Investigators find more abnormalities in BP’s account of Oil Spill Disaster
March 18, 2013
Transocean’s Offshore installation Manager (OIM) on DWH said bypass well was not a sidetrack
By BK LIM and FASE I | THE REAL AGENDA | MARCH 18, 2013
So when is a “bypass” not a bypass from the same well but from another well location?
That should have been the question to ask Transocean’s OIM (Jimmy Harrel) on the Deepwater Horizon, during his 27 May 2010 testimony in the USCG-MMS investigation hearing.
Jim Harrel was clearly taken aback when asked to elaborate on the specific problems encountered (such as loss circulation, pipe stuck, cementing and other safety issues) throughout the duration of the WELL (@min 5:30). Harrel clearly stumbled when he asked “….you…err…talking….about the well…” as if to ask if he was to detail out the problems on all the 3 wells BP had drilled since 3 Feb. He looked relieved when the counsel corrected himself by stating “the drilling of the well, the BYPASS” from “March to April”. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/293757-1
The oilfield term “bypass” has the same connotation as common usage, that is “to drive around an obstruction”. There are 2 ways to do this. By drilling a “sidetrack” (deviated well trajectory) from the original wellbore at a vertical angle no greater than 4o. Alternatively, the “BYPASS” could be drilled from a new surface location which is in effect a new well.
After explaining that the “well” had several loss circulations, couple of kicks and a stuck pipe, Jim Harrel then volunteered the statement “…..actually not a sidetrack.” This significant fact in his testimony was ignored by pro-BP lawyers, industry experts, scientists and main stream media reporting on the BP Gulf Oil Spill Disaster (BPGOSD).
The definition of sidetrack from Schlumberger:
This would immediately prove that BP committed perjury by stating before Congress only one well was drilled on the MC252 lease before 20 April 2010 (not including the 2 relief wells drilled after the “accident”). Confirmed by several enquiries to BP.
It is simply beyond anyone’s comprehension how BP could have spent 115 days (75 days from 3Feb to 20Apr 2010 and another 40 days from 29 Sept- 8Nov 2009) on a single exploratory well which would have normally taken 2- 4 weeks to complete?
Together with the costs of personnel, support and operation, the drilling rig would have cost about $1 million per day to be at well location. No cost-cutting exploration giant could have spent that kind of money on every well and still be a profitable enterprise. The Dept of Interior confirmed that only 1 in 5 is economical in the deep water prospects. With that kind of success, it would have been suicidal for any deep water exploration company to be so stubbornly persistent on every failed well. This proves that the Macondo well was drilled not purely for exploration purpose but to cause a “deep accident”.
What was so special about the Macondo prospect with a known reserve of only 50 million barrels? BP’s other deep water discoveries were all 10 to 60 times larger; with reserves ranging from 0.5- 3 billion barrels. None of the deeper exploratory wells in the Tiber field (discovered in Aug 2009, 0.5 billion barrels, TD 35,055ft), Kaskida field (discovered in 2006, 3 billion barrels, TD 32,500ft) and Thunderhorse (discovered 1999, 1 billion barrels, TD 25,770ft) cost more than the shallower Macondo well at TD 18,360ft.
Tiber and Kaskida were drilled using the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) and Thunderhorse by Discover Enterprise. All had dynamic positioning (DP) capability which is essential for deep water operation. So why was the TransOcean Marianas (TOM) with no DP capability initially used for the Macondo well in 2009? In BP’s exploration plan, 42 days were allocated for the anchor handling operation alone. This would have cost BP almost $30million in unnecessary field operation. Almost the budgeted cost of each Macondo well at $30 million which was very high by any standard.
Detailed costing and exploration are the subject of a new article in preparation but presented here to emphasise the point that more than 1 well was drilled, both time and cost wise. Jim Harrel’s confirmation “…..actually it was not a sidetrack….” struck a chord with most independent experts’ analyses that BP drilled more than 1 well. Our technical analyses since Aug 2010, confirmed BP drilled 3 wells.
Figure 4.1 (by TrialGraphix) shows the Macondo Well Schematic found at page 93 of the National Commission Investigation report on BPGOSD. This vertical well schematic is the accepted final version of the Macondo well design, similar to the original June 2009 well design given by BP (figure 2, above) of their investigation report dated 8 Sept 2010.
The final well trajectory as a single vertical well bore illustrated in figure 4.1 (above) is consistent with Jim Harrel’s testimony that the BYPASS was not a sidetrack. If it were then the deviated trajectory and well schematic would have looked like the following “fake BYPASS” schematic in the next figure.
This deviated well trajectory (bypass by sidetrack) was never found in all the official investigation reports. Like all the fake information (dis-info) given to us, we were not sure of the reason and source initially. The last person to have passed this to us, could have been an “innocent layman messenger”. To know the reasons and source, we of course, dangled the “carrot” as one of the “physics of impossibility” lies in the previous articles. There are many technical reasons why the “sidetrack bypass” could not have been successfully executed. Details are given in a book to follow. As we had been saying; “they don’t play HAARP for fun”.
The reasons (for the planted dis-info) would show at the right time and right place. It is for the same reason we do not reveal what we knew of Jim Harrel’s testimony until necessary. The way the counsels skirted the 3 wells issue and the conspicuous absence of any deeper enquiry into the 2 significant well control events (shallow gas blow-out essentially) on or about 13 Feb and 10 March 2010, confirmed these were more sensitive than BP were prepared to admit. Corroboration with other facts, confirm BP could not have designed and orchestrated this “murderous plot disguised as an accident (MPDAA)” alone. They have had “assistance” from higher authorities in the orchestration and continue to have “assistance” in the massive cover-up.
The facts also confirmed that the present show trials will never go beyond giving BP a “slap on the wrist” for an “accident caused by gross negligence”. This is despite the fact that all documented evidence point to a MPDAA planned in concert with several similar Blow-out-Oil Spills (BOS) that had happened or failed to happen in the 2008 – 2011 period. There are global Oil Mafia agenda to all these BOS. Never in the history of industrial accidents have so many mega BOS occurred in the most advanced countries with the most stringent offshore regulations within such a short period of time.
Unfortunately the corporate crooks in collusion with criminal agents in the regulating authorities, continue to enjoy impunities for their crimes of mass destruction and mass deception. Similarly, the sink hole-salt cavern crisis in Louisiana were manufactured and had been planned to happen immediately after the BPGOSD. Although the rate of erosion by the salt mining operation could be accurately estimated, Nature refused to cooperate by collapsing the sink hole at the “predicted time”. If BP and their cabal masters were smart enough to plan and orchestrate BPGOSD, they would have been smart enough to plan their escape. An open trial was never part of their escape plan. They never thought all of their PMDs could have failed so badly (in achieving their sinister objectives) in the last 3 years.
They had hoped BPGOSD (aided with multiple deliberate explosive events) would be the trigger to unleash the natural pent-up stress along the North American Intra-plate Boundary (NAIB, encompasses the New Madrid fault zone) to create a doomsday Armageddon, all the way from the Gulf coast to the St Lawrence Seaway in North-East Canada.
The catastrophe that followed BPGOSD would have been so great, no one would even bother with micro-faulting BP as we have seen in the current trial, 3 years later. The Great NAIB Catastrophe of 2009-2010 was intended to be the “reset button” for many of the Banksters’ financial woes. Evidently there were Divine Intervention. Instead of a cascading chain of catastrophic disasters as the evil master planners had hoped for, the great quakes all along the New Madrid which FEMA had planned for, failed to materialise. Instead there were abnormal occurrences of hundreds of quake swarms and rumbling tremors following the 1Aug2010 nuke event. Imagine the cumulative amount of energy that had been released since then. And many still asked why GOD allowed these disasters to happen?
If we are not yet awaken to see these miracles of Nature, to see the murderous plots behind these MPDAA and be bold enough to demand justice for these crimes of mass destruction & deception, do we deserve to ask GOD for more?