14 August 2010, firstname.lastname@example.org
Coincidence is the word we often use when we want to hide the truth. The oil spill disaster has more than its fair share of coincidences. Matt Simmons’s death 4 days ago, is a great loss to all of us seeking the truth. In one of his final interviews, Matt Simmons said, “It was painful as can be… to be the only person in the industry that was willing to speak out.” This article is dedicated to him, all those (animals included) killed and those continuing to suffer from this mega disaster.
Despite BP’s numerous delay tactics, improprieties, inconsistencies and contradictions; the mainstream media, BP’s paid Bogus Press and “Oilmen Expert” bloggers never commented on the obvious flaws in BP’s rendition of the mega disaster. But the same Devil’s Advocates were so quick to bark and maul on articles or postings that disputed BP’s version of events. It was painful indeed to read these biased blogs hammering and mauling Matt Simmons’s character, professionalism and sanity, just because he had disputed BP’s claims and version of events. Many of Matt Simmons’s accounts have since been vindicated by recent whistleblowers’ accounts, evidence of previously undetected oil spill and gas seeps, and health hazards due to extensive usage of Corexit.
BP’s attempts to spin the disaster into an art form through the mass media and paid advertisement are all part of BP’s Charade. The failing Static Kill on the “wrongly” capped well (Macondo A) is just one of the “broken steps”. The return of BP Zombie Well by Fintan Dunne aptly described the multiple failures in trying to kill the wild well. Is there more to it? Did BP drill one or two wells? Apparently the wells were drilled outside their approved period of exploration. Despite what it seems Well B was not drilled at its proposed location. Instead after plugging well A, DWH drilled on an unreported location which blew on 20th April 2010. Were regulations contravened?
This article is the first of several series which will present evidence of mass deception for public discussion. Without doubt, underhand tactics and adulterated data would be used to discredit me and my articles as they had done to Matt Simmons. Bloggers would be employed to disseminate distorted facts and to confuse the general public, under the guise of technical discussions. Do not be intimidated by technical jargons meant to confuse, for the truth is always simple and logical. Judge what I have presented here for its true academic values and not from any political or vested perspective. There are no hidden motives in my series of articles other than to educate, disseminate the truth and point out the obvious flaws in the accounts of the disaster. My expertise in the field of geohazards geophysics is given here on a pro-bono basis as part of my contribution to speak up for Mother Earth so that we need not live in constant fear of another mega man-made disaster.
1 Was the wrong well capped?
As the list of things that do not add up, continues to grow longer and longer, it is becoming more obvious the cover-ups are as elaborate and extensive as the disaster itself. One has to wonder why would there be a need for such a colossal cover-up. The truth then must be more devastating than the disaster itself. It is always easier to tell the truth as the truth will not contradict any facts that are revealed over time. The bigger the lie the more elaborate is the effort needed to cover it. But all deception no matter how perfectly planned cannot cover all tracks. After all, Man proposes but God Disposes.
The starting point of contention has to be Well A (E 1,202,803.88, N 10,431,617.00) which was supposed to be the seabed location drilled when the disastrous blowout occurred on 20th April 2010. Is it a mere coincidence Well A is located outside the blowout circle drawn to connect the major debris from DWH? The source of any unconstrained explosion will always lie close to the “epicenter” of the blowout. While it is possible to have a skewed ellipsoid (as in explosions from directional charges), the debris field will be similarly skewed and not be a symmetrical circle. See figure 1 of DWH blowout CSI which was reproduced from the Macondo ROV Map Ver 1.0 compiled by Fintan Dunne on 9th Aug 2010. Tuttlet must be commended for compiling the original map showing the ROVs’ position in early August.
It is only logical that DWH would be drilling directly above the well’s seabed location within tolerance limits of a couple of percentage error. DWH being the “state of the art” drilling rig, was definitely capable of maintaining dynamic position accurate to 50ft or 1% of water depth. For all practical purposes, 3% or 150 ft would be the position tolerance limit at that depth. It is therefore intriguing that Well A should be more than 520ft SSE of DWH’s surface location. If this was true, then DWH was drilling with the riser string at an angle of almost 6º. Given the dynamic positioning capability of DWH, there should be no reason for DWH’s surface location to be so far away from well A; if indeed the seabed location was Well A when the blowout occurred on 20th April 2010.
2 Did Well A blow out on 20th April 2010?
BP in their press conferences gave the impression that the riser string was largely intact and still connected to the BOP on top of Well A’s well-head, albeit badly twisted and bent. The figures at 7a to 7e (DWH blowout CSI) by Al Jazeera illustrate the simplistic but illogical rendition of how DWH could have sunk to the present wreck position on the seabed with 3 leaks on the punctured riser.
Doubts that the capped well (Well A) may not be the actual well that blew on 20th April, is further fueled by the early video footage available to public in May. The videos showed oil gushing out of a partially buried, severed casing with several broken debris obviously associated with a catastrophic event. The oil gush seems to be flowing out of a sub-horizontal pipe (casing?) which apparently dips into the seabed within an “unnatural” seabed crater. This location referred to as S20BC, is approximately (estimated from the scatter plots of ROV coordinates) 720 ft NNW of Well A and just 120ft NW of DWH’s surface location. The water depth of 4960-4970 ft is consistent with the depth shown on the bathymetric chart. Figure 3 shows the charted location of these images presented in figures 3a -3d. Water depth at Well A is generally more than 4990 ft.
This is strange as in all past blowout investigations, the primary focus of attention should be the blown-out well (Well A?) and not any one of the three “secondary leaks” on the riser. Why the intense activities focusing on S20BC (supposedly the most serious of the 3 leaks on the riser) instead of Well A? Does action speak louder than words? Could S20BC be the real blowout well but misled as just a “secondary” leak on the riser? Another piece of Mass Deception?
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.
Stranger still, why does the partially buried, severed casing (at S20BC) with gushing oil and gas appear to resemble more of a broken well-head casing than a twisted or flattened riser? Why would the ROV video show the oil to be flowing from north to south? If the oil and gas were to flow from Well A to S20BC in the north through the “riser”, the flow direction should be south to north. This confirms that Well A could not be the source of the leaking oil and gas.
It was crucial to keep this key discrepancy secret initially to avoid adulteration of the ROV data. As expected, the recent video footage appears to have unreliable coordinates or had missing information; eg sudden jumps of several hundred feet in ROV position. While “jumps” in navigation or position can be due to a variety of instrumental errors or data lapses, it is more difficult to explain jumps that seem to converge to Well A location. Is this another evidence of “tampering with the data”?
3 The mystery of the Twisted Riser wreck standing 1500 ft above seabed
Figure 2 (DWH blowout CSI) illustrates that it would not be possible for the DWH wreck to have landed just 1,100 ft from Well A if the riser string was largely intact with the base attached to the BOP (BP’s official version).
Even if the riser string were to detach from DWH as it was sinking, the wrecks (both DWH and riser) would continue their motion northwards. By the time the riser string had tilted to 12.5º from the vertical, the burning DWH would be already 1082 ft from Well A and it would have sunk by 118 ft. It is also possible that DWH could have fallen apart much earlier at 6º tilt angle. In which case, the centre of the fallout circle would be very close to the observed surface location of DWH but the WDH wreck would have to sink by 27 ft. Thus while the WDH wreck could still land at the observed seabed location, the unbroken long riser string would not be so twisted and definitely not bent backwards at such an acute angle. It is only logical for a free-falling rigid string (anchored at the base to the BOP) to fall straight through the water column; thus ruling out such pronounced bending.
It is almost impossible to explain how the riser could have bent backwards at such an acute angle and landed at a standing position 1500 ft above the seabed, with the lower end of the riser still attached to the BOP. Either the mainstream media were totally misled or NOAA debris chart as shown in figure 2a is totally inaccurate. Surely the Press could not have been so meek, not to question the improbability of the twisted riser standing 1500 ft above the seafloor without breaking. Obviously BP was given a lot of leeway to cover its own charade with a “No Tough Questions” policy. This is BP’s Art of Mass Deception in action.
Even if the burning DWH had sunk with the riser string broken at the lower section, the swing momentum of any inclined rigid steel string would have propelled DWH towards its anchor point. NOAA debris chart is the documented evidence of physical laws governing the dynamics of DWH sinking. There is no way DWH’s wreck could have landed at its present seabed location 720ft away if DWH’s riser (steel) string was anchored to Well A.
The most likely anchor location of DWH’s riser string is S20BC. Figures 8a-8h show the likely sequence in the sinking of DWH following the blowout on 20th April 2010. The blowout was so powerful its upward thrust probably broke the lower 1/5 of the riser. The BOP with the broken riser tilted and fell to the seafloor bending the upper section of the well casing. Whether the BOP was later cut and removed from the well-head or whether it broke off from the well-head by the blowout, is open to question? This can be confirmed by unadulterated ROV operation reports.
BP probably removed the BOP with the bent riser and installed it on Well A several weeks after the 20th April blowout. It was only after the BOP installation on Well A, were video footage of the leaking BOP released for public consumption. Irrespective of the BOP’s “travel paths or transit points”, Well A could not have been the well location drilled by DWH when the 20th April blowout occurred. Period!