- by BK Lim (14 March 2011)
By now it is very clear Thad Daly is not who he claims to be. He had claimed to be a mechanical engineer, fluid engineer and a drilling engineer at different times. Yet discrepancies in his biodata showed he could not possibly be any one of these professional. Chances are he is an out of work rigger, now working as a planted mole on cyberspace. I don't mean to be rude but this arrogant “pro-of-the-wrong-kind” needs to be shown what a jerk he is for going around hounding and belittling fellow bloggers genuinely concerned with the gulf disaster. Seek the proofs from BP. They have all the unadulterated and unscrambled video, not me or anyone else outside BP. We do not need another BP's schill to muddle the truth.
Some of Thad Daly's ranting:
His agenda is to create confusion; hoping the general public would be gullible enough to think his arguments had some basis. Sorry, Thad Daly, your questions and arguments showed you do not have even first year college science. I will have to make it really really simple for your underdeveloped brain because basically I get tired trashing “FB prostitutes” like you and your agenda to keep me engaged with such pseudo-intelligent arguments. Go play elsewhere.
So for this article I will spare some time to answer your totally off the mark assertions. If you are still not thoroughly embarrassed, please try some other therapy like dipping your head in “bovine output” for a change. The reason I am not engaging you on the facebook directly, is because the last two times I did, my computer “burned up”. You and your accomplices are playing a sneaky game of IP stalking. Sorry Thad Daly and gangs, I know your game and you are not going to trap me so easily. Try something else. For my regular readers, take this article as a 101 course in interpretation.
Thad Daly says: About the ROV vids, the key word is " interpretation".Welcome to my world. You just made my day. Interpretation is derived from the verb, interpret. According to Oxford Dictionary:
v. (interpreted, interpreting)
1 explain the meaning of (words, actions, etc.). translate orally the words of a person speaking a different language.
2 perform (a creative work) in a way that conveys one’s understanding of the creator’s ideas. understand as having a particular meaning or significance.
– DERIVATIVES interpretability n. interpretable adj. interpretation n. interpretational adj. interpretative adj. interpretatively adv. interpretive adj. interpretively adv.
ORIGIN ME: from OFr. interpreter or L. interpretari ‘explain, translate’, from interpres, interpret- ‘agent, translator, interpreter’.
Thus to interpret the ancient Egyptian artifacts and graphic writings, you need to understand and be well versed with not just any archaeological knowledge but those related to ancient Egypt. To interpret geological features you need to be trained as a geologist first. Then only can you interpret seismic sections, aerial photographs, satellite images, side scan sonar, MBES, well logs etc into geologically sound representation of the true or natural geology. Geohazards is a special field where in addition to natural geological features and processes, man-made processes and features are analysed as well. Exploration and geohazards may share fundamental geophysics, but their approach and objectives are different.
A damn good geologist does not necessary be good in geohazards analyses and prediction. You only have to read my past papers, site / blowout/incidences investigation reports and QC reports of the last 30 years to see the alarming number of ridiculous mis-interpretation made even by experienced leading geohazards experts working with the world's largest geohazards survey company. Put in simple terms, predicting geohazards accurately and reliably does not depend on the size of your wallet or the company. Very often, the naïve oil companies are impressed by the size of their airguns, length of their vessels, number of offices around the world etc when these meant little in determining the truth of the matter so that a reliable geohazards assessment and prediction can be made.
If so many well-trained, highly paid geologists can and had failed in geohazards interpretation and prediction, what makes you think a rigger with a bogus college degree and pretending to be an drilling/fluid/mechanical (choose one) engineer can succeed? So what takes you so long to realise that the key word is interpretation. Next you are gong to say it is a matter of interpretation. Yes, I have heard that countless times before, especially when the interpreter is wrong. The accuracy and reliability of your interpretation depends a lot on your technical background. A pseudo engineer is no geologist or geophysicist. So stop pretending you can assess and interpret geohazards risks or anything outside the well-bore. You are not cut out for it. Your imbecility knows no bounds and the following answers will show you why.
Thad Daly says: It does not matter if it aerial from 10,000' or ROV at 5,000' below msl.
Aerial photograph recon is totally different from rov photo interpretation in so many aspects. You must be a real retard to say that height or depth does not matter. It does. There is a tremendous difference in pressure, penetration of light, scale of things, density, flow of media, etc etc.
Only a fool would think interpretating an aerial photograph with a 1:10,000 scale taken from 10,000 ft is the same as looking at a limited camera viewport with 1:100 scale taken from tens of metres. If you think a hole on the ground from 10000ft in the air looks the same through an rov camera 5,000 ft below MSL, then your mind has already been screwed.
Thad Daly says: Have you had any training in photo interpretation?
Am I supposed to be impressed with your training credentials? Aerial photo interpretation is part of our geology curriculum. It is irrelevant to what we are discussing.
Thad Daly says: As you can not reach through the ROV vids and collect bottom sample or cut a core your "specil knowledge" is only academic. What is being view and interpretated is physical objects and you can only see the outer surfaces of any objects or bottom structures.
Have you ever told a major oil company like Shell in an emergency boardroom meeting with all the heads of departments, that the piece of “natural rock” shown in the rov video near the BT-05 blowout platform, was not what it was, but a piece of the cemented seafloor blown off by the blowout. Have you ever proven 20 senior Shell managers (engineers, drillers, geo, etc) wrong? They had all agreed to shut down the Barton A platform following the blowout, after watching the frightening rov videos of collapsing seafloor, cracks and craters on the seafloor spewing columns of gas. They were all convinced by the rov video of an imminent collapse. I watched the same videos at the same time and came out with a totally different view. That my friend is the difference between a geohazards specialist and the exploration experts. That platform is still standing today after 20 years.
Have you ever been given “needle in a haystack” search missions and found them all; 1988 BP – lost well heads, 2004 Shell, buried well head 5 m, 2005 Shell lost and abandoned pipelines (24 from 8 charted ones), 2008 Otto Energy – lost piles and mooring chains, 2008 – undetected fibre optic cables etc. Many of them proven with recovery, lost records, rov video etc. Of course I do not expect you to understand the implications of all these.
I have saved many oil companies millions of dollars by sticking out my neck to prove many times, the conventional interpretation or accepted status quo were wrong. There were times where my geohazards assessments went against the wishes of the oil companies. They looked for subservient geohazards “pro-of-the-wrong-kind” for second opinions favourable to their exploration objectives. Guess what. They all ended having blowouts and needed me to set them straight. We need professionals who are able to stand straight and not bend to the whims and fancies of the oil exploration masters. We see that in Halliburton and BP. Yes, you can cry out and say we recommended this and that, but BP had the final say. Did we see any of the engineers resigned in disgust? No because BP got their way, safe or not safe does not matter. And we have people like you still prostituting for BP.
So did you just said my skills were “academic” and not proven? Do you see why the mafia in the oil industry wants to “kill me”? Because I was right and they were wrong and as long as I live, they live in fear that their misdeeds, cheating, frauds, mis-interpretation and negligence will be exposed. They sent you, Thad Daly to keep me engaged with your silly questions.
Thad Daly says: You claim cracks in the bottom, could this be drag marks from moving debris, equipment or other item around when working on th well head.
Are you suggesting I made the interpretations using my behind? Drag marks have different fundamental characteristics than cracks. As an engineer you should know that. Oh I forgot you were only a pseudo engineer. I would not bother writing an article on insignificant drag marks would I? Fissures that had developed on the seafloor due to the blowout, that I would write. Just to be sure, are you reading the right articles written by me? Could you quote the exact “you claim cracks in the bottom” paragraph or the link. Given your poor comprehension, one cannot be too sure.
For your information, I spent more than 20 years working 16 hours a day charting and had clocked more than 20,000 line km of seabed survey. I can differentiate between a drag mark and a “fissure” based on fundamental criteria that I taught my trainee geos. No, I am not going to tutor you for free. Would I risk 30 years of my expertise on something I am not sure?
Thad Daly says: You claim methane vents yet when BP tried to cap the well first time the cap filled with methane hydrates, why are these methane vent not turning into methane hydrate?
I would not bothered to answer this. You read my articles and then look basic chemistry literature on methane gas-hydrate conversion.
Thad Daly says: The collasped - there is basically three ways to collapse casing. Bend causing it to kink at bend. External pressure greater than the collaspe stength of the casing AND the internal hydrostatic pressure in the casing this would only happen if the casing was ran in empty, hard to do as at some point the empty casing would "float" in the drlg fluid. Mechanical collaspe due to an external mechanical pressure such as a formation shift, not possible as the upper sedimentary formation do not have compressive strengths greater than the collaspe strength of the casing especially with the internal hydrostatic pressure increasing the collaspe resistance.
Already explained in my articles. Look for GWSF (gas-saturated weak sub-formation) zone hazards and EGCP zone.
There is no point arguing with you over this. BP retrieved this casing on 19 July 2010 from the 3rd well which was blown on 20 April 2010. Go and ask BP to show you the recovered casing. They were caught with their pants down. If your eyes are blinded by their greenbacks pasted over your eyes, what is the point of this academic theoretic discussion on how smooth and oval the asshole is going to be. Write a letter to your congressman to demand BP hand over the indented casing. Then you have your proof. Why bark at me? I did not retrieved the broken casing. Why was the video hidden? Because the insiders wanted the public to know what BP did was criminal. They smuggled it out despite the tight security. Why do you still prostitute yourself at the expense of the gulf victims? Do some good for a change.