• BK Lim et al (first drafted in June 2010, revised 29 Jan 2012)

To keep this article short, we posted these figures earlier at the following links:

Figure 165-3 BP doctored relooped video to make-believe BOP was still intact at 3rd well after 2nd blowout

Figure 165-4 BP's latest PR twist: DWH blowout disaster downgraded into an underwater pipeline burst

Figure 165-5 Undoctored videos confirm oil gushing blown crater was well#3 and not 2^nd leak on the riser

Figure 165-5a Doctored videos of the same blown crater confirm elaborate deception

Figure 165-6 Even DNV was fooled by the fake relooped videos after the 22 April explosion.

(figures 165-0, 165-1b and 165-2 are given in the next posting)

Of all the lies that came out of the Gulf disaster, the most preposterous has been the 3 leaks on the riser story. Figure 165-0a to 165-0c were the first few schematic illustrations of BP’s blowout incident. They were so embarrassingly stupid and logic defying, most experts believed the schematics were deliberately drawn by cartoonists to confuse the average Joe Public. The patchwork of realities resembled a makeshift car hastily assembled from parts of different size vehicles. Obviously a mini car body does not match the oversize truck tires. It is obvious the 5½ inch drill pipe at leak(3) cannot be the same 21inch diameter riser (actually a well casing) at leak(2). Yet the world's technical experts willfully overlooked this fundamental discrepancy and allowed the criminals to get away with murders. And America, the world's greatest nation shouting human rights abuses all over the world, allowed this hideous crime of mass destruction in its own backyard to go unpunished? In China, the corporate criminals responsible for this environmental carnage would have been executed instead of having their lives back. Can the 11 dead crewmen, their young families and thousands of Gulf victims who suffered numerous medical problems from the toxic contaminated Gulf waters and corexit sprayed on them, ever have their lives back?

Surely the world's most technologically advanced country could not have been so easily fooled by this “3 wells & 3 leaks on a single riser” fairy tale (concocted Beyond Phantasm). Besides the many controversial circumstances surrounding the sinking of the burning rig (DWH) and the sudden breaking of the super-strong riser in calm water, how could a third open-ended leak (3) be even possible beyond the completely severed riser at the second leak (2)? See fig165-0c. Leak(2) has to be the blown crater of well no.#3 as illustrated in many of our previous articles and irrefutably shown in Figure 165-5 with the right coordinates in the few undoctored videos.

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” S Homes.

Since June 2010, we have illustrated many physics of impossibilities concocted by BP. Two years later, it seems the world has not awaken from its ignorantly blissful slumber. This disaster is more than just a disastrous mega oil spill. If the world's foremost scientists and investigators cannot figure out the many fundamental flaws in the simple “3 leaks-3 wells” fairy tale, how can there be any hope of ever solving problems beyond kindergarten level? Forget the carbon tax, the ban on hazardous gas emission and just about any anti-pollution measures designed to improve the global environment. All these schemes have sinister undertones with profiting on mass miseries of others.

In the Gulf disaster, you have the biggest environmental polluter in human history. The punishment for a crime of mass destruction that could have been averted, was just a slap on the wrist? If this is not the clearest proof of corruption at the highest level and biggest HSE (health, safety & environment) farce, then what is?

It is clear the current political leaders had not been up to mark in dealing with this disaster. If their blinkered leadership cannot see beyond the deception in the Gulf, the only place they are are capable of leading to, is Hell. Do the American people really want to be sheepishly led down this road to hell? And world leaders follows obediently in tow.

If we do not wake up and smell the Corexit now, pretty soon there would not be a planet to save at all.

It was not the failure of safety regulations but the enforcement of regulations. The government admitted this much by sacking MMS's director and changing it to BOEMRE. It was not the failure of technology but the devious use of technology to cloak unfair business practices or safety farce at the very least. But would shrewd corporate criminals risk billions of investment dollars just to skimp on some daily operation expenses and safety devices? Just like the fairy tale of the 3 leaks, this was just the red herring. The oil industry will start on its decline just as the coal industry did, after its replacement by alternative cheaper and cleaner energy sources (The Future of Free Energy).

Giant global oil corporations may not have the next 10 years to recover their mega billion dollar investments. With the writings on the wall and their failures to control (prevent) the advent of free energy, the oil oligarchs had to devise emergency exit schemes before oil independence becomes public knowledge. High crude oil prices cannot be manipulated too high or long enough to recoup their billions of investment dollars globally. They risk becoming economic dinosaurs.

High oil prices depress global economic growth and hence non-sustainable for too long a period. Shallow, low cost production reservoirs are either not under their control or their reserves have already dwindled. The Middle East wars and conflicts are all about the control of cheap oil supplies. At low crude oil prices, they cannot recoup their high investment costs. Huge deep water oil reserves are just market hype. They are just too uneconomical for exploitation. But like the fake 134 billion US dollar bonds and 26 trillion US loans given out by the FED, mega oil spills could be leveraged as MIHOP environmental disasters for quick mega windfalls. More details in later articles.

Figures 165-0 to 165-6 accurately depict how deep down the abyss the oil industry had sank into. How can we pretend that all is well with the oil industry? The 11 crewmen died not because they did not perform their job well. On the contrary, these men plus the previous drilling crew performed exceptionally well. Otherwise they could not have drilled through hell to reach the reservoir at 18,360 ft below sea level. They were on a “suicide mission” without being told that the nightmare well was supposed to blow once they had successfully reached the reservoir. It is time to put the records straight. As Edmund Burke said; “All that is needed for evil to succeed is that decent human beings do nothing”.

The illustration of the 3 infamous leaks on a badly twisted riser, was designed to confuse and to twist public opinion to their advantage. Many experts in the industry wondered at the ludicrous illustration but no one dare to criticize big brother, BP. Below is one muffled, discussion from an astonished experienced driller at Drilling Ahead.

Riser Problems?(http://www.drillingahead.com/forum/topics/transocean deepwater horizon 1#ixzz1k7tHXgvt)

According to the Coast Guard and BP, oil is leaking from two spots along what is left of the riser system. Here's a schematic view: (figure 165-0b) dated 26 April 2010.

Originally, the risers (represented by the blue line in the graphic above) were affixed to the blowout preventer on the seafloor, and extended 5,000 feet straight up to the "moon pool" of the Deepwater Horizon. When the drilling vessel sank, it took the riser piping and bent it around like a pretzel.

The remnants of the riser system now follow a circuitous underwater route. According to BP, the risers extend from the wellhead up through the water column to about 1,500 feet above the seabed. Then the riser system buckles back down toward the seafloor. (Frankly, I'm astonished that it all held together as well as it has. It's a credit to the manufacturer, which I'll discuss below.)

According to the Transocean website, the riser devices on the Deepwater Horizon were manufactured by VetcoGray, a division of General Electric Oil & Gas. The specific designation is a "HMF Class H, 21 inch outside diameter riser; 90 foot long joints with Choke & Kill, and booster and hydraulic supply lines."

~~~~end of quote~~~

Why the pathetic 3 leaks on the broken riser excuse?

If there were really 3 leaks on a single riser, BP could have easily reduced three into one controllable leak at the source by cutting the riser at the top of the blowout preventer (BOP). That was precisely what BP did at the end of May to install the LMRP (Lower Marine Riser Package) cap on 3 June 2010. But why wait for 40 days? Why would BP need to go through the charade of top kill, junk shots, hot hats and all that nonsense? Why wait for 87 days before shutting down the flow at well A on 15 July? Why was there no massive oil spill or gas leaks before 2200z (1700 CDT) 22 April 2010? See the pattern yet?

BP's frauds and deception in the Gulf would have been exposed at the break of the disaster if they had not been so well coordinated and meticulously planned months beforehand. Official coverups could not have withstood the tsunami-force of massive public protests, even with forceful suppression. The pen is mightier than the sword. Deception is more effective in dissipating the focused energy of the masses. Once divided and confused with distorted truths, only can military force be effective in suppressing the sheepish masses to be culled. TPTB have been having lots of target practices in the third world countries and now it is time to use these tactics in their home crowd. Nothing happens by accident. Certainly not the BP's Gulf disaster which had been planned as early as 2007.

The ROV inspections of the wellhead, marine riser and BOP in the immediate aftermath of the incident show that the mega oil spill could have been easily averted with several run-of-the-mill options. It was the sort of controllable rig blowout-fire situation the industry expects and routinely trained for. It could have been recovered safely without ending in a disastrous mega oil spill. James Cameron of the Titanic fame was quoted as saying “US shouldn't be relying on BP's underwater intel. Those morons don't know what they're doing!”. Really? Or was ingenuity behind the cloak of stupidity.

The main reason for the deliberate blunders and delays in the recovery of the blowout and the oil spill, was to intentionally flood the Gulf with massive oil to cause market panic. No massive oil spill means no justification for spraying unprecedented massive amount of COREXIT. Bio-remediation was available and ready to be used. Yet millions of gallons of corexit had been stockpiled weeks before the mega spill occurred and surprisingly on standby to disperse on the first day itself. Yet there are those who still believe there was no vested business connection. The concerted media, political and industry deception onslaught was unmistakably deafening. Stupidity and global domination do not go hand in hand.

The initial gas blowout (20 April 2010) which killed 11 drilling crew on the burning Deepwater Horizon rig, failed to unleash the massive oil spill as PLANNED. A detonated explosion within the well shortly after 2200z (1700 CDT) did. That triggered explosion induced a bottom hole blowout that unleashed the full power of the gushing oil from the Macondo reservoir. Period!

Is it not a federal offense to lie so blatantly to the US Congress and American Public? Or is the system so screwed up, it is fashionable or even brilliant to get away with submitting doctored ROV videos to Congress? For the uninitiated, there were many accounts of BP committing perjury before and after Tony Hayward' congressional testimony. All ROV videos showing the still standing BOP with the Bent Riser (without the gas leak) from the 23 April till mid May 2010, were relooped footage recorded prior to the 22 April explosion shortly after 1700 CDT. Why? Because the BOP was already in pieces scattered over the seafloor after the 22 April bottom-well blowout. Again the doctored videos were deliberately ignored by investigators and mainstream media. Obvious, is it not?

Continue: Part 1 The farcical 3 leaks on the broken riser story

James Cameron: US shouldn't be relying on BP's underwater intel

Those morons don't know what they're doing!

(Reuters) - BP Plc won a court order keeping several potentially damaging emails out of a scheduled trial to determine responsibility for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Wednesday's ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan in New Orleans came a day after U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier rejected the oil company's effort to keep evidence about settlements it had already reached out of the trial.

The rulings came as Barbier prepares to preside on February 27 over a non-jury trial to assign blame for the April 20, 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, which killed 11 people and caused the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

Plaintiffs include individuals and businesses, represented by a plaintiffs' steering committee that had sought to introduce the email evidence, as well as states and the U.S. government.

The main corporate defendants include BP, rig owner Transocean Ltd and Halliburton Co, which provided cementing services for the Macondo oil well. Anadarko Petroleum Corp, one of BP's partners in the well, is also involved in the trial.

Shushan granted BP's request to exclude as hearsay several 2009 emails among Anadarko employees about tropical storm damage to another Transocean rig that had been under contract to BP.

In one email, an Anadarko employee expressed disappointment that BP had not disclosed some information related to the damage, prompting another to respond: "Bummer. I'm amazed that they did not tell us about this."

Shushan also granted BP's and Transocean's request to keep out a June 2010 email from Halliburton employee Ryan Haire questioning their reported findings regarding some tests, saying he had no personal knowledge of those findings.

The judge also granted Halliburton's request to exclude an email from a BP geologist to a colleague in February 2010, offering "thanks for the @!$%#ty cement job."

Halliburton contended that the email was no more than a casual, tasteless joke made by one friend to another. Shushan concluded that there was no showing that the email was a "business record" of the cement work that could be introduced into evidence.

Barbier had on Tuesday ruled in Halliburton's favor on whether evidence of BP's settlements with Anadarko and other companies was admissible at trial.

Halliburton had said such evidence could show the settling companies' potential bias in BP's favor, while BP had countered that they were irrelevant to establishing liability.

Here in America, as a foreign entity you can kill 11 men, injure 17 more, cause unprecedented ecological and economical destruction to 4 states, destroy hundreds of thousands of animals, take over the media, science and regional healthcare, decimate cultures, chemically poison thousands of people, and leave a big fat mess behind, for the same cost as one bank’s government bail out, (Wells Fargo 2009).

Heck, last year alone BP slammed a net profit of $25.7 billion. So much for the 2010 worry that BP might go into bankruptcy over the fiasco.

And according to a UPI.com article, found here

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/02/05/Settlement-possible-in-BP-oil-spill-case/UPI-61971328459069/, state officials may actually be encouraging the idea, with the help of the DOJ and the administration.

It's official: 2011 was a record-busting year in the oil industry, with the five largest companies -- BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Royal Dutch Shell -- reporting all-time-high profits of $137 billion. That's a 75 percent jump from the year before, even though the giants produced less oil than in 2010.

It's the multinational way to go in a slumping economy: Get paid more for doing less.

BP an­nounced today that its 2011 profit to­taled $26 bil­lion, a 114 per­cent jump from the year be­fore, when the com­pany’s “fail­ure of su­per­vi­sion and ac­count­abil­ity” caused the worst oil spill in U.S. his­tory. As the com­pany pre­pares for its up­com­ing crim­i­nal trial, let’s take a look at how BP has made out after the Deep­wa­ter Hori­zon dis­as­ter:

Look at this important ROV video. It is a technique taken from the "Art of Mass Deception".

How do you hide evidence by showing it?  

Clue: Throughout the week we have been showing evidence of heading and orientation. When confused, try looking from a different perspective.  

On the day the Deepwater Horizon sank, BP officials warned in an internal memo that if the well was not protected by the blow-out preventer at the drill site, crude oil could burst into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of 3.4 million gallons a day, an amount a million gallons higher than what the government later believed spilled daily from the site.

The email conversation, which BP agreed to release Friday as part of federal court proceedings, suggests BP managers recognized the potential of the disaster in its early hours, and company officials sought to make sure that the model-developed information wasn't shared with outsiders. The emails also suggest BP was having heated discussions with Coast Guard officials over the potential of the oil spill.

America is in trouble. This a planned disaster no doubt. We are looking at the greatest catastrophe to hit Mankind. ....And they can't fix it or won't fix it. 

How do you bring the world's greatest Republic to its kness?

Kindra: Does that make my people expendable?

Santa Barbara cinematographer Mike deGruy died in a fiery helicopter crash Friday in New South Wales, Australia.

According to KEYT, deGruy, 60, was in Australia to scout locations for an upcoming documentary project.

The Age newspaper in Melbourne reported that deGruy and the helicopter’s pilot, fellow filmmaker Andrew Wight, were killed when their aircraft crashed and burst into flames during takeoff near Nowra on the south coast of New South Wales. Local authorities said both men died at the scene.

The cause of the crash is under investigation.

One of the films on which he worked was Deepwater Rising, which chronicled the aftermath of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Friend and fellow Santa Barbaran Harry Rabin, CEO of On the Wave Productions and the documentary’s cinematographer, spent two months on location with him for the project.

It appears high-level BP officials made a concerted effort to keep secret a completely legitimate spill estimate – based on a tested scientific model – and disclosed a completely unfounded, grossly inaccurate flow rate. Go figure.

The series of decisions surrounding the “false estimate” episode are all neatly packaged in a damning email exchange between BP employees released in federal court in New Orleans on Friday (Jan. 27). The startling new evidence provides a glimpse inside what is shaping up to rank among the biggest, most flagrant corporate coverups in recent history. From a Jan. 27 Times-Picayune report:

The April 22 email from Rob Marshall, BP’s subsea manager for the Gulf of Mexico, to deepwater project manager Gary Imm and corporate vice president Jonathan Sprague is an exhibit in the massive oil spill litigation slated for trial Feb. 27.

Marshall advised Imm and Sprague that an expert named Alistair Johnston had a new model for how much oil might be spewing from the wellhead a mile below the surface and 50 miles from the Mississippi River delta. Johnston’s new estimate, Marshall wrote, was 82,000 barrels a day if the well has an open hole.

The response from Imm suggests that BP and the Coast Guard were already butting heads over how much oil was coming out of the busted well – and that 82,000 barrels a day wasn’t a number BP wanted anyone to hear.

“A number of people have been looking at this and we already have had difficult discussions with the USCG (Coast Guard) on the numbers,” Imm wrote back to Marshall and Sprague. “Please tell Alistair not to communicate to anyone on this.”

So much for the “complete transparency” and cooperation BP pledged to embrace.

In 2005 President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act, which retained the focus of Cheney's report, into law. It included what has become known as "the Halliburton loophole," which removed authority from the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate a potentially dangerous gas-drilling process invented by Halliburton.  

These links, the fact that Cheney's former campaign press secretary Ann Womack-Colton has recently become BP's head of U.S. media relations, and the general pro-oil, anti-regulation atmosphere in the Bush years have not escaped the attention of the pundits. MSNBC's Chris Matthews highlighted the Halliburton-Cheney connection in an interview with Jay Leno on the BP spill. Frank Rich, in The New York Times, pointed out that the Interior Department degenerated into a "cesspool of corruption," under Bush and Cheney, and that the pair bequeathed Obama "a Minerals Management Service as broken as the Bush-Cheney FEMA exposed by Katrina."

• BK Lim et al (first drafted in June 2010, revised 29 Jan 2012)

Why would BP spend more than 100 millions USD on PR media blitzkrieg to change public perception of the massive oil spill? Remember the famous doctored photos which BP admitted to?

http://gizmodo.com/5592836/bp-photoshops-another-official-image-again-terribly

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/jul/23/bp-oil-spill-pictures

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/oil/7904221/BP-admits-it-Photoshopped-official-images-as-oil-spill-cut-and-paste-row-escalates.html

2010 July 30- why-is-bps-macondo-blowout-so-disastrous-beyond-patch-up

4 What you don’t see can be covered up.

Perhaps the botched-up “photochop-chop” photos put up by BP was just a test. To see how keen the public eyes were in following BP’s clean up efforts. It would be hard to believe BP paid professionals for such a shoddy job. We should give BP more credit than that (remember the shares issues)? Let’s play dumb and the problems will go away.

Many experts in the oil industry were surprised and questioned the rationality of capping the well when the relief wells were so close to achieving their “bottom kill” objectives. They could have installed the TOP CAP much earlier. This means that BP knew if the gushing well was completely shut at the top, the oil and gas would spread beneath the sea floor and gas seeps would start appearing. So the TOP CAP had to be placed just before the relief well was ready for the “magic show”. Hurricane Bonnie spoilt the show and the delay is already showing signs of stress (gas seeps).

This could also mean that BP was getting less and less confident that the relief wells would work. The relief wells were held up as the last Trump card. If it fails in full (ROV) view of the concerned public throughout the world, BP’s shares would drop like a stone. There are good geological reasons why the chances of the relief wells’ success are less than 30%. But that would be in the next posting.

So instead “of going on a public stage with a final trump card of 30% chance of success” and risking everything BP stands for, a magic show will be set up so that what ever happens, it will be a success. How?

With a gushing well in full view, a successful bottom kill would show oil slowing down to eventually a tickle. With the cap on, it would be easier to manipulate the data. Thus botched-up photos were a test to check the keenness of the public eye. If the bottom kill fails, there is no independent monitor to prove it. BP could quickly pack and leave the site. Without ROVs’ video, the world is blind. Independent scientific researches later on could be disputed or controlled in post-recovery mopped up battle plan.

The TOP CAP had to be installed and the integrity pressure tests used as an excuse to completely shut down the flow. There is no need to prove the well is leaking. It is already a fact. David Copperfield could not have performed better.

~~~end of quote ~~~~

A primer on QC analyses of doctored ROV videos. What? BP doctored ROV videos?

It is almost unbelievable that a respectable global giant like BP could be so unethical. If you can't make it, fake it. That was what BP did. So far we have been proven right. There is a lot more. Each time we dig, we found more dirt. Many had also wondered how we could tell the difference especially in the light of so many doctored videos released by BP. And why isn't the mainstream media keeping so quiet on BP's data frauds.

With some fundamentals, you can also be your own detective. Here is the how.

Time & space, cannot be created or subtracted but flow continuously in unison. For example, if an ROV moves from point A to B and then to C, its movement can be described by time, motion, speed and position. You cannot substitute C by A without screwing up the consistency of the all the time-spatial relationships. BP substituted well A coordinates on videos which had been recorded previously at the 3^rd well location showing the BOP and Bent Riser. You might wonder why? Such elaborate deceptions played in frontal view of world's audience cannot be just for an April Fool's joke. See later articles coming up on the series.

Essentially it means that you can lie to some people some of the time but you cannot lie to all the people all of the time.

As you add more factors or constrains, the narrow path of lying becomes even narrower. It is like broadening the stage prop. Remember in the Art of Mass Deception, the stage prop is meant only for the front view audience. Look beyond the stage prop and you will see the flaws. The depth variation constrain was added to our analyses which apparently the fraudsters (not being surveyors) were largely ignorant of.

All of the video footage handed to us have their time-spatial details embedded in them. Adulterating them (by us) would leave graphic evidence no matter how professionally done, especially with videos. Our job here was to prove inconsistencies and adulteration of time-spatial details. We do not adulterate videos submitted to us for analyses in order to fit our analyses. There are many ways to check this but this is not included in our primer here for obvious reasons.

BP's raw video feeds were recorded independently without embedding the time-spatial details. Hence it would have been very easy for BP's technicians to broadcast even live video feeds with superficially generated time-spatial details. This is what we suspected they did generally but not all the time. Each video in question has to be examined on case to case basis.

Depending on operators, the date format can sometimes switch from American (mm dd yy) to British (dd mm yy) and feet to metric. The coordinates are all in feet, but depth and altitude can be in feet or metres. The depth here refers to the ROV Depth or the height of the water column above the ROV (measured by a depth pressure sensor which had to be correctly calibrated). If there is a bulk error (say 30ft) it should rightly appear in all depths displayed. Thus, by subtracting the bulk (or datum error) we can retrieve back the right depth. Altitude, depth, coordinates, heading, are all designed for automatic input from the sensors without human intervention once the system is calibrated, up and running. Any human intervention thereafter is likely to be for fraudulent purposes other than normal operation.

The water depth at the ROV location is the sum of the altitude (measured by an ultrasonic transducer to the seabed) and the ROV depth. This is where the bathymetric chart (in BP's exploration plan) comes in handy. Both well A and B have the same water depth at 4992 ft (+/- 5 ft). The third well being up slope, has a water depth of about 4960 ft. An error range of 5 -10 ft is acceptable but the sensitivity (or variation) when the ROV is stationary should not be more than 1 ft. Heading (Hdg) is the direction of the ROV, measured by the gyro, in degrees from 0 to 360. Be aware that the ROV cameras have both zoom and tilt capability. Some of the ROVs (we are told) have hind cameras mounted on them as well. Still that does not explain the motion and orientation discrepancies in the video; resulting in obvious disconnect between the motion in the video and relative position of the recording ROV.

What we have been unable to demonstrate on still snaphots are the inconsistencies in the motion, speed, direction or orientation so obvious in the playback of these doctored videos? For example on a stationary viewport showing the spewing well, the recording ROV could not have move by hundreds of feet without affecting the area of view. With a stationary ROV (coordinates variation < 1 feet) the object in view (within the viewport) should move in opposite direction to the camera's rotation. For example, if the ROV is rotating to the starboard (increasing heading degrees, to the right facing the bow) the object in view should move towards the left and out of the viewport. But in BP's doctored videos, you will see the disconnect caused by superficially adding the navigation information after the field recording.

One BP schill commented that BP might have accidentally merged the wrong navigation information from other dives. Perhaps. But why do these “wrong navigation information” consistently get merged for only certain sensitive locations and events? Consistency in the “accidental errors” could only mean intent to cheat under the guise of “naturally occurring” accidents or errors.

In many doctored videos, you will see the heading change significantly but the BOP remained stationary within the viewport. You can demonstrate this by using a narrow beam pen-torch light shinning on an object. Of course there are the classic time skips (forward and backwards in time), coordinates jumps of more than hundreds of feets etc etc. Hopefully you can have some fun watching these ROV videos with the right perspective.

BP could only fool the world because the world allows BP to.

Having established some fundamentals, we now analyse figure 165-5, an early video example where the actual ground details were recorded, unadulterated. (So far we had not found any on these sets of videos but readers are welcome to feed us back if we had missed out on any). As a comparison to doctored videos, see Figure 165-5a Recycled Data, Frauds & BP's Gulf Disaster.

All the 3 snapshots extracted from different videos show the famous blowout crater with the huge black oil plume, gushing out to the south (see red arrow in the RT video, bottom left). BP misled the world in claiming that this was just a leak on the broken riser. It was not. It was the blown crater of the third well, which they labeled as well BE. Why would they label the well that blew on 20 April 2010 as well BE and not well A? There is a lot more in depth details in figure 165-5. This is just the tip of the iceberg (frauds in the industry). See later articles for more amazing deception by BP.

We can be quite confident on the direction of the oil flow (from the north) as the picture frame is almost parallel to the pipe (casing). The video snapshot on the lower left was captured from RT broadcast dated on 30 May 2010. The top snapshots were extracted from video recorded on 23 April and 5May(blurred?) 2010. All 3 snapshots show the supposedly 2^nd leak on the riser in a crater, referred to as Leak(2).

Based on our past analyses and cross-references, we beg to differ. We had argued from different angles, that leak(2) was in fact the blown crater of the third well (BE) which they intentionally blew shortly after 1700 CDT (2220z) on 22 April. Besides trying to misrepresent the third well (BE) as well A, this “missing massive explosive event” was one of the main reason BP's official story was so ludicrously inconsistent.

The main story (BP's Deception in the Gulf, exposed) will explain further but for now we want to demonstrate the consistencies in the un-doctored videos on an obviously same oil-spewing crater.

The graph on the right bottom is a to-scale plot of the location of the 3 wells. The red text gives the details of the ROV position as per the coordinates in the snapshot. On this video, the ROV was 43ft west of the well BE crater. Thus the heading of 97 deg is about right. The water depth (4957.7 + 4.7) of 4962 ft is much closer to the depth of well BE than well A or well B.

Both the top photos show the yellow pipe (casing) to be dipping northward into the “cemented sediment” with the oil plume gushing out south. Thus all the 3 photos are consistent with each other. The fact that no coordinates were displayed for the videos on 23 April 2010, strongly suggest that BP was well aware of the sensitivity of that information. On some of the earlier videos, the coordinates were displayed as blanks or zeros. In later videos, the coordinates were falsified.

What is the chance of a falling 5000ft long super strong riser (with a 3.5 million pound load-carrying capacity) breaking into two at exactly the same location the DWH burning rig was reported to have drifted to? And where is the other half of the broken riser in the crater? It could not have floated away if it was heavy enough to dig itself into more than 5m of cemented seafloor. The probability must be astronomical, considering that BP made the report (that the burning DWH rig had drifted 714 ft NW from well A) at 220402z (23:02 CDT 21 April); less than 2 days after the discovery of the blown crater. How did BP know beforehand the 5000ft riser was going to break at that point? More amazingly, could a burning rig drift in a dead calm sea, as evident from independently taken photos? BP acknowledged the semi-sub was “anchored” in place by the riser attached to the BOP at the wellhead. Is this not inconsistent with the Drift Theory? How come none of the fire fighting vessels noticed the drift at sea? Why did the reported drift came from BP's Command Centre and not from the coastguards in the field?

As there is negligible slack in the non-stretchable riser, the burning rig had to sink by at least 50ft for it to move that distance. The burning DWH was observed to be listing from the morning of 22 April with the riser still intact. The DWH did not start to sink until the riser was (intentionally) severed at or around 10:22 CDT 22 April. Such precise timing!

This was what we wrote on 25 Aug 2010.

Twisted tale of the missing 3^rd well that blew on 20 April 2010.

DWH never moved 714ft NE as reported by BP to the Coast Guard. BP had to come up with something to explain why the burning DWH was in that location. The sea was calm and DWH had no power to move. This further confirmed DWH was sitting on top of the S20BC location as correctly predicted by the seabed debris forensic analysis. BP had to move the fallen BOP and placed it on Well A in the aftermath of the blowout. This is one of the many reasons BP cannot release the video footage of the BOP immediately after the second explosion blew off the BOP and broke off the bottom fifth of the riser string as detailed in The-mystery-of-the-april-20-blowout-revealed and in The-art-of-mass-deception-part-1.

While many missing parts to the giant jigsaw puzzle have yet to be put in place, it is evident we are getting very close to the truth. Hence the intensified attacks and cointelpro on us. We had been confident enough since July 2010 to boldly publish what insiders can only whisper in private.

The significance of figure 165-5.

It confirms that the crater with the massive oil plume which BP claimed to be the second leak on the riser was indeed the blown 3^rd well. The unadulterated videos are “consistently” consistent with our earlier assertions that the 3^rd well that blew its top (BOP, well casing etc) and ended up as an open crater, gushing massive oil directly from the Macondo Reservoir 18,360 ft below. It is time the American public, victims and the world know the truth. BP had pulled wools over America's eyes with the fabricated 1 well - 3 leaks on the riser story long enough.

You have to wonder why BP spent more than 100 million USD to mercilessly pound their fabricated lies into the mainstream media and cyberspace to conceal the truth. The massive oil spill in the Gulf is only one of their Planned-To-Happen series of disasters. It is not for fun. These disasters including 911 were planned and triggered to serve their multiple global agenda of controlling the world. The late Matts Simmons sacrificed his life to bring the American public the truth of the BP's Gulf Disaster. His death and scores of those fallen heroes, must not be in vain. We will continue to suffer as victims (one way or another) of past and yet to materialise Inside-Job disasters.

God help us all if the truth continues to be suppressed. The next disaster may be much worse than just a massive oil spill.

A sneak preview of the startling truths in the Gulf disaster in the coming articles.

The making of BP’s Mega Oil Spill in the Gulf

There was no mega oil spill before 1700 CDT 22 April. The mega oil spill could have been averted with several run of the mill options. The 20 April incident was the sort of controllable rig-blowout fire situation the industry expects and routinely trained for. It could have been recovered safely without ending in a disastrous mega oil spill. The facts will show that an explosion within the well was purposely detonated on the evening of 22 April 2010 to induce a second blowout that unleashed the high pressure oil gush from the Macondo reservoir. The second bottom-hole blowout, breaking of the marine riser and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH), were clear subterfuge from within. How could the official investigations into the causes of this environmental disaster, miss out on all these?

The initial gas blowout (20 April 2010) which killed 11 drilling crew on the burning Deepwater Horizon rig, did not unleash the massive oil spill as BP and the government regulators had wanted us to believe. A detonated explosion within the well on the evening of 22 April, shortly after 2200z (1700 CDT) did.

BP’s Killing Spree in the GOM

Irrefutable proofs and connections of the dots would be presented in the later parts of this series dubbed “BP’s Killing Spree in the GOM”. The articles would show that BP knowingly drilled into 3 hazardous (high risk) well locations (not 1 well as BP officially declared before the US Congress) without adequate risk aversion precautions.

 

It is like having repeated unprotected sex with a confirmed HIV positive partner despite being forewarned. The evidence would also show that BP’s killing spree in the gulf, unmistakably started as early as March 2010. Pro BP apologists argued the abnormal high number of stranded cetaceans (> 60 dolphins and whales) in March 2010 (a month before the blowout in April) was proof that the cetaceans were stranded from unknown natural causes before the mega oil spill. The March average for the years 2002-2009, was less than 19. They failed to mention that Methane, Hydrogen Sulfide (commonly encountered in exploration drilling), drilling mud and cement had been spilling in enormous quantities (abnormal circulation losses suffered by BP) into the gulf since February 2010.

 

The toxicity peaked in March 2010 coinciding with the heaviest drilling losses from the 3 wells at the more problematical shallow zone; from late Feb to early April. BP abandoned well A in mid Feb with hefty drilling losses during an out of well control situation, drilled well B and well BE (3^rd well) with even heavier drilling losses from 16 Mar to 7April. There is no necessity to invoke unexplained natural causes as the stranded rate correlates very well with the level of toxicity in the gulf.

The spike for the month of March 2011 was again due to increased toxicity caused by the 9.0 Japan earthquake which shook up more oil discharges into the gulf water from the shallow oil accumulations. The statistics on the stranded dolphins accurately reflect the toxicity in the gulf water as revealed in this article,Mystery Of The New Found Oil Revealed.

 

NEW ORLEANS -- A federal judge has ruled that Halliburton, the Houston-based company that supplied cement for the ill-fated Macondo well that blew in the Gulf of Mexico, may not have to pay many of the pollution claims that resulted from the catastrophic spill because it was shielded in a contract with well-owner BP.

Still, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier said Tuesday that Halliburton is not exempt from paying punitive damages and civil penalties that arise from the April 20, 2010, blowout off the Louisiana coast. Those penalties could amount to billions of dollars.

The judge also said Halliburton's indemnity could be voided if the company is found to have defrauded BP. He did not rule on BP's allegations that Halliburton committed fraud by declaring the cement safe to use.

(Updated 02 Feb 2010)

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.....Mahatma Gandhi

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.......George Orwell.

We have presented many examples of doctored ROV video with adulterated details since the start of our independent investigation on the BP's Macondo blowout and the mega oil spill in the Gulf. Although any form of adulteration is unethical, we have unearthed many forms of doctored documents, videos, survey logs and even seismic data in our QC/QA (quality control / quality assurance) work in the oil industry. Unbelievable but in reality such fraudulent practices are the norm rather than the deception. Smooth Operators work around regulations as the following extract shows.

Below is a fictionalized account of the safety frauds that are occurring on a daily basis in the offshore industry.

Nobody believes it when you are telling the truth, fictions are more believable.

Imagine a geohazards survey vessel commissioned by an oil company (NeverDelay Oil) for an urgent survey. Geohazards surveys are always urgent and the safety clearance (insurance purposes) for drilling an oil well is always required like yesterday. But the vessel master who was contracted by the shipping agent to command the vessel just a week ago, refused to sail a vessel of such dilapidated condition.

The vessel (let us call it M/V Broken Junk 1 aka BJ1) had been mothballed at port for many years. Although the sea worthiness and safety certificates had just been issued, the Indonesian sea captain knew better than to risk the lives of his 40 crewmen comprising nationalities from several countries including Australia, Singapore and UK, He asked for urgent critical repairs to be made first in Singapore as required by law. But the world's largest contractor (fully accredited ISO 9000 plus) also known by the name FuGold Intl (Forever UnderGoing Repairs Offshore) insisted that the vessel sail by the next 3 days. Faced with extreme pressure, the captain resigned on the spot. No problemo.

The smooth operator always have a list of subservient free-lunch employees who they can depend on at times like this. Captain SNA (ServeAlways Noquestions Asked) answered the urgent call for duty but his medical fitness was a problem. He has been suffering from abdominal pains for months. He was afraid of going for a proper medical checkup in case his persistent medical condition grounded him permanently from offshore duties. He needed the job. This last minute call up was what he had been waiting for. He informed Fugold his medical certificate had expired (offshore workers over 50 years old require annual checkup). Again no problemo. “just fly in to port, we will arrange..” said the operation manager widely known as Mr SafetyFraud. He called up SMC (SickaPoor Medical Centre) for the instant medical certificate to be issued without physical examination. Fugold could have insisted Capt SNA take his medical examination at Manila but he would be needed to attend the Offshore Safety Survivor Safety course as required by HSE (health, safety environment) regulations. It would have taken another 3 more days. At 50,000 USD/day charge to NeverDelay Oil (NDO), it would mean a loss of 150,000 USD chargeable income, besides incurring additional berth charges at port and full onboard survey crew costs. Why bother when counterfeit safety certificates can be faxed to the vessel for cursory inspection? After all, almost all of the vessel's certificates had been fraudulently obtained in the country of registration where corruption is rampant. It would only be a cursory inspection once the credentials of the EU registered international global company is impressed upon the would-be inspectors.

Fugold is accredited against the international quality standard ISO 9001:2000 and operates in accordance with a Health, Safety standard OHSAS 18001:999 and Environmental Management System standard ISO14001:2004 which is integrated with its Quality Management System. Together these systems conform to all national and international legislation as well as industry guidelines. Fugold is a member of the multi-national group of companies with 200 offices operating in over 45 countries. Clients can benefit from individual and collective experience of hundreds of survey professionals worldwide.

With credentials like that, who would dare to question the authenticity of the medical certificate issued from a respectable first world country ranked as the least corrupted country in the world.

The vessel sailed 3 days later after the QC Client Rep from RePeeAss (Restassured Problems Aside Intl) skimmed through all the safety papers and certificates, rushed immediately to his cabin to pass out from 3 days of booze-binge before coming offshore. Less than 3 hours out into the open sea, fire broke out at the engine room followed by a total blackout.

The contractor's party chief (KendoNever SayDie) assured the crew everything was in order. He issued a warning “I am afraid we might not be able complete the survey before this old junk totally breaks down. So please rush everything just in case another fire puts us out of operation. I want everyone to keep a constant lookout for fire breakout 24/7. Our lives depend on it. We have disengaged the fire alarm. Otherwise nobody gets any sleep at all. I know it will be hot in your cabins. The chief engineer informed that the central air-con system cannot be used without risking another fire from the messy burnt internal wiring. Treat this as your privileged Sauna Bath cruise. The operation and recording rooms are fitted with new external air-con. This will be added incentives to work longer hours. Good luck and God Bless us all.”

PC KNSD then ordered the engineers to by-pass the safety fuse-box with direct wiring, disengaged the pesky fire alarm and went on to report to FGHQ SF.

PC KNSD: “Houston ...we have a problem....blah....blah”

FGHQ SF: “IRY. But proceed with O survey plan, repeat urgent. Put incident as Successful Fire Drill. How's CR?”

PC KNSD: “Still passed out”

FGHQ SF: “Good thing we had 3 days at Manila. Put the bar tab as Mob Expenses & Port clearance. Use the Misc ER”.

PC KNSD: “Ok, but..err..fraid' the x-wire might not hold for 3 weeks. BJ1 leaking, MER heating up, stalled a couple of times and Bilge pump NF. Other minor problems but culd burst into bigger things. Man this bucket shudn't even be out here”

FGHQ SF: “Typhoon startin' in the Pacific. Shud hit landfall some time next week. Call weather, head to nearest port next week. Cebu alright? Parts heading there”

PC KNSD: “We are too far south to be affected but Ok, Think of somethin' ”

3 days later 5 am:

PC KNSD: “Houston ...we have a new problem”

FGHQ SF: “Huh? What's up? Port call another 2 days to go”

PC KNSD: “Capt passed out. He's in extreme pain”

FGHQ SF: “OMG. What happened?”

PC KNSD: “His appendix burst, I think. Can't move. Can't touch stomach area. Need Medivac”

FGHQ SF: “Jeezus. Finished the priority site yet?”

PC KNSD: “No, another 5 hours to go. Err another problem.. seismic compressor gone total kaput last night. Halon gas-fire smothering system discharged by another fire in MER. Control panel burnt. No rudder control, Total radio comms blackout”

FGHQ SF: “Jeezus. This is worse than I thought. Knew we shudn't hv taken that MF old junk. But GM said NO. Price as low. @!$%#. Git her for 500USD and charge NeverDelay Oil 50,000 USD/day. How much lower can u get? Log these down, will ya. Will git Mohan to give another month free for all these @!$%#in problems. Hold a minute. Get back to you”.

After 10 minutes.

FGHQ SF: “Ok. Pull up gears and head for Manila”

PC KNSD: “What! Site not completed yet. El Nido is nearest, get there in 3 hours.”

FGHQ SF: “No. Change of Plans. Reloop previous data for present site. Look Dbase in 2007 for Dummo Petroleum. They are just 50 km apart. Similar seafloor & water depth. Will pm RepeeAss on better than expected survey progress. Cite the exceptionally calm sea before the storm. Can't repair them @!$%#in French-made power supply-voltage regulator. Need to be in Manila for major rep job. Do the necessary data swap and details. Can you limp back to port?”

PC KNSD: “Think so. At half speed ok but ...but Capt's in pain. Dunno if he can make it that long. Shud we drop him in El Nido first?”

FGHQ SF: “No, No! Don't @!$%#in do that. Will blow our cover. No port call before Manila. It wuld be in the records. Can't have that. Open Sea okay. @!$%#! He is such a pain in the ass. Just pump in some more morphin or somethin. If he doesn't make it, report an accident or somethin that don't put us in a spot. Serve him right for getting onboard with a pre med problem. Shuld hv known better than to get him that fake MC. He will git us all into lots' trouble. Make sure it is an accident, ok? Don't ask again. Anybody knows. What about the CR?”

PC KNSD: “only the mess boy and Chief mate. Can handle 'em. A big bonus'll do. At M'nila, a night out ok? Don't worry bout' CR. Gave him somethin' for his hang-over. Will keep him in bed next 2 days until M'nila. Over and out. ”

(NB: Capt SNA had advanced gallstones in the bladder medical conditions. Immediate surgical procedures saved his life just in time upon landing. His doctors commented he would have died if he was brought in a bit later. )

At Manila Port, 2 days later.

NeverDelay Oil company (project manager) to FGHQ SF, PC KNSD & survey crew at sign off:

“I want to thank everyone for an excellent job. Evrything went smoothly and exceptionally well. Best of all we beat the deadline. The CR told me you guys went overboard to save us from being hit by weather. Thanks. Let me buy you all a dinner tonight at the Hilton.”

~ above is a compressed rendition of 95% truth and 5% fiction (times, names of parties involved). With this happening everywhere in the world, it is no big surprise the videos from BP were doctored to cover the truth to conveniently play out the deception game. If things play out better than expected or the field operations run too smoothly, junk it. It never happens. Murphy's Laws always apply.

See figure 165-5a as one of the many proofs of recycled data and doctored video. It will be apparent in the coming articles that the blown crater with the oil plume (referred to as Leak(2) on the riser) is actually the blown crater of the third well (BE). As the crater on the seafloor cannot be moving, it is obvious that BP falsified the navigation details on the video. Adulteration, faking and all sorts of frauds are being committed every day in almost every segment of the industry. Because what you don't know, don't hurt until a disaster blows up in our face. Then it is called an “Accident”. In BP's Macondo blowout and mega oil spill disaster, it was more than just an accident.

Douglas H. Brown, the chief mechanic for the Deepwater Horizon, testified Wednesday that he witnessed a “skirmish” on the rig between a BP well site leader and crew members employed by Transocean, the rig’s owner, the morning of the blast.

¶ Mr. Brown said the disagreement followed BP’s decision to replace heavy drilling fluid with lighter saltwater before the well was sealed with a final cement plug.

¶ “Well, this is how it’s going to be,” the BP official said, according to Mr. Brown.

¶ Mr. Gowers declined to answer questions about workers’ accusations or about whether cost may have factored into the company’s decision to use the casing system it chose for the Deepwater Horizon.

Mark Hafle, the BP drilling engineer who wrote plans for well casings and cement seals on the Deepwater Horizon's well, testified that the well had lost thousands of barrels of mud at the bottom. But he said models run onshore showed alterations to the cement program would resolve the issues, and when asked if a cement failure allowed the well to "flow" gas and oil, he wouldn't capitulate.

Hafle said he made several changes to casing designs in the last few days before the well blew, including the addition of the two casing liners that weren't part of the original well design because of problems where the earthen sides of the well were "ballooning." He also worked with Halliburton engineers to design a plan for sealing the well casings with cement.

Uploaded by Travinyle1 on Jun 2, 2010

http://www.FreedomizerRadio.com
http://www.Twitter.com/Travinyle1

This video has not been able to play since it hit around 1,000 views

BP Pressured Rig Worker to Hurry Before Disaster, Father Says
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-27/bp-pressured-rig-worker-to-hurry-...
Category:

The truth of the disaster is:

1. BP drilled 3 wells (well A, well B and then the third which was labelled BE).

2. The blowout that occurred at 2200 CDT 20 April 2010 did not breach the base cement plug as we had analysed as far back as July 2010. It was caused by a shallow gas influx from the gas-saturated weak Sub Formation (GWSF) zone.  See http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/30/4781973-why-is-bps-macondo-blowout-so-disastrous-beyond-patch-up

3. The more disastrous second bottom-hole blowout occurred on the evening of 22 April  (after 1700 CDT). It was induced by a powerful explosion detonated from within the well. This started the mega oil spill in the gulf. The BOP, riser and top hole casings were blown off the well and lay scattered on the seafloor.  In its place, the famous crater with the oil spewing out. BP called it the 2nd leak on the riser. Tony Hayward tried to twist it further by saying "It was only a small leak in a big ocean".

4. They had to fake the standing BOP from earlier recorded footage. The only trouble is ....there was no gas/oil spewing from the cracks in the Bent Riser. Because the videos on 23 April onwards were all recorded before the 2nd bottom hole blowout. 

5. 20 days later, they reassembled the riser onto a new BOP at well A. What you saw then was the "fake blowout gushing well" while the real gusher well was bellowing 720 ft NW of well A.

Hard to believe. Stay tuned as we present even more evidence. If this is not the truth, we would have been tripping over a thousand times since July 2010. The fact that we did not, shows we had been on the right path towards unearthing the whole truth about this disaster. The truth is so much stranger than fiction. Wait till you read the coming series, currently in their final drafts.

BP's deception in the Gulf, exposed.

BP's killing spree in the Gulf ~ dealing with long term environmental consequences of the Gulf disaster

The mafia in the global oil industry ~ the crime of mass destruction and unscrupulous market manipulation behind these mega oil spill disasters.

Washington, DC — Top Obama officials manipulated scientific analyses of independent experts to seriously lowball the amount of oil leaking from the BP Deepwater Horizon, according to a scientific integrity complaint filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Documents obtained by PEER through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit indicate White House pressure to present low-range estimates as best estimates. In fact, numbers presented to the public were less than half the true flow rate.

On May 19, 2010, one month after the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, the White House announced creation of a group of experts from academia, industry and government to generate an accurate and independent estimate of the oil leak rate. This group was called the Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG).

Using new scientific integrity rules, PEER today filed a complaint charging that the leader of one of the FRTG Teams, Dr. William Lehr of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), manipulated the scientific results of the FRTG experts throughout the entire crisis to significantly understate the spill rate. Lehr is also the author of the now infamous “Oil Budget Calculator” and a report concluding 75% of the oil was gone from the Gulf by August 2010.

The pictures speak for themselves on the gross distortion of truth. Are we going to let BP get away wit this? Did 11 crew die in a preplanned mega oil spill?  Three things you cannot hide, the SUN, the Moon and the Truth ~ Buddha.

According to all mainstream media and investigation reports, the gas blowout on 2200 CDT 20 April 2010, started the oil gushing out of the Macondo Reservoir continuously for the next 87 days. Total estimated oil leaked: 5 million barrels. Yet on all the video footage on 22 April 2010, there was no leaks at all.

Early morning of Friday, 23 April 2010, CBS News broadcast the following statement from the Federal On-Scene Coordinator Rear Admiral Mary Landry (the ranking federal official on the spill response at that time):

“At this time there is no crude emanating from that wellhead at the ocean floor . . . . there is no oil emanating from the riser either. That statement was made after BP enlisted remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to investigate the immediate wellhead area. Footage shown from those ROVs did not show any leaks”.

BP’s own videos at http://OilSpillhub.org show no leakage at this time.

Yet 20 days later, the world was mesmerized 24/7 with the live broadcast of the Gushing Well? How did BP manage to turn on and off the well? Why were the videos from 23 April 2010 till mid May showing the BOP with the Bent Riser all doctored with falsified ROV details, inconsistent coordinates and headings? This has to be the greatest magic (deception) show on earth; "BP's deception in the GUlf". 

Tony Hayward, the former chief executive of BP, has been accused of giving untruthful evidence to US Congress, by plaintiffs suing for damages over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

In court filings, lawyers argue that Mr Hayward "at best, has a unique view of the truth", citing his congressional testimony from June 2010, in which they claim he was untruthful over the scope of BP's internal investigation into the disaster.

The allegations were made in response to BP's attempts to preclude parts of Mr Hayward's deposition - when he was questioned by the plaintiff's lawyers in preparation for the court case - from being used in evidence at the trial on the grounds he was asked "improper questions".

Uploaded by JMacQ77 on Aug 24, 2010

This a shortened version of the video captured on 7 July 2010 at 1:54PM by Youtube user "X2YeZCAMCNC," so thanks to him or her. This shows once again, this time with excellent video quality, the well at site B which BP says does not exist. Taken from the Skandi Neptune ROV 2 video feed.

You will never hear this on the main news.

An Ill-fated Discovery
According to news accounts, at about 10 p.m. CDT last Tuesday, Deepwater Horizon was stable, holding an exact position in calm, dark seas about 45 miles south of the Louisiana coastline. Water depth in the area is 5,000 feet. The vessel manifest listed 126 souls on board.

Deepwater Horizon was finishing work on an exploration well named Macondo, in an area called Mississippi Canyon Block 252. After weeks of drilling, the rig had pushed a bit down over 18,000 feet, into an oil-bearing zone. The Transocean and BP personnel were installing casing in the well. BP was going to seal things up, and then go off and figure out how to produce the oil -- another step entirely in the oil biz.

The Macondo Block 252 reservoir may hold as much as 100 million barrels. That's not as large as other recent oil strikes in the Gulf, but BP management was still pleased. Success is success --
certainly in the risky, deep-water oil environment. The front office of BP Exploration was preparing a press release to announce a "commercial" oil discovery.

PLEASE sign the online petition:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/demand-independent-survey-of-bp-s-relief-...

The government documentation provided in this video Prove beyond any reasonable doubt that BP is lying about the status of the Relief Well D in the Gulf of Mexico that was drilled as a means to 'kill' the original Macondo well that blew. The Relief Well D was reportedly sealed by BP in September 2010. Why and how was a BOP Test ran on a 'permanently sealed' and capped well? That my friends is physically IMPOSSIBLE! So, now that you know, are you going to allow our government to continue covering up for BP and allowing them to manage their Own Crime Scene? Or are you going to be a voice of courage and reason?

Links to publicly available documents at BOERME:

WAR Reports
(3-6-11) http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/fastfacts/war/war.asp?-169939
(2-8-11) http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/fastfacts/war/war.asp?-169392
(8-22-10) http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/fastfacts/war/war.asp?-161557

APM's
(8-19-10) http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/fastfacts/apm/apm.asp?-128502
(2-8-11) http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/fastfacts/apm/apm.asp?-130805
(3-2-11) http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/fastfacts/apm/apm.asp?-132244

End of Ops
(3-8-11) http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/fastfacts/EndofOperations/eor.asp?-111448
(8-21-10) http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/fastfacts/EndofOperations/eor.asp?-111448

Again, a sincere Thank You to Shirley Tillman, Lorie Williams, Laurel Lockamy, and Trisha James. Also Thank You Dahr Jamail reporter and Erika Blumenfeld photographer for AlJazeera and all the Gulf Warriors who are continuing to report the ongoing depth of the true devastation in the Gulf of Mexico due to BP's disasterous explosion of the Deep Water Horizon.

This research and accompanying petition are solely the expressed opinion of Rhea Aker.

Today is Thursday September 29, 2011. A friend of mine just returned from Venice, Louisiana on a fact finding mission. He spent 2 days there and talked to dozens of fishermen and BP contractors and Coast Guard personnel and there is alot of oil at the Deepwater Horizon-Macondo well site. It is not a sheen, It is several inches thick in some spots. A chemical analysis has confirmed it is Macondo oil.There is alot of activity in Venice and resources are being ramped up.
Word is that geological formation above oil deposit is unstable and oil is leaking from fissures around wellhead. All sealife on ocean bottom is dead according to Woods Hole Oceanograpic Institute in 30+ mile radius from site and Corexit dispersant is present in large amounts. According to Sergio Alex Villalobos who is a toxicologist for Nalco, the company that makes Corexit,”Once It’s mixed with oil,that’s where you get the most impact, that’s were you see most of the toxicity”.
He was quoted in the September 2010 issue of Scientific American magazine on page 26. There are alot of sick people that worked on the initial oil spill cleanup and residents in many coastal towns and cities that are sick. This is the second inning of a long nightmare and anyone who signed a release to get a ‘quickpay’ from BP and their minion Fienberg should hire a lawyer asap and hope they can get their release annulled. BP top brass are sociopaths… “

Only 17 months before BP's Deepwater Horizon rig suffered a deadly blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, another BP deepwater oil platform also blew out.

You've heard and seen much about the Gulf disaster that killed 11 BP workers. If you have not heard about the earlier blowout, it's because BP has kept the full story under wraps. Nor did BP inform Congress or US safety regulators, and BP, along with its oil industry partners, have preferred to keep it that way.

The earlier blowout occurred in September 2008 on BP's Central Azeri platform in the Caspian Sea.

As one memo marked "secret" puts it, "Given the explosive potential, BP was quite fortunate to have been able to evacuate everyone safely and to prevent any gas ignition." The Caspian oil platform was a spark away from exploding, but luck was with the 211 rig workers.

It was eerily similar to the Gulf catastrophe as it involved BP's controversial "quick set" drilling cement.

Since then, scientists have been working to answer questions many people have: What are the effects, short and long-term, on our ecosystem, public health and our seafood?

At the Civic Center in Biloxi, three experts told a group of people we are far from realizing the extent of the damage.

"Right now, the negative signs are piling up,” said Dr. Ed Cake who specializes in oysters.

Dr. Scott Milroy is an oceanographer and professor at University of Southern Mississippi. He said the toxin levels in the species in the Gulf are higher than the FDA led us to believe and registered as unsafe through his studies following the spill.

"What does it mean moving forward as far as how’s it going to affect those organisms long-term as far as survival - Whether they will reproduce in the next generation for shrimpers and oysters next year? Will they have a crop to go out and harvest? All of these questions are a little more concerning if you have a level of contamination in these species which was higher than people thought,” said Milroy.

Dr. Ed Cake said the oyster industry has been decimated, and we can’t hope to see an improvement anytime soon.

"So if were talking about what's happening here, we already know at 18 months there’s no recovery started. Even if the oysters begin setting in the spring, that will be another 5 years before that's crop of oysters to be ready, so were looking at least 5 years,” said Cake.

Finally, there's the issue of human health.

Dr. Wilma Surba has been studying the crude crisis' effects on people mentally and physically, and she has found serious problems.

"It’s a lot of respiratory problems, skin rashes, skin lesions, decreased lung functions - problems that are acute in the beginning and are now very chronic problems,” said Surba.

Each of the panelists said the effects of the oil spill cannot be fully realized just yet.

Through private studies like theirs, they said we will find the lasting footprint of the oil spill.

The MSM has done their job successfully silencing the real news and as of August 10, 2011 you would never know that there is still an ongoing disaster being played out in the United States as there is still oil, dead sea creatures, petroleum covered birds and other contaminants washing up on the beaches surrounding the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the BP oil spill disaster. Dinise Rednour is a youtube user that tries her hardest to show her fellow Americans that the BP oil spill disaster is far from being over.

--Scientists Fear Fresh BP Oil Surfacing at Deepwater Horizon Site Is Making Landfall 100 Miles away --As public concern escalates, the critically acclaimed oil spill documentary "The Big Fix" premieres Nov. 12th-14th in Los Angeles

 

The Gulf Coast is reeling from reports that fresh oil rising from BP's Macondo Reservoir - ground zero of last year's massive spill - is coming ashore, again. Scientists have confirmed the existence of a "second wave" of BP oil fouling Gulf waters and beaches, poisoning marine life and wildlife, and posing a grave public health risk.

While federal officials fail to acknowledge the problem, the situation in the Gulf worsens by the day. "It's deja vu all over again, in the very worst way," says New Orleans-based environmental attorney Stuart H. Smith. "We have fresh oil surfacing again at the Deepwater Horizon site.'

Through rigorous "fingerprint" testing, LSU chemist Ed Overton confirmed that slicks sweeping across the Macondo Prospect since mid-August are made up of BP oil. "It is a dead-ringer match," Professor Overton said. "I was amazed that the ratios matched as good as they did."

Chemical confirmation that the oil is from the Macondo wellsite provides vindication for those who pursued the truth for months despite a hard-nosed campaign of denial, intimidation and obfuscation executed by BP and its partners in the federal government. It is this very type of corporate-government "teamwork" that The Big Fix - the critically acclaimed oil spill documentary - portrays in riveting detail.

Based on lab-certified test results of oil samples taken last month on Horn Island - a narrow strip of federally protected land just 12 miles off the Mississippi coast -researchers believe that fresh BP oil from the Macondo Prospect has made landfall more than 100 miles north of its origin.

There were "many, many restrictions" within the well and other drilling equipment on the seafloor, Suttles said, dramatically slowing the release of oil. "This is a long way away from something more significant."

Events soon proved Suttles' reassurances to be terribly misplaced. The leak rate at the time was far, far higher than BP portrayed to the Coast Guard -- more than 50,000 barrels per day from the moment the rig went down until the well was capped 87 days later, a government-led panel of physicists and engineers would conclude that August. At that rate, the leak had produced an Exxon Valdez-sized spill at least every five days.

Today, more than a year after the spill ended, serious questions remain about BP's role in estimating the size of the undersea gusher.

What is clear is that BP failed, throughout the event, to produce an accurate estimate of the size of the leak to the federal government or the public. Also readily apparent is the company's strong vested interest in downplaying the size of the spill: federal pollution laws stipulate fines as high as $4,300 for every barrel of oil unlawfully discharged into U.S. waters.

Less obvious is precisely how and why the multinational energy giant fell so short in its efforts to determine the scale of the disaster. BP officials have adamantly denied deliberately lowballing the size of the spill, arguing that the company was overwhelmed by the technical challenge of measuring the deep-sea leak and claiming that the government shares equal responsibility for the early flow estimates.

Yet a review by The Huffington Post of thousands of pages of documents, along with interviews with dozens of engineers, scientists and government officials, has uncovered new information challenging BP’s portrayal of its efforts to measure the leak -- and found the company may have withheld crucial data on the well’s flow rate from federal responders during the spill.

According to federal officials, BP was solely responsible for producing the very first spill estimate of 1,000 barrels per day, a figure which led to a sense of complacency about the seriousness of the event among some federal and state responders at the outset of the disaster, the presidential commission on the oil spill concluded in January 2011. BP has never publicly acknowledged generating this figure and even the commission’s investigators could not determine the methodology used to produce it.

Saturday, Oct 15, 2011 - Gulf Shores, Alabama Shrimp Festival PROTEST! Protesters demonstrated on the beach, per the agreement with city officials, who had safety concerns due to a large number of people who attended the festival. Protestors were kept well away from the crowd and were not allowed to use any kind of electrical or battery type of amplification (ex: microphone).

All my gulf heroes in action at the beach. Please watch and support. Thank you.

Aguinaga's blood has tested positive for high levels of chemicals present in BP's oil, and he described his ailments to Al Jazeera.

"I have terrible chest pain, at times I can't seem to get enough oxygen, and I'm constantly tired with pains all over my body. At times I'm pissing blood, vomiting dark brown stuff, and every pore of my body is dispensing water."

His symptoms mirror those which scores of other Gulf Coast residents have told to Al Jazeera, all of them also having had their blood tests reveal chemicals in BP's oil.

Yet Aguinaga's hardships have not ended with his health problems.

"After we got back from our vacation in Florida, Merrick went to work for a company contracted by BP to clean up oil in Grand Isle, Louisiana. Two weeks after that he dropped dead."

New battles

This Spring Aguinaga filed a lawsuit against BP in hopes of obtaining compensation for his deteriorating health.

Aguinaga's attorney encouraged him with the prospect of setting a precedent for other health-related lawsuits against BP. But instead of bringing Aguinaga relief, the process has turned his life upside down.

Within 30 days of filing the lawsuit, Aguinaga had his home in Hazelhurst, Mississippi broken into.

Official Trailer for "The Big Fix" a Green Planet Production by Josh and Rebecca Tickell

Though many believe a link between the BP oil spill and the elevated death rate seems obvious, dolphins actually began dying a month before the spill. 
'Unusual mortality event' for dolphins not unheard of 
To report dead dolphins
To report dolphin and other marine mammal strandings, call: 1-877-942-5343 (1-877-Whale-help).
In March of 2010, 56 dolphins washed ashore in the Gulf, compared to the seven-year average of 16 for the month. 
Mass die-offs of dolphins are not unheard of. Fifty-three dolphins washed up on South Carolina beaches this year, and three or four such events typically occur each year around the country. 
The majority of the time, the official cause of death is listed as "undetermined," according to federal records. 
What’s unusual about what is happening in the Gulf is the duration of the die-off, now well into its second year. It’s possible, scientists said, that whatever killed dolphins in March of 2010 — be it a cold winter, scarce food supplies, or a virus — meant the population was already in a weakened position when the Gulf spill began. 

Water sample analysis conducted independently by EcoRigs shows a positive correlation to BP’s oil spill samples. “The presence of fresh BP MC 252 crude oil in surface waters 2 to 14 months after the well was reported to have been capped suggests that crude oil from the BP DWH MC 252 field may have found new pathways to the seafloor.” The evaluations conducted also reveal that the toxic chemical Corexit is now being applied to the subsurface leak located 1500 meters beneath the ocean’s surface at the wellhead. This is done with the intention of further decomposing the oil so that the smaller particles do not make it to the surface and the continuing oil spill can be easily kept from the public eye.

In a 43 minute television documentary investigation supported by documents, testimonies, visual proof and first hand straight forward lies from BP, the program Conspiracy Theory hosted by former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura pulled the curtain off the cover up and revealed that the oil spill was not only an accident, a disaster, a tragedy, but it was in fact a carefully crafted event to bring about coastal mass depopulation, death, sickness and control of resources; all on behalf of corporations. The documentary not only reveals one of the largest conspiracies I have ever learned about, but also points out how the oil spill is part of a series of test events to cause the depletion of the gulf area in order to cause the mandated migration of at least 17000 families, many of which have lived there for over 100 years. The depopulation plans are not limited to the coastal areas or the Gulf of Mexico. It extends to as far inland as Louisiana.

A BP scientist identified a previously unreported deposit of flammable gas that could have played a role in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, but the oil giant failed to divulge the finding to government investigators for at least a year, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Associated Press.

While engineering experts differ on the extent to which the two-foot-wide swath of gas-bearing sands helped cause the disaster, the finding raises the specter of further legal and financial troubles for BP. It also could raise the stakes in the multibillion-dollar court battle between the companies involved.

• by BK Lim (7 Sept 2011, revised 13 Sept 2011)

This is one of the several inquiries from concerned residents in the gulf:

I recently made a post to your wall regarding the NOAA vessel Okeanos Explorer which in past weeks has spent a great deal of time running grids in the Macondo Well area. If you click on the link in the message it will take take you to the NOAA Fleet Map. In the left hand column you can click on the Okeanos Explorer button and it will highlight that vessel's location, which at present shows it still in the Macondo area.

If you click on the Okeanos symbol, which is EX, a window pops up. Within that window is a link showing the vessel's latest track. You can zoom in on that track with the tool provided in the left hand corner of the screen. After reading through the list of this vessel's capabilities, my guess would be that they are mapping the sea floor extensively in this region. They also ran down the ridge along the entire Florida coast south to the Keys.

I was wondering if you might have any thoughts on what information they might be able to gather or what they are looking for.

http://shiptracker.noaa.gov/gShiptracker/map.aspx

NOAA Fleet Map ; shiptracker.noaa.gov

1. Thank you Peter for alerting me on this. Had been busy with some "discoveries" on the tsunami-triggering devices. Another stealth weapon of mass-destruction with enormous economic spinoff for the perpetrators. There is always a broad spectrum of stocks you can invest in and short sell to reap enormous windfalls on an accidental "disaster" that could be reliably predicted well before hand.
2. Since the beginning of the disaster, experts had known the wide and long term consequences of the Macondo Blowout. The perpetrators knew as well but it was to their interest to narrowly focus on just Well A; so as to avoid highly embarrassing questions for which the answers were blatantly obvious.
3. They were at the same time also interested in knowing the scope of their destruction; in preparation for their next disaster in the pipeline.
4. But they could not openly survey in the immediate aftermath of the blowout. It would be an open admission that the late Matts Simmons and many gulf-truth advocates were dead right. Well A was just the dud. The blown crater at the 3^rd well was spewing more than 100,000 barrels per day. Even worse the highly corrosive mix of brine, and gas ingress into every crevices and permeable sections of the formation, creating new pathways to the seafloor for the heavier hydrocarbons from the Macondo reservoir.
5. A seafloor survey then would have revealed the ugly truths about the broken seafloor and precarious salt formation they were trying so hard to hide.
6. So why now?
7. Well, thanks to hard working and persistent gulf-truth activists (Trisha Sprinstead, Trisha James, Real Coastal warriors, Maureen, Michele & others) and the unfortunate recurrence of dead wildlife, tainted seafood, oil slicks etc, the fundamental issues of the BP Gulf Oil disaster were kept alive. Contrary to what the court and regulators said, the number of sick gulf victims increases and the gulf water is not getting any better. BP has no choice but to come up with a better PR exercise, one that is more convincing in stamping out the persistent doubts of BP's “good intentions to make the Gulf as good as before” if not in deeds but at least in a documented “scientific research” remotely controlled and funded by BP.
8. Is this supposed to be the “ultimate survey-research” that will put an end to more than 15 months of “speculations”? No wonder WHOI would have no part of it. If I refused as WHOI had, I could then be dismissed as being “not credible” and unwilling to submit to ground-proofing.
9. After more than a year of grouting, patching up and destroying all critical evidence in the seabed around the Macondo wells they are confident enough, the "modified seafloor" would not be criminally incriminating. It is akin to letting a murderer a month to clean up the crime scene before sending in the CSI team. Previous ROV videos showed planted marker ropes and buoys at the known gas vents and oil seeps locations at between 50 to 700m from well A. See one video of the gas / oil vent at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgDxR0nYTFo
10. Having marked and monitored these gas / oil vents, it would be easy for BP's funded seafloor survey to avoid those locations with a single sweep lines a few tens of metres apart. The irregularly spaced lines would have too much uncovered zones in between to be of significant value.
11. The fact that the seafloor survey (using the various multibeam sonar and sub-bottom profiling techniques) has been delayed by more than 15 months is by itself an open admission BP had a lot of skeletons to hide in this disaster. Such seafloor survey should have been conducted as soon as possible as to determine the causes of the disaster. So my strong hunch is that this belated seafloor survey is nothing more than a carefully choreographed survey designed to show the world that the Macondo Disaster had ended and the new oil spills are nothing more than natural random spills.
12. So now you see why I was asked to submit my recommended locations for ground proofing?
13. It was a well-calculated risk game that BP could not loose...akin to “Head BP wins, Tail BK lose”. I had played this game many times in the past. Rov camera view is like a “pin-hole” view of the universe. A gas vent or oil seep just a few metres off the ROV track and you see nothing. Without an expert's interpretation, many of you would not make anything significant out of the video shown in (9). In fact if I had not followed a rov live tour of the seabed on 1 Nov 2010, I could not have been so dead certain of the seabed conditions.
14. see http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/10/31/5386300-a-new-drilling-rig-at-macondo-site?commentId=18975303#c18975303 ….quote “ LT, I had a 2 hours live tour of the seafloor around the site last night. It is a lot worse than we thought. Will be writing on it shortly.” …..#4.3 - Mon Nov 1, 2010 6:15 PM PDT
15. Should I obediently followed BP's orders into the “trap”? Heck no, especially when so many of my predicted scenarios are being proven right.
16. Should I be surprised I was asked to recommend some locations to check with the ROV, so soon after BP's denials of the new oil spills in late August 2011? How could BP be serious about finding the truth of the new oil spills if they had already outright rejected any connection to the Macondo Wells and blowout in April 2010. I do not blame my contacts and those gulf-truthers who had been working hard to get my assessment verified. BP should know better than to come up with this trick of “urgent requests” at the very last minute. I am sure they had the research-survey cruise planned months ago.
17. There was no excuse for such a last minute request on 30^th Aug 2011: “BK, I need to know what needs to be looked at and photo'd to support your letters claims that oil is leeching from the fractures and fissures justifiying the concerns addressed in your letter. Do you know the GPS coordinates and location that need to be re visited with the discovery being requested. Time is critical as BP and USCG has assets there, trying to determine where the oil is coming from.”
18. But I was prepared. Instead of specific locations, I requested “routine systematic mapping” in which the survey lines were run on regular grid-lines with data scan overlapping and crossing each other. This is how all site surveys had been conducted. Many leading geohazards survey companies like Fugro had been caught cheating trying to beat the grid-line survey system. You can't since adulterating the data on some lines will lead to discrepancies on the other lines. It is like you can cheat on some lines some of the time but you cannot cheat on all the lines at the same time. But with single lines recce, you cannot tie in data from isolated lines. There is a lot of room for adulteration. Why waste millions of dollars on a survey that is going to be full of holes and open to serious technical contention?
19. BP's Macondo bathymetric chart was supposedly surveyed using an AUV with MBES. In truth, the chart was compiled from a surface single beam echo sounder, a secondary backup system in the event the AUV mounted MBES (primary system) failed to function. It is an industry-wide scam because leading geohazards survey companies get away with such crimes with impunity all the time. BP's erroneous Macondo bathymetric chart is one documented example of such a scam.
20. See http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/03/5039904-forensic-analysis-of-bps-bathymetric-chart
21. Struggling between airports and travelling with a high fever, I managed to send in my recommendation of a detailed AUV (autonomous underwater vehicle) survey utilising multibeam echo sounder (MBES), seafloor mapping system using side scan sonar and sub-bottom profiling (4x4 pinger); all of which are standard site survey tools. See figures 161-1 and 2 which are self-explanatory.
22. My survey recommendation was the minimum to establish the link between between last years oil spew (scattered rov videos with adulterated coordinates), the seafloor and sub-seabed features with the recently observed oil slicks.
23. If we can establish where the past and recent oil had surfaced at the seabed, we can generally interpret the "migrating" and widening circles of new pathways since April 2010. This information would be critical in designing battle plans to solve the worsening periodic oil spills the Gulf is going to experience time and time again whenever there is shallow crustal adjustment. It is no coincidence the recent new spills followed the 5.8 (mag) 6km (depth) 23^rd Aug 2011 shallow quake 8 km SSW from Mineral, Virginia. The last major oil slicks were observed in mid to late March, following the great (9 mag) Japan quake on 11 March 2011.
24. Although data from the ongoing seafloor survey carried out by Okeanos Explorer since 1Sept 2011 are not yet available, the different emphasis in survey coverage is already telling.
25. The vessel's track history seemed to suggest a higher emphasis in the south-western edges of the Biloxi Dome, the southern edged of Whiting Dome and generally south of the Macondo prospects. While there may yet be geologically valid reasons for the emphasis south of the Macondo wells, the shelf edges 6 to 8 km north-west of Macondo Wells and the badly eroded north-western edges of Whiting Dome should at least be surveyed with some grid-lines (see areas A and B in figure 161-2, 161-2A and 161-3).
26. BP's vessels and drilling rigs had been observed working for quite some time in both areas (A & B) even after the well was supposedly capped in 15 July. The 22 mile long underwater plume (first denied by BP and later confirmed by many independent research cruises), was suspected to have originated from the cracks in the seafloor at these locations. By avoiding these critical areas, can the present survey investigation be truly objective and independent in investigating the truth of the Macondo Blowout?
27. Almost all the oil sightings are north of the Macondo wells, not south. Why did the survey deliberately (?) avoid the shelf edges north of Macondo to concentrate in the south? In March 2011, new oil spills were suspected to have come from "leaks in the seabed" north of the Matherhorn field. The shelf edges bordering the Mississippi-Alabama Shelf, appear pretty fractured with large crevices and in potential danger of sliding into gigantic submarine landslides. Submarine landslides are more effective in generating tsunami than quakes without significant landslides. Both the 2011 Japan and 2004 Sumatra Quakes had giant tsunamis due to the accompanying large submarine mass displacement.
28. If the Okeanos Explorer could afford to survey the shelf edge all along the West Florida Escarpment down to the Florida Keys, why can't BP or the organisers of the research-survey cruise spare some effort to survey the more "rugged" shelf edge bordering the Mississippi -Alabama Shelf where the new and past oil slicks had been observed?
29. Is the main objective of the BP-funded and probably BP-directed research-survey cruise, to reconnaissance for naturally occurring oil/gas seeps and other geological data to substantiate and distance the new-found oil slicks from the Gulf Oil Spill disaster that originated from the Macondo Blowout on 20 April 2010? Could the main objective be looking for any evidence to absolve BP from living up to their legal obligations; rather than seeking the truth?
30. These are my expressed concerns following numerous inquiries on the "strange" course of action taken by NOAA. NOAA can survey every inch of the Gulf seafloor for the next 30 years (for all we care) but should the priority not be determining the linkage and long term consequence of the Macondo Blowout first?

Then came a horrible abscess on the side of her face, near her eye. In just hours, her face blew up like a basketball, and she was rushed to the hospital. They lanced it, gave her three antibiotics, sent a sample off to be tested.  It wasn't a staph infection.  She had to return three times before it became manageable.  Then, she developed a rash. Not an ordinary rash, but giant boil-like lesions that burst, leaving crater-like hideous scars all over her legs an' arms.  Again she is on antibiotics, but the rash still comes an' goes.

Her test results are available to anyone who wishes to see them, an' show that she is quite toxic. Benzene, Toluene , m.p-Xylene, Hexane, 2-methlypentane, 3-methylpentane, at dangerous levels.

Here it is: videographic evidence of massive amounts of oil and Corexit all over the Gulf beaches, both before and after Hurricane Lee. I want to emphasize that this is happening NOW. These are not shots from 2010. If you ask me, this is pretty damning evidence that the BP Gulf spill is not cleaned up–and that oil in the Macondo Prospect could still be gushing through cracks in the sea floor. Why this is not major news is beyond me.

Thanks go out to the photographers and videographers who captured these images. (Credits can be viewed by clicking through to YouTube.)

• by BK Lim (first written in July 2010, updated 5 August, revised 10 August 2011)

One of the most important lesson I learned from the BP Macondo blowout disaster was:

“When the student is ready, the teacher will appear” ~ Buddha.

In the months following the 20 April 2010 Macondo blowout, when the world in particular the residents of the Gulf was still oblivious to the crimes and frauds committed by BP; when hopes ran high that BP would have the financial resources and the Obama Administration the political will to see to it that “BP would make things right” and the “Gulf returned to its pristine condition before the disaster”, you could shout all the truth you want and it would still fall on deaf ears. In June 2010 my introduction a geoscience seminar paper was as follows:

Prediction is inherent in Geophysics, more so in geohazards geophysics. Without predictions, geohazards surveys are nothing more than hydrographic surveys. 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.

In essence, geohazards surveys serve as insurances against the risk of disaster, without which there can be no financial backing for the project concerned. But like all insurances, the insured needed to get a clean bill of health before being insured and that “health certificate” is the geohazards assessment report. Being commissioned by the insured (the Clients), it is easy to see where business loyalty lies and why the geohazards prediction failure rate is so high.

Sixteen months after the disaster, the truth of the disaster is still covered under layers of mud (deceit) and the 6 billion citizens of this planet are still denied justice. So what is new? For generations, the masses had been lied to and any new disasters (man-made, natural or made-to-happen-on-purpose) will similarly be covered up and twisted to benefit the powers in control. Will this Gulf Oil Spill disaster or the Japan Nuclear fallout disaster be any different from past disasters the world had experienced? Will we ever learn the painful lessons? By the time we smell the COREXIT, it will be already too late. Cover ups will only lead to more disasters in the future. Do we really want more disasters?

In the last six months, the oil mafia have tried every tricks in their sleeves to eliminate me from the face of this earth. By GOD's will I am still alive though there has been more than a dozen lives lost as collateral damages. Innocent lives lost or nearly lost through mistaken identity shooting / killing or just plain “in the wrong place at the wrong time”. How many of the dead corpses turning up in Singapore's reservoirs, waterways and other secluded locations were mistaken identity killing and how many were accidental eye witnesses? How do you explain the lack of eye-witnesses to the numerous murders happening in one of the most densely populated island in the world? That would be the topic for the forth coming article.

As proof of the gross injustice and the lopsidedness of the investigation into BP's crimes and frauds in this Gulf disaster, see the following video footage of the BOP; the smoking gun of the disaster and tell me there was nothing fishy. Bear in mind even the simple cleaning off the logo job under 5000ft of water could cost as much as USD100,000. But why was there a need to wipe off the logo and label if it was the original BOP stack? If the logo and company label was on a replaceable section of the BOP, could they not wipe them off while it was still on deck at 1/100th of the cost?

Sometimes it is the little oversights and overlooked mundane tasks that spoil the whole orchestrated BOP switch operation. There were also the “little” discrepancies here and there that did not quite fit into the symphony of deception.

For example, BP reportedly started the top kill on 26 May 2010, more than 1 month after the blowout. Okay, even if BP was given the benefit of doubt in pussyfooting, it still does not explain why there was a “dangling BOP” from 3 to 16 July 2010

when the world was mesmerized with the constantly gushing BOP stack on top of Well A from May till 15 July 2010 when the well was finally capped. BP had maintained that the BOP Stack could not be removed from the gushing well, for fear of escalating the oil spew. The damaged BOP stack was officially removed for the first time on 3 September 2010. Besides the biggest lie that BP drilled only one well, this would be the second biggest lie of the century in the oil industry.

Many industry's insiders were really surprised at this daring “poker game” gambit. If the BOP had been badly damaged as asserted by BP and as evident from the disastrous blowout, it served no purpose to keep the damaged BOP in place. If the expert drilling crew could not control the blowout, it usually means the well head, well annulus and the Formation around the blown well at the near seafloor zone are broken beyond repair. The BOP being the strongest would be the last to be damaged. But even if the BOP was not damaged beyond repair, it would still be pointless to keep the BOP on the broken well head. When a wellhead is broken beyond repair, the most logical procedure to kill the well is by intercepting it at the most strategic section (with reference to the geologic formation) well below the damaged zone. Any top kill would only make a bad situation worse as I had said back in July 2010 – the high risk of capping BP's gushing well from the top.

http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/19/4704785-the-high-risk-of-capping-bps-gushing-well-from-the-top

The illogical and incomprehensible maneuvers by BP in the aftermath of the blowout, had been viewed suspiciously by industry's experts as buying time and “muddling the pool” to mask their covert operation of setting up the second (fake) BOP on an undamaged wellhead which was Well A abandoned in mid February 2010 (see “Which well are they killing?” published on 1 Sept 2010). http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/01/5024700-which-well-are-they-killing

A novice in crime without political support and firepower would not have dared to pull such risky gamble; a technical ploy “full of holes”. Yet they did successfully in full naked view of 6 billions inhabitants of this earth. I was not entirely surprised that they went ahead with the charade. After their block buster success with 911, who could stop them?

What I was surprised was the willful blindness by the “respectable” investigators on these glaring discrepancies? It was from that point onwards that I lost all faith in the Oil Industry, in governing and regulating themselves in the interest of Mother Earth. How naïve I was all these years, thinking they did not know? Of course they knew of the safety frauds and violations; the unscrupulous business deals that kill silently hundreds if not thousands.

How could these “respectable and highly professionals” not see that the nakedness of the Emperor wearing nothing but BP's magical robes made of cloths woven from fine invisible golden threads? Even ordinary folks outside the industry could see and questioned the numerous ROV sightings of BOP at well B or close to it, at the third well location (S20BC) and several other locations in various poses. Shame on the so-called veteran experts at TOD for putting down those who questioned these ROV sightings. I reckon it is the duty of every oil company man to cover up for their company's mistakes. But to abet them in the murder of innocent lives? To think that the industry has stooped to this low, is totally beyond belief.

26 May 2010 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-top-kill-procedure-begins.html

Engineers have begun the "top kill" maneuver aimed at stanching the gush of oil from a blown-out well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, BP and U.S. Coast Guard confirmed. The much-awaited procedure began at 1 p.m. Central Daylight Time, according to BP. The maneuver, which BP officials warned could take hours or days to complete, would attempt to overpower the upward flow of oil by pumping drilling fluid -- and eventually a cement mixture -- at high pressure down the well. Several hundred engineers in Houston have prepped for the effort for weeks

 

On 17 Aug 2010, in part 1 of the Ballistic analysis of the DWH-riser-wreck, I wrote:

Video footage of the faulty BOP on top of Well A was only widely available to the public from June onwards. In a video dated 4 June 2010, an apparent “Dispersant Ops” Rov showed the BOP at 61.8 ft above seabed level, at 221.5 ft WNW of Well A location. Figure 3d confirmed our suspicion that the BOP had been “busily travelling” around instead of being Static at Well A as we had been led to believe.

 

But how could one BOP stack be seen at so many places at any one time in the period beginning 20 April till at least the end of July 2010? If we piece all the little discrepancies together, there can only be the logical conclusions that:

1. The original BOP at the 3^rd well (S20BC) was blown off on 22 April 2010 (second more powerful underground blowout) as asserted by the Late Matts Simmons. Some sources even say the “never to be mentioned” second explosion that brought the DWH down was intentionally set off by one of the ROVs. A floating DWH rig would incriminate the perpetrators of this MIHOP disaster.

2. BP secretly deployed another BOP stack (referred to as the FAKE BOP) at Well A, removed the broken riser on the original BOP and fixed on the the Fake BOP.

3. Any of the ROV videos during this “critical” remove and reattached riser operation period would incriminate BP. That is the main reason BP cannot release any of the video footage of the ROV at work before June 2010.

So this will mean there should be 3 BOP stacks altogether. First we have the Original BOP, then the FAKE BOP which was installed on well A in the aftermath of the blowout and retrieved on 3-4 September 2010 and the Replacement BOP which was eventually retrieved on 5 November 2010.

We should be able to adduce the evidence from the following videos 160-1 to 160-4. I strongly advice readers to download the following You-tube ROV videos before they are completely “wiped off” from their respective websites.

How do I know all these are true and accurate (if not in minute details at least the main story)? The proof is in the pudding. If I had been writing nonsense, would they have bothered to kill me along with the others from 24 Nov 2010 to July 2011?

Incidentally, my wife and I should have been murdered on 24 Nov 2008 with fatal head wounds, cuts and bruises from the relentless battering by 4 personnel armed with 2 feet long machetes. Who could survive all that slashing and bounce back less than a week later, if not for the help of GOD? Incidentally, the life threats from the Oil Mafia started on 20 April 2008. Extremely coincidental isn't it? The oil mafia paid shills would have jumped on me long ago, if these dates were not true.

There were serious attempts to eliminate me and my whole family in the first 6 months of 2011. Divine Guidance and of course the thousands of prayers around the world kept us safe. Unfortunately, in their desperate attempts to eliminate me, others were innocently poisoned or shot at. As with all covert murderous schemes, they cannot afford to have any eye-witnesses. In any case, the deaths of accidental eye-witnesses added to the confusion and planted misleading evidence. If all these sound familiar, it is. Look into all my past articles on the Art of Mass Deception practiced throughout the Gulf Disaster.

To understand the ROV video footage of the BOPs, see figures 160a to 160c. Forget the fine details of the BOP stack. Look at the well-head connector, the frames and general layout of the BOP stacks. Each BOP stack is different. Essentially if the BOP stack raised onboard the Helix Q4000 on 5 Sept is different from the BOP stack seen in the video of the original BOP in June 2010, then you know for sure the Presidential Commission and all investigation reports based on the FAKE BOP are fundamentally wrong. So now you know what I had been talking about since July last year and the reason they need to secure my silence. Since I cannot be bought, my silence can only be secured through my demise.

Lastly I wish to honour Bill Young, a former CIA agent living in Chiang Mai. He was murdered on 1 April 2011 in his home with a revolver in one hand and a cross in the other. I do not buy the suicide theory. How could the revolver and crucifix remained clutched in his hands after shooting himself? Like everything else, the revolver and crucifix were placed in his hands long after he was dead, to make it look like a suicide. He would rather die than betray GOD. God bless his soul. Amen.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/77251,people,news,cia-hitman-bill-william-young-found-dead-at-his-chiang-mai-home-air-america#ixzz1UMulZvFZ

An American missionary's son who became a top CIA Vietnam War-era hit-man in the jungles of Burma, Laos and Thailand has been found dead in his Chiang Mai home, a bullet in his head, a revolver in one hand and a crucifix in the other.

 

Video#160-1 of original BOP stack that blew off the third well (S20BC), fell to the seabed and was raised from the seabed on 3 July and held suspended for 13 days. The BOP was covertly dismantled and loaded onto one of the vessels and shipped off from site. Video and information - courtesy of Mr BeePee. Visit his website to see other videos. (could not load video link, click http to view)

      http://www.youtube.com/user/BeePeeOilDisaster#p/u/404/rbWZZiZVmTs

Video#160-2 of FAKE BOP. Uploaded by X2YeZCAMCNC on Jun 9, 2010

BP Gulf Oil Spill Leak Gusher 06-09-2010 03:46P BOP Subsea FlexJoint Cleaning BS Logo Removed

In this narrated clip the ROV (remotely operated vehicle) is using the wire brush hydraulic tool to believe it or not remove the company logo (Oil States International Inc.- FlexJoint) plastered on the side of a part at the top of the damaged BOP (blowout preventer). Weird I just said that a few hours ago when I saw them getting this tool out, while joking. Don't they have better things to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5mY_QNpspA 

Video#160-3a-c of FAKE BOP being removed from the well-head at Well A from 3 to 4 September 2010. Compare the base of the BOP stack and well-head connector. Spot the huge differences.

Video# 160-3a

Recorded by JoseGerbils - Helix ESG Q4000 pulls the DWH BOP, weight gauge read 844,500 lbs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgm6iUbaWCo&feature=related

Video# 160-3b

Recorded by Suzieconley – BOP removal Sept 3 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0Y6BU_wfbY&feature=related

Video# 160-3c

FAKE BOP raised onboard the Helix ESG Q4000 on 4 Sept 2010.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy8Zr46r7yA&feature=related

Video#160-4 of Replacement BOP being removed from the well-head at Well A on 5 Nov 2010. Could not believe the stark difference? How on earth could the world's most highly paid, highly qualified professionals miss this crucial evidence? As Bernie Madoff said from his prison interview; “They had to know. But the attitude was sort of, ‘If you’re doing something wrong, we don’t want to know.’” What was that word again?.... Willful Blindness.

Recorded by Moonofa – ... the end, my friend. Developer Driller II is unlatching and lifting its Blow Out Preventer from the BP Macondo well MC 252#1. Speed is 1x.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3GgGRrTO4U&feature=related

Exactly a year ago, former White House energy advisor Carol Browner informed the world that 75% of the oil from the worst oil disaster in history had been cleaned up, evaporated and dispersed or burned off. “Mother Nature did her part,” Browner told the world.

Don’t tell that to Cherri Foytlin, the oil worker’s wife and mother of six who walked from the Gulf to Washington for the one-year memorial of the BP blowout last April. The media has been largely silent since then, so Cherri and others decided they needed to remind people that “the oil is not gone.”

Yesterday, protesters staged a protest at BP’s gleaming downtown New Orleans offices, where they dumped a batch of black gooey tar balls freshly hauled in from the beaches of Mississippi. After sitting in front of the BP's office building doorway for three hours as police tried to convince them to move, Cherri and two other protesters were arrested and booked for trespass later in the evening. But they had made their point.

Fresh oil is surfacing all over the northern quadrant of the Gulf of Mexico. Reports of slicks that meander for miles and huge expanses of oil sheen that look like phantom islands are becoming common, again. Fresh oil, only slightly weathered, is washing ashore in areas hit hardest by last year’s massive spill, like Breton Island, Ship Island, the Chandeleurs and northern Barataria Bay. BP has reactivated its Vessels of Opportunity (VoO) program to handle cleanup. It’s a sickeningly familiar scene that has fishermen, researchers and public officials searching for answers, as haunting memories of last year’s calamity come roaring back.

The fifty-thousand-dollar question, of course, is where is all the new oil coming from?

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.

A year after the Deepwater Horizon disaster spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico, the Florida beaches are relatively clean, the surf seems clear and the tourists are returning. But there are signs that the disaster is continuing to affect marine life in the gulf far from where humans can observe it.

Transocean Ltd., owner of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, awarded millions of dollars in bonuses to its executives after "the best year in safety performance in our company's history," according to an annual report and proxy statement released yesterday.

I vomited when I read this paragraph:
"As measured by these standards, we recorded the best year in safety performance in our Company's history, which is a reflection on our commitment to achieving an incident free environment, all the time, everywhere."

What about the month long drilling problem with the Transocean Marianas at well A of the Macondo prospects 6 months before the DWH?
What about the blowout and near-miss disaster in the North Sea (for Shell) just 4 months before the DWH incident?

With the BP Mega Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico hogging the headlines elsewhere HSE (health, safety and evironmental) standards are similarly deteriorating with equally disastrous consequences. This oil spill at Mumbai escaped my attention until recently.

The two ports were shut down for five days after two ships, MSC Chitra and MV Khalija-III, ran into each other off the coast of Mumbai on August 7 and the containers from the former spilled into the sea, leaking oil. Over 300 containers from the MSC Chitra fell into the water. The Chitra had 1,219 containers on board, of which 31 held hazardous chemicals and pesticides.

The oil slick has spread to a distance of two nautical miles from the ship. The vessel was carrying 2,662 tons of heavy oil in its various tanks and 245 tons of diesel oil. Around 800 tons of oil is estimated to have spilled into the sea. The oil spill has hit shipping companies the hardest as ship movement to and from the ports of Mumbai and JNPT had been suspended. These two ports handle 60 percent of India's container traffic.

The total number of containers handled at each of these ports had dwindled to 10-15 percent of their regular capacity. It was estimated that the trade loss incurred could touch the $4 billion mark if the issue was not resolved by the weekend. Exporters and importers turned to the government seeking financial relief. About 33,000-35,000 export boxes are inside the three terminals at the JN Port awaiting the arrival of vessels for loading while nearly 20 vessels have been diverted to other ports.

BP and the government famously declared that most of the oil had disappeared.

But as I've noted, as much as 98% of the oil is still in the ocean.

BP and the government denied this, of course.

But the oil is not remaining hidden.

Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal noted on December 9th:

A university scientist and the federal government say they have found persuasive evidence that oil from the massive Gulf of Mexico spill is settling on the ocean floor.

The new findings, from scientists at the University of South Florida and from a broad government effort, mark the latest indication that environmental damage from the blowout of a BP PLC well could be significant where it's hardest to find: deep under the Gulf's surface.

A blowout off the coast of Australia left oil flowing into the Timor Sea for weeks. An out-of-control well in the Gulf of Mexico dislodged a 4,000-pound piece of equipment on the deck of the Lorris Bouzigard drilling rig as workers scurried to safety. A gas leak in the North Sea aboard a production platform came within a rogue spark of a Deepwater Horizon-scale disaster off the coast of Norway.

Data from regulators around the world suggest that after years of improvement, the offshore-drilling industry's safety record declined over the past two years.

As we have seen in many cases, disasters can be highly profitable for those who know in advance or “privileged few in the know” (PFitK). This is very clear from the pattern of massive selling by BP’s directors and Goldman Sachs before the advent of an impending disaster. See A pattern of massive shares sell-off by BP directors prior to expected disasters.

Though hard to believe, there are many who would profit without hesitation upon the miseries of others. A mega-disaster like the BP’s Oil Spill is one of those. Sometimes it is hard to say if a prescribed cure is supposed to make you feel better or improve the bottom line of the one prescribing it. Time will always tell, as it is revealing in the case of the BP Gulf Oil disaster.

Just as it would be highly improper for surgeons to mislead on the medical procedures, BP the “doctor” should lose its “medical license” and be held criminally liable for deliberate misleading information on so many occasions. Six months later, NOAA and the Presidential Investigative Panel should have been able to evaluate not only the effectiveness of the medicine prescribed but also the manner it was administered. If these regulatory bodies are still sleeping on their job after six months, then either delinquency or corruption has already set in.

By most accounts BP, NOAA and all the regulatory bodies fared poorly in this disaster. Later postings will delve into the technological and geological aspects. In this posting, we will concentrate on the question whether the post-disaster recovery program had become a profitable scam. It goes without saying that BP as an organization would suffer hefty financial losses not monetary gains. That would make it all the more; much “safer” for the privileged few to profit personally. Evidence of profit motives in the post-disaster recovery efforts would substantiate earlier suspicions that this disaster had been allowed to happen.

It is an undeniable fact that corners are cut everyday across the globe in almost every sector of human societies. Of all the industries, the offshore oil industry is the most regulated with the most stringent HSE policies. Hence it is logically impossible for a potential mega disaster to sail through the elaborate screening “Check & Balance” process. Unlike wildcat drillings in the pre-seventies, every location to be drilled had to be evaluated with respect to exploration and production objectives, shallow geohazards, seabed and logistics problems. That is why few mega-disasters occurred even though near-misses and accidents do occur on a daily basis. By all accounts, this disaster could have been averted. Yet it was allowed to happen. Why?

Obviously there must be a profit motive, not for BP but for the PFitK. Having established this fact we will proceed to examine the deliberate misleading information BP has been giving recently. In every post-disaster recovery efforts, there is the right way and the wrong way. No crime is committed even if the wrong (but profitable) way was deliberately chosen. There is no lack of senseless recovery works that can be carried out without contributing anything to the recovery or the welfare of the Gulf Victims (environment, people and marine wildlife). Readers can contribute more examples but for now we concentrate on the high cost items.

Four Drilling Rigs at Site

We can argue until the cows come home on BP’s intentions but does BP really need four expensive rigs at the cost of 0.5 to 1 million USD/day at the Macondo site? Even if they need to drill more wells (relief or otherwise) it would stretch resources to the hilt with 5 wells going together within the same site. But if the intention is to chalk up tax-deductible expenses for the idling rigs then it made sense. No wonder the recovery costs keep ballooning especially in early November with an additional 7.7 billion USD.

Normal exploration budgets are guided by precedence. In a mega disaster, there is virtually no cost control. Would BP exploit the disaster to dump all their idling rigs into the Macondo site? You bet BP will, given its opportunistic instincts. BP’s unfortunate partners (Mitsui and Anadarko) will have to foot 10% and 25% respectively. Few would dare to question the need for four drilling rigs under classified disaster circumstances. Is that why the Live Feed from West Sirius ROV1 is still shown on BP’s website even though West Sirius had moved out of the Macondo site to park at the edge of Mississippi Canyon, south of Grand Isle? Obviously the ROV1 cannot be deployed from West Sirius to work at the Macondo site 165km away. Alternatively if the ROV1 is working at the Mississippi Canyon (for whatever reasons), the daily operation cost of West Sirius cannot be charged to the Macondo Post-Disaster Recovery Program (MPDRP). Any responsible corporate would not cheat and evade tax on an unfortunate disaster.

It would probably look less absurd if West Sirius is sitting within the Macondo Site. It however, moved out less than a week (3 NOV) after an earlier posting (A New Drilling Rig At Macondo Site) questioned the need for 4 drilling rigs to be stationed so close to each other. Drilling rigs normally work in isolation with support vessels. This was strange when Well A was already declared capped in mid July and permanently killed in mid Sept by DD3 at Relief Well C.

There was not much news on DD2 at Relief Well D. Industry’s experts were surprised when BP spared no efforts to drill 2 relief wells when one should be sufficient. Anyone questioning the need for two relief wells in May would have been scorned, if not “executed”in the press. This is the unconstrained purchasing power of any disaster; 911, Afghan War, Iraqi War or any disaster-relief efforts. You question, you die either by character assassination or … !

Anyway it was thought to be a good PR move, to show the world that BP would spare no effort to contain the spill. Those with the “evil thoughts” that BP could be fielding the additional drilling rig to pad up the MPDRP expenses had to hold their tongues and wait to be vindicated. But when the Discovery Enterprise (DE) was added on and all the 3 rigs (DE, DD2 and DD3) did not demobilize from site after the completion of the relief wells, the suspicion firmed up. When the West Sirius moved in, all doubts were erased.

Drilling rigs that do not drill offer many corrupt opportunities. With skeletal maintenance crew and cooperation between the operation managers of BP and contractors, the lure to “capitalize” on operational costs for unused operation workers is just too high to ignore. Even at the minimum average of 500 USD/day/worker for 100 workers works out to be 1,500,000 USD/month per rig. This common scam of fielding virtual workers is undetectable by outside parties except the most diligent accountant / QC consultant.

Materials, consumables and disposable instruments offer abundant opportunities for site managers to cooperate with suppliers to cheat. Besides wastage, the important question is “Are some of the work at site warranted or merely to line up the pocket?” It is virtually impossible to QC the volume needed to grout the seafloor, notwithstanding whether they were effective or necessary. Like virtual workers, the reported amount consumed could actually be more than triple the actual amount used. No wonder contractors, body shops and suppliers laughed their way to the bank and workers paid handsomely with bonuses do not talk.

If anyone has any doubt in this, just look up the drilling rig position at www.marinetraffic.com. For months tracking the drilling rigs’ position was never a problem. A week after A New Drilling Rig At Macondo Site was posted on 31 Oct, the position of these rigs went haywire. DE was flung (virtually) to Lake Superior, DD2 to South Pacific and DD3 to Arctic, Africa and South Pacific. It is hilarious that BP would control www.marinetraffic.com website to adulterate the satellite position. These position anomalies just confirmed the accuracy of this report and our previously reported ROV coordinates adulteration. It also confirms BP’s record spending on buying up websites like The Oil Drum and bloggers so that they speak kindly of BP in spite of BP’s evil deeds. No wonder the main media all over the world speak with one silence voice on BP’s evil ways. Now you understand.

So when BP says “We Are Here To Stay And Make Things Right”, they probably meant it wholeheartedly. Who wouldn’t? With impunity for causing any disaster (Alaska pipeline, Texas Refinery, Macondo and future) life is good for BP in America when they make things right (for themselves).

"When you make a complaint about it, rather than fix it right, they come up with another Band-Aid," said Kris Dye, a BP oil worker and United Steelworkers representative on the North Slope. "It's very frustrating."

One critical maintenance issue concerns the replacement of the warning systems used to alert workers to a gas leak that could lead to an explosion.

The need to replace the gas detectors was made a priority in 2001 in an internal BP report that said oil field technicians were "very concerned about continuing degradation of system reliability, and the ability of these systems to protect the workforce."

Nine years later, outdated systems to detect fire and leaked gas remain in place at some of BP's largest and most important plants, including the Central Power Station, several drill pads and two flow stations that route oil and gas into the pipeline system.

Many of the detection systems are obsolete - the manufacturers that made them are shuttered - so replacement parts are hard to come by, said Kovac, the mechanic. More important, the systems have to be shut down every time BP conducts maintenance on its facilities and pipelines, because the methods used to scan the equipment for flaws have been known to trigger the ultraviolet detectors that set off the fire and gas alarms.

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.

"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.

Contractors who worked for BP on the ill-fated Deepwater Horizon oil rig have criticised the company's report into the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Drilling firm Transocean branded the report "self serving" while cement contractor Halliburton said it contained "omissions and inaccuracies".

BP released a long-awaited report Wednesday on an internal investigation into the causes of its Gulf of Mexico oil well blowout, blaming multiple failures by BP and other firms but absolving its much-criticized well design.

The BP report stressed that "no single factor" caused the April 20 blowout that killed 11 workers, sank the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and led to the largest oil spill in U.S. history.

(6 Sept 2010, hydrocomgeo@gmail.com).

Very often we make a mountain out of a mole hill but in the BP’s Macondo bathymetry it is just the opposite. The reasons for this willful negligence are already given in previous articles. This posting is to illustrate why we do not get it right when looking at things from the wrong perspective.

Figure 116-1 shows the satellite image of the domes surrounding the Macondo site. The rectangular box (5 x 6 km) is the outline of the Macondo site. You will see that wells A, B and S20BC are all concentrated on the tiny red dot at the middle of a convex edge of the “L-shaped” escarpment which is approximately 12 km by 5.5 km.

There are probably some good geological reasons for this odd shape “low rise (BP’s assessment)” escarpment but that is the subject matter for future discussion. Even from the reconnaissance satellite image, the terrain can be seen to slope down from the point marked X. Whether we call this a cone, dome or just plain escarpment is immaterial, since the whole “escarpment” is by itself a raised landform. Raised landform is either “the seafloor manifestation of some underlying geological events or continuing processes” or “a product of erosion where the underlying formation is more resistant than the surrounding”. However the former is more likely given a number of tell tale features.

It is easy to dismiss this “escarpment” as insignificant, given its smaller extent and lower relief than its adjacent giant neighbours; Whiting Dome, Gloria Dome and Michell Dome. But a “mound” with a radius of 3 to 4.5 km and a height exceeding 500 ft (150m) is not insignificant by most geohazards assessment standards. The worst possible well location could not have been chosen for Well A, Well B and S20BC, even on the basis of this satellite imagery reconnaissance.

In my opinion, the erroneous and fraudulent Macondo bathymetry had a terribly misleading effect. Anyone looking at the highly smoothened Macondo bathymetry would be inclined to think that well A, Well B and S20BC were located on a gentle uniform slope. But the “smoothened seafloor morphology” belies the apparent sharp transition from sloping to flat seafloor, the distinct convex outline of the base of the escarpment and the 3º general slope.

Figure 116-2 shows the satellite image background with the superimposed Macondo bathymetry. The discrepancies are startling even to the untrained eyes. The dark blue shadows conjure an image of an irregular raised landform, possibly faulted close to the seafloor. An MBES (multibeam echo sounder) image acquired at 50 m above the seabed would have yielded a lot of seabed features (not featureless as asserted by BP) that could have averted the terrible Oil Spill Disaster. This disaster need not have happened. It could have been easily averted given due diligence in the geohazards assessment.

A secret conversation thread on the recently published forensic analysis of the BP’s Macondo Bathymetry on the Totally Obfuscated Dumpsite (TOD)- part of a secret tape smuggled out of TOD.

The Brain (consultant geo) on September 3, 2010 – 4:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

What’s this I heard about BK’s bathymetry on Alex’s Higgins blog. What an absolute a$$hole!

The Arsehole (bathy) on September 3, 2010 – 4:12am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

Who’s calling me a$$hole!

The Brain (consultant geo) on September 3, 2010 – 4:13am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

Er… Sorry I don’t mean you Arsehole. I mean the other a$$hole who put out the a$$hole bathy.

The Mouth (technical journalist) on September 3, 2010 – 4:14am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

Yeah I thought it colorful but does it mean anything? Um..... looks like a valley to me, yeah definitely a valley not a flank. Where’s the Salt? Where's the Dome? I don’t see any, do you snake-Head?

The Head (driller) on September 3, 2010 – 4:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

Looks dumb to me anyway. It’s pure garbage..…yeah down right a$$hole!

The Arsehole (bathy) on September 3, 2010 – 4:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

Hey watch it! Stop calling me a$$hole. And I think BK got it right. Now why didn’t I think of that first?

The Heart (petroleum geo) on September 3, 2010 – 4:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

That’s bec you are dumb, A$$hole!

The Arsehole (bathy) on September 3, 2010 – 4:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

Stop calling me a$$hole. And I am not dumb!

The Heart (petroleum geo) on September 3, 2010 – 4:19am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

You are..… and that’s for siding with BK. Have you been talking to him again?……. Sigh

The Mouth (technical journalist) on September 3, 2010 – 4:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

Not me since he refused my interview. Darn! If only he had fallen for that interview ….Damn Darn! We could have trashed him on air.

The Brain (consultant geo) on September 3, 2010 – 4:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

Forget it. It's all past now. Think of something we can nail him with.

The Head (driller) on September 3, 2010 – 4:22am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

Augh!....heard he just rammed up to three wells? It’s downright comical right? We keep telling it’s nonsense … fictitious. Maybe those a$$hole readers will believe us if we keep saying them over and over again. Darn. Wish it all go away. Why did he have to turn up? Stupid a$$hole.

The Arsehole (bathy) on September 3, 2010 – 4:23am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

Stop calling me a$$hole. We should not have attacked him on that stupid contour. Told ya, it was a trap but you didn’t believe me. See I am not dumb.

The Heart (petroleum geo) on September 3, 2010 – 4:24am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

Shut the fu@k up, stupid a$$hole. You and your stupid bathy!

The Arsehole (bathy) on September 3, 2010 – 4:25am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

I am not Stupid. Told ya the bathy had problems didn’t I?

The Head (driller) on September 3, 2010 – 4:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

Shut up you stupid a$$hole. You are the one who got us into trouble, so shut the fu@k up…. and let me think.

The Mouth (technical journalist) on September 3, 2010 – 4:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

Yeah Stupid. Shut up and let snake-Head think.

The Arsehole (bathy) on September 3, 2010 – 4:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

For the last time, I am warning you. Don’t call me a$$hole and I am not Stupid.

The Mouth (technical journalist) on September 3, 2010 – 4:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

You are Stupid and an a$$hole.

The Head (driller) on September 3, 2010 – 4:30am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

Yeah A$$hole and Stupid. If you are half as smart as us, you would not be talking to BK.

The Arsehole (bathy) on September 3, 2010 – 4:31am Permalink | Subthread | Parent |Parent subthread | Comments top

OK if you all think I am stupid and dumb, I am gonna close up until you all apologise.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````

With that The Arsehole (bathy) close up the arse so tight for 7 whole days and 7 whole nights. The mouth couldn’t speak, the head couldn’t think, the brain went dead and the heart couldn’t pump.

Finally, with the last grasp of air, The Head (driller), The Mouth (technical journalist), The Brain (consultant geo) and The Heart (petroleum geo) all apologised to The Arsehole (bathy) proving once again the lowest denomination of exploration, The Arsehole (bathy) was the mightiest of them all.

Just 60 MMS inspectors oversaw rigs in the gulf. They examined oil spill response plans that were often boilerplate reproductions from one well to another. BP's response plan for the gulf referenced seals and walruses , which aren't found in that body of water, referred to a home-shopping network in Japan and listed scientists who were dead. No one noticed. The inspectors, Ruch says," just made sure the companies checked the right boxes." Since much of the drilling data necessary to complete environmental reviews was proprietary, MMS scientists were not allowed access to exploration and drilling details . when BP made repeated last- minute changes to its drilling plan in the days before the blowout, the MMS approved them all, often within minutes. "That's what happens," Ruch says, "when the government is dependent upon industry for its expertise."

(updated 7 Sept 2010, correction to true slopes due to misread contour interval)

For a disaster of this magnitude, many things must have gone wrong from the very beginning. The long chain of human errors leading to the disaster could not have been purely accidental or random in nature. There must have been willful negligence, ignorance or misinterpretation to capitalize on certain opportunities or to make good on some bad situations along the way.

Like many, I followed the intense discussions at The Oildrum.com (TOD) to get some fair technical coverage of the BP’s oil spill disaster. As the disaster wore on, I started to wonder why industry experts like Art Berman, Rockman and many supporting actors (Rocdoc, PinkFud, Quaking, CraigWcoop & others) were so defensive of BP’s lies and zealously stamping out any independent bloggers’ views. If they had been truly professional and interested in seeking and disseminating the truth of the disaster, why were they not discussing incriminating issues that BP seems to be avoiding? Granted that nuking the gushing well was not really a good idea, but why should they be bitterly thrashing Matt Simmons’ apparently valid assertions as well.

Being a geohazards specialist, I started my own investigation with the bathymetry as I had always done. Being the lowest denominator (in terms of data ranking of importance and sophistication) any evidence of willful negligence should be readily apparent. To my surprise, I found many issues with the bathymetry which nobody seems to be discussing at all. So in the first draft of my posting; Would a better bathymetry chart have made the difference?, I asked the question “Is there something wrong with BP’s Macondo bathymetry?”

There had been some initial troublesome scaling errors while trying to superimpose BP’s bathymetry onto the satellite image from google. I could not find the reference points and was unfamiliar with a prospect using US imperial system. Instead of correcting it (since it was inconsequential to the development of the geological model) the scaling error was left uncorrected in the initial posting. It looked like an opportunity to use it as a “control” to gauge the readers’ responses on the erroneous Macondo bathymetry.

The five areas of fundamental problems with BP’s Macondo bathymetry are:

1. Data acquisition fraud. BP’s Macondo “smoothened” bathymetry did not appear to be consistent with MBES (multibeam echo sounder) images scanned at close range to the seabed. The bathymetry appeared more likely to have been compiled from widely spaced SBES (single beam echo sounder) data along surveyed lines. MBES mounted on AUV is designed to optimally scan the seabed with multiple ultrasonic beams (>100 to 250 beams) from an altitude of 150-200 ft above the seabed, while the conventional SBES utilizes a single ultrasonic beam from the sea level (5000 ft above). Needless to say, data acquired using the AUV-mounted MBES would yield a much higher resolution image of the seafloor as compared to one using a SBES. Three seafloor images using comparable 3m-bin size MBES data were included in my earlier posting (Would a better bathymetry chart have made the difference?) for comparison.

From my experience, passing the backup SBES data as MBES (a form of cheating) is widespread in the industry. Imagine a multimillion AUV-MBES system failing to function in the middle of a survey out in the open sea. Would the survey contractor stop work, return to port and resume survey after the system had been repaired? Sometimes it is not the question of cost. Whether time would permit is another important issue. In most cases, the survey contractor would rather continue the survey using the backup SBES system than to lose a few million dollars. With survey acquisition costing between 50,000-75,000USD/day, the compelling choice is clear. Whether the BP company man onboard the vessel knew or was happily sleeping in his cabin is open to question. Of course, 90% of the survey contractors would never openly declare that their AUV mounted MBES was non-operational 4850ft below the sea surface. Their favorite fallback argument has always been “What is the fuss as long as the bathymetric chart can be produced?” When the bottom line is at stake, quality and resolution fly out the window. MBES can cost more than 10 times the cost of SBES data acquisition.

2. Data compilation fraud: At the post survey data compilation stage, few survey companies would openly admit their data acquisition shortcomings. So although the bathymetry for the Macondo prospect was compiled mainly from SBES data, the legend in the chart still states “Multibeam Processing Sequence”. The graduated colour scheme normally used in MBES images (unusual for SBES compilation), is another tell-tale sign of willful intent. There are other evidences but these should suffice for the purpose of this article.

3. Willful Negligence and Ignorance: For the benefit of the layman, horizontal (spatial) resolution refers to the smallest measurable quantity or interval laterally. As the ultrasonic beam gets further away from the source (echo sounder), the reflection circle (cone) gets wider. Thus a SBES system using 30kHz frequency deployed at sea level would not be able to resolve or see better than 4.5 m or 14.5 ft (spatially) at depths of 5000 ft below sea level. The bin-size (9.84 ft) and contour interval (5 ft) cannot be smaller than the resolution limit of 15 ft. For comparison, a 30kHz SBES source deployed 150 ft above the seafloor would have a spatial resolution limit of only 2.5ft.

Mathematically, the minimum contour interval should be at least 15 ft but for practical mapping purposes, it should be twice the resolution limit or 30 ft and not 5 ft as BP had used. This means any point on the map has an uncertainty circle of at least 15ft radius. Contouring at 5 ft interval (1/3 the resolution limit) would have unduly distorted and biased the compiled bathymetry; the survey lines being 660 ft apart or 132 times the contour interval.

In contrast, a 3m-bin size means there is an average depth point (calculated from several angled-beams) at every 3 m cell. For a SBES source to generate the same data density, the Macondo bathymetric survey line-spacing has to be 3m or 66 times the number of survey lines shown on the chart. But surveying the lines so closely does not make any sense with a spatial resolution of 15 ft.

Would you trust BP’s pledge “to make it right” in the aftermath of the disaster when they could not be bothered with doing it right even with the fundamentals? The cost of a proper bathymetry survey is probably 1/100<sup>th</sup> the cost budgeted for well A. Is this a classic case of penny wise, pound foolish?

The lack of resolution will also explain the smoothness of the seafloor which is inconsistent with true slopes exceeding 3º. Whether this was willfully overlooked is open to question. If the chart is to be used, the resolution limit and accuracy should have been clearly stated and cautioned. In BP’s permit application, the depth for Well A and Well B was stated as 4992 ft; implying an accuracy of 1 ft. This is willful negligence. Accuracy cannot be better than resolution. What is the purpose of implying 1 ft accuracy when a more honest representation as 4990 ±10 ft would suffice. Why was there a need to impress (or mislead)?

If AUV-mounted MBES data had been used as specified instead of the backup SBES sounding from the sea surface, the bathymetry would have been more accurate and better resolved to show the irregularities consistent with the true steep slopes (>3.7º to 6.6º) of a major escarpment. With a more accurate and detailed bathymetry, BP should have seen the minute tell-tale signs of the hazardous conditions beneath the worst possible parts of the escarpment to drill. If the well had been drilled from a safer seabed location, perhaps the Gulf Oil Spill disaster might not have happened?

4. Willful Misinterpretation: As evident in figures 7 and 8 of Satellite Image Comparison, the L-shaped escarpment which covers almost 2/3 of the Macondo site, stretches 12 km to the NW (~0.6 km wide) and 5.5km to the north, with the width of the north-eastern flank varying from 1.3 to 1.6 km. Although the total height of the escarpment cannot be measured from the satellite images, the lower slope itself is already 250ft. Compare this observation with BP’s assessment:

BP’s Shallow Hazards Assessment:

The only seafloor feature identified on the exploration 3D seismic data within the vicinity is a low-relief escarpment approximately 1,000 ft to the south of “A” location which is the seafloor expression of a deeply–buried scarp associated with mass-wasting.

The only seafloor feature identified on the exploration 3D seismic data within the vicinity is a low-relief escarpment approximately 950 ft to the south of “B” location which is the seafloor expression of a deeply–buried scarp associated with mass-wasting.

BP’s assessment was obviously very far from the truth. The escarpment is definitely not the only seafloor feature. Even from the satellite images and the “smoothened” bathymetry, there are obvious features such as steep to gentle slopes, almost flat seafloor at the canyon bottom, topographical irregularities etc. No one can deny that both Wells A and B are on the mid-slope of a massive escarpment rather than 950-1000 ft north of it.

Yet Fintan Dunne and Art Berman (TOD), both respectable experts in their own fields, can still assert that well A is located within a valley. Preconceived minds do work wonders.

This discrepancy can only mean that BP’s geohazards assessment had misinterpreted the southern foothill of the Massive Escarpment as the “escarpment” itself. See BP’s misinterpreted escarpment in figure 115-1. How can a massive escarpment be interpreted as an “edge” in the middle of a slope with no significant change in gradient? Was the steep irregular topography willfully downplayed to deceive the regulatory body (MMS) into approving the exploration application?

In my 30 years of geohazards work, it is totally illogical for a blowout to be so disastrous and yet the site can be described as “gentle and featureless” as implied in the hazards assessment. Did BP totally ignore the original unfavourable geohazards assessment? This question can only be answered after an independent review of the 1998 and 2003 geohazards reports. Why would BP America Inc carry out its own internal mapping in 2008 and 2009 using exploration 3D seismic data when there were already existing geohazards reports? Exploration 3D seismic data meant to map more than 25,000 ft below sea level, do not have the necessary resolution to detect and resolve shallow geological hazards as many had experienced in the past of such “disastrous experiments”. If BP’s internal mapping using 3D exploration data took precedence over the previous shallow geohazards reports in any way, then it would be difficult for BP to wriggle their way out of willful negligence?

All the previous shallow geohazards assessment and site survey reports should be reviewed and examined for evidence of willful misinterpretation and lack of due diligence in the shallow geohazards assessment.

5. Willful Misrepresentation: Figure 115-1 shows the seabed profile along the line XY drawn diagonally across the bathymetric chart. BP stated the slope dips 3º SE. Even with the current terrain “flattened” by resolution limitation the average true slope is already 3.7º. In slope analysis, it is the steepest slopes that matter, not the gentlest. It is also erroneous to quote a generalized slope since the slopes of the escarpment is neither uniform nor dip in the same direction. True slopes currently measured from the erroneously smoothened contour vary from 1.7º to 6.6º. This is certainly not uniform. In reality, the true localised slopes should be a few degrees higher than presently measured.

Why did BP state in its report that the seabed slope is ~3º and the escarpment is low relief? Even 3º slopes are considered to be steep, as most well locations are located at seabed with <1º slopes. Seabed with slopes >3º should have been investigated for possible shallow hazards, especially when the location is located right at the convex face of the escarpment. Any escarpment or raised landform exceeding 250ft (75m) in height cannot be described as “low relief”? BP’s choice of words and terms were definitely misleading? The cursory hazards assessment given in only one paragraph (less than 100 words) certainly do no justice; even if the severe slope is the only consideration.

Missing the Forest for the trees

If there had been no comments at all from TOD’s industry experts on my bathy posting dated 24 July 2010, I would not have been so convinced of BP’s deceits and willful mass deception to cover up the long chain of human errors leading to the disaster. Even though there had been visits from BP’s goons to my column and in particular the Bathy posting, they did not want to bring more attention to my blog by commenting.

On 29 July2010-10:30am, Robert Rapier’s posted “A Critical Examination of Matt Simmons’ Claims on the Deepwater Spill”. It must have been a tremendous group effort involving multiple Oil Drum staff members particularly Joules Burn, Art Berman, Euan Mearns and Robert Rapier, to compile all those satellite photos, statistics and causes of methane emission (including belching cattle) just to put down one man.

Just when they thought they had successfully “snuffed out” the last flame of argument against BP (after an exhaustive day hammering down Matt Simmons), someone posted my article, Why Is BP’s Macondo Blowout So Disastrous & Beyond Patch-Up? for discussion the next day. My diagrams and geological model must have infuriated those BP’s goons at TOD. Not only were my diagrams more beautiful than theirs, many impartial bloggers seemed to think my geohazards assessment made a lot more sense. It must have been most frustrating for those BP’s goons to have another sprout of doubts springing to life, so soon after the last one was snuffed out.

It could not have been coincidental that the debasing comments on the inconsequential scaling error by GeoNola, Klurker and Lurking came one day after my diagrammatic illustration of BP’s Macondo Blowout had attracted a 6,000% jump in website visits (first day) to my column. my diagrammatic illustration of BP’s Macondo Blowout had attracted a 6,000% jump in website visits (first day) to my column. Their complete silence on the fundamental issues was deafening. All except Fintan Dunne are oilman experts and judging from their blog comments, are fiercely defensive of BP.

There’s an old saying; “You can see the ant over the river but not the elephant on the same bank”.

I picked BP’s bathymetry to illustrate what many had long feared. It is an open record of BP’s list of willful negligence which everyone can understand. None of BP’s goons, who had been so vocal on so many issues, have remained “loudly” silent on issues incriminating BP. This proved beyond reasonable doubt who they had been working for. I will end this posting by quoting the latest news of BP’s tripled record breaking spending on advertisement.

BP tripled Ad spending after spill - NYtimes

It will come as little surprise to newspaper readers and television watchers, but BP significantly increased its spending on advertising after the April 20 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. BP spent $93.4 million on newspaper, magazine, television and Internet advertising in the three months after the disaster, three times what it spent in the comparable period in 2009 the company reported to Congress.

1 Sept 2010, hydrocomgeo@gmail.com

Some of the most critical details of the disastrous Deepwater Horizon (DWH) blowout on 20 April 2010 were never made public. We are told that only one well location was drilled when in fact BP drilled at 3 wells at 3 different seabed locations. In fact the 20 April blowout was the last of several serious near-misses and the blowout location was actually 714ft north of Well A location. Despite its importance, there were no public media reports of a second underground explosion 2 days after the initial blowout on 20 April 2010 burst into flames onboard the Deepwater Horizon.

Four and a half months is a very long time to permanently kill what was initially reported as a “small leak in a very big ocean”. We were first told that it would take 3 months to drill the two relief wells (C and D)? We were told that the Relief wells were the surest way to kill the wild gushing well. Well, mid-August had come and gone by without the promised permanent kill by the Relief wells.

Months had been spent discussing all the intricate details of killing the zombie well in so many ways, from Top Kill to Bottom Kill to Static Kill to Relief Kill that it was almost killing me instead of the zombie well. Has it occurred to them, the zombie Well A could not be killed because it was the wrong well?

What if the capped Well A was drilled only to slightly over 5000ft bml? It would easily explain why Well A could only be cemented to 5000ft. It could explain how 40% of the 500 barrels of cement went into the formation. It could explain why only 3000 ft of drilling rod was in the well and not 18,000ft. It could explain why Well A had to be abandoned on 13 Feb due to 3000ft of drilling rod reportedly jammed at the bottom of Well A. It could explain the mystery of BP's attempts to kill the zombie well that refused to lay dead.

See figure 114.1 on the depths of the 3 wells drilled in correct perspective.

Office of Governor Charlie Crist
State of Florida
PL-05 The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001

June 25, 2010

Dear Governor Crist:

We are writing this letter out of deep concern and apprehension about the "ginormous oil volcano" gushing in the Gulf of Mexico. None of us, and we represent environmental health advocacy groups from Florida and the USA, have ever seen anything like this catastrophe in terms of geographical size and environmental impact. We have been in contact with some of the most experienced and knowledgeable in this realm, as well as insiders within the oil spill control industry, and it is now apparent that we are in uncharted waters.

Our purpose here is not to delineate the causes or attribute responsibility, as those are quite obvious, and have been identified in previous correspondence to you. Our explicit intention is to voice our support for those initiatives that have been undertaken by the State toward remediation, mitigation and cleanup of this oil spill. We stand behind you, Governor Crist.

We request that a statewide conference, with global participation, be scheduled immediately to bring together the best and brightest, in order to resolve the unabated flow of oil into our precious Gulf and to consider contingency plans. Our discussions with those who faced the most challenging problems and repercussions pertaining to health, environment and daily living in the wake of the Exxon Valdez disaster clearly indicate a need for well thought out action plans, focused coordination and deliberate follow-through.

If the State of Florida does not respond to this request in a substantive, compelling and expeditious manner, We, The People, are ready to take action. It is obvious that this is the Big One for our neck of the woods, as Haiti, Chile and Iceland have experienced theirs this year. We will not wait for the federal government to act this time, as the consequences of inaction are too great, and will have far-reaching ramifications for the oceans of the world.

Surprisingly, it really does not take that much oil to pollute a cubic mile of sea water, and according to BP's own estimate published today, the flow at the wellhead could be producing well over 2.5 million gallons per day into the Gulf. The oil field that is now spilling was estimated to contain between fifty and one hundred million barrels, and potentially much more. Only a fraction of this would contaminate the entire Gulf of Mexico.

All of the recent computer modeling of ocean current flow has clearly demonstrated that it would not take very long for this oil to then contaminate the Atlantic Ocean after being carried by the Loop Current around the peninsula and captured by the Gulf Stream. It would then be just a matter of time before the Seven Seas are compromised by the slow motion pollution of this gushing well.

Tourism is the #1 industry in Florida and responsible for a significant amount of tax revenue. We wonder out loud what might happen to the State economy after our beautiful and cherished beaches are all covered with oil slicks, and the coral reefs are completely destroyed. The wetlands, marshes, estuaries, bayous and intra-coastal waterways will likewise suffer irreversible damage.

We are also concerned about the vulnerability of the Florida aquifer. And, especially about the entry of oil, methane and dispersant chemicals into the groundwater and infiltration of the water table. What will happen to Florida agriculture, the #2 industry in this State, when the water becomes contaminated by this soup of petrochemicals in the Gulf after the summer storms push them toward the shorelines and into the estuaries.

Of course, these very same chemicals will also be falling from above, as the rains carry much of this toxicity inland and across the entire peninsula of Florida. So, as you can plainly see, we have a very serious set of problems here. And only a deliberate, purposeful and well coordinated response will see us through this crisis in a successful and healthful way.

Governor Crist, we know that you will not let this disaster become our Katrina. We will not let this become our NOLA. We know that you will act, and we will follow you until we have surmounted these formidable obstacles together.

May the people of this great State of Florida join with those of our Gulf Coast neighbors and rise to these challenges in the spirit of true collaboration and mutual concern.

Very sincerely,

Dr. Tom Termotto, Co-Founder
Concerned Citizens of Florida

Board of Directors
Coalition Against Chemical Trespass

Cc: Alex Sink, Florida Chief Financial Officer

Bill McCollum, Florida Attorney General

Florida State Senate

Florida House of Representatives

The Honorable Bill Nelson

The Honorable George LeMieux

Jeff Kottkamp, Lieutenant Governor

Kathy Mears, Deputy Chief of Staff

Melinda Miguel, Chief Inspector General

Pat Gleason, Special Counsel for Open Government

Michael W. Sole, Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Ana M. Viamonte Ross, State Surgeon General, Florida Department of Health

Charles H. Bronson, Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture

Warren Davis, Director of Citizens Services

Robert Wheeler, General Counsel

CDC data: Cumulative amount of Hydrogen Sulfide INCREASES 700 PERCENT in coastal Louisiana since well was 'capped' on July 15

Hourly readings in last day have averaged 15-20 times above the EPA's "safe exposure level"

Human Health Effects from Exposure to Low-Level Concentrations of Hydrogen Sulfide, Occupational Health & Safety, October 2007:

EPA set the safe exposure level at 0.00014 ppm. [.14 ppb]

Yet EPA air monitoring has constantly shown much higher levels of H2S since July and reached an astonishing 9 PPB on July 30th which is over 64 times the exposure level.

Energy giant BP has been accused of hiding key data needed to investigate the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.

Transocean, the company that owned the oil rig, alleged that BP is refusing to hand over information it needs about the explosion.

Few people in the world know more about oil drilling disasters than Dr. Robert Bea.

Bea teaches engineering at the University of California Berkeley, and has 55 years of experience in engineering and management of design, construction, maintenance, operation, and decommissioning of engineered systems including offshore platforms, pipelines and floating facilities. Bea has worked for many years in governmental and quasi-governmental roles, and has been a high-level governmental adviser concerning disasters. He worked for 16 years as a top mechanical engineer and manager for Shell Oil, and has worked with Bechtel and the Army Corps of Engineers. One of the world's top experts in offshore drilling problems, Bea is a member of the Deepwater Horizon Study Group, and has been interviewed by news media around the world concerning the BP oil disaster.

Washington's Blog spoke with Dr. Bea yesterday.

-18 August 2010, hydrocomgeo@gmail.com

Every questions posted on my newsvine-blog had been answered as accurately as possible. However, I cannot track and answer questions posted on other blogs. Short and quick answers to questions on a complicated matter such as a blowout do no justice and can be easily misconstrued. This article is specially written to address some of the serious questions posted on other blogs that had recently been brought to my attention and posted on my blog on 18 Aug 2010. As can be seen, the answers to each short question are actually quite long.

In any developing disaster situation, many technical details had to be intentionally left out until they can be verified. Like any responsible blogger-citizen, I spent a lot of time in seeking, checking and analyzing facts and data before arriving at the conclusion. Even in the “rush-rush” oil industry, 2 to 3 weeks is the normal time-frame in coming out with an assessment report. Predictive Truth reporting is 10 folds harder than factual reporting. There must be consideration for facts deliberately hidden from public view and information that had been unintentionally or intentionally distorted to mislead. I had been severely criticized and widely condemned for being late in answering my critics; as you can see below:

Comments made by FintanDunne at #9 Aug 19 2010.

Pity you didn't take your own advice.

The points raised in my post above are a catalog of what I can only assume are errors, as you have failed to address them. I will not be asking Mr. Berman to elaborate on anything, as I think you have just discredited yourself beyond redemption and checkmated yourself.

Many questions cannot be answered in isolation without being ripped apart by the waiting pride of lions. Many sensitive revelations cannot be revealed before the time is ripe, in this chess game of “hide and seek” and “catch me if you can” multi-billion cover-up scandal that is slowly being unraveled. Time is on the side of truth and it is the detractors’ strategy to push the truth seekers to their untimely death (sorry pun intended). They have the funding and wide array of machinations to seek and destroy all those that stood up like a “sore thumb” in their quest to dupe the unsuspecting world. In the battle of David Vs Goliath, it has been shown time and time again David’s crowd of encouragement will quickly dissipate at the first onslaught and massive show of force by Goliath. That is the strategy Goliath is embarking on. The only weapon the minority truth-seekers have is the little “logic truth-seeking” knife to cut the soft underbelly of the giant mammoth. A simple but nevertheless, still a potent Giant Killing weapon if only one is brave enough to get within striking distance. Our quest for the truth will be lost, if we all lose faith in our conviction at the first sign of trouble.

We cannot stop and turn back now when we are getting so close to the truth. (bloggers like Freebirdreaming and Kokohito will see to that). The incessant attacks on my credibility are first real signs we have stumbled on the truth that had been so well hidden under tons of BP’s paid PR bull@!$%#s and BP’s funded Oilmen Experts’ opinions and comments.

freebirdreaming

BK........... it more then 'that's all we can do', and it pisses me off when you talk like that.

now....... do what you do! you do it so well.

8!#2.2 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:09 AM HKT

kokohito

BK Lim

• initial influx that caused the blowout was from the extended gas charged pressure (EGCP) zone and not from the bottom of the well as most had thought so

 

Read your articles again except that this time we appreciate the severity of the problem that GWSF represented.

BP must extract the oil NOW. Stop the carnage. To those people who still choose to cohort with BP in this massive cover-up is just abominable!

We are now in a 'war' where good is fighting evil on a massive scale. May all the good people rise to the challenge now and fight we must to win this 'war'. Enough is enough!

• It is like fixing a giant jigsaw puzzle.

Thank you very much for your herculian effort.

Yes, I am voting you up.

6!#15 - Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:56 AM HKT

Like a giant jigsaw puzzle, it is important to have a general framework and not be too obsessed with fine details as otherwise we would miss the forest for the trees. If the framework is correct, the missing pieces will fall in place as new evidence or facts are verified. Many investigations in the past had gone off-tangent due to inaccurate facts or lack of data. To keep the articles short some technical details unfortunately had to be left out; for later postings. Still I could not resist the temptation of “letting the cat out of the bag” in addressing the genuine queries from ardent supporters. Bits and pieces of the answers “urgently pressed for by my detractors” can be found in the numerous lengthy comments not only in my blog but in so many articles I had commented on. I had personally lost track and so the phrase “my answers can actually be found hidden in my previous articles and comments” should be taken in good faith and not misconstrued as being sinister with the intention of “Now I find that either you are wriggling out of errors or claiming to be playing silly mind games”. Should I be denied the justice of answering the questions first before being condemned? In several emails in early August, I apologised to many for my delayed responses to their queries due to the grief and shock of the passing of an immediate member of the family. I am sure all human beings can sympathise with that.

Diagrammatic illustrations are time consuming. Some inconsequential errors and omissions that do not really matter in the larger scale of scheme were reluctantly left uncorrected due to time constraints. Crucial mistakes that could make the difference in the interpretation of the blowout were however tackled as soon as they were discovered. The objective of such an approach is to ensure there is no 180º reversal in the journey towards revealing the truth.

Surface location of DWH and well location that blew 20<sup>th</sup> April 2010.

Ballastic Analysis of DWH & Riser Wrecks

"It is therefore intriguing that Well A should be more than 520ft SSE of DWH's surface location."

Question: #8 (1)

Have you compared your figure of 520ft NNW of Well A with the official position of the DWH rig? Is it different than the official position, or is the official position of DWH in NOAA, or Congressional reports assumed to be the position of well A? It's one of the strongest points you make yet you only assert it without laying any foundation.

The fact that BP would drill at an unreported location in obvious violation of mandatory reporting to MMS, means that the official well location would still be Well A. If BP were to report it was drilling the second well at a different location (other than the approved Well B location) BP would have to notify and submit a new Exploration Plan to MMS. That would mean more expensive delays since BP cannot off charter DWH while waiting for approval.

Inaccurate reporting is also evident in BP’s well activity reports. Alex Higgins in his excellent detective work (Suspicious BP-well-activity-reports) noted several discrepancies, including the change in the well-bore number from 00 to 01 and ByPass no: from 00 to 01 for the week 3/14/2010-3/20/2010. There were 2 Well Activity reports for the same period with conflicting information (report nos: 150694 and 150699). For example in the item Last BOP test on 3/15/2010, the high pressure was 6500psi while in the earlier report for the same test the high pressure was 10,000psi. The 2 conflicting reports also reported contradicting well-bore and bypass numbers.

Why did BP choose not to drill at Well B location as the second well?

(Answer given in #4 of DWH Blowout CSI)

Most oil companies would apply for a backup location (in this case Well B) close by since they were unsure whether it would even be drilled. At 300ft apart (between well A and B), even a layman from outside the oil industry would see that it is ridiculously near especially when the water depth is 5000 ft (6% of WD) and the reservoir target is another 18000ft below seabed (1.3% of total drill depth). No for all purposes and intent, Well B location is for "show only"; location wise but it has other purposes.

A second well would be useful in case of unexpected delay and as a backup location. As in BP's case, the permit for well A and B was valid for the period; 15 April-24 July 2009 and from 15 April till 24 July 2010 (100 days each) respectively. Actual drilling of each well normally takes between 2 to 4 weeks with another 2 to 3 weeks for testing the well. The period / time of exploration is more important than the location since MMS can keep track of the days spent at location but not the precise well location. Even then BP did not drill the wells within the allocated exploration time frame as permitted in BP’s Application to MMS, Control no: N-9349 dated 10 March 2009. Well A was drilled by Marianas from 7 Oct till 9 Nov 2009 and by DWH “officially” from 6 Feb till 20 April 2010. This is proof that actual field operations do not strictly follow proposed plans in the approved MMS permit.

Obviously with the number of serious out-of-control well problems BP was having at Well A, it would be suicidal and outright Dumb if not Criminal to drill at well B which was so close to Well A (only 300ft). BP might have also realised that Well A and Well B lie too close to a shallow NE-SW fault. Video clips of oil-gas gushes at points along this fault line can be seen on the You-tube website. Figure F1 showed just 2 ROV locations on 10 June and 25 May 2010. This also precisely the same reason why BP could not have sidetracked or bypassed from Well A. To do so would have been willful negligence. Was there a thorough investigation on the drilling problems at Well A before proceeding to the second well as required by International Safety Policies.

BP arrogantly thought that by moving approximately 750ft NNW perpendicularly to the fault-line, they had minimized the blowout risk. Whether BP had diligently analysed the geohazards risks or had acted negligently with an arbitrary offset from the problematic Well A, is open to question. Being an experienced technological giant, BP should have known that it is not a matter of distance and direction. There are enough documented past disasters that had resulted from such hasty and arbitrary shifting of well location without a proper and diligent geohazards assessment. It is also a question of legitimate insurance coverage since each well location must be accompanied by a drilling risk report just as Well A and Well B must have had one each. It is also strange that BP had not transferred responsibility and liability to the geohazards expert’s drilling risk assessment on the two wells drilled, as it is becoming more and more obvious that a simple well blowout could not have been so disastrous. Even by looking at the bathymetry, it is obvious that there had been negligence in the charting and assessment of the geohazards. See more elaborate discussions in Would-a-better-bathymetry-chart-have-made-the-difference?

Out of plain ignorance, incompetence or arrogance, shifting the second well 750ft NNW of Well A, had only increased the drilling risk by moving it closer to the source of the geohazards problem. See the discussions on Misinterpretation on Seabed Escarpment below:

Man of Knowledge

Have you seen this document?

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/29/29977.pdf

• It describes conclusions of a shallow hazards assessment (page 10) and indicates the escarpment is a "sea floor expression of a deeply buried scarp associated with mass wasting."

I would be interested in your comments on this.

5!#29 - Thu Aug 5, 2010 4:40 AM HKT

BK Lim

The full paragraph is as follows:

• The seafloor at the proposed “A” location is in a water depth of 4992 ft and dips to the south-east at ~3.0º. The only seafloor feature identified on the exploration 3D seismic data within the vicinity is a low-relief escarpment approximately 1,000 ft to the south of the “A” location which is the seafloor expression of a deeply buried scarp associated with mass-wasting.

If you read carefully, the escarpment was identified in the exploration 3D seismic data, not any of the geohazards site survey data. Isn't that funny? That by itself should ring several alarm bells. ~ 3º is mighty steep in seabed bathymetry.

1. It means that the geohazards site survey did not pick up the escarpment even though it was identifiable in the broader exploration 3D seismic data and satellite images. So what was wrong with the geohazards site survey whose primary objective was to identify and analyse structural features like this? Why was the 3D seismic doing the work of the High resolution Site survey?

2. Exploration and geohazards experts have totally different perspective. Geohazards Geophysics focuses from seabed to about a thousand metres (Max). The report says – low relief escarpment, 1,000ft south of loc A. In my article on whether “a better bathymetry interpretation could have made the difference?” location A and B were smack on the top edge of the escarpment. If you look at the satellite image, you cannot miss the whole escarpment. The total drop in height is about 150-175ft. The 3-D seismic data (being designed to image thousands of metres below) cannot see clearly at seabed level (an effect we call smearing). Why spend more than a million bucks to run a site survey specifically designed to pick up such details, only to ignore it and use 3D seismic to detect the “low relief” without even an estimate of the height? It is like using the jack hammer to drill a pin-hole.

It also reminds me many years ago where one enthusiastic exploration geo who thought that his 3D exploration seismic could identify the geohazards better and ended up with a blowout. Another one tried and picked multiples as his hazards anomalies. As I said before, each type of data has its own use and none is superior over the other.

3. Being exploration experts they probably did not see the significance of the escarpment and probably did not understand the deep meaning of the words used “deeply buried scarp associated with mass wasting”. Deep means they understood that there was a deeper extension to the feature observed on the seafloor. It means that it is not a superficial structure with no “roots”. Mass wasting - (I don’t normally like to use this term) basically means “wasting” like in deterioration, weathering or breaking down. So combined with the word mass – the whole description simply means an unconformable structure extending deep below the seafloor. Now doesn’t this fit the description of my model - a fractured (/weathered/disintegrated) dyke/salt dome/diaper or any vertical body?

So BP did actually notice the structure but did not realise how hazardous it was. Sounds familiar? Those who had commented and ridiculed my model as being “crap, comical and total nonsense” probably had the same misunderstanding or poor concept of geohazards assessment. The question being asked at this point is; Where were BP’s geohazards specialists? Was BP trying to save some money by using 3D seismic experts to map both the oil reservoir and geohazards as well?

Obviously the end result is as disastrous as the previous 3D-seismic experts’ attempts at geohazards assessment more than 20 years ago – a blowout.

Exploration and Geohazards Geophysics may share the same fundamentals but are worlds apart in specific objectives and techniques. Needless to say, there are many experts within the geohazards industry who are not even aware of the fundamental differences. We are sometimes our own worst enemies.

5!#29.2 - Fri Aug 6, 2010 9:32 AM HKT

Evidence BP drilled the 2<sup>nd</sup> well at S20BC location – refer to figure 3 (Forensic Analysis of DWH & Riser Wrecks)

The massive oil gush (largest of the reported 3 leaks along the fallen riser) at S20BC is close to Centre of debris circle (suspected surface location of DWH) – approx 120 ft NW, 2.5% of water depth (WD).

This is evidently an explosion crater with debris and continuing oil-gas gushing out of a sub-horizontal pipe that looks like a well-head casing. One video comment had estimated the diameter of the pipe to be 21 inches – same as well head casing(?). Though there is no scale to substantiate this comment, there are distinct differences with the damaged riser piping seen on many ROV videos.

Initial video footage seemed to focus primarily at this particular oil-gas gush location (S20BC) up to end of May 2010; giving the impression this was the blown-up well location. Nothing was mentioned and shown of the BOP at Well A.

BP’s efforts and statements to contain the 3 major oil leaks at seabed with the use of giant container domes which were designed to dig into the seabed, appeared to be sincere in the immediate aftermath of the 20<sup>th</sup> April Blowout. If the leaks were actually on the riser, why was there a need for 3 containment domes when the riser could have been cut and capped at the BOP , as had been done since mid-June. This implies the leaks were coming out of the seabed (through shallow faults coming close to the seabed) and not from the riser which could have been cut and removed.

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?

Video footage of gas seeps, “gas floornado” and cloud (gas) bursts recorded from Ocean Intervention III and gas dispersant operation at S20BC, suggest that the leak at S20BC is more significant than reported.

The “Cut Riser” location in the vicinity of S20BC in the absence of other seabed man-made installation is highly suspicious.

A blowout at S20BC location would be consistent with forensic analysis of the debris pattern of DWH and twisted riser wrecks mapped by NOAA. See the almost symmetrical fallout pattern in figure F1.

Evidence that Well A could not be the well drilled when the blowout occurred on 20<sup>th</sup> April 2010

–refer to figure 3 (Forensic Analysis of DWH & Riser Wrecks).

Well A is approximately 600 ft SSE (12% of WD) from the surface location of DWH (estimated from the debris circle drawn to connect the major debris from DWH). It would not be logical for DWH to be offset so far to the north from the Well A seabed location.

Alternatively, if DWH were to be directly above Well A location (within tolerance of a couple % of water depth) then the debris circle should have been centred around Well A location. This is not observed in the debris pattern. If the case is made for the skewed fan-out debris pattern in the direction of the falling riser (towards NW) and DWH wrecks, then the debris fan-out pattern should be as shown in figure F2. As debris fall further away from Well A (source) in the direction of WDH wreck, the angle with respect to the line between Well A and DWH wreck, and the source to the debris should get smaller. Thus, the fallout angle for RTD1 should be larger than that of RTD2. However, the converse is observed. The angle for RTD2 at 55º is greater than the fallout angle for RTD1 at 44.5º. This again proved that DWH could not have been vertically above Well A location.

The badly twisted and standing riser wreck also proved that DWH could not have been above Well A. It is practically impossible for the riser to be unbroken (as claimed by BP) if the riser had been “anchored” to the BOP attached to Well A. On the other hand, if the lower part of the riser had broken off (contrary to BP’s claims), the pointed “V” wreck pattern should have been radiating from Well A location and not S20BC location. Note that figure 7 was illustrated with the correct aspect ratio (ie the vertical scale is equivalent to the horizontal scale).

Further if the broken end of riser resulted in the oil gush at S20BC, there should have been no further leaks beyond S20BC. Clearly this was not the case, as BP reported 3 leaks along the twisted but unbroken 5000ft of riser string. See AlJazeera illustration in figures 7a-7b.

Question on the direction of flow of oil & gas, refer to figures 3a to 3b of Ballastic Analysis of DWH & Riser Wrecks and figure F2.

If the riser and BOP were attached to Well A as claimed by BP, then the oil and gas should be gushing out of the riser from the south. But all the video footage clearly showed the oil and gas to be gushing out from the north?

If the pipe had been severed at the southern end, how can there still be any flow connection to Well A? It is very clear with the illustrations that oil could not have flowed from the south (Well A) but from a location in the north (S20BC?) which BP was drilling when the well blew up on 20<sup>th</sup> April 2010.

BP’s Gulf Disaster Relief Efforts must have been an elaborate Art of Mass Deception since the 10<sup>th</sup> of May, 20 days after the 20<sup>th</sup> April blowout.

Is there a possibility BP actually drilled 3 wells?

Though BP has officially declared having drilled only Well A, there is a possibility that on 6 Feb 2010, DWH drilled Well B instead of reentering Well A which was abandoned on 9 Nov 2009; again without informing MMS. Well B would be just as problematic as Well A, since the same GWSF hazardous condition spans over the three well locations (A, B and S20BC). On the same basis, Relief Well D would be more problematical than Relief Well C which is located at the base of the seabed escarpment. Well A, B, S20BC and Relief Well D are all located within the southern slope face of the escarpment. It is inconsequential whether BP did or did not drill Well B (instead of Well A as officially declared), the fact remains that BP moved to the unreported S20BC location after abandoning the Well A (or Well B as the case may be) in around 17 March 2010. On 20 April 2010, DWH blew at S20BC the unreported mystery location that is still leaking oil and gas into the gulf.

The most important question that begs an immediate answer: Why would BP go through such an elaborate scheme of Mass Deception? They must be pretty sure no one will unravel the truth. There must be more skeletons in the closet.

If you had read my posting on the blowout carefully, the initial gas influx that caused the blowout and fire on DWH was from the extended gas charged pressure (EGCP) zone and not from the bottom of the well as most would have thought. Haliburton would be pleased to know that their bottom cement plug did not fail immediately. There were many technical gaps I had to leave out (for various reasons) until I can find the conclusive evidence. DWH burnt for 2 days fed by gas and oil flowing from the shallow part of the aquifer within the GWSF zone (Why was DWH Blowout so disastrous and beyond patch-up.) This will need more explanation with diagrams in next sequel of Answers to Questions Raised -002.

- hydrocomgeo@gmail.com

Out of plain curiosity after being Barred from Drilling Ahead website for posting the truth on Tony’s BP share sell off, I made a check on the London Stock Exchange on BP’s directors share transactions. Amazingly, there seems to be a pattern of massive share sell-off by BP directors just before the two major incidences at the Macondo well, Mississippi Canyon Block 252, 41 miles (66 km) off the Louisiana coast. See the recompiled information in a spreadsheet incorporating the key dates.

The Transocean Marianas commenced drilling on the Macondo Well location on 7 Oct 2009. Three weeks later on 28 Oct 2009, Tony Hayward sold 220,000 shares at 587.5p. Ten (10) days later, on 9<sup>th</sup> Nov 2009, the Transocean Marianas had to abandon the well due to damage by Hurricane Ida. It seems strange that Tony Hayward & Iain C Conn would want to buy 56 shares each at 595.2p on 10 Nov 2009, a day after the rig pulled out. Seven (7) days later, Byron E Grote sold 150,000 shares at 9.92 USD.

On 15 Feb 2010, the Deepwater Horizon reentered the abandoned Macondo Well and commenced drilling. The well was targeted for completion on 8 March 2010. There had been reports of numerous problems on the rig including an accident which damaged the gasket on the blowout preventer. On 17 March 2010, Tony Hayward sold 223,288 shares at 623.2p. Byron E Grote followed suit on 18<sup>th</sup> March 2010 by selling 58,536 shares at 9.74 USD and 17,064 shares at 9.73 USD (making a total of 57,600 shares). Andy Inglis followed 6 days later on 23 March 2010, selling a total of 219,500 shares at 630.6 in two transactions. The sell-out trend from 17 to 30<sup>th</sup> March 2010 was broken by George David who bought 112,890 shares at 568.9p at an intra-low price on 29 March. David Jackson managed to buy 13,073 shares at also the same price of 568.9p on 30 March, the same day Iain C Conn sold 13,073 shares at 625.36p.

Since his massive sell-off on 17 March, Tony Hayward had bought back BP’s shares 4 times: 50, 55, 83 and 85 shares at prices of 641.1, 553.9, 391.55 and 364.8p respectively. Strangely, from 12 April till 12 July no directors sold their shares but they bought back token shares (50 to 85 shares). Only Carl-Henric Svanberg buck the trend by buying 175,000 shares at 618.96p on 28 April, 8 days after the blowout incident.

It is very clear Car-Henric Svanberg and George David are both caught in the wrong trend while Tony Hayward, Iain C Conn, Byron R Grote and Andy Inglis were the directors right on the money.

Ida was a late season hurricane that had a large impact on the east coast of Nicaragua and the adjacent islands. It was the first November hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico since Kate of 1985. Ida's genesis was associated with a poorly defined tropical wave that reached the western Caribbean Sea on 1 November. It was the strongest landfalling tropical cyclone during the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season with winds of 85 mph (140 km/h).

With the Transocean Marianas having problems 3 weeks into the drilling and the brewing hurricane, Tony Hayward apparently made the right choice of selling off his shares (220,000) before the impending hurricane. He was right when the well had to be abandoned 10 days later. No other directors followed him in the sell-off.

Tony’s sell-off on 17<sup>th</sup> March 2010 (2283,228 shares) was made after the well had numerous problems and missed its targeted completion date of 8 March 2010. This time 3 other directors (Conn, Grote & Inglis) followed suit. A total of 531,461 shares were disposed by the 4 directors in the period 17 – 30 March 2010. From 12 April till 12 July 2010, Tony Hayward and Iain Conn were seen to be buying miniscule shares (total 491 shares) in an apparent bid to throw off the sense; 50 shares each at 641.1p (losing 18p) on 12<sup>th</sup> April.

After the Deepwater Horizon missed its targeted 8<sup>th</sup> March completion date, it seems that at least some directors knew of something that might cause the share prices to fall. Four directors selling off 531,461 shares within 2 weeks is no coincidence.

The moral question is, did they allow “the speeding train to continue on its collision course” as pointed out in “The root causes of BP's oil spill & the imminent threat of more oil-related disasters. Part 1”, so that they could personally profit from a “limited disaster”. Obviously, they did not expect the disaster to spread that far and wide.