the triple well location. That is the deep major NW-SE strike-slip fault we had been talking about for the last 3 months or so.

Development Driller 2 (DD2) has moved from Well A location, after removing the expensive BOP and replacing it with a memorial cap; in memory of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) and the 11 personnel killed there. This is a new location after DD2 had flown thousands of miles (twice) to the South Pacific. Simply amazing this new transport technology BP has. We do not know what DD2 is doing or even if this location is accurate. We just have to take BP’s word for it (tongue in cheek).

DD3 is still around the location it was sitting since moving from Relief Well C in mid Sept.

It is scary to note that all the three rigs positions are 6.3 miles (DD3), 7.4 miles (DE) and 8.8 miles (DD2) from well A. DD3 and DE are both at the toe of the shelf slope (escarpment) while DD2 is on the mid-slope. So was the late Matt Simmons right about the massive leaks 7 miles from the blown out well on 20 April 2010? It would not be surprising to have oil and gas leaking out here at the toe of these huge escarpments which are many times larger than the escarpment at the Macondo well location. Is the 22 Mile River of Oil 5-7 Miles Sw Of Well A as reported by WHOI associated with the leak from BP’s broken oil reservoir?

~~~~~~quote~~~~~~~~

Scientists from WHOI, along with the Coast Guard and other institutions, used an array of high-tech gadgets — including an autonomous unmanned vehicle (AUV) named the Sentry—along with mass spectrometers, to find and track the plume.

Dr. Richard Camilli of WHOI had this to say: “We’ve shown conclusively not only that a plume exists, but also defined its origin and near-field structure.”

That certainly runs counter to most of the reports we’ve seen so far.

Dr.Samantha Joye a marine science professor at the University of Georgia, told The New York Times: “The idea that 75% of the oil is gone and is of no further concern to the environment is just incorrect.”

For now, we don’t know if more plumes are lurking out there. The ocean currents at these depths are still somewhat of a mystery, even to scientists who study them for a living.

~~~end of quote ~~~~~~~

Many bloggers had reported that skimmer-vessels had been busy there in the last few months and the coast guards had noted in their logs that an Orange Spill was noted on 22 April 2010 on the day of the second explosion which brought the DWH down. It is even scarier if you follow the fault line 56 miles NW from well A and the “giant gas bubble” noted by the coast guard on their return (to base) hours after the 22 April 2^nd explosion. Follow the adjacent NW-SE fault line another 158 miles 316º NW you get to the epicentre of the 2 Aug earthquake, magnitude 3 on the Richter scale. See figure 134-3.

Are all these “oil events” and the earthquake connected to the Macondo broken reservoir unleashed by the 20 and 22 April 2010 blowouts? Looking at figure 134-4 it would be hard to dismiss the connection. These ancient deep seated faults beneath the Quaternary Sediment are believed to have been formed when the Gulf of Mexico was tectonically active. The fractured underlying geology as confirmed by Dr Bea in his Interview With The Georgewashington2.Blogspot.Com could be the main reason why BP’s broken Macondo reservoir was so difficult to patch up.

Three days after posting the “A New Drilling Rig At Macondo Site” on 31 Oct 2010, the West Sirius moved out of the Macondo Site on the morning of 2 Nov 2010. See figure 131-a. West Sirius is currently sitting at location Lon/Lat: -90.022827 / 28.582331 on 11/5/2010 3:07:39 AM (UTC). Why would BP move the West Sirius to the Macondo site in late October only to move out a week later to a location 165 km away? This is not normal. A multimillion dollar rig does not just drop by at the site just to say “hello” to the DD2.

Even stranger, DD3 is no longer in existence. Three days ago, you can still search for DD3’s location http://www.marinetraffic.com but not any more. DD3’s position seems to have gone “under cover”. However, it seems that DD3 has gone back to Relief Well C position.

As at 4th Nov 2010, DD2 is at Well A with the Hos Iron Horse nearby. Discoverer Enterprise is still at the foothill of the shelf edge, 7 miles NW of well A where DD3 was working since leaving Relief Well C in late Sept.

So what is going on at the Macondo’s site?

In a press statement released on 19 Sept 2010, BP confirmed that “the well kill operations on the MC252 well in the Gulf of Mexico are now complete with both the casing and annulus of the well sealed by cement”.

This was BP’s 19 Sept Press statement

BP will now proceed to complete the abandonment of the MC252 well, which includes removing portions of the casing and setting cement plugs. A similar plugging and abandonment of both relief wells will occur as well.

BP will also now begin the process of dismantling and recovering containment equipment and decontaminating vessels that were in position at the wellsite.

~~~~~~~~~~end of quote~~~~~~

After that press statement, one would have thought the activities at the Macondo site would have started to wind down and the expensive drilling rigs demobilized from site as soon as possible.

This was again confirmed by BP’s 1 Oct Press statement

Since the Macondo well was finally confirmed sealed on September 19, BP has been completing the process of plugging and abandoning the well. This includes removing portions of the casing and setting cement plugs.

BP has also started the process of dismantling and recovering containment equipment and decontaminating the vessels that were in position at the wellsite. The cost of the response to September 29 amounts to approximately $11.2 billion, including the cost of the spill response, containment, relief well drilling, static kill and cementing, grants to the Gulf states, claims paid and federal costs.

~~~~~~~~~~end of quote~~~~~~

Contrary to BP’s press statements, the site activities did not die down. The number of vessels working in the area seems to have increased in recent times. Now forty-seven (47) days after the rogue well was supposedly “bottom killed permanently at 18000ft bml on 15 Sept 2010”, a new drilling rig (West Sirius) arrived at the Macondo site. Figure 130-1 shows the location of West Sirius at the Macondo Site. Figure 130-2 gives the location details of West Sirius which had been at location since 27 Oct 2010. If the West Sirius was meant to replace either one of the two earlier rigs, why are DD2 and DD3 still on site?

Both DD2 and DD3, commissioned to drill relief wells C and D respectively had been at location since May this year. With each drilling rig costing between 0.5 to 1 Million USD per day, why would BP want to have 3 rigs at site? It does not add up especially when there has been no official news of drilling new wells at the Macondo site. Would you need 3 expensive rigs just to drill a new well?

Both DD2 and DD3 should have demobilized from site weeks ago since they were not needed after abandoning the relief wells. DD2 reportedly did better than anticipated; reaching within tens of feet of its intercept target weeks ahead of schedule. But just when victory was finally within arm’s length, the”Bottom Kill from relief well C stalled”. It seems like eternity when Thad Allen announced in early Sept that the Final Kill had to be postponed again to mid October. No reasons were given. Just when the audience had given up hope and left the “theatre”, BP suddenly announced the well was permanently killed and cemented on 15 Sept 2010.

What gives? Why the sudden flip-flops when it is common knowledge every well operation had to be carefully planned weeks ahead? Sudden reversals are bad signs. Evidence of BP carrying out massive pressure grouting of the seafloor added more mystery to the story. Why would BP spend millions of dollars grouting the seabed if the Relief Well Kill from the bottom was going to be a “certain success”? Why had the activities increased instead of winding down after the permanent kill on 15 Sept?

There seems to be more questions than answers. What is DD3 doing so close to the foothills of the Whiting Dome, approx 5 n.miles 320º of Well A where DD2 is currently sitting? DD3 had been there since Sept together with Hos Explorer, Discovery Enterprise, Jean Pierre Lab and other vessels. And why is DD2 still sitting at Well A with Hos Iron Horse and Kobe Chouest? Well A had been capped since 15 July and “top cemented” since August. No drilling activities had been reported. So why waste money on expensive rigs hanging around?

Come to think of it very little was reported of DD3 at Relief Well D location. Located at the mid slope of the escarpment DD3 would have encountered similar problems as Well A and Well B. It would not be surprising for DD3’s inclined trajectory towards S20BC to be stopped dead before or around 13,000ft. This was the depth Well B had a previous out-of-well-control situation and was forced to abandon well. The “plug and abandon” permission was approved by MMS; as clearly recorded in the emails submitted for the congressional enquiry. That is why there was not much news on DD3 relief well effort. The less said the better.

So if Well A was abandoned around 13 Feb after the drill-string was jammed at 5000ft bml and Well B abandoned around 14 March after drilling 13,100ft bml, where could they have drilled the 3^rd well? They definitely cannot go back to redrill well A for the third time. Thus they had to drill from a third seabed local which is 720 ft NW of Well A (S20BC). Simple as that and the shoes fit perfectly.

Relief well C was located on the flat valley, 0.12 miles south of the foot hill of the escarpment. This means DD2 would not have the same problems with the pesky shallow E-W fault. But it would have encountered the major NE-SW fault at a much deeper depth. If the rogue well (S20BC) had intersected this NE-SW fault just before entering the reservoir (as I had suspected much earlier) then DD2 would have even more trouble when the RW C trajectory closed in to S20BC. That is why DD2 waited from mid August till mid Sept. Actually BP had no solution in sight when they announced the postponement of the bottom kill till at least mid Oct.

But with the mid-term election fast approaching, BP was forced to hastily declare Premature Victory. The world was still hypnotized with the magic spell cast on capping the wrong well (Well A). Well A was leaking oil and gas coming from the EW fault which intersects the main NE-SW fault and Well B which had pierced the same gas reservoir as Texaco’s Rigel well. So even before Well A was capped, gas was already pluming at the foothills of the escarpment (see reported gas plumes 25 May, 31 July, 22 Apr and others). The top cap at well A only made it worse. With all these dynamics in play, no wonder the well pressure at well A never behaved and reached the pressure curves predicted for a Sealed Well.

So the plan was to grout and hold the ground (so to speak) until after the mid-term election is over. However, Mother Nature probably refused to play ball. Recent Rov videos (in late October) showed the grouted seafloor cracking up again. See Mother-Natures-Sos-Distress-Signals and Gas Oil Plume next to Well A. They probably could not postpone the mobilization of West Sirius any further. This could only mean very serious and urgent trouble.

But why not use DD2 and DD3 which are already at site? Why do they need three drilling rigs? I do not have the firm answers yet. Hopefully I do by the next posting. By my analyses, the present West Sirius location is a very hazardous location to drill from. If the intended trajectory is heading towards S20BC, the open well bore would be intercepting the NE-SW fault at a very low angle at the downthrown side of the fault. It would also have to bear the full brunt of the formation collapse forced in by the high pressured gas and oil. They would have the additional geotechnical problems of sealing the well to seabed level. Due to high permeability (from open fractures) and the presence of hazardous Gas-saturated Weak Sub-formation (GWSF) zone, the well annulus can never be effectively cemented and sealed. It will be another disaster in waiting. S20BC never had a chance with the gas influx from the hazardous GWSF zone above the 6000 ft bml. level. After months of sub-seabed erosion and cavitations, it will be worse than before.

Site-specific shallow hazards assessment is mandatory prior to any well drilling so that disasters like BP’s mega oil spill can be averted. Even without examining the 2009 survey report by C&C Technologies (C&C), it is abundantly clear there had been serious fundamental flaws in the hazards assessment. C&C should have alerted BP of the following hazardous geological conditions:

1. The high risk of encountering shallow gas hazards within the first 5000 ft bml.
2. Shallow faults evident within this depth interval (from seabed level down to 5000 ft bml).
3. The well is located in the mid slope of a large escarpment with a gradient exceeding 3º.
4. The well is located at the convex section of the escarpment which is the worst possible area to drill into with regard to shallow gas hazards and geotechnical problems of cementing and sealing the well.
5. The whole L-shaped rectangular escarpment is a raised landform measuring approximately 12 km by 5.5 km, faulted at the edge foot-hill. The circular gentle cone formed at the southern half of the raised landform is probably an ancient lava / asphalt / mud volcano or a combination of the 3 forms.
6. Irrespective of the form of volcano, the possibility of high fractures, high permeability vents extruding fluids is very high - posing unacceptably high drilling risks.
7. Under such geohazardous conditions, the geohazards assessment should have recommended shifting the well location away from the raised landform altogether. The recommended shift would be about 2 km south, away from the foothills of the structure.
8. BP should be able to reach the targeted reservoir location, although the deviated well would be more expensive than a vertical well. Was this a major cost consideration?

Any reasonably well-trained geohazards specialist would have arrived at the above conclusions and recommendations by examining the publicly available bathymetry and satellite images. Even though BP had not publicly released the high resolution seismic data, there is a high degree of confidence (>90%) the unreleased data would corroborate the above within acceptable tolerance limits.

BP should be held criminally liable for willful negligence for proceeding ahead blindly without heeding the sound geohazards assessment. Alternatively, if C&C had not foreseen and forewarn such high drilling risks in their reports, then C&C should be jointly charged with BP. The data fraud evident in the bathymetric data and irresponsible “watered down” assessment given in figure 129-1, could not have escaped the attention of an experienced exploration oil company like BP. BP must have given their tacit approval since all preliminary draft charts and reports had to be vetted and approved by BP’s technical experts. In all probability, the “boilerplate” assessment must have been “cut and pasted” like BP’s useless 852-pages of emergency response in the event of an offshore oil spill.

Annals of outrage ~~~

BP's emergency "plan" for the Gulf discusses impact on "seals, sea otters and walruses" -18 May 2010

BP's 582-page emergency-response never anticipated an oil spill as large as the one now gushing on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico; a closer reading shows the document was not much than a boilerplate, cut-and-paste job used by BP from region to region; in a section titled "Sensitive Biological & Human-Use Resources," the emergency plan lists "seals, sea otters and walruses" as animals that could be impacted by a Gulf of Mexico spill -- even though no such animals live in the Gulf; the plan was approved in July by the federal Minerals Management Service (MMS), a toothless agency accused by lawmakers of being in the pocket of the oil industry

http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/bps-emergency-plan-gulf-discusses-impact-seals-sea-otters-and-walruses

~~~~~~~~~~end of quote~~~~~~~

The many “mistakes” contained in the bathymetric information and hazards assessment could not have been “accidental or due to mere incompetence”. They were the obvious results of data massaging and fraud. Both BP and C&C should be criminally liable for their active involvement in the cut corners, data fraud and cover-ups. The disastrous blow out on 20 Apr 2010 would not have happened had the devious fuse to the disaster been nipped in the bud. A summary of the Forensic Analysis Of BP’s Bathymetric Chart are listed here.

1. The bathymetric data submitted to MMS (Sheet 1 of 6 and Plate 6) had been inaccurate and misrepresented.
2. The shallow hazards assessment should not have been carried out using BP’s exploration personnel and BP’s 3D exploration seismic data. Exploration geologists are not specifically trained to assess shallow hazards and 3D exploration seismic data have time, angular and spatial resolution limitations at shallow zones as confirmed by the fundamental errors contained in the BP’s shallow hazards assessment (conclusion at page 10).
3. The water depth cannot be accurate to 1 ft as depicted by 4992 ft. The estimated accuracy from a surface echo sounder operating at 33 kHz 5000ft is +/- 10ft.
4. Similarly the spatial accuracy is estimated to be 30ft. Thus the 5ft contour interval is misleading.
5. There are many seafloor features. So the phrase “the only seafloor feature” is incorrect and misleading.
6. “The low-relief escarpment approx 1000ft / 950ft south of the “A” / “B” location” is both incorrect and misleading. Both A and B locations are in the mid-slope of the escarpment and not 950ft or 1000ft. The escarpment is not low-relief but at least 250ft.
7. The conclusion “The proposed well bore will not intersect any faults between the seafloor and the depth limit of this investigation at Horizon 6 or 5292 ft bml” is irresponsible, inaccurate and fundamentally flawed.
8. The “risk of encountering shallow gas is ranked as … Moderate… Low ….Negligible” is without basis and illogical even on the basis of the bathymetric data and general geology of the site.

Geohazards assessments like pre-surgical medical diagnoses are critical to the success of the surgical operation. BP’s erroneous hazards assessment is not the first nor will it be the last. Just as proper medical diagnoses require due diligence, hard work, specialised training, skills and experience, geohazards assessments cannot be carried out irresponsibly and indifferently by exploration geologists who are more concern with hitting the target reservoir. All over the world, junior geophysicists without proper training, skills and experience are being tasked to churn out inadequate assessment reports just like BP’s. To be fair, there are concerned industry workers. They are however, the minority and in no position to make demands for change. The demands for change have to come from outside. Not industry leaders like Fugro and RPS who are more concerned with their bottom-line. Oil companies care even less.

So we continue to play Russian Roulette. Even when the documented evidences clearly implicate BP of wrong-doings the regulators are too impotent and beholden to the oil companies to do anything else but to play along the deception game. Mother Nature and the victims suffer in silence because it is convenient for the world to turn a blind eye, just as the QC consultants did on BP’s survey vessel in January 2009. The pesky little problems that coalesced and blew into one gigantic disaster on 20 April 2010, could have been stopped at their tracks with diligent geohazards contractors and dedicated QC consultants. But the regulators, oil companies, QC consultants and contractors prefer their cozy relationship with each other than to really try to nip the problems in the bud. They are all in cahoots with their pretentious stringent offshore regulations, HSE standards and safety first policies. Disasters are expediently perceived to be accidental so that the crooks responsible for lighting the fuses in the first place, can be free to cook up another windfall disaster.

Safety Fraud is one perfect crime of mass destruction. No one complaints or is aggrieved when the easy profits roll in. When disaster eventually strikes, the privileged few collect the windfall. Yes, BP’s shareholders suffered together with millions affected by the Gulf Oil Spill. Did the privileged few responsible for the disaster really suffer? The golden parachute for Tony Hayward says it all.

Every disaster is an opportunity to put things right. If we don’t the next one could be even more devastating.

As the blame game continues and the truth trickle out little by little, many will be left wondering how the disaster will play out and the imminent threats of future disasters. It is blatantly clear beneath the dog and pony shows, such mega disaster could not have happened if the checks and balances in place had been functioning as they should. It is fortuitous that all of them should expediently fail one after another. More likely, the checks and balances had long been subverted and broken. It is an industry speeding down the highway with its driver drunk with greed and power. If the “drunken speedster” is not stopped in time, the result can only be a big bang when the road runs out.

The answer to the second question is dependent on how the perpetrators of this crime of mass destruction are handled. This disaster was no “unexpected accident”. Anyone who is not blinded by corruption can see that. At the very least BP’s exploration managers knew trouble was brewing and did nothing to avert it. They should be prosecuted for willful negligence.

At worst, with prior knowledge that such environmental disasters are inevitable, BP invested heavily into researching “deplorable means” of harvesting windfalls from such “accidental natural disasters”. Connect the dots behind The-Gulf-Blue-Plague.

Is it morally right to invest millions into searching for a “profitable” cure when a tiny fraction could have been better spent in advancing prevention techniques? Is prevention not better than cure? Although less environmentally friendly and more devastating; the Cure is preferable for its profit potential and numerous windfall opportunities for the privileged few. Prevention on the other hand offers no such windfall opportunities.

Most dirty tricks of insiders’ trading have already been tried out, exposed and prosecuted. As disasters are still perceived to be accidental, no one will be prosecuted for insider’s trading, even though the massive shares sellout by BP’s directors, Goldman Sachs and several more insiders, were unmistakably linked to the privileged few. See A Pattern Of Massive Shares Sell Off By BP Directors Prior To Expected Disasters. The fact that SEC is still sitting on the matter shows how untouchable they are.

Unbelievable it may seem, the reported safety lapses and violations, system malfunctions and cost-cutting corners are only a tip of the Safety & Data Fraud Iceberg. Unscrupulous profiteering, corruption, data frauds, falsified calibration, inspection and installation certification are widespread and not only confined to third world countries. The Safety Farce Iceberg has completely engulfed the oil exploration industry. Even professional regulatory bodies and heads of governments dare not stymied their growing power and influence. The BP’s mega oil spill disaster is that arrogant display of corruptive power of giant multinational corporations.

At the end of the day, it is about the corrupted business strangle-hold that is going to tilt the world into an Environmental Armageddon. It is already happening. The recent Toxic Dam Spill in Hungary and BP’s Mega Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico are Crimes of Mass Destruction propagated by unscrupulously greedy multinational corporations. It is about the struggle between Good and Evil. It is about the brave few struggling to bring out the truth behind all these mega disasters that is destroying Mother Earth.

Does the world care? Are we fooling ourselves with half measures and deceptions that are meaningless to the survival of this planet? Even after more than 6 months, the world has still not awoken from BP’s hypnotizing deception of capping the wrong well. The capped well (Well A) was drilled down to only 5000ft bml; 13000 ft short of the targeted reservoir. While the world was mesmerized with the pony and dog shows at the wrong well, the actual well (S20BC, 720ft NW of well A) was openly gushing more than 50,000 barrels of oil per day into the gulf. Is the world awake yet?

Sadly, BP is not the only guilty multinational corporation and US is not the only first world country plagued with this problem. Documented evidence of criminally liable unethical practices ranging from falsified calibration reports and certificates, fraudulent authorization of globally banned environmental-hazardous installations to pure data frauds, will be presented to press home the point that the safety violations, defective critical fail-safe equipments, willful negligence and ignorance which surfaced recently in the investigation of BP’s disaster are industry-wide; not the exceptions.

How can oil exploration be safe when international insurance companies, international accreditation organizations and government regulatory authorities in so many countries simply turned a blind eye to such improprieties? Have this safety lapse problem proliferated to the extent that it is already too big to solve. How did these multinationals managed to have such powerful strangleholds on these regulatory authorities? Why must the tail wag the dog?

Contrary to popular beliefs, more regulations do not translate into safer exploration. Being the most heavily regulated industry with stringent HSE standards, does not make it any safer unless enforcement is effective. More regulations mean higher costs, more corruption and cost-cutting opportunities to circumvent difficult to comply regulations. As witnessed in the BP’s disaster, compliance in form but not in spirit is meaningless. The increase in oil exploration costs also means insanely high wages for the industry workers. To avoid being caught in the severe cyclic oil crashes of the mid eighties professionals were taken off permanent employment and offered lucrative short term contracts. These freelance professionals can command from 500 to 5000 USD/day in various field positions. With such lucrative remunerations, it is difficult to go against oil companies or contractor’s vested interests. Safety and environmental considerations were the first to be thrown out the windows.

The high freelance wages also caused an aberration in the remuneration scheme where short-term contract field personnel earn many times more than their long term colleagues doing the same job offshore. As soon as new recruits can learn to walk, they move out of the contractors’ permanent employment to become freelance. Permanent salaried employees like the logistics, operation and technical managers (without their offshore allowances) earned a mere fraction of their freelance employees under their control. For example a senior professional with permanent employment contract in Australia earning AUD100 000 per year, can easily earn that amount in less than 3 months; offshore without tax. In the peak exploration years with oil prices above 50 USD/barrel, most freelancers had no problems finding work in excess of 200 days a year.

After the mid-eighties oil crash, most capable professionals opt to work offshore with the less capable or inexperienced filling in the office managerial positions. In the insane rat race, the price tag becomes the badge of honour. The common joke was; “you must have screwed up to be cooked up in the office”. Smart contractors’ managers formed “close alliances” with their oil companies’ counterparts. It is no secret that many in the oil companies receive lucrative pay-offs from “Body Shops” peddling “offshore professionals”. Some even secretly hold shares under their spouses’ name. With 30 to 60% cut on the daily chargeable rates to the oil companies, it was the sellers’ market especially when oil prices shot beyond 100 USD/day (courtesy of the Peak Oil theory). Greedy offshore professionals were no better than prostitutes, selling themselves directly or through body shops to the highest bidder. Naturally, body shops did their best to sell inexperienced or incompetent professionals since they make the best margins on these unmovable products. The active third world exploration countries (Asia, Africa & Middle East) was choked with incompetent or inexperienced professionals who could not enter the exploration workforce in their own countries for lack of credentials. UK was the biggest exporter of such offshore professionals. Experience, unethical practices and improper training gained from the “rough and tumble” exploration of the wild and poorly regulated third world countries, might not be the best. But it is the numbers and years that count, not the quality.Worse, these unethical practices get transferred back to the first world countries in a process called “Reversed Technology Transfer”.

This unhealthy development is one of the many fundamental reasons for the reckless and aggressive competition among exploration and contractors’ managers in a volatile cyclic industry. It is not surprising short term gains and interests override long term sound and safe judgment. In the dog-eat-dog competition, true professionals who refused to yield their professional integrity were quickly edged out by those who would.

Disasters do not occur on a daily basis not because cut-corners and imprudence are not practiced widely but because more than 80% of the exploration locations are in no immediate danger of any geohazards. In the remaining 20% with some geohazards risks, geohazards disasters might not have ripened for explosion yet. As in the BP’s Macondo blowout, the timing is important rather than the luck. Most however, would not wake up to this realty.

If only special safety attentions are focused on these 20% high geohazards risk areas, it would be almost impossible for any major disaster to be blown out of control from any accidental human errors. This is where independent geohazards assessments can contribute significantly. In the next posting, we will examine how this first line of defence against geohazards disasters had been seriously compromised and monopolized by the world’s largest geohazards survey contractor, Fugro.

(dedicated to those at ATS who worked hard to keep the BP-live discussion on ROV thread alive especially StealthyKat , Ektar and Kno22 who sourced the ROV videos).

(Reuters) – By Kristen Hays HOUSTON | Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:58pm EDT

With a final shot of cement, BP Plc permanently "killed" its deep-sea well in the Gulf of Mexico that ruptured in April and unleashed the worst oil spill in U.S. history, the top U.S. spill official said on Sunday.

Some 153 days after the Macondo well ruptured, the U.S. government confirmed that BP had succeeded in drilling a relief well nearly 18,000 feet below the ocean surface and permanently sealing the well with cement.

"The Macondo 252 well is effectively dead," retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, who has overseen the U.S. government's response, said in a statement. "We can now state, definitively, that the Macondo well poses no continuing threat to the Gulf of Mexico."

President Barack Obama, whose public approval ratings were hurt by public discontent over the U.S. government's initial response to the spill, welcomed the long-awaited development as an "important milestone."

Obama said his administration was now focused on making sure the Gulf Coast "recovers fully from this disaster."

http://www.reuters.com/(News+/+US+/+Top+News)

BP Confirms Successful Completion of Well Kill Operations in Gulf of Mexico

http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=40&contentId=7061813

Release date: 19 September 2010

HOUSTON - BP today confirmed that well kill operations on the MC252 well in the Gulf of Mexico are now complete, with both the casing and annulus of the well sealed by cement.

The MC252 well has been shut-in since July 15 and cementing operations in August, following the static kill, provided an effective cement plug in the well’s casing. The relief well drilled by the DDIII drilling rig intercepted the annulus of the MC252 well on September 15, followed by pumping of cement into the annulus on September 17. BP, the federal government scientific team and the National Incident Commander have now concluded that these operations have also successfully sealed the annulus of the MC252 well.

“This is a significant milestone in the response to the Deepwater Horizon tragedy and is the final step in a complex and unprecedented subsea operation – finally confirming that this well no longer presents a threat to the Gulf of Mexico,” said Tony Hayward, BP group chief executive. “However, there is still more to be done. BP’s commitment to complete our work and restore the damage done to the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf coast and the livelihoods of the people across the region remains unchanged.”

BP will now proceed to complete the abandonment of the MC252 well, which includes removing portions of the casing and setting cement plugs. A similar plugging and abandonment of both relief wells will occur as well.

BP will also now begin the process of dismantling and recovering containment equipment and decontaminating vessels that were in position at the wellsite.

But is the well really dead? Recent Rov evidences in late October, more than a month after the “well” was supposedly permanently killed and officially declared dead, there are signs that the “dead well” is coming back to life. Our recent postings; Our Worst Fears Of Vaporising Hydrates and the recently detected Gas Oil Plume Next To Well A, point to some of these evidences from Rov videos recorded from 20 -23 Oct 2010.

In this posting, we present evidence of increasing methane concentration and new oil spots on the seafloor. These are conclusive evidences that BP had capped the wrong well and by grouting the faults, they are spreading the oil far and wide with even more disastrous consequences. It is Mother Nature’s SOS distress signal to us for help.

Figure 127-1 is extracted from youtube.com (hydrate floaters) while figure 127-2 is extracted from youtube (hydrate mole hill).

Although both are recrystallised hydrates, their formation and sources are different. The former is explained in detailed on the figure caption while the second hydrate type was formed when the hot/warm gaseous methane is chilled on contact with the cold water. Both processes are inter-related.

Fig 127-3 to 127-5 show oil seeping out of the seafloor in various modes; obviously affected recently by the intense grouting activities. I shall not go into details but the fact that previous videos did not show oil in these forms suggests that BP had achieved what they had set out to do. By spreading the oil far and wide, it is hoped that these could be argued as natural seeps.

But fig 127-6 takes the cake. The supposedly “dead well” is not only alive, but kicking as well. To blow a crater of that size and depth, the built-up in pressure much be substantial. It could only mean that the grout blocking the escape pathway failed in a violent and sudden manner. If BP’s grout cannot contain the escaping force of the “awaken Genie” which had spread far and wide (over several km radius) from 18,000 ft below, what makes you think BP’s relief well could do the magic just tens of feet from source?

The pictures from the air tell a different story (2010/10/oil_slick_in_gulf_of_mexiso) from the hollow victory speech given on 15 Sept 2010 that the “dragon from the deep” had been slain. It reminds us of the typical folklore fairy tale where the Pretender-Hero claimed to have slain the dragon terrorizing the kingdom in order to claim the throne and marry the princess. But like all lies, the truth will come back to roost one day, sooner or later.

~~~quote from Florida Oil Spill law~~~

It’s Back: “Orange oil” for miles, “a signature image of the spill” returns — BP, Coast Guard not responding say captains (PHOTOS) - OCTOBER 23, 2010 at 08:21 Am.

Massive stretches of weathered oil spotted in Gulf of Mexico, The Times-Picayune, October 22, 2010 at 11:30 p.m. EDT:

… Louisiana fishers Friday found miles-long strings of weathered oil floating toward fragile marshes on the Mississippi River delta. …

Boat captains working the BP clean-up effort said they have been reporting large areas of surface oil off the delta for more than a week but have seen little response from BP or the Coast Guard…

Read more at … www.floridaoilspilllaw.com website.

~~~end of quote ~~~~~~~~

So is the “dragon from the deep” really dead? Judge for yourself the reported oil and gas (separated) plumes next to Well A, 42 days after BP had declared the well to be killed, sealed and delivered (top and bottom). See the new gas-oil leak beside well A seen on 22 Oct 2010.

Figure 125-1 Pimpled seafloor with shallow smooth depressions are features indicative of continuous vaporisation of hydrates from superficial clayey hydrate layer. The moving Rov video (recorded 18 Oct 2010) shows the general seafloor condition over a large area. Unfortunately the video did not display the coordinates.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVdnkMxocl0&feature=player_embedded.

Figure 125-2 Methane vaporising from the seafloor at well A Youtube.Com/Watch?V=5ylz4cfjg5y&Feature=Related. This stationary Rov video (recorded on 3^rd Sept 2010) like many, shows the seafloor in the vicinity of Well A. The rising diffused gaseous mist is well enhanced by the lighted background.

~~~~ Quote from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate)~~~~~~~

Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, hydromethane, methane ice or "fire ice" is a solid clathrate compound (more specifically, a clathrate hydrate) in which a large amount of methane is trapped within a crystal structure of water, forming a solid similar to ice.[1] Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System where temperatures are low and water ice is common, significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth.[2]

Methane clathrates are common constituents of the shallow marine geosphere, and they occur both in deep sedimentary structures, and as outcrops on the ocean floor. Methane hydrates are believed to form by migration of gas from depth along geological faults, followed by precipitation, or crystallization, on contact of the rising gas stream with cold sea water. Methane clathrates are also present in deep Antarctic ice cores, and record a history of atmospheric methane concentrations, dating to 800,000 years ago.[3] The ice-core methane clathrate record is a primary source of data for global warming research, along with oxygen and carbon dioxide.

The average methane clathrate hydrate composition is 1 mole of methane for every 5.75 moles of water, though this is dependent on how many methane molecules "fit" into the various cage structures of the water lattice. The observed density is around 0.9 g/cm3.[4] One litre of methane clathrate solid would therefore contain, on average, 168 litres of methane gas (at STP).[nb 1]

Methane forms a structure I hydrate with two dodecahedral (12 vertices, thus 12 water molecules) and six tetradecahedral (14 water molecules) water cages per unit cell. This compares with a hydration number of 20 for methane in aqueous solution.[5] A methane clathrate MAS NMR spectrum recorded at 275 K and 3.1 MPa shows a peak for each cage type and a separate peak for gas phase methane.[citation needed] Recently, a clay-methane hydrate intercalate was synthesized in which a methane hydrate complex was introduced at the interlayer of a sodium-rich montmorillonite clay. The upper temperature stability of this phase is similar to that of structure I hydrate.[6]

~~~~~~~end of quote~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The methane – hydrate phase diagram is shown in figure 125-3 (from wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons).

Our early fears that hot oil and gases from the deep reservoir brought up to the shallower soil strata (above the hydrate stabilization level) through the gushing rouge well (S20BC) and the eroded permeable fault zones, seem confirmed by these Rov videos. See The-Diagrammatic-Illustration-That-Says-It-All.

The later videos recorded after the well was supposedly killed, confirm that we cannot “put the genie back into the bottle”. There is no point in fooling ourselves the well can be “capped, killed, sealed and delivered”. Instead there should be concerted efforts to alleviate the problem of escaping and corrosive fluids (salt water in combination with high pressured gases especially H₂S) from the reservoir and getting into the upper fragile formation and Quaternary soil sequence where the environmental damages are “beyond patch-up”.

There has been disturbing news of BP’s indifference to safety concerns raised at BP’s Atlantis production platform, 240 km SW of the BP’s Macondo Oil spill disaster site. See figure 124-1 above. See the full report dated 9 June 2010 at by Len Cannon at Khou.com.

The Gulf of Mexico 2006 earthquake near BP’s Atlantis site still remains a mystery. See the DailyBite’s Blog dated 28 July 2010.

So when recent Rov videos supposedly recorded at the BP’s Macondo Oil spill disaster site, jumped within a split second to BP’s Atlantis production platform, 240 km away, keen BP Rov observers started to wonder whether BP had invented some kind of a tele-transporter to move and share expensive sub-sea equipment between exploration and production sites. Many also wondered whether this advanced tele-transporter technology had given BP an unfair competitive advantage. To make BP’s guessing game more interesting, the Rov coordinates are no longer displayed on the video footage.

The results of the investigation on one recent ROV video dated 21 Oct 2010 are summarized in Figure 124-2.

The study subject was a horizontal pipe with a lever tap valve at the centre. A copy of the video with discussion is given at Above Top Secret.Com/Forum/Thread619957/Pg13. The length of the pipe in the video is 8.2 times the diameter of the pipe which is 5.6 times the diameter of a vertically hanging cable / pipe (?). So if the diameter of the pipe is 16 inches, the length of the pipe on the rov screen capture must be at least 11 feet long.

The current BOP at well A does not appear to have anything of that length sticking out horizontally, clear of the BOP stack structures. If well A is already dead, what function would the lever tap valve serve? There is no active flow of oil/gas to control. In the video, the reflection halos around the “leaking valve” seem to be pulsating with gas bubbles floating around. The accumulated hydrates around the valve also confirm some leakage, although the valve does not seem to be totally shut.

Besides the obvious change from Atlantis to MC252#1, the altitude of the Rov also changed from 25ft to just 2ft above the seabed while the angle of the camera, lighting, heading and orientation of the pipe all remained exactly the same.

There are three possible answers to solve BP’s riddle.

1. This horizontal pipe & valve is part of the permanent seabed installation at Atlantis production platform and the video was recorded during a Rov inspection. If this is the case, was “Atlantis” trying to send a “coded SOS” public message for help?
2. The “subject pipe” was just a decoy held up by the rov arms and the camera recording being looped to confuse the Rov observers. The change in the site location label was to add further confusion.
3. BP had invented a tele-transporter that could move equipment within a split of a second over hundreds of miles.

Happy guessing.

(dedicated to the brave souls who had been tormented by their conscience but cannot tell)

For months we have all suspected that BP had not been truthful at all about the oil spill disaster. What does it take to prove that BP is lying all this while? Understandably, BP would lie on the amount of oil spilled to minimize the financial repercussion. But why would BP even lie when there is no necessity to lie at all.

Table 123-1 shows the listing of ROV details on 10 Jun 2010 during a ROV inspection of the tilting BOP. For most of the 2 minute video, the position of the BOP at Well A was “erroneously” displayed at E1 203 000, N 10 430 792. Then at the last 10 seconds, it suddenly jumped to E 1 202 779 N 10 431 600, a distance of 820 ft in less than one second (900 km /hour). Chart 123-2 shows the graphic display of the respective positions with respect to Well A and Well B.

Figures 123-3a to f, show the images captured from the video footage obtained from Alex Higgins’ blog at http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/06/11/confirmed-gulf-oil-spill-bop-leaning-1440/.

The ROV was inspecting the tilting BOP at well A. So why was the position of the ROV deliberately offset 850 ft SSE of Well A. Towards the last 10 seconds (from 22:40:13) the position jumped instantaneously to just 30 ft West of Well A. But with the same heading 290º to 325º and the camera looking ahead at the tilting BOP, the ROV should have been east of Well A and not 30 ft WEST of well A.

You might ask why this is important. Relative positioning is important for the ROV operator sitting 5000ft above to control and navigate the ROV. Both camera screen (showing the direct ahead vision) and the position screen must show consistent and accurate information. The position screen would be similar to the chart shown in chart 123-2. The chances of bumping and losing the multimillion ROV are very high if the position screen tells you the seabed is clear of the well head (being west of it) but the camera screen is showing BOP just 10ft ahead. It is like flying a fighter jet with your altimeter and GPS position out by 800 ft. Even the most capable ROV operator would have crashed the ROVs.

Thus, by all reasoning the ROV coordinates (from acoustic positioning system), gyro heading, depth and altimeter sensors must have all been functioning accurately. The information on the “live video feeds” was however distorted.

We all know where Well A is and the BOP at Well A should have been (well logically) be on top of Well A’s positon. So why would BP have to even lie on this. In fact, if the ROV working on the BOP at Well A did not have the same promulgated position as Well A, it would definitely arouse suspicion.

It is the same story with the apparently Censored Gulf News that reported Human Body Parts were washed up but workers had been told to keep silent. The last thing the perpetrators of a crime would do is to attract attention to another crime, like ordering the workers to keep silent, when it is criminal to do so. Obstruction of police investigations, hiding or destroying evidence and obstructing justice are crimes punishable by law in many civilized countries of the world. Maybe, it is not applicable in the US. The origin of the body parts does not incriminate BP at all. But to obstruct justice and a police investigation is.

On the other hand, with so many of these tell-tale incidences it is hard to dismiss the “clear message being sent”. It is reminiscent of the many kidnapping, spy or blackmail cases where the victims cannot tell (for fear of repercussions) openly for they had been ordered not to. Thus without openly defying the orders from above to keep silent, the inconsistencies in the actions, the information and even scenes of seafloor that were not supposed to be seen, were sent out almost daily. After months of deciphering so many different data sources, the coded message is unmistakably clear. BP’s top management lied and bullied their way through from day 1 of the disaster and the majority of the workers want no part of it. The only problem is they cannot tell but the inconsistencies are invariably crystal clear. Please remove the masterminds of this Crime of the Century and set us free from all this mental jailhouse which is 100 times more tormenting than Guantanamo Bay.

The man from BP stood at the lectern Tuesday morning, telling the crowd packing the Tampa Convention Center ballroom about all his company had done to deal with the Deepwater Horizon disaster — the $11 billion spent so far, the 48,000 people deployed. Utsler, who will now be the chief operating officer of BP's gulf coast restoration organization, strongly defended his company and the entire Deepwater Horizon containment and cleanup effort, even controversial moves such as spraying chemical dispersants a mile beneath the ocean — something no one had ever tried before.
"This is an important tool in our toolbox when used right, and we used them right," he told the standing-room-only crowd.
Finally, Billy Nungesser had had enough. Sweating, the Plaquemines Parish, La., council president got up and headed for the exit.
"I had to leave because of my high blood pressure," Nungesser said. Of those thousands of people BP and the Coast Guard dispatched to deal with the disaster, he said, "how many did anything at all to clean up the oil? And how many stopped us from cleaning up the oil?"

An hour after BP workers were told they had to shift from Destin, Florida to another location and to not discuss anything with anybody, human body parts washed up where they had been working.

Gregg Hall reports that a former BP worker contacted him under agreed anonymity because the contractor wanted to ease his conscience. The interview is below.

"I want it understood I'm doing this because there are some things that need to be told, need to be said. I'm not doing this for publicity. I don't want publicity," the worker told Hall.

- 9 Oct 2010 hydrocomgeo@gmail.com

1. Periodic gas and oil seepages through cracks in the heavily cemented seafloor.

Figures 122-1a and 1b show 2 ROV images captured from the video clip posted by rocksiphone on 18 July 2010 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30WLz7eGYMY&feature=related. The seafloor appears hard with thin layers of encrusted foliation. Besides the dark patches of coloration, the focus of the camera shows a rather sharp edge foliation detached from the lower layer. In the video, blobs of oil and burst of gas can be seen seeping through the gap in the foliation. For such a foliated layer to withstand the periodic burst of gas, it must be pretty hard and resilient.

Natural deposition of clayey sediment takes a long time in quiet, low energy environment. Undisturbed natural seafloor covered with surficial soft clay has a smooth flat surface.

Why is this patch of the seafloor (40-50 ft ENE of well A) so heavily cemented? Obviously the cement must have resurfaced and hardened at the seafloor; possibly even during the October 2009 drilling period. This is a conclusive proof that BP had experienced difficulties in well A since the first time the well was spud on 7 Oct 2009. It also proved that BP continued to drill even deeper when the shallow sections of the well had not been properly sealed yet.

Figure 122-2 is the typical comment by an expert driller assuming the shallow sections of the well would have been properly tested and sealed before proceeding to drill deeper. This ROV evidence clearly shows that this was not the case.

The fact that this patch of cemented seabed and several other gas seeps (as far as 500 ft) are aligned to the “super long leaking fissure” (2), is sufficient proof that the geology here is badly fractured and faulted.

2. “Super Long leaking fissure”

ROV Video from Olympic Challenger dated 21 August : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjAPRpVr-6Q showing massive gas/oil seeps that seem to hover above seabed level.

ROV Video from Skandi Neptune dated 29 August: http://www.youtube.com/user/mmimic34#p/a/u/1/EKg-GJV6d54 showing an elongated cloud that hover just above the seafloor. The video has a tag “prop wash”. This cannot be a prop wash as heavy prop-wash are generated at sea surface not at depths. Further any prop-wash bubbles would rise and dissipate fairly quickly; insufficient time for the ROV to track the “prop-wash” without seeing the vehicle generating the “prop-wash”. These are only some of the arguments against the prop-wash interpretation of these rov videos.

Basically the 2 videos confirm the existence of the WNW-ESE fault line passing through / close to Well A and offset about 50 to 70 ft N of Well B. See figure 122-3.

…. to be continued in part IIc of Root Causes.

President Obama's commission on the BP oil spill didn't spare his administration in its first four draft reports evaluating the government response to the disaster. By publicly lowballing the size of the spill for the first month, the draft reports said, "the federal government created the impression that it was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid with the American people." One report said the White House quashed a request from government scientists at NOAA to release a worst-case scenario. Did the Obama team try to bury the truth? (Watch an AP report about the finding)

- 5 Oct 2010 hydrocomgeo@gmail.com

When The Root Causes Of BP’s Oil Spill & The Imminent Threat Of More Oil Related Disasters (Part1) was first published on 8 July 2010, 71 days after the 20 April 2010 blowout, I had feared that the root causes were very much deeper than the flawed site decisions, poor field performance or the infringements and improprieties committed at site, that were being paraded in the post-disaster investigation. Part III of the root causes describes the human greed, unscrupulous profiteering and professional rot that had set into the oil industry; rendering our geohazards site surveys totally ineffective in preventing adamantly reckless exploration managers from drilling into such high risk locations as the Macondo wells.

Part II describes the geological reasons why the Macondo wells were destined to end up as a mega-disaster and why the “genie could not be popped back into the bottle”. The high drilling risks evident from the seafloor morphology alone, were so obvious BP’s geohazards specialists could not have possibly missed them; short of being willfully negligent. It was as if BP had intentionally set its own course on a one-way journey to destruction. The 3 well locations (Well A, Well B and S20BC) were located in the worst possible geohazardous conditions to drill into a huge high-pressured oil reservoir. A mega disaster was inevitable even if the best efforts by the drilling crew managed to overcome the myriad of problems posed by the nightmare wells from hell. Even the best field performance, safety standards, advanced drilling technology and well design would be no match for such a disastrously monstrosity BP had awakened from the deep.

In this Part IIa of the series, we begin by presenting ROV evidences that confirm our worst fears; the worst case geological scenario as illustrated by my qualitative geological model in Why Is BP’s Macondo Blowout So Disastrous & Beyond Patch Up first written on 25 July 2010.

Even though BP did their best to distort the truth and fudged up the ROV coordinates, the ROV video footages are still useful evidences, albeit qualitatively. As the geological framework of the giant jig-saw puzzle had already been proven and set right, the ROV evidences merely fill in the data gaps. Our forensic investigation of the BP’s oil disaster was thus not led astray by the fudged ROV coordinates or other distorted truths deliberately planted by BP.

The following analyses are not presented in any particular order of events as ROV video footages are still being analysed. The purpose is however, to illustrate snap shot interpretation of the seabed or events that collectively corroborate with the geological framework in building a true picture of the disaster. Readers are encouraged to reexamine the various ROV video clips on Youtube to judge for themselves the legitimacy of my analyses and reasoning (based on basic fundamental geology and physics).

It is basic human instinct to lie to cover one’s crime just as one would refuse to yield information that is self-incriminating. Does this answer why BP refused to release the early video footages of the disaster, especially the ones observing the BOP at the blown well from 21 April till after the second explosion at 10:22hrs 22 April 2010?

Figure 121-1 shows the famous snap shot of the robotic arm from the ROV attempting to shut down the inclined BOP at 01:08:54hrs on 22 April 2010. The water depth (4926 ±10 ft) was suspiciously short of Well A’s promulgated depth of 4992 (±10) ft by 66±10ft. The reported second explosion 5000ft underwater could not have been observed at sea surface. It could only be observed visually at depth via the ROV video feed. See Conclusive Evidence Well A Is Not The Well That Blew Up On 20 April - Part 3 Aomd.

This means the video footage of the second underwater explosion exists. It also means that the video footage of the second underwater explosion is highly incriminating to BP. Is withholding incriminating information not a crime by itself?

Why were the ROV coordinates taken off in that snap shot of that BOP on 22 April 2010? If no coordinates had been set for that ROV, how could the ROV operator maneuver the ROV to the well location 5000 ft below sea surface? Without coordinates it would be like driving in total darkness without headlights. How else could the BP’s company man inform the coastguard that the burning DWH had “moved approx 714 ft NE” from well A location? 714 ft is not an approximation that could have been estimated (to that degree of accuracy) from any of the vessels’ radar in the area. It had to be calculated from coordinates. Where else could the coordinates be obtained except from that ROV attempting to shut down the BOP?

There is no prize for guessing how many discrepancies (lies or inconsistencies) can be found in the few preceding paragraphs. If BP cannot be trusted to tell the truth even in this short time frame, 2 days after the disaster can BP be trusted in the months after, when BP’s survival hinges on the brink; pending the full magnitude of the disaster?

Yet prominent men of importance all around the world, heads of government and global corporations openly applauded BP for their “conscientious efforts” in finally killing well A for good on 19 Sept 2010? The defender of a Liar is also a Liar!

Quote from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/may/13/video-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill

After considerable pressure from the media and government agencies, BP tonight finally released a brief video showing for the first time the gushing stream of oil and gas leaking from the Deepwater Horizon oil rig into the Gulf of Mexico. The video released by BP shows oil spewing from a broken pipe 5,000 feet (1,500m) below the surface. The stream of crude oil is interspersed with lighter-coloured natural gas. The video was first posted on YouTube on Wednesday night by the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Centre, which said: "This video is from the larger of two existing leaks on the riser. This leak is located approximately 460 feet from the top of the blowout preventer and rests on the sea floor at a depth of about 5,000 feet."

~~~~~~~~~end of quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The fact that BP had to be forced to release the first ROV video on 11 May 2010, 20 days after the disaster first struck, speaks for itself the dishonesty of “supposedly honourable men” like Tony Hayward and his exploration managers.

Quote from BP Caught Lying While Deepwater Horizon Burns Part 5 Aomd

I have commented many times that the investigation into the disaster is the biggest joke of the century. In any financial disaster, the CEO and the ones most likely to be involved in the scandal would have been sacked or at least suspended pending investigation. In the BP's oil spill disaster, not only were the companies under investigation placed in charge of recovering the evidence, the CEO and all those who had recklessly driven the exploratory well to a disastrous blow-out, are still in control and have more than 4½ months to shred every piece of incriminating evidence.

~~~~~~~~~end of quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The “oil leaks” must have been far more extensive, more complicated and uncontrollable than just 3 simple leaks on the twisted and fallen 5000ft riser itself as reported by BP. It is incredible how BP could even think that intelligent humans could even fall for this absurd lie. Yet incredibly, the government of the most powerful nation on earth did. One must not underestimate the persuasive power of money and vested business interests.

The release of this first video footage raised more questions than answers. If this leak (the larger of the two leaks on the fallen 5000ft long riser) is 460 ft from the BOP, then there could not be another leak on the riser further away from the BOP since the video clearly shows the “riser” (looks more like a severed casing of the well head) being severed at one end. More importantly, why would the “riser” that had fallen onto the seabed be buried at the bottom of a crater that seems to be at least 1 metre deep? Why would the “broken riser” assuming it was bent, twisted and sheared before breaking, still maintain a solid circular shape with sharp angular cuts at its open end? It is so inconsistent with the highly bent leaking riser at the top of the BOP? The fact that there is a slight visible bend on the “riser” suggests 2 important points:

1. the “riser” at S20BC leak point is not made of the same material as the “flattened and bent riser” still connected to the BOP.
2. the angular cut in the “riser” at S20BC leak point, had been made manually; not flattened and broken off by the impact of the fall through 5000ft of water column.

Since the oil appeared to be freely flowing out of the open rounded end of the severed “riser”, any leak closer to BOP would have been very insignificant to be worthy of mention. In The Art Of Mass Deception Part 1 Ballistic Analysis Of Dwh Riser Wreck and many other videos of this major leak at S20BC location, the “riser” is clearly severed on the southern end (see video, heading 117.1º with casing dipping sub-horizontally northwards). Thus the oil had to be flowing from the north to south. But Well A where the “BOP was supposed to have been standing intact after the second underwater explosion” is 714ft to the south of this leak crater (S20BC). How can oil and gas be flowing from the BOP at Well A 714 ft south, when there is no “riser” connection from Well A to this leak location at S20BC?

In any case, if the oil was flowing out of the “BOP at Well A through the riser 460ft away” (as claimed by BP) would it not be much simpler and more cost effective, to cut off the riser at the top of the BOP at Well A where the LRMP cap was to be placed on anyway? Either the world must be crazy to accept this huge BP’s lie or expediency simply knows no bounds.

In this video dated 23 May where the ROV was injecting dispersant into the oil gushing out of the “riser” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=590-3CAGpYU&feature=related) it is very clear the “casing with the gushing oil” is no “riser that has been covered with sediment”. It is a casing that had been bent over and manually cut. Now what casing strings would be rising out of the ground other than from BP’s blown-out well? The “sediment” in the vicinity of the crater is no natural clay sediment but a thick layer of heavy drilling mud. Natural clayey sediment forms a colloidal suspension on disturbance. That is why the water is always murky and never clear at mud flats and river mouths heavy with sediment. Heavy drilling mud however settles down quickly leaving the water clear as shown in the ROV video.

Natural light clayey sediment would have long been dispersed by the intense ROV activities around the crater. Only heavy drilling mud could have remained in-situ. One must again wonder why would BP dump hundreds if not thousands of barrel of expensive drilling mud just to cover a “sunken riser” so that the dispersant can be carried out more complicatedly?

Replacing a surficial clay layer with heavy drilling mud cannot be done overnight or over a few days. Imagine a lake with a few metres of soft clay layer. Dumping a few hundred barrels of heavy drilling mud into it would create a small mole hill within a wide depression instead of uniformly replacing the original clay layer. In order to have such a uniform replacement, the heavy drilling mud must be “leaking out at a higher pressure than the existing hydrostatic pressure” from beneath the surficial clay layer. Is this not another conclusive evidence that BP had been drilling in the vicinity of the “unreported illegal well” (S20BC) weeks before the blowout occurred on 20 April 2010?

Where did the reported massive drilling mud losses go to? Obviously, they must have found their way up to the seabed in the vicinity of the “unreported illegal well (S20BC)” during drilling. The presence of thick layers of drilling mud at the seafloor also confirmed our worst fears; that the fragile geological condition in the Macondo prospect is indeed broken.

Having established BP’s need to lie incessantly since day 1 of the disaster, we can now interpret the ROV video with a clearer logic, free from the totally obfuscating influence of The Oil Drum (TOD).

…. to be continued in part IIb of Root Causes.

(23 Sept 2010 hydrocomgeo@gmail.com)

~~~~~~~Reuter Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:58pm EDT.

With a final shot of cement, BP Plc permanently "killed" its deep-sea well in the Gulf of Mexico that ruptured in April and unleashed the worst oil spill in U.S. history, the top U.S. spill official said on Sunday.

Some 153 days after the Macondo well ruptured, the U.S. government confirmed that BP had succeeded in drilling a relief well nearly 18,000 feet below the ocean surface and permanently sealing the well with cement.

"The Macondo 252 well is effectively dead," retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, who has overseen the U.S. government's response, said in a statement. "We can now state, definitively, that the Macondo well poses no continuing threat to the Gulf of Mexico."

~~~~~~~~~~~quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A hollow victory speech indeed as even those who reported the official news do not really believe in the “good news” themselves. How credible can such a claim be, given the many lies that had been exposed? Could this “permanent killing” of the zombie well have been so simple and so fast to kill, all along? If it was, why had there been so much hesitation with so many postponements before this? Why could this “permanent killing” not be done sooner? Although the wish for a quick and permanent solution to this disaster is universal, it is just wishful thinking that such a disastrous runaway gushing well could be tamed so easily. But how are we to judge in the absence of verifiable technical data that BP holds so close to heart?

The answer is quite simple actually. The recently announced “permanent kill” is a farce and nothing more than a PR stunt. Otherwise, why was there a need to deceive? Why would there be a need for the crooked ROV coordinates scheme to create a confused picture of the oil and gas seeps and well locations?

The crooked ROV coordinates scheme is another component of BP’s Art of Mass Deception, foiled once again by the lowly bathymetry data. With the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle in place, BP’s cloak of mass deception is as exposed as the Emperor’s invisible golden clothes (Emperor’s new clothes – from Hans Christian Andersen’s Fairy Tale).

Figure 120-1 shows the plot of some ROVs’ position with the date and water depth. The water depth is obtained by adding the altitude and the depth of the ROV. Figure 120-2 gives the tabulated ROVs’ details extracted from video footage or captured images available in the public domain. If this obvious falsification of data can be found in almost all of the video footage reviewed (picked randomly), there must be a lot more ROV video footage with falsified coordinates.

1.Video proof of oil gushing out of casing at S20BC – the unreported third well that blew on 20 April 2010.

This and many other video footage publicly available from mid May till the first week of June, is the video proof of the oil gushing out of a sub-horizontal casing within a crater at S20BC location; the unreported and unapproved third well that blew on 20 April 2010. This is the only well (out of the 3 drilled) that reached the reservoir at 18,303 ft below mudline (bml).

This location was publicly revealed on 13 Aug 2010 in the diagrammatic illustration of the CSI of the Deepwater Horizon Blowout (Why-It-Could-Not-Have-Happened-As-Reported-By-Bp). From the forensic analysis, S20BC location was determined to be approximately 720ft NNW of Well A. The coastguard log confirmed the location 9 days later; giving it a more precise location of 714 ft NNW of well A.

In one of the first video footages of S20BC reviewed for the article (HERC 6 ROV video recorded from 06:09:42 - 06:11:26 hrs on 29 May 2010) the average coordinates of the ROV is E1,202,504 N10,432,303 with a water depth of 4,970 ±10 ft.

In figure 120-1, the water depths estimated from ROVs monitoring the “dispersant operation” at the vicinity S20BC vary from 4959 to 4965 ft. This agrees quite well with the contour value of 4950 – 4970 ft.

Although the ROV was visibly stationary there was periodic “jumps in the coordinates” either due to errors in reading the coordinates from the video or navigation data noise. The largest distance moved is 45ft in 2 secs (7m/s). Over the 2 minute video, the virtual position variation is 0 to 45 ft. This is the magnitude of random data scatter that can be expected although the physical movement would be much less and much slower than 3 ft/sec (1m/sec or 3.6km/hr). Movement is perceptible even at a low speed of 0.5ft/sec.

2.Deliberate Shifting of ROV position by applying offset and bearing

In any positioning system there is always some noise scatter. In (1) we established the noise scatter to be less than 50 ft with a fairly noisy ROV video recording. In some stable ROV videos, the noise scatter on the position is much less. Noise by definition should be random. Deliberate human interference either by changing one of the digit in the 7 digit Northing coordinate or by range (distance in feet) and bearing (angle in degrees) input; produces a distinct pattern of change. Most importantly, as there is no actual physical movement of the ROV, the physical attributes such as time, depth, altitude, heading and speed do not change. Although the realistic corresponding variation in these physical attributes can be altered as well, it is more difficult to do this online without a complicated computerized system or programme.

In the 25 seconds video recording (from 15:01:26 to 15:01:51 hrs) on 29 May, the adulterated position of the ROV moved from the vicinity of S20BC (video shows oil gushing out of the sub-horizontal casing) 730 ft to just 248 ft NNW of Well A. See the track for 29/5 4959. The ROV moved at a speed of 1.1 to 17.3 m/s (4 to 62.3 km/h) within this short interval of 25 seconds or a total distance of 483 ft. ROV cannot cruise at 60 km/h through water and still record the same image of the seabed crater with the oil gushing out of the same sub-horizontal casing. The possibility of successive “random noise positions” moving progressively towards Well A is practically zero. The only other possibility is - human intervention by range (distance in feet) and bearing (angle in degrees) input. Even if the coordinates are plotted in isolation, the depth of 4959ft in the video recording would fall short of 30 ft (see point 29/5 4959 at bathy chart).

In the review of a second video (9 seconds long) from 09:43:03 to 09:43:12 hrs on 31 May, the adulterated position of the ROV moved from the vicinity of S20BC 740 ft NNW to 200 ft SE of Well A. See the track for 31/5 4962. In this track, the Virtual Position of the ROV moved back towards S20BC in the reverse direction; at the same time maintaining the exact heading, depth and altitude. The maximum virtual speed was 260 m/s (936 km/h). Undoubtedly the automatic positioning of the ROVs had been manipulated. For what purpose, you might ask?

3. Falsified Northing coordinates – by changing first 4 digits from 1,430,xxx to 1,432,xxx (2,000 ft)

An easier method of fudging the ROVs’ position is to change the fourth digit in the 7 digit Northing coordinate. Changing the first to third digits, would plot the ROV position out of range. It would be difficult to recover the true position and prevent the position from jumping erratically if the 5^th to 7^th digits were manipulated.

It is no accident that the fourth digit was specifically chosen and changed from 0 to 2. It was deliberate and intended to confuse. And confuse it did for if one were to diligently plot all the ROVs’ positions, it would make no sense. But out of the apparent randomness, a forensic pattern did emerge if the ROVs’ positions were superimposed on the bathymetry.

On 11 May at 23:33:46 and 23:33:53 hrs, the HERC 6 ROV was recording a gas seep between S20BC and Well A (497 ft NNW of Well A) at a point along the NW-SE fault passing through both locations. Its initial position E1 202 659, N10 430 092 was 1,532 ft SSW of Well A. But the recorded water depth is only 4963 ft; almost 120 ft short of the 5080ft water depth at this southern position. The seabed seep also looked familiar with another image at approximately the mid-position between Well A and S20BC. When the coordinates were corrected to E1 202 659, N10 432 092, the gas seep point falls between the 4965ft and 5970ft contours; a perfect match with regard to the bathymetry.

Two other points at 03:45:57 hrs and 03:49:15 hrs on 19 July, showed the same matching results with the bathymetry. With the “adulterated” southern position (2000ft south), the depth of 4944.2ft and 4943.9ft seemed out of place between contour 5040-5050ft. By correcting 2000ft north, the depths matched with the 4950ft contour shown in the bathy chart.

The “correction of 2000ft north” on all the three points confirmed that the original ROVs Northing had been tampered with a 2000ft shift to the south. But apparently the recorded ROV depth and altitude were left unchanged. Perhaps they did not realise anyone would notice the little discrepancy in depth.

With the general bathymetry sloping 3º to 5º southwards, the water depth should increase not decrease. This proves once again the lowest denomination of the exploration world (the lowly Bathy) to be the mightiest of them all (The-Little-Mole-Hill-That-Is-Really-A-Mountain).

Conclusion

The two methods of manipulating position data (for whatever reasons) are fairly common practices that had been exposed time and time again, during the many QC review of past geohazards assessments. Many errant survey contractors used them for a variety of reasons. It just means that BP is no better than the errant survey contractors caught manipulating their data. Is it any wonder that disasters like BP’s oil spill occurs?

"And I think the media now has to...tell the American people who's getting money for poisoning the millions of people in the Gulf." - Hugh Kaufman, senior EPA analyst, admits millions have been poisoned in the Gulf states.

BP and the government decided that millions of gallons of dispersants should be dumped into the Gulf to sink and hide the oil.

They succeeded in sinking it. As ABC, CBS and NPR note, huge quantities of oil are blanketing the ocean floor, killing virtually all of the sealife which lives there.

And giant new underwater plumes have been found in the water column itself.

But officials don't want to hear about them. As one member of the oil spill recovery team said:

(15 Sept 2010 This article is dedicated to a wonderful friend on his birthday, who sourced the material for this article).

The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted. ~Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

While others were busy fighting the fire on Deepwater Horizon and looking for survivors, those who had been instrumental in driving the exploration drilling into a disaster, were secretly planning to absolve themselves of blame. This is to be expected in each and every disaster I had investigated.

In my paper “The need for Independent Post Survey QC to check the high failure rate of geohazards prediction” which was presented on 11 June 2010 and submitted to Geological Society of Malaysia for publication; I wrote:

~~~~~quote ~~~~~~~

Yet geohazards predictions are often treated with disdain if the risk of geohazards is high. Many would prefer the risk of geohazards to be downplayed in order for the project or drilling to proceed “smoothly” as planned. In the event of an “unlikely” disaster, the “safe geohazards assessment” is always handy in absolving blame and financial responsibility. It is also easy to blame massive financial losses on geohazards which like all natural disasters are acceptable “force majeure”. The chain of human errors especially the erroneous geohazards prediction and interpretation leading to the disaster is often lost in the chaotic aftermath.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have commented many times that the investigation into the disaster is the biggest joke of the century. In any financial disaster, the CEO and the ones most likely to be involved in the scandal would have been sacked or at least suspended pending investigation. In the BP’s oil spill disaster, not only were the companies under investigation placed in charge of recovering the evidence, the CEO and all those who had recklessly driven the exploratory well to a disastrous blow-out, are still in control and have more than 4½ months to shred every piece of incriminating evidence.

~~~~~~~~~~~quote~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9210344

The Deepwater Horizon rig's failed blowout preventer and the twisted remnants of the drilling platform may be "exhibit A" in the effort to establish who is responsible for the biggest peacetime oil spill in history, with the companies under investigation in charge of recovering the evidence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~end of quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is it any wonder BP behaved as if the whole gulf belongs to them; to do as they pleased? Is it any wonder BP never seek prior permission to use “toxic dispersant” whose use had been banned in the UK? There are many more questions which investigators have to ask but perhaps the most important question of all; Would one lie if one is not guilty?

Thus while documentary evidences can be easily destroyed, disposed off or fabricated, time and space can never be created nor destroyed in the account of events. In my time, I have seen many fabricated seismic data, calibration reports, installation certificates, medical certificates and others, which appeared to be totally genuine on first look. However, all failed when subjected to the logic test of time and space.

So with this brief introduction, we can now critically analyze one of the first documented lies by BP on 22 April 2010, 0402hrs while DWH was still afloat burning and the Search & Rescue (SR) operation was underway to look for survivors. See figure 119-1, the highlighted lines of the Coast Guard log are reproduced here in bold.

JD. At 0402hrs, 22 April, BP reported the Deepwater Horizon has moved appx. 714ft in the north-east direction and is only connected by the Marine Riser.

JH. At 0539hrs, 22 April, Briefed by …(black out)….. MSU Morgan city. Modu reported to have move 714 ft to the NE direction. Held in place by Marine Riser.

The sea state at that time was reportedly calm with little wind. DWH had no power to move by itself. Notice the emphasis was “Move”; to imply that DWH had been moving or rather drifting and was only restrained from moving further north-east by the marine riser. This is the plain comprehension of those two sentences. On first look there is nothing wrong with DWH moving. In fact, why would this be important at all when there are more urgent matters at hand like putting out the fire and finding survivors? But things spoken in haste or at times of emergency do reveal a lot more than the PR messages and advertisement meant to improve the image of BP, at least to the unsuspecting public.

In the first place the marine riser is made of steel and cannot be extended without breaking. Also unlike mooring lines, there is virtually no slack. Thus, there can be very little movement, if at all it did move by undercurrent or wind. But there was little wind and current as we had all witnessed on the first 2 days. The flames and dark smoke were visibly vertical. Anyway this is just a minor point.

Even if there had been strong winds and waves (somebody should really check the wind and current direction), DWH could not have drifted that far. Since there is no slack and the steel string is non-extendable, at 714 ft from Well A (assuming it was vertically above well A at the seabed), DWH had to sink by 51 ft (15.6m). Now that would be noticeable. Why it was not reported? As the drift had happened within the first 2 days when DWH had not lost its buoyancy yet, there had to be a strong gale to continually “force” a floating body down. That the sea state was reportedly calm makes it even more interesting.

Without any electronic positioning devices onboard the burning DWH, how did BP get such an accurate measurement of 714 ft at sea? If BP had estimated DWH position from one of the vessels, the best estimate from the radar would be 2 decimal point of a mile (0.01 nautical mile = 60.76 ft). In any case why was there a need for 1 ft accuracy? Any normal seaman would have read off DWH’s position (from the radar) as 700 ft or more likely 0.11 n. mile (668ft) or 0.12 n. mile (729 ft). I doubt a surveyor would do any better. In any case why would BP specifically fly in a surveyor just to get such an accurate position of a burning rig? As if BP had nothing better to do than to get a good accurate position of DWH. Defies logic, does it not?

In all probability, the position of DWH must have been calculated from coordinates. But how did BP get the coordinates of a floating burning DWH surrounded by a circle of oil? The fire-fighting vessels cannot get near due to the intense heat. Why would anyone risk his life to get that accurate position of DWH so desperately?

Well, if the above do not make sense, then maybe the following reconstruction of events can.

Remember in my last posting (One-Month-Late-5-Days-Before-Blowout,Part-4-AoMD), 5 days before the blowout on 20 April, everybody was euphoric on their unexpected success in reaching the targeted reservoir and huge payload of the reservoir. BP made a delayed application on 15 April 2010 to spud the new well at an unreported location (referred to as S20BC from my forensic analysis) on 16 March a month earlier. Does this paint the picture of funny businesses going on behind MMS’s back?

Like all who were guilty conscious of their crimes, the first impulse was to cover their tracks. At that time, the BOP was still intact; before the reported second explosion on at 10:22hrs 22 April 2010, more than 6 hours later. Those who had ordered DWH to drill at the unreported and unapproved location would be in serious trouble if the ROVs during the recovery stage, were to report a blown location different from Well A. Thus it appeared to be an opportune (during the confusion) to introduce the new position. In their haste, they calculated the position of the BOP (still intact at S20BC) and LIED that DWH had drifted to the new location; hoping that no one will notice.

Why did the late Matt Simmons claim that the real blown-out well was 7 miles away? Why did the number 7 keep appearing? Like all the other information, he must have been briefed on the actual incident by an insider. Once the information is leaked out, it would be difficult to suppress it (or keep it secret anymore). Now if you cannot suppress it, you can distort it. As a seasoned leader in the industry, there would be close associates or past acquaintances who could override the first “insider’s leak information” with more “credible” (distorted) information. If there were 5 against 1, who do you think the late Matt Simmons would believe, especially if they were more senior or working at higher levels than the first insider?

If the late Matt Simmons is alive today, he would have realised by now who had been the ones feeding him distorted information.