Sunday, October 31, 2010

Willful Negligence in BP’s Shallow Hazards Assessment– Part IIIb of Root Causes

Site-specific shallow hazards assessment is mandatory prior to any well drilling so that disasters like BP’s mega oil spill can be averted. Even without examining the 2009 survey report by C&C Technologies (C&C), it is abundantly clear there had been serious fundamental flaws in the hazards assessment. C&C should have alerted BP of the following hazardous geological conditions:
  1. The high risk of encountering shallow gas hazards within the first 5000 ft bml.
  2. Shallow faults evident within this depth interval (from seabed level down to 5000 ft bml).
  3. The well is located in the mid slope of a large escarpment with a gradient exceeding 3º.
  4. The well is located at the convex section of the escarpment which is the worst possible area to drill into with regard to shallow gas hazards and geotechnical problems of cementing and sealing the well.
  5. The whole L-shaped rectangular escarpment is a raised landform measuring approximately 12 km by 5.5 km, faulted at the edge foot-hill. The circular gentle cone formed at the southern half of the raised landform is probably an ancient lava / asphalt / mud volcano or a combination of the 3 forms.
  6. Irrespective of the form of volcano, the possibility of high fractures, high permeability vents extruding fluids is very high - posing unacceptably high drilling risks. 
  7. Under such geohazardous conditions, the geohazards assessment should have recommended shifting the well location away from the raised landform altogether. The recommended shift would be about 2 km south, away from the foothills of the structure.
  8. BP should be able to reach the targeted reservoir location, although the deviated well would be more expensive than a vertical well. Was this a major cost consideration?   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Drilling Rig at Macondo Site?

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

This was BP’s 19 Sept Press statement 
BP will now proceed to complete the abandonment of the MC252 well, which includes removing portions of the casing and setting cement plugs. A similar plugging and abandonment of both relief wells will occur as well.
BP will also now begin the process of dismantling and recovering containment equipment and decontaminating vessels that were in position at the wellsite.
~~~~~~~~~~end of quote~~~~~~

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

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

Since the Macondo well was finally confirmed sealed on September 19, BP has been completing the process of plugging and abandoning the well. This includes removing portions of the casing and setting cement plugs.
BP has also started the process of dismantling and recovering containment equipment and decontaminating the vessels that were in position at the wellsite. The cost of the response to September 29 amounts to approximately $11.2 billion, including the cost of the spill response, containment, relief well drilling, static kill and cementing, grants to the Gulf states, claims paid and federal costs.
~~~~~~~~~~end of quote~~~~~~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, October 29, 2010

The Safety & Data Fraud Iceberg in the exploration industry - Part IIIa of Root Causes

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

Monday, October 25, 2010

Mother Nature’s SOS distress signals from a Haunting Well.

(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."

~~~end of quote~~~~ Well permanently Killed - report on 19 Sept 2010                                                                              

BP Confirms Successful Completion of Well Kill Operations in Gulf of Mexico
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.
 BP Press Release 19 Sept 2010
~~~~~end of quote ~~~~~

Figure 127-1 is extracted from Hydrate Floaters while figure 127-2 is extracted from 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.

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.

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? 

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Current – Gas Oil plume next to Well A

The pictures from the air tell a different story 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 FOSL

~~~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 leaks beside well A seen on 22 Oct 2010.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Our worst fears of vaporising hydrates from the deep confirmed-Part IIc of Root Causes

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.

Figure 125-2 Methane vaporising from the seafloor at well A


This stationary Rov video (recorded on 3rd 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 ~~~~~~~
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

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”.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

BP’s Guessing Game continues – part 1.

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

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.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Our Manmade Disasters: BP, you can cheat and lie but the facts you can’t ...

Our Manmade Disasters: BP, you can cheat and lie but the facts you can’t ...: "(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 b..."

BP, you can cheat and lie but the facts you can’t hide.

(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

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 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.