- News Type: Opinion — Fri Sep 3, 2010 11:28 AM PDTenvironment, congress, government, oil, mexico, florida, federal-government, bp, oil-spill, investigation, explosion, gulf, louisiana, fed, epa, gulf-oil-spill, gulf-coast, gulf-of-mexico, mississippi, leak, noaa, coast-guard, bp-oil-spill, oil-leak, deepwater, gov, blowout, bop, leaking, gulf-oil-spill-horizon,bk-lim, geohazards, s20bc, bathymetry
(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 1/100th 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.
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.
BP’s Macondo bathymetry is an open record of BP’s list of willful negligence. BP’s goons at TOD, who had been so vocal on so many issues, have remained “loudly” silent on these bathy issues.
Nice work BK,very nice.Always impressed by your eye for detail.That comes from someone who has confidence and knowledge in their field of work.My hat's off to you.
So Fintan never came back after you answered his questions?Doesn't say much for his investigative reporting.Could it be he got on-board to have insight into the information being accumulated against BP?BP money has funded many a blog site lately.TOD started out as a good place for information and quickly went downhill after the BP advertising got heavy.I haven't been to TOD in awhile as the BP goons took over the site and the information available became unreliable.Even the Doomers have had their share of BP infiltrators on board and their site was and is being monitored to control the ROV feed views,but I've seen no sign that their people have given themselves over to BP like those at TOD.
Hang in there my friend.We know what we know ,regardless of what others want us to think.We knew in from the beginning where this was headed.
All those who are truly great must strive to overcome the obstacles of delusion and ignorance. They must strive to jolt the multitudes out of their complacency and to fulfill their own fundamental intent and vows. Only if you do this are you a true person of the Path, without contrived activity and without concerns, a genuine Wayfarer of great mind and great vision and great liberation.~Yuanwu
- 13
- !
Nyghtshayde
Appreciate your encouraging words. You have been a trustworthy friend with equally insightful wisdom. I am really glad to have found friends like you and many others since this column started. It is the relentless effort by you and many others to search for the truth that fuel my drive to contribute further.
All truth passes through three stages.First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.……………Arthur Schopenhauer
- 10
- !
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.
BK, You stay the course.
I know nothing about this subject matter, but I have confidence in you, and your observations.
The truth will rise to the top,so, do not stop.BH
- 10
- !
Exactly my sentiment. Bore-head. We need BK to decipher the web of lies.
- 10
- !
Jay, BK,nyghtshayde, myself,FBD,and a hand full of others are all doing what we can. I am not technical,like BK,but am staying on the USCG, NOAA,NMFS, end of this nasty little mess.
Don't know if you saw my NOAA article, but it's worth a glimpse.
Jane Lubchenco, and her group are bald faced liars, and the Admiral has been shown to have a skeleton in his closet!
- 10
- !
BH
In my researches, I saw one post at TOD where BP's goons were so quick to congratulate BP for their successful static kill. In that post, they commended Lubchenco for her excellent work done. I remember reading your article, she did a lousy job. Please check this out at TOD. I was going to paste it in the comments but got distracted and lost the thread. So NOAA & BP in cahoot at the very top level? Not the true researchers - just so I don't get misquoted.
- 12
- !
I'm on it, BK
I believe because of the Doctors oil roots, and constant oil money diet shes been on for decades shows her to be partial towards BP. An oil industry shill.
- 11
- !
Right On BH. I am following closely behind your leadership on this (which I have little idea but full of determination and support).
- 10
- !
It is always a pleasure to find information, in a fashion in which the average viner has a light go on:) glad you continue......... please be careful in daily endeavors:)
and for the record....... you are in good health? no untreated heart problems to speak of?
:)
Yes I am in good health. If I suddenly disappear .... you know what to do, right?
- 12
- !
absolutely......... post it on newsvine!........... heheh... just kidding dude.
again...... walk in prayer, live like everyday is a day for a new path.... *clears throat* don't go the same way twice:)
- 13
- !
BK Lim
Freebirdreaming is right. Please stay safe.
Your articles may inspire a defining moment where more and more people (include the world) to Stand Up and 'Fight' for We the People !!!
- 10
- !
Very informative even if some of it is over my head. I bought an interesting little book a couple of years ago at a used book sale. It's titled "How to Lie with Maps". Looks like "someone" is using it as text.
3rdtime
I agree. BK Lim's explained in such a way to help layman like me understand.
Luv the diagrams too!
- 12
- !
3rdtime
A map is just like your written composition except the words are replaced by symbols, lines, space and time. Yes, you can lie (with a map) to some people some of the time, but not to all people all of the time.
- 12
- !
I'm really very good with geographical maps. Bless my Mother, she started making me plot out our errands around the city when I was about 8. It's my limited knowledge of geology that slowed me down here! Happy Labor Day, Friend.
- 12
- !
Here's my two cents The Oil Drum Exposed — BP Shills Promoting Conspiracy Theory To Drive Up The Price Of Oil
blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/09/03/bk-lim-fires-bp-shills-oil-drum-forensic-analysis-bp-bathymetric-chart-4478/
"must have infuriated those BP’s goons at TOD" - BK Lim
"there had been visits from BP’s goons to my column" - BK Lim
"most frustrating for those BP’s goons" - BK Lim
"those BP’s goons to have another sprout of doubts" - BK Lim
"BP’s goons at TOD" - BK Lim
Tossing the slur "goons" repeatedly into a professional technical analysis is a bad sign, usually indicating dearth of substance. Facts speak for themselves -without the need to push buttons designed to elecit an emotional response from the reader. That is polemics -not technical analysis.
Whether they are goons or not is irrelevant. The question is whether their analysis is technically correct. To determine that, journalists study the technical response and counter-response to questions.
"So Fintan never came back after you answered his questions?
Doesn't say much for his investigative reporting." - Nyghtshade
Doesn't say much for his investigative reporting." - Nyghtshade
I placed a list of 7 questions to BK.
Three from me and four from TOD criticisms of his analysis.
Three from me and four from TOD criticisms of his analysis.
See: h t t p : / / bit.ly/dmEwa2
I never came back because BK responded with:
"my answers can actually be found hidden in my previous articles" - BK Lim
Answers "hidden"?? That sealed it for me. As I said in that thread:
"I and others read your articles assuming you were acting in good faith; being up front; and stating clearly without artifice what you believed based on your professional experience. Now I find that either you are wriggling out of errors or claiming to be playing silly mind games....
I'm a hard-nosed journalist. And my job is to put hard questions. The above questions are not trivial and the public deserve straight answers. So, when I get a runaround and talk of 'hidden answers' in response to simple and logical questions, that's a red flag." -Fintan
1) My first question was about BK's statement:
"It is therefore intriguing that Well A should be more
than 520ft SSE of DWH's surface location." -BK Lim
than 520ft SSE of DWH's surface location." -BK Lim
Later, in another article he says::
"The well that blew up on 20 April was... S20BC, is approximately...
720 ft NNW of Well A and just 120ft NW of DWHs surface location. " - BK Lim
720 ft NNW of Well A and just 120ft NW of DWHs surface location. " - BK Lim
Taking 120ft from 720 feet I get 600ft - not 520ft
Even worse, in another graphic the 720ft appears as 750ft.
This 500-700 ft stuff is based on "forensic analysis" of the sea floor wreckage. When relying on someone's 'forensics' I like to see the ability to make figures add up.
In another article BK comes up with the official coast guard log report of DWH having drifted off the initial surface location by 714 feet. He says it was no drift, and it was 714 feet off when it blew. But it's his mere supposition that there was no drift. So we go from a seemingly definitive statement about the DWH location ... to a supposition.
And that was the only question of mine he came even near answering.
2) No answer on where the pool of burning oil around the DWH came from --if as he and Simmons claim the BOP was blown and riser severed(thus no path for concentrated flow to surface).
3) Actually BK doesn't need to answer point three about how come all charts show the well(s) nowhere near a salt dome - the central point of his thesis. Because as I quote in the question, his article on that issue already says:
"Thus, while a salt dome is selected for the model, any vertical
geological structure like an intrusive dyke or a vertically inclined
fault zone (lateral fault), would essentially produce the same effects." - BK Lim
geological structure like an intrusive dyke or a vertically inclined
fault zone (lateral fault), would essentially produce the same effects." - BK Lim
And we all thought all those nice diagrams of a salt dome meant he was saying the DWH well was near a salt dome!!
And he never answered any of the four main points raised by Berman on TheOilDrum which I had also put to him.
You know the drill. When someone challenges technical information, you quote the challenges and answer them specifically and technically. BK simply doesn't do this. Answers he doesn't wish to address are ignored.
Berman had said:
"The idea that multiple vertically stacked reservoirs can communicate along the flank of a vertical salt feature is not supported by modern data. Reservoirs are separated by sealing shales."
"The idea that multiple vertically stacked reservoirs can communicate along the flank of a vertical salt feature is not supported by modern data. Reservoirs are separated by sealing shales."
Which is point that requires a concise, credible technical answer --specific to the question.
Berman also said:
"Lim's thesis is that any salt dome flank well is effectively doomed from the outset because of pressure communication. Thousands of wells have been drilled on salt dome flanks in the onshore and offshore Gulf Coast over the past 80-90 years that do not support this assumption."
"Lim's thesis is that any salt dome flank well is effectively doomed from the outset because of pressure communication. Thousands of wells have been drilled on salt dome flanks in the onshore and offshore Gulf Coast over the past 80-90 years that do not support this assumption."
Now, call me relentless, but I'd like to see answers to those specific questions. Technical answers in the language of geohazard technical analysis. Don't bother talking down to us or simplifying for the layman. Answer technically, and others can then make technical sense of it. I'm an experienced technical journalist and there are many others. And we are well capable of interpreting technical arguments.
On past record, I don't expect to get those technical answers. I expect to get more playing to the gallery and name-calling.
Even in this latest BK Lim article I find further confusion od the issues. BK quotes me asking whether the BP well(s) are on the flank of a slat dome or not. But this article is all about the wells being on the flank of an escarpment - not a salt dome. Where is the salt dome? What proof is there that the salt dome exists? Or are we back to the excuse that, as BK said:
"while a salt dome is selected for the model, any vertical geological structure like an intrusive dyke or a vertically inclined fault zone (lateral fault), would essentially produce the same effects."
If you are stating the well was on the flank of a salt dome, prove it. Show it's location. If not we can move on to the question of whether ot not other features would indeed produce "essentially the same effects".
The vagueness of the word "essentially" is unsatisfactory.
I put the seven questions to Bk Lim on 18th August. Here we are weeks later and by charitable assessment BK has managed to address two of the seven questions.
Meanwhile he plows on regardless.
I'd advise BK to post on TOD and then we can all judge on the merits of his technical arguments and their responses. Or answer the questions technically and others can repost them on TOD.
"many impartial bloggers seemed to think my geohazards
assessment made a lot more sense." - BK Lim
assessment made a lot more sense." - BK Lim
That's not the point. The point is whether your analysis stands up to criticism from your peers in the industry.
I hope you are not avoiding proper technical argument which directly addresses critiques of your views -in order to mislead "impartial bloggers" --who may lack understanding of the formal procedure for evidential assessment of technical argument.
You answer one question, ................. one only.......... Does TOD take money from BP?
- 12
- !
That is a very good question FreeBird. Pure and simple. Perhaps you should also direct this "pure and simple question" to Fintan also.
My priority is seeking and disseminating the truth. Questions and genuine queries deserve top priority and my urgent attention. Detractors will just have to wait to be trashed, in good time.
Fintan's questions make no sense so I have to take some time to answer as he is very good in twisting words as you can judge from his comments.
Regarding the geology, faults, domes and salt, many who are more knowledgeable than me (including Dr Bea recently) had already confirmed their existence in the region so why is Fintan still harping on this. I will confine my answer to my geological model only. If only Fintan cares to read my articles, he will find the answers to his questions. If he wants to be further embarrassed with the "guns fired at point blank" I will be glad to oblige. They will be coming sure and good. My recent charts and articles are published first so that the BP's goons and Fintan cannot backtrack.
A quick preview of what is to come.....To judge who is spinning the truth, see 3 three of their previous claims (more coming)
Claim#1 - They claimed that I ran away ......... True or False ?
oilfield brat on August 19, 2010 - 1:50am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments topFintan,You gave Lim a few accurate jabs and, instead of putting up a good defense, he/she ran away from the fight while mumbling something incoherent about whipping you later. Hilarious, thanks for the link and good luck over on newsvine.
Claim#2 - Well A was nowhere near a steep flank ....... but in a valley .... are they not? True or False ?
one of Fintan's 7 pointed questions where they thought they had me cornered.3) In more graphics from another previous article:Yet in this article you show the rig 520 feet from well A and thus nowhere near a steep salt dome flank:bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/14/4884549-dwh-blowout-csi-why-it-could-not-have-happened-as-reported-by-bp-Whether the well was at Well A location or 520ft NNW , inneither case is it anywhere near a steep salt dome flank. Those locations are in a valley between domes, are they not?
Claim#3 - Smokescreen of runaround....instead of straightforward answers....from BK? True or False ?
Fintan
Site AdminJoined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 3897A "twisted tale" indeed.Why not 4 Wells? Or 5?BK Lim is simply raising on a bluff hand.I put straightforward questions to BK Lim and got a smokescreen
of runaround in response, instead of straightforward answers.
- 11
- !
"The well that blew up on 20 April was... S20BC, is approximately...
720 ft NNW of Well A and just 120ft NW of DWHs surface location. " - BK LimTaking 120ft from 720 feet I get 600ft - not 520ftEven worse, in another graphic the 720ft appears as 750ft.This 500-700 ft stuff is based on "forensic analysis" of the sea floor wreckage. When relying on someone's 'forensics' I like to see the ability to make figures add up.
Fintan - do you know the meaning of "APPROXIMATELY"? Accuracy clearly stated as +/- 25 ft. I downloaded his chart (very small) could not get exactly 720ft scaling out his chart but 700 to 750 ft around should be good enough. If the numbers don't add to the 1 ft accuracy on this small chart, it simply means he had estimated the dist from the "rough map" which I believe was taken from your blog on 9 Aug. You should be suspicious if the figures match up to the nearest feet (as in the bathy chart). 50 ft is a very very small dist out there in the open sea. Why are you cherry-picking the irrelevant INCONSEQUENTIAL errors?
Why don't you challenge his method of analysis instead? Can you come up with a better analysis?
Having work in the industry myself, it is ludicrous people like you pushing the numbers into absurdity. That's the problem with the bathy as well. Bull@!$%# 4992 ft? when resolution limit is 15ft Read again. BK trying to assert you cannot get 1 ft accuracy. Isn't this what you are trying to spin?
Get real man. If you had been caught on the wrong foot admit it. Don't push & try to wiggle your way out. If you do not know BK yet, then I think you are in for a big big surprise. He is not known to be the "fighting cock" for nuthing.
- 11
- !
« Reply #9 on: August 14, 2010, 10:10:19 PM »It's Tuttlet's map.He spent days getting co-ords cyphered out.--mf
Fintan, Did you nick Tuttlet's map without giving him any credit? In your blog http://fintandunne.com/BP-Immaculate-Deception.htm
The title on the chart == Mocando ROV Map Ver 1.0 - Prepared by Fintan Dunne - 9th August 2010.
Bat@!$%#Crazy« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2010, 08:43:51 PMStrange the the coordinates map is identical to the one created by Tuttlet and posted here months ago! At least the color key is spot on the same. I wonder who the person is that "prepared" that map in August? hmmmm.
Looks like the original title - "Seaflloor around BP's Macondo Well centred on the Blowout BOP - last updated june 18 2010" was compiled by Tuttlet. What have you got to say to that?
- 11
- !
Freebirdreaming
You are so right on........you just delivered a knock-out punch!
Always check the 'source'......follow the money trails........- loded advertisements by BP???
- 12
- !
Fintan
List the 7 questions you want BK Lim to answer, for the Readers' benefit, especially those who just joined in. Afterall, you did say -"let the readers judge".
More importantly, there will be No more twisting and spinning to create 'confusion'.once and for all.
- 11
- !
1) My first question was about BK's statement:"It is therefore intriguing that Well A should be more than 520ft SSE of DWH's surface location." -BK Lim"The well that blew up on 20 April was... S20BC, is approximately... 720 ft NNW of Well A and just 120ft NW of DWHs surface location. " - BK LimTaking 120ft from 720 feet I get 600ft - not 520ft Even worse, in another graphic the 720ft appears as 750ft.This 500-700 ft stuff is based on "forensic analysis" of the sea floor wreckage. When relying on someone's 'forensics' I like to see the ability to make figures add up.
Fintan, either you are really confused and do not understand the forensic analyses OR deliberately (should I say desperately) grabbing all numbers and mixing them up to confuse the casual readers. I really did not expect you to scoop so low. But on the other hand, this looks very similar to BP's goons twisted logic and modus operandi.
The estimated distance (720ft NNW) from well A to S20BC (blowout crater) is independent of all other measurements. My analysis was based on the debris chart (emailed to me) supposedly compiled by you until I was informed later by another source that it was compiled by Tuttlet.
It beats me why you needed to add or subtract these numbers. The centre of the circle connecting the debris is the sea surface location of DWH whose radius works out to be approx 520 ft. (+/- 25 ft). In the ballistic-analysis-of-dwh-riser-wreck, I had argued that it was impossible for Well A to be drilled from the centre of the debris circle (sea level location of DWH) is more than 520 ft SSE away from Well A at seabed. All the distances for this scenario were given to prove theimprobability of Well A being the well drilled and blew up on 20 Apr 2010. I think this is plain enough for everyone to understand. See extract below or read the full article again.
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;
Since Well A was outside the circle, the distance from the surface location of DWH to Well A has to be greater than 520 ft. There is no need for any calculation - since it is a straight estimation and has nothing to do with 720ft or 750 ft. Period.
Fintan the intention to mislead is very clear with your "devious calculation plucking the numbers at random". Why did you not quote where the 750 ft come from?
This came from the recent diagram Fig1C in the-diagrammatic-illustration-that-says-it-all. You had misleadingly implymy forensic analysis was wrong because at 520ft NNW of Well A, the blowout location (S20BC) would be over the flank and on top of the dome. This therefore contradicted the diagrammatic illustration and thus the inconsistencies in my geological model.
That posting was meant to answer your wrong assertion. Since you did not get it (purposely to confuse other readers) I will explain again.
I intentionally left out the "A" from the "Well Location" label because it was supposed to represent any well drilled near the flank of the dome. You and those BP's Goons at TOD, having to scrap the bottom of the barrel for want of argument, twisted the "Well Location" to mean Well A. See how the twisted or preconceived minds work?
The label “Well Location” intentionally left out the alphabet “A” as it was intended to be the well that was actually drilled which forensic analyses of the seabed debris determined to be 720 ft NNW of Well A.
Knowing full well that my "qualitative model" would be twisted, I had the foresight to include a scale indication by plotting theTexaco Rigel Well and inserting the distance 2 km from Well Location. That is why when you forwarded those questions, I told you via email I had the perfect answer (really no joke as I had anticipated). After working for 30 years I have seen all these dirty tricks. So you and BP's Goons thought you had me on a tight noose. If you proportionately scale out 2km, you will see that 520 ft is very very small horizontally in that diagram. So even assuming the well S20BC had to move towards the dome (which we don't need to but for argument sake), it would still be on the flank of the Dome, is it not?
I know you quoted 520 ft but I intentionally used 750ft to show that even on a larger distance, it would not make any difference as it would still be on the flank. This also demonstrates the pettiness in your argument. So far the validity of the geological model is unshakable. An inaccurate model would have fallen apart by now.
You show the BP well on a steep slope of a salt dome.Yet in this article you show the rig 520 feet from well A and thus nowhere near a steep salt dome flank:
bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/14/4884549-dwh-blowout-csi-why-it-could-not-have-happened-as-reported-by-bp-
Why did I use 750ft? Whether it is 720 ft or 520 ft or 750 ft, it really does not matter. But I wanted to round it up to show that distance is inconsequential. Just like in the bathy problem, you and BP's goons at TOD had to choose the least important points and make a mountain out of a mole hill. Your dirty tricks are all documented and exposed. Why subject yourself to further embarrassment? Sorry I have to be so crude but remember, you ask for it. And you thought you had me checkmate!
So if the numbers do not add up as imagined by you, it is because it was not suppose to add up. Now which part do you still not understand?
- 12
- !
3) Actually BK doesn't need to answer point three about how come all charts show the well(s) nowhere near a salt dome - the central point of his thesis. Because as I quote in the question, his article on that issue already says:
"Thus, while a salt dome is selected for the model, any vertical
geological structure like an intrusive dyke or a vertically inclined
fault zone (lateral fault), would essentially produce the same effects." - BK LimAnd we all thought all those nice diagrams of a salt dome meant he was saying the DWH well was near a salt dome!!
Fintan - anyone with a little bit of competency in English can see that you are deliberately beating around the bush. Either you are a nuthead or you are at the end of your wits to salvage your credibility. Anyway since you asked to be totally embarrassed in a public forum I shall oblige.
Even in this latest BK Lim article I find further confusion od the issues. BK quotes me asking whether the BP well(s) are on the flank of a slat dome or not. But this article is all about the wells being on the flank of anescarpment - not a salt dome. Where is the salt dome? What proof is there that the salt dome exists? Or are we back to the excuse that, as BK said:
In geological context, an Escarpment is a long steep slope at the edge of a plateau or dome or any up-lifted/raised landform. An escarpment can vary from tens of feet to a few thousand feet.
BP's 3D geologists had identified the escarpment as being a low-relief escarpment approximately 1,000 ft to the south of “A” location. In actual fact the wells are on the escarpment itself. Which part do you still not understand?
From your earlier and still misleading questions on the "flank, salt dome, escarpment, valleys", it is very clear you, BP's geo who wrote the hazards assessment, BP's goons at TOD (A Berman, Rockman etc) who had advised you, have completelymissed the forest for the trees. It is like the three Blind Men touching the Elephant. The reason the seabed profile was digitised and plotted to scale is to show how completely off-mark you had been.
You had asserted (not asked) that Well A was in a valley. Surely even a 10 year old can tell the difference from being on the slope and in a valley. And you still call yourself "an experienced technical journalist".
Didn't your BP's goon geo experts advise you to keep clear of this huge embarrassing mistake on their part?
In case you still don't get it (from all the illustrations and explanation in the articles), Macondo A & B were drilled on the flank (slope) of the southern escarpment of a massive raised landform or salt dome or plateau (please choose the term you like) because they ESSENTIALLY share the same structural meaning without the lithological connotation.
Fintan, another of your repeatedly wrong assertion; "salt dome is the central point of my thesis" could not be further off the mark. The fact you kept highlighting the phrase "any vertical geological structure" suggest you are aware of the key importance of this phrase but you deliberately chose to spin it out of context.
Do you even understand the meaning of a "model". Please look it up in a dictionary instead of showing your ignorance.
My sentence "Thus, while a salt dome is selected for the model, any vertical geological structure like an intrusive dyke or a vertically inclined fault zone (lateral fault), would essentially produce the same effects" meant what it is supposed to portray, no more no less.
It does not necessary mean A SALT DOME is essential to produce the deformation, fractures, fissures and faulting caused by an intrusive body into the country rocks. The escarpment on the seabed is the manifestation of that intrusion. If you must know I spent more than an hour to formulate that sentence to cover almost all geological possibilities on that structure. I would suggest you give up your hopeless cause of trying to discredit this geological model at the behest of your paymaster.
Fintan, so far all your questions had been twisting around the superficial layman terms. When are you going to start asking some real geophysical or geological questions for a change? One must wonder why you specifically rated my article on the geological illustration and model as being excellent when you have not satisfied upon yourself the doubts you had on these inconsequential (non-deeply geological) details. You even wrote a special report on it - BP's Immaculate Deception showing my diagrammatic illustration you so repeatedly criticised without any basis. Why have you quietly replaced the subject matter of your original article "BP's Immaculate Deception - Special Report" without telling your readers WHY? Don't you think you owe your readers an explanation?
-------- Original Message --------Subject: BP's Immaculate Deception - Special ReportDate: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:57:13 +0700From: Fintan Dunne <fintan@fintandunne.com>Reply-To: Fintan Dunne <fintan@fintandunne.com>
Hi,
Thanks for your latest exellent Mocando article. Thought you might be interested in this analysis which I just published:
regards
Fintan
- 10
- !
Fintan
I also want to ask One Question only......Did you steal Tuttlet's chart?
- 9
- !
Fintan Dunne says: September 9, 2010 at 12:49 amJbao: “Tuttlet spent days plotting it and
you nicked it without giving him credit.
I first ask this question on 4 Sep 2010
and still waiting…………hehehe”Tuttlet himself confirms what happened
in this post he made on Doomers forum:“Alex’s site gave the correct linking at the
time, but Fintan was unable to follow the link
due to problems with the forum.”
http://www.doomers.biz/forum2/index.php/topic,73524.msg1148585.html#msg1148585Around then, Doomers forum was having service outages of up to half a day at a time, as is clear from other posts on the forum itself.Another poorly researched troll “fact”…..Nice cult. Have fun.
Jay bao, Fintan answered your question at Alex's Blog. http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/09/03/bk-lim-fires-bp-shills-oil-drum-forensic-analysis-bp-bathymetric-chart-4478/comment-page-1/#comments
BK Lim says:September 9, 2010 at 4:03 amFintan Dunne, To put matters into correct perspective.You sent me an email on 10 Aug alerting me on your report -BP’s Immaculate Deception-Special report.It was just what I needed for my CSI article which I had discussed with you. I downloaded it thinking you had prepared it. “Prepared by Fintan Dunne – 9th August 2010”. The meaning of this phrase is unmistakable. There was no credit given to Tuttlet even though it was identical to Tuttlet’s original map, no change or any addition at all to the chart itself.See the comment by Bat@!$%#Crazy.Strange the the coordinates map is identical to the one created by Tuttlet and posted here months ago! At least the color key is spot on the same. I wonder who the person is that “prepared” that map in August? hmmmm.
http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php/topic,73524.msg1145889.html#msg1145889I was alerted by some readers as soon as I published the said CSI article; that I had wrongly attributed the credit to you, Fintan. After checking the link above, I quickly amended the chart by adding “Original Chart compiled by Tuttlet”. I believe Tuttlet’s “Nice to be given credit” phrase meant the amended chart given in my CSI article, not to you Fintan for not even mentioning him at all in your post.So the link you provided in your answer, is another twist to cover up your “deceptive pinching”. Tuttlet was just being nice. Irrespective of whether “Fintan was able or unable to follow the link due to problems with the forum” you should not have claimed to have prepared the chart as clearly shown by “Prepared by Fintan Dunne – 9th August 2010”.
- 9
- !
BK Lim
So Fintan why so quiet? Let's see how you wriggle your way out. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!!!!
- 5
- !
BK...a few questions and comment:
COMMENT: 5-6 weeks ago, (before Matt Simmons died), I put a post in the TOD. I was a little upset with their defense of BP and attack of Matt Simmons. I basically said, the authors of the TOD should be ashamed of themselves defending BP. Guess what? They deleted my post and blocked my screen name to log in.
I thought....why on earth delete my post, if it was from a ranting lunatic?
Anyhow....I thought the same thing. Why did so many of the TOD authors have to write an article against Matt Simmons? And how about his death? I have been listening to Matt Simmons for years and read his book. I was shocked of his death, but also realize he didn't look to be in the best health. But a heart attack in a hot tub at a time he was the only one vocal against BP on the mainstream seems suspect still to me.
If Simmons was taken out, it must have been done to keep him quiet as BP has a boatload of DERIVATIVES on their balance sheet that could take down the markets similar to what happened when Lehman and AIG went under in 2008. In speculation...that is why the US GOVT is behind BP in this coverup. The United States is getting ready to disintegrate due to a falling EROI of oil and natural gas. This country was built on cheap oil and will collapse as oil becomes more expensive. Defending BP allows the US GOVT to stay alive a bit longer.
QUESTION:
1) If the BOP did blow off the well in the beginning of the blowout, how did the natural gas raise 5,000 from the seabed to burn up the Horizon Rig?
2) If the well is open and still spewing out oil....why are we not seeing more oil on the surface of the GOM? Could the flow be slowing or did BP place something down there to make the flow move horizontally rather than vertically?
thanks for your work,
steve
Steve
1) If the BOP did blow off the well in the beginning of the blowout, how did the natural gas raise 5,000 from the seabed to burn up the Horizon Rig?
(1) had been answered to Fintan already through private emails and also publicly. So I cannot understand why he kept insisting his "7 golden questions" remained unanswered.
For (1) to happen, there must be an initial less violent blowout which is primarily gas (to cause the initial fire) and a much more violent one 2 days later, when the cement plug gave way big time. This time the higher pressure (reservoir pressure at 23,000ft bsl) and more oil than gas, really blew off the BOP and damage the wellhead. If you follow this scenario, everything will fall into place.
See my answer on 18 Aug the same day Fintan posted his question.
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/17/4913304-the-art-of-mass-deception-part-1-ballistic-analysis-of-dwh-riser-wreck?threadId=1047125&commentId=16688334#c16676060If you read my posting on the blowout carefully, I did mention that the 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. .............DWH burnt for 2 days fed by gas and oil flowing from the shallow part of the aquifer. I need to explain this in more details with diagrams in coming article (soon).As soon as the pressure in the well dipped below the EGCP (replacing the drilling mud with seawater) gas influx kicked in at the largely unsealed well bore at the GSWF zone. When the gas bubble in the well started to rise and expand with lower pressure, it rapidly displaced the seawater column (>5,000 ft) in the riser. This is like sucking liquid out of a glass with a straw.There must be a second and more powerful explosion when the cement plug at the well bottom breached. The gas and oil from the reservoir at a much higher pressure, exerted more tremendous force; most probably thrust up the drill string and BOP, breaking the lower 1/5 (just an estimate) of the riser. So you see this is still consistent with my recent CSI posting and the video evidence posted by you.#11 - Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:47 PM EDT
When my "DWH blowout CSI - why it could not have happened as reported by BP" was published on 13 Aug, at least20 persons on this planet had the privilege of discussing / informed of my predicted 3rd well (S20BC) weeks before its publication. Credit must be given to J Todd who had been hard at work together with our small group BP Truth research group, in sending me the hard evidence 9 days later on 22 Aug.
Sad to say, Fintan was one of those previleged few to know of my theories and preparation before I published them on my column. I had given him the soft reply approach initially as I thought we were all part of the team seeking the truth. Fintan and BP's goons twisted it into "weak response, wiggle my way out, red flag, cannot be trusted, credibility busted, no answer etc" to discredit me or condemn me beyond redemption.
I leave to the readers to judge the truth. Stay tune as more will be revealed.
- 11
- !
my question WAS directed at, is the name finton?....... hehehe.
- 11
- !
Freebird
But the question should be changed to "Did YOU (FINTOD) also take money from BP? ....hehehe
- 12
- !
2) If the well is open and still spewing out oil....why are we not seeing more oil on the surface of the GOM? Could the flow be slowing or did BP place something down there to make the flow move horizontally rather than vertically?
I have not seen ROV video of that location since 1st week of June. If anyone see them plse give me the links. The depth / coordinates should be
depth 4,970
E1,202,504.06
N10,432,302.84
The earlier videos all had -Dispersant Ops label on the screen. That is probably why so much corexit was used. Notice that 3 months were immediately declared for drilling the relief wells. Now it is coming to 4 1/2 months already. With a tantalising <5 feet why are they still hesitating? Probably bec the open gushers had not depleted as much as they had wished. There are several reasons for their hesitation.
E1,202,504.06
N10,432,302.84
The earlier videos all had -Dispersant Ops label on the screen. That is probably why so much corexit was used. Notice that 3 months were immediately declared for drilling the relief wells. Now it is coming to 4 1/2 months already. With a tantalising <5 feet why are they still hesitating? Probably bec the open gushers had not depleted as much as they had wished. There are several reasons for their hesitation.
If the open well is blocked at the seabed , the oil and gas will just find new pathways and there is no lack of shallow faults.
- 11
- !
There are a bunch of oil hogs sucking at the BP tit, and knowing a little more about your end of this mess, and reading the intraction of the posts, I find myself waiting for the next.
I really enjoy watching you take the phoneys to the ambush of exposure, and detraction.
AS you can tell, I have no tolerance for imposters that are oil infused through their wallets, and I name one everychance I get. Jane Lubchenco.
- 6
- !
Hope this isn't a double post:)
Love your work BK. I am praying everyday that BP is exposed to the world for the deception, harm and destruction they are perpetrating on our soil.
From your diagram - it appears if the slope is steep enough - and the DWH is as large as I have read, why would it even have to move to drill the wells, because from what I gather all they would have to drill at an angle and who would know?
Just curious.
Also, noting they are using ROV's that no longer show coordinates.
How do we know what the heck is going on down there or where it is taking place.
Please keep up the good work - you are doing a great service.
Welcome ETH
From your diagram - it appears if the slope is steep enough - and the DWH is as large as I have read, why would it even have to move to drill the wells, because from what I gather all they would have to drill at an angle and who would know?
Thank you for your questions - which I think are very important. In shallow waters, where 3-legged jackup is used, steep slopes may be a physical problem but not in deep water using semi-sub. But steep slopes especially Convex faces of a structure are indications of undesirable Gas-saturated Weak Sub-Formation (GWSF) zones. And that is the problem. Not the steepness itself but rather what the steepness represents. I have to qualify myself, not all steep slopes have the same problems and not all steep slopes cannot be drilled safely.
But given a flat surface and a steep one, the former is preferred only in this one aspect of the safety assessment. There are other considerations and varying degree of risks with different geological conditions - that is why shallow geohazards specialists are needed to see the first thousand metres or so. Just by looking at the MMS BP Permit, it appears that 3D exploration data was used. Basically you cannot ask a heart surgeon to do a dentist job even though the heart surgeon may earn many times the salary of the dentist. If BP had done that, then it is willful negligence. Simple as that.
Sorry for the digression.
Now although DWH may be large, the drilling tower and drilling equipment is the same - essentially one point. The DWH is dynamically positioned. Moving 300ft is nothing compared to a semi-sub with anchors at shallower water which could take days since each anchor had be positioned dropped and set - a tedious and time consuming task. So if anchors had been used I would understand the reluctance to move but not a DP semi-sub.
With modern drilling technology they could drill from an angle but would any one drill from 720 ft away when they could drill from directly above (give & take 100-200 ft). I suppose if they like the challenge of a slant riser making a steeper with the vertical BOP, they could from a few hundred metres away but would that be logical?
- 11
- !
Wow, there is a lot of info here. Well, resolution seems to be key. I'd like to focus on, "..If BP's internal mapping using 3D exploration data took precedence over the previous shallow geohazards report in any way, then it would be difficult for BP to wiggle their way out of willful negligence." ....So true.
I'm new to your column, and so far have found credence and interest in your articles. Thank you!
CL1
You are very welcomed. There will be more interesting posts. stay tuned.
- 12
- !
Sorry if this is a dumb question.......
Why does the sea floor topography even matter? Why does it matter if the well is on a slope or in a valley? I know enough geology ( one year in college) to know that the structure of the underlying rocks two miles down might look nothing like the topography of the surface.
It is late, I am tired, but I miss the point. Does it actually make a difference when you dig a well if it is on a slope or not? I have a garden well on a sloping hill but the water comes up just fine, the same as if it was on a level spot. The underlying deposit of water ( 25 feet) isn't affected by the hill, so why would this in any way matter for an oil well? Are you just trying to point out how inept BP was in their plans?
Thanks.
No Lynnie It is not a dumb question and I am happy to answer.
Why does the sea floor topography even matter? Why does it matter if the well is on a slope or in a valley? I know enough geology ( one year in college) to know that the structure of the underlying rocks two miles down might look nothing like the topography of the surface.
Part of the answer is already given in #10.1
Sea floor topography is important because it gives us a larger framework to work with. The Macondo site is a very good example. If you were to look at the bathymetry alone, it tells you of a smooth sloping seabed with is not consistent with 3.3 to 10.5 degree slopes. Then you check it out on the satellite image, you will see that the Macondo site covers a small section of a massive escarpment. Actually if escarpment can be seen on the 3D exploration data, it could not be small. It is due to the smearing of the 3D data at the shallow end that the escarpment appears as a line and low relief. It was a mistake to use the 3D exploration data to assess the shallow hazards. It is like asking the dentist to carry out your medical diagnosis.
Because of inadequate survey coverage, resolution, time constraints and many other reasons, seafloor topography can give a quick overview of what to expect. Many times it is the case of missing the forest for the trees. Seafloor topography is a check against that. I had used it for 30 years to identify site problems even before I actually go into details with the seismic data. It always gives me a wider perspective to start with. It is always very dangerous for a geohazards specialist to zoom in with a narrow perspective - as is evident in the Macondo Case.
Of course the geology changes as you go deeper but there is still a geological tie to constrain your seismic interpretation. For example if you were to interpret a shallow coastal sequence in the first 1000 ft subseabed and the water depth is currently 1000 m. You know that is impossible because the water depth could not have risen so much. Alternatively uniform deep water sequence (sub seabed) cannot be consistent with current shallow water morphology. In my QC I picked up a lot of such geological inconsistencies.
So there are many other uses, the above is just to illustrate the usefulness which had not been given due consideration.
Does it actually make a difference when you dig a well if it is on a slope or not? I have a garden well on a sloping hill but the water comes up just fine, the same as if it was on a level spot. The underlying deposit of water ( 25 feet) isn't affected by the hill, so why would this in any way matter for an oil well? Are you just trying to point out how inept BP was in their plans?
The answer to slope is given in #10.1 There is a lot of difference between water well and oil well. This is not the column to discuss this.
The purpose of the forensic analysis on the bathymetry is to point out the blunders that had resulted from a flawed bathymetry.
Steve
My answers to your questions are in #8.1 and #8.4. Sorry I had to include Fintan inside your answer because it partly answers his questions too (he kept saying it was not answered).
No problem. I have read #8.1 and #8.4 and understand much better now. One more thing. Why do you think the so called "GOONS" at the TOD are supporting and defending BP? Do you think they have been paid off? Or are they that mislead?
It really is fishy that the TOD who has put a great deal of Matt Simmons work on their website in the past have made him look like a NUT CASE since the DWH Blowout. I wonder what Stuart Staniford would think of the recent trend of the TOD. I have not seen him post in several years on the TOD.
Looking forward to your future work.
- 9
- !
Interesting....what a shame. I hope Nate Hagens is not included in that bunch. Mostly the engineers like ROCKMAN and HEADING OUT aye.
BKlim, as I mentioned in a previous post, I have heard speculation that the reason the US GOVT is backing BP is due to its fragile situation if it went bellyup taking down the Derivatives market with it. Do you think this theory has any validity?
- 9
- !
Steve
You have to put yourself in BP shoes. We are seeing the disaster thru BP's videos. The unguided mind is indeed dangerous. They had to release the data as ordered by Congress. If they don't do something they will definitely go to jail. Mass deception is a finer form of Mass Propaganda which can't work in a free country like America. What better way to influence the public than by providing "these free guided tours" by industry experts.
Who is Stuart Staniford by the way?
- 9
- !
Steve
Politics, share markets and economics are not within my grasp. I like to read but have little to contribute. We should ask someone else.
No BP do not have to buy up all just the few key fellows. The rest will follow. They wouldn't too many to know too.
- 9
- !
Got Cha....Stuart Staniford has the designation of EMERITUS on the TOD. He was one of the first top contributors to the TOD when it started.
My background as being an independent researcher has focused on the economy and energy. Very few people have done research in EROI (energy returned on invested). David Murphy who is the EROI specialist on the TOD has worked under Charles Hall, Professor at the State Univeristy of New York. Hall, Gagnon and Lysle wrote a paper on the GLOBAL EROI in June 2009.
They stated that the GLOBAL EROI of oil and natural gas was 26/1 in 1992, 35/1 in 1999 and 18/1 in 2006. Culter Cleveland did a study of US EROI and stated that in 1930's it was 100/1, 1970 it was 30/1 and in 2000 it was 11/1. As we can see the EROI is falling which produces less NET ENERGY for market. The Peaking of Oil is bad enough, but the falling EROI will make a bad situation much worse.
The only thing keeping the United States alive is the ILLUSION of the value of the US DOLLAR. This is why Derivatives have played such an important role keeping money out of commodities and into worthless financial products (i.e. Annuities, Bonds, Treasuries, 401k's, CD's and etc). The day the US TREASURY MARKET CRACKS, is the day the price of commodities head toward the moon. This will also be the final nail the kills the US SUBURBAN LEECH and SPEND ECONOMY.
I didn't put this information in to PREACH or BORE you or the reader of your blog, but to warn others that there are more SMOKE and MIRRORS going on than the DWH disaster.
I enjoy your work and hope the truth get's out sooner than later.
GLOBAL EROI of oil and natural gas was 26/1 in 1992,...........
Looks interesting but could explain the fig 26/1 in 1992 etc means. are they ratio of some sort?
- 9
- !
BK Lim.....yes, using the 26/1 ratio means for every 1 dollar of energy cost, in 1992, the world got 26 dollars of energy for market. When the United States was finding oil like water in the 1930's, the oil industry was supplying 100 dollars of energy for every 1 dollar invested. In 2000 it was 11/1. I imagine today it must be somewhere between 5-7/1. This is indeed the problem facing the United States. And the reason why I believe they have backed BP on this GOM disaster.
Hall used a linear extrapolation of the 26/1-35/1-18/1 chart and plotted that the GLOBAL EROI would reach 1/1 by 2035. Which means, you get 1 dollar of oil for every dollar invested....a zero sum game. They also stipulated that an advanced society needs at least a 3/1 EROI to survive, but higher if you want all the modern necessities of life. You now see the problem we are facing?
Again.....I appreciate you information as it makes sense why BP and the US has hid this from the public. I can almost see their motiviation....but don't agree with the coverup.
BK Lim, I believe the United States will not see a 2012 presidential election. It will disintegrate just like the former USSR did in 1989. Over extended and indebted to the moon. The big difference between the USSR and USA, the USSR only consumed 3 mbd of oil in their economy and could export 6-7 million. The USA only produces about 6 mbd and needs to import about 12-13 to run its SUBURBAN LEECH and SPEND ECONOMY....a lopsided situation indeed.
Well...enough of my ranting.....look forward to more info
- 9
- !
I found your economic info interesting, Steve. ..even though off-topic - it's in a way ..on-topic.. as part of the deceit.
- 9
- !
Steve .. this is indeed interesting. You should write more on this more often. Like I suspected the massive shares sell off before the disaster was one tell-tale sign. Now I am beginning to see there are far more important and bigger issues behind all these cover-ups.
....the economic, political, social and environmental impact of this disaster is going to be huge ... wow that's all I can say. We all better wake up.
- 9
- !
LOL BK - Here is a repost for Steve also - posted it wrong thread. That's what I get for posting so early in the morning.
BK, Steve:
From your comments I thought you might be interested in the interview Jim Puplava – Financialsense.com did with Nicole Foss (theautomaticearth) on this weekends financial sense newshour. Very worthwhile for those who believe our energy, financial, economic structure is about to undergo a dramatic transformation.
small excerpt:
And I think over the next few years, finance is going to rewrite the energy debate. Which is not to say that, you know, I in any way deny peak oil. Obviously, I think peak oil is a fact, is a given, but I think that the way finance is going to interact with peak oil is absolutely critical. And I would say though that you can look at peak oil in two ways, you can look at the finances of peak oil, which is what I used to do at The Oil Drum when I was editor at The Oil Drum Canada, and what the whole Oil Drum site has always done, you can also look at it as a phenomenon of human herding behavior, which is completely divorced from the science, this is people’s perception of oil supply, of relative scarcity versus glut.
And if you look at the price maximums, the price maximums of oil are driven by perception. Those are not necessarily reflective of the science at any given time. And I was saying at the time when we saw oil at $147 a barrel my view was, our view at The Auotmatic Earth was that we were about to see oil prices fall off a cliff, because of what was about to happen in finance, and that’s exactly in fact what happened.
And I think the runup we’ve had secondarily, I think we’re going to see the same kind of thing, I think oil prices are going to fall a long way because we’re going to see demand fall as we move into depression. But demand collapse is going to set up a supply collapse. While it buys you time initially, so that finance is the driver not so much energy supply, because you still have energy supply geared to a previous higher level of demand, so that really will drastically undercut price support. However moving forward, low prices are likely to mean no investment, no exploration, no drilling, no maintenance, and all of these things are going to set up a supply collapse a few years down the line.
So what financial crisis does, while it buys you time initially, it aggravates the situation with peak oil in the longer term…...
end of excerpt.
Reply
BK Lim
eth, No problemo.
That's BP's strategy when they capped the wrong well (Well A) which probably had been leaking since Feb 13 since it was unlikely they plugged it. Maybe the leak was not so severe then but after Well B was plugged, the leak at Well A became worse. Then when Well S20BC blew, oil from the reservoir really flow in the highly permeable pathways from months of erosion by flowing fluid, mixture of gas, water, drilling mud and cement.
Yes it looks like they might not want to gamble on the relief well. The relief wells were drilled in case their scam was discovered. Now that their Mass Deception had duped the world so well, why risk blowing up the situation again. My guess is they will let the well bleed. Tony at the start of the disaster already said "this is a tiny leak in a very wide big ocean". You have to wonder why a full grown man with a Phd and >30 years of professional experience would make an understatement like that.
Now that the world has officially accepted BP's flawed storyline, they can get down to the real business of destroying the environment all over the world. This disaster is only one of the major battles in the War between Right Vs Wrong.
- 9
- !
#26 - Wed Sep 8, 2010 3:39 AM PDTTo expand on your take a little bit - how convenient there was another blow out to cover up the amount of oil being dumped into the gulf. I wouldn't put it past them for "new" major leaks to occur to account for the oil & plumbs that just keep giving and giving and giving.
You are correct - eventually it will enter the gulf stream, the Atlantic and kill all in its wake.
This is in my view going to eventually become evident to anyone who cares to see it for what it really is.
- 9
- !
#27 - Wed Sep 8, 2010 4:35 AM PDTBK
Just wanted to add a comment to your remark: This disaster is only one of the major battles in the War between Right Vs Wrong
Of late sadly to say in this country we are seeing the triumph of evil over good in all areas of our lives, be it govt, corporations, markets, you name it. I never thought I would live to see this day.
But I have. It's a horrible example of what money does to people when it becomes their "god" - the end justifying the means for everything they do.
When you get the power of the entire world in the hands of the few power mongers, BP's of the world proliferate, like cockroaches in a kitchen.
So your few words are telling us there's a scary world ahead of us.
- 9
- !
#28 - Wed Sep 8, 2010 5:00 AM PDTJaybao:
"Fintan - I also want to ask One Question only......
Did you steal Tuttlet's chart?"
Did you steal Tuttlet's chart?"
Tuttlet himself confirms what happened
in this post he made on Doomers forum:
in this post he made on Doomers forum:
“Alex’s site gave the correct linking at the
time, but Fintan was unable to follow the link
due to problems with the forum.”
http://www.doomers.biz/forum2/index.php/topic,73524.msg1148585.html#msg1148585
time, but Fintan was unable to follow the link
due to problems with the forum.”
http://www.doomers.biz/forum2/index.php/topic,73524.msg1148585.html#msg1148585
Around then, Doomers forum was having service outages of up to half a day at a time, as is clear from other posts on the forum itself.
Another poorly researched troll “fact”…..
Nice cult. Have fun.
- 1
- !
#30 - Wed Sep 8, 2010 9:59 PM PDTheheh............. finton, you never answered me?............ how much BP money funds the words that come out of your keyboard?
;)
- 6
- !
Fintan's comment has been answered at #7.11 of this article. My answer is reproduced here:
Jay bao, Fintan answered your question at Alex's Blog. http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/09/03/bk-lim-fires-bp-shills-oil-drum-forensic-analysis-bp-bathymetric-chart-4478/comment-page-1/#comments
BK Lim says:September 9, 2010 at 4:03 amFintan Dunne, To put matters into correct perspective.You sent me an email on 10 Aug alerting me on your report -BP’s Immaculate Deception-Special report.It was just what I needed for my CSI article which I had discussed with you. I downloaded it thinking you had prepared it. “Prepared by Fintan Dunne – 9th August 2010”. The meaning of this phrase is unmistakable. There was no credit given to Tuttlet even though it was identical to Tuttlet’s original map, no change or any addition at all to the chart itself.See the comment by Bat@!$%#Crazy.Strange the the coordinates map is identical to the one created by Tuttlet and posted here months ago! At least the color key is spot on the same. I wonder who the person is that “prepared” that map in August? hmmmm.
http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php/topic,73524.msg1145889.html#msg1145889I was alerted by some readers as soon as I published the said CSI article; that I had wrongly attributed the credit to you, Fintan. After checking the link above, I quickly amended the chart by adding “Original Chart compiled by Tuttlet”. I believe Tuttlet’s “Nice to be given credit” phrase meant the amended chart given in my CSI article, not to you Fintan for not even mentioning him at all in your post.So the link you provided in your answer, is another twist to cover up your “deceptive pinching”. Tuttlet was just being nice. Irrespective of whether “Fintan was able or unable to follow the link due to problems with the forum” you should not have claimed to have prepared the chart as clearly shown by “Prepared by Fintan Dunne – 9th August 2010”.
- 5
- !
Freebird,
Another good question. ... bet you won't get an answer on this one.
- 5
- !
you darn well we won't............... just as BP will never 'answer' either. alas.............
- 5
- !
But we will keep on asking....... until someone listens, right?
If there had been no persistent questioning even when there had been no answers, the world would have been a very very quiet place. I doubt we would even be here having these exchanges.
Do I make sense?
- 7
- !
Mr BK Lim
I stumbled on this site. Excellent work. A lot of information. Interesting. Different. Will read articles now. Thank you.
- 8
- !
#31 - Thu Sep 9, 2010 1:38 AM PDTi am sorry to be so dense, but could you please provide the significance of this fact? why did the slope cause a blowout?
- 2
- !
#32 - Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:16 PM PDT...could you please provide the significance of this fact? why did the slope cause a blowout?
envie
The slope did not cause the blow. The geohazardous implication of beneath the morphology of the seafloor is the significance. The rest of the answer is given in #10.1 and #14.
- 6
- !
and what are those implications, please. i understand your data but not your point.
- 1
- !
envie
Please read my articles and tell me which point you do not understand.
- 5
- !
envie
If you can understand the data then you should understand the point BK is making. Understand these two are your only comments since joining NV. A bit strange isn't? Why don't you educate yourself first by reading BK's other posting. Maybe then you'll understand the point. The points are very clear to the rest of us readers.
- 6
- !
#33 - Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:12 PM PDT
The original post and forum can be found at this link
ReplyDeletehttp://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/03/5039904-forensic-analysis-of-bps-bathymetric-chart?pc=25&sp=0#discussion_nav