Investigators find more abnormalities in BP’s account of Oil Spill Disaster

Transocean’s Offshore installation Manager (OIM) on DWH said bypass well was not a sidetrack


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”.

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 SPILLwell 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?



EPA Accused of Violating the Clean Water Act

Costing Billions in Environmental Damage

CEO Discusses Non-Toxic Oil Spill Cleanup Method on Fox Business Network, March 3


In the wake of the ongoing civil trial with high stakes for BP over the 2010 Gulf oil spill, the OSEI Corporation Chairman puts a new slant on preventable devastation outlining how the oil giant could have saved billions in damages and Clean Water Act fines if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had not stood in the way of science and spill response advancements.

Airing on Sunday, 3 March on Fox Business Network, the 21st Century Business TV Series will feature OSEI Corporation’s non-toxic oil spill cleanup method, Oil Spill Eater II (OSE II), bringing to light a cost-effective solution for oil companies operating anywhere in the world – from the Gulf’s warm waters to the icy clime of Alaska.

The show interviews OSEI CEO Steven Pedigo, inventor of OSE II, a biological enzyme that detoxifies and then converts oil and toxic waste into a natural food source for the enhanced native bacteria found in the area of a spill. The end result of this process is close to 100% of the oil fully removed from the environment. Pedigo tells about the 23-year history of his company and its successes in removing oil and other toxic spills in every type of environment, including difficult-to-reach, sensitive habitats. Pedigo has aggressively challenged the EPA for “violating the very Clean Water Act it is there to enforce by pre-approving toxic dispersants and tampering with science testing and results to justify inadequate oil spill cleanup protocols used on the BP Oil Spill.

The EPA, along with other federal agencies who direct oil spill contingency plans are responsible for safeguarding U.S. natural resources and public health. Pedigo asserts that in stark contrast to their mandate, they have seemingly favored dangerous “cleanup” methods utilizing dispersants, which independent studies have shown to be more harmful to marine life and human health than the oil. During the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) crisis, Gulf State officials, deeply concerned over the excessive use of Corexit (the toxic chemical dispersant applied in unprecedented doses to Gulf waters to disperse and sink the oil into the water column), specifically requested the use of OSE II as an alternative method for addressing the spill. Despite repeated requests, including from BP itself, the EPA continued to enforce the use of dispersants and justify their destructive “tradeoffs” while blocking non-toxic solutions.

Amongst a large number of industry and independent science groups, an international environmental organization the Lawrence Anthony Earth Organization (LAEO) has investigated current oil spill methodologies and advocates for the use of OSE II as a first-response cleanup method. “The 21st Century Business TV Show featuring a product that has been safely used in 30 countries around the world and which has cleaned up over 23,000 oil spills, is a good starting point for raising public and industry awareness that there are better solutions out there which will save the oil and gas industry billions in clean up costs, damage claims and Clean Water Act fines, not to mention protecting human health and the environment. We encourage industry leaders, environmental groups and federal officials in this field to urgently review current methodology for the sake of all living organisms that rely on clean water,” said LAEO International President, Barbara Wiseman.

The LAEO is about to publish a position paper to educate emergency response professionals and industry stakeholders, calling for a ban on the use of dispersants while bringing to light alternative solutions. The paper highlights the specific category of Bioremediation technology that the EPA has approved and listed which has undergone years of field tests and use proving its efficacy at removing close to 100% of an oil spill through non-toxic means and at a fraction of traditional cost. Some of the most recent tests were conducted by, among others, a BP science team, and the Department of Interior, showing superior results.

The former Administrator of NOAA Jane Lubchenco, EPA officials and other senior members of the interagency committee have publically admitted that in the end, only 8% of the spilled oil in the Gulf was actually removed, and seemingly ignore statistical realities by asserting they directed a ‘successful spill response,’ –which is an utter falsehood,” said Pedigo.

According to BP’s recent court filing, 810,000 barrels of ‘cleaned up oil’ never polluted the waters since it was recovered directly from the riser pipe although this amount is added into the cleanup statistics claimed by NOAA and the EPA, misleadingly inflating the actual numbers of spilled oil removed from the environment. Regardless, the disputed spill volume and removal figures raise the question – what happened to the remainder of the estimated 2 million barrels of oil plus dispersant chemicals left in the Gulf of Mexico and how are the continued appearing slicks and unnatural seeps from the fractured seabed floor in the Macondo zone being handled? “The EPA and Coast Guard seem to think that nature will take care of the rest and are taking no action; but independent science proves differently. An honest evaluation would show that the toxicity added by ‘clean up’ chemicals is a violation of Clean Water Act Law because these agents add pollutants to the environment and do not remove the oil, leaving dispersants and oil residing in the water column and the sea floor. The threat of Clean Water Act fines mistakenly encourage clean up systems that hide or make the oil volume rapidly undetectable,” continued Pedigo.

The TV program will explain how the OSE II process works and is environmentally safe using natures own bioremediation processes to effectively eliminate hazardous materials.

Click Link for Airing Schedule:

For More Information Contact: Susan Aarde
Gulf Rescue Alliance

BP Banned From US Government Contracts


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the US has temporarily suspended BP from new US government contracts.

The ban stemmed from the British oil giant’s conduct regarding the blowout at its Deepwater Horizon rig which killed 11 workers in April 2010.

It comes after the company agreed to plead guilty to charges over its part in the largest environmental disaster in US history, and to admit lying to Congress about the amount of oil that was spilling from the Macondo well.

“EPA is taking this action due to BP’s lack of business integrity as demonstrated by the company’s conduct with regard to the Deepwater Horizon blowout, explosion, oil spill, and response,” the agency said.

“Suspensions are a standard practice when a responsibility question is raised by action in a criminal case.”

The move prevents BP from getting new government contracts or grants “until the company can provide sufficient evidence to EPA demonstrating that it meets Federal business standards,” EPA added.

Existing agreements between the company and the government are not affected.

Professor Joe Lampel from Cass Business School said the decision would be a blow to BP.

“The ban comes at the end of a complex process during which BP has settled most of the claims against it,” he said.

“Therefore this suspension should be seen as an additional penalty rather than a pressure tactic that the US government often uses when it wants to force firms to concede liability.”

He said the ban would most probably be lifted after a sufficient grace period has passed.

“BP has been working hard to repair its reputation and I suspect that it will do whatever it takes to satisfy regulators that it now meets all the necessary standards,” he added.

At the end of last month, BP revealed that the disaster had cost it more than $38bn (£23.7bn) to date.

BP Oil Spill Disaster: The Growing Emergency, the Unpunished Crime

Two years and many millions of gallons of oil later — and still counting –, the Gulf is in worse condition than it was weeks after the Deepwater Horizon platform exploded on April 20, 2012.


The worst man-made disaster in the history of modern society is still ongoing, and the criminals responsible for it continue to be the sole guardians of the crime scene. Animal and plant life continue to die in the Gulf of Mexico due to the continues leakage of oil from the depths of the ocean floor while from above, planes continue to poison the waters with Corexit in an attempt to hide the fact that the oil spill is far from being over. The lies and the fraud carried out by the federal agencies in charge of coming to the rescue and British Petroleum, which swindled the public for many months became part of a coverup that had the main stream media as their best accomplices. Under reporting or completely ignoring the oil spill and its magnitude was the job of the corporate whore media, that followed the traditional don’t ask, don’t tell modus operandi, limiting themselves to report what they were told to report.

Two years and many millions of gallons of oil later, the Gulf is in worse condition than it was weeks after the Deepwater Horizon platform exploded on April 20, 2012. As we all remember, that explosion resulted in the immediate death of 11 workers, a tragedy that has grown exponentially since then. After multiple attempts to supposedly ‘cap the leaking well’, BP was caught lying with a straight face, even during congressional hearings. The large volume of information to be analyzed, the lack of expertise of those in charge of holding BP accountable and BP’s explicit intention to defraud the public has made it impossible, so far, to bring those responsible for committing one of the greatest out-in-the-open crimes in history to justice. In fact, BP has worked overtime to try to settle the crime outside of court with both the residents of the Gulf and the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the residents caved in by accepting what on the face appears to be a juicy compensation, but does not solve their main problem whatsoever. Earlier this year, a group of residents settled with BP for damages caused as a result of the oil spill, letting the multinational off the hook regarding legal responsibility.

The problem is, money will not solve the disaster now taking place in the Gulf of Mexico. The money those residents received will be long gone before any real solutions are provided to actually cap the leaking well, clean the waters of the Gulf and return the region to the state it was in before the explosion. As we have informed before, capping the well that BP tried to keep secret during congressional testimony and up until now, may be impossible. The leak that is now flooding the Gulf with oil and gases is not a traditional leak per se, but a major leak coming out of a fractured sea floor that experts believe is a direct consequence of an explosive detonation. Regardless of the cause, the fact is the oil is still leaking just as fast as life in the Gulf is fading away. Up until now, several documented reports from private citizens show that oil is still reaching the surface before it is rapidly dispersed with Corexit during night flights. Another fact that cannot be easily ignored is the death of hundreds of sea animals that are found on the beaches of the Gulf region. Sea Turtles and dolphins lying dead on the beaches at an unprecedented rate, more than at any time before in history, is a sign of the only certainty we can believe in right now: The US government and BP lied to the public.

Separate reports from people who visit the Gulf region on a daily basis to document the death sea animals there count the number of  dead turtles and dolphins by the hundreds. Oil on the surface of the ocean has been seen by people in planes and helicopters all over the Gulf. These same leaks were a rarity before April 20, 2010, but the so-called authorities say that the oil is coming from natural seepages out of the Gulf’s ocean floor. Scientists who have been shown the images, such as Dr. Ira Leifer, from University of California, say that the size and location of ocean surface oil are important enough to require another investigation. But not such an investigation is happening and as we said before, BP is spraying Corexit on a nightly basis to hide the new oil. Corexit, a product made by Nalco, is banned in 19 countries around the world, included the United Kingdom due to its high toxicity.

As The Real Agenda reported before, BP owns 70 percent of the leases for oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Those leases mean billions of dollars for the government, of course. But the reason why BP was left off the hook up until now goes way beyond a few billion dollars. BP was allowed to operate above all available standards of security and legality from the beginning. A detailed analysis of how the Gulf of Mexico Disaster happened gives us a clear picture of what this means.


The first gas well blowout that happened on April 20, 2010, was caused from shallow gas influx through leaks in the top hole section of the well caused by replacing drilling mud with sea water at 8,367ft BSL The light hydrocarbon influx came directly from the shallow gas-saturated weak sub-formation zone. After the initial gas surge, the top hole section quickly settled into a steady in-flow state. Light hydrocarbons then continued to flow into the top hole section of the well without affecting the stability.

From April 20-22, the Deepwater Horizon Platform experienced the explosions we all witnessed live or otherwise. These explosions followed the blowout from April 20. Even more explosions happened later as it was reported by firefighters at and close to the oil platform.

Early on April 22, underwater demolition charges were used to break the riser at 460ft from the BOP#1 end; 4540ft below water surface. This explosion caused the riser to bend in just 15 seconds, which is thought to have been aided by directional charges.

By the late afternoon on April 22, another deliberate detonation took place, which occurred around the sub-seabed level. According to experts who provided us with this information, the main objective was to demolish the third well and to induce a second bottom hole well blowout – BHWell-Blowout#2. However, an unintended result of this purposely set explosion, shook the shallow sub-seabed sediment resulting in a simultaneous massive discharge of hydrocarbons from the abnormal shallow hydrocarbon accumulations. The direct consequence of this explosion is what satellites images revealed on April 25, 2010: an oil slick of about 580 squared miles. At the time, the images suggested that hydrocarbons from the Macondo reservoir might be leaking through multiple cracks on the ocean floor.

Because of the numerous explosions, at the depths they took place, no one found out about the leaks until around April 24, 2010.

Later on April 22, almost right after the previous explosion, a new detonation went off at the second well that caused a complete breakdown od the cement plug at the bottom of that well. This resulted in the leakage of gas that might have depleted itself if BP had not messed it up later. Experts are sure that no big oil spill had happened if BP hadn’t caused such a spill artificially.The explosion that happened on the evening of the 22nd, started the massive oil spill we now know as the BO Oil Spill Disaster. This explosion ejected the Blowout Preventer out of the 3rd well, the one BP tried to keep secret for as long as they were able.

From the document BP drilled 3 wells at the Macondo Prospect:

“The original BOP is referred to as BOP#1 because there were at least 2 more BOPs brought into the Macondo prospect. BOP#2 replaced the broken BOP#1 and is now standing at NASA warehouse facility. No wonder NDV (Det Norske Veritas) were confused in their forensic examination of the fake BOP#2. Although DNV did not exactly say it, even their computer simulations and modeling could not fit in micro-details of BOP#1’s failure”

As it is now known, the Gulf was flooded with the largest amounts of oil after the detonation of BSB-Detonation#1 and BHWell-Blowout#2. (As shown by the satellite photo taken on 25 April 2010) Earlier on April 22, 2010, the satellite photo only showed the smoke from the Deepwater Horizon platform.

The latest of the detonations was conducted to achieve at least three goals, the document says: 1) to jam up the potential flow. This is confirmed by the jammed up 2 drill-pipes at the kink in the bent riser. 2) to weaken the well casing cement at the annulus. This is the reason why the detonation took place below the well casing level. 3) to breach the base cement plug to unleash the explosive hydraulic power of the reservoir.

The reservoir well detonation that occurred on August 1, 2010, was the last attempt to seal the leaking well after several previous attempts through the month of July. In this case, the detonation was caused by a nuclear device. Proof of this event is reflected by the unlikely shallow earthquake registered in Louisiana at about 11:34:29 Central Daylight Savings Time, just 12 minutes after the detonation. The epicenter of the quake was 5km deep exactly on the NW-SE fault line. Many people believe the nuclear explosion, although did not cause a complete activation of the New Madrid fault, it did cause to become unstable.  To this fact we can add that the wellhead at well A was still standing, which makes it an impossibility that well A was the leaking well. The oil was indeed coming out of well 3, now known as Well BE.


BP is in part — along with other entities and persons — responsible for committing various crimes against the people of the Gulf, violating local and federal laws, perjuring in front of Congress, hiding information from authorities and the public that prevented the realization of a complete and orderly investigation of the events that led to and that happened during and after the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in 2010.

More specifically, BP is to blame for illegally drilling a 3rd oil well, the one it tried to hide in order to keep the crime secret from authorities and the public. The company drilled this third well without the proper permit, and it was precisely this well the one that caused the largest oil spill in the history of the oil industry. The third well was not approved by the Mineral Management Service (MMS) for exploration and/or drilling in the Macondo Prospect. According to ROV video, Well BE, was the only one of the three wells that BP drilled that reached the desired depth the company wanted to access the Macondo Reservoir, which later caused the underwater explosion.

BP perjured itself by testimony of their representatives before Congress by providing false evidence that BP had drilled only the permitted well (well A). This well was, according to evidence, drilled to a depth of 5,000 feet, way to shallow to reach the Macondo Reservoir. BP stopped works at well A because the drill it was using got jammed by the pressure formation collapse at the open section of the well bore. The collapse, experts say, could have been caused by gas saturation at sub-formations. BP informed the MMS that this well (well A) was leaking gases and oil. Well A was abandoned for safety reasons.This also confirms that the gas blowout that occurred on April 20, 2010, could have not come from well A.

Meanwhile, well B, drilled to a depth of 13, 305 feet, also way too shallow to reach the Macondo Reservoir, could not be drilled deeper because of similar drills jamming problems. According to geohazard experts, well B experienced even stronger pressure problems. Regarding this fact, Transocean is still suing BP for not informing the company about these type of problems. BP could have drilled at the same location using something called a bypass, which would have enabled the company to keep on perforating the sea bed around the same place but change trajectory at some point. BP had asked the MMS for a permit to do such a procedure, but never actually did it, neither on well A or B. Evidence and reasons for BP not to have done the by-pass range from the company’s own reports to safety and inefficiency.

BP also withheld vital information up to the explosion on April 22 that, experts agree, would have led to the speedy and safe control of the well. Such controls would have prevented the cement plug at the base from failing completely; avoided that the high-pressure oil gushed out of the reservoir directly into the well; stopped the gas blowout on April 20 that was caused by shallow gas influx within the first 9,000 ft; reduce or eliminate the danger posed by the shallow hydrocarbon influx into the upper section of the well, which had settled into a steady inflow. If British Petroleum had informed the reality of the situation, the result of the explosion on April 20, 2010 would have been less lethal indeed.

British Petroleum also perjured itself in Congress by claiming that a second explosion on 2010 April 22 was the reason why the Deepwater Horizon Platform collapsed, destroying the riser pipe that was still attached to the blowout preventer (BOP#1). BP also said that the riser pipe, that goes from the wellhead to the drilling rig broke as the DWH fell into the ocean. BP said that the first leak was located at the bent rise, on top of BOP#1. Later they added that the larger second leak was at the broken end of the riser, at about 480 ft to the north inside a blown crater at the seabed, and that the third leak was just a smaller one occurring at the Riser on the seafloor. This was of course false. Videos from the ROV’s frm April 22 – 24 show that there were no significant leaks on the broken riser, and all of the gushing oil seemed to be coming from isolated seafloor.

From the document BP drilled 3 wells at the Macondo Prospect:

We further posit that it was this detonated explosion that triggered the second, more powerful oil blowout by breaching the base of this well below 18,000 ft bsl and allowing high-pressure oil from the Macondo reservoir to gush directly into the well. It was this detonated explosion at shallow depth that started the chain of events that led to the uncontrollable massive oil spill that poisoned the Gulf with oil from the Macondo reservoir. The first gas blowout, which set the DWH rig on fire April 20, was caused by gas influx from the shallow gas-saturated weak subformation (GWSF) zone. After that initial gas surge into the well, the shallow section of the well (down to 10,000 ft bml) appeared to have stabilized into a constant-flow equilibrium with the GWSF zone.

At that point there was no immediate danger of another gas blowout from within the well, neither from the shallow section with a stable incoming leak from the GWSF zone nor from the deep end o the well which had not been breached by virtue of being suppressed under heavy mud weight. Well A, which is located 720 ft southeast of the blown well BE crater, had been spewing gas from the same GWSF zone since 2010 February and had not been plugged, a violation of MMS regulations regarding abandoned wells. At the time of the first gas blowout on April 20 until at least April 24, well A and well B were left abandoned and had no man-made connection (riser pipe or any pipeline) to well BE or to BOP#1 sitting on well BE’s wellhead. The second detonated explosion, however, did aggravate the gas leaks at both wells A and B, due to the inter-connecting faults and the same GWSF occurrence at all three wells.

The scenario described above is supported by ROV videos, specifically the one that shows the blown out crater from April 23, 2010. This video shows the riser pipe dipping northward into the crater floor with the oil flowing from the north, forming a plume directed southward. This debunks BP’s statement that the oil was leaking out of the broken riser connected to the blowout preventer at well A. So, the oil was not leaking from that well, but from further below at the crater itself located at the illegally drilled third well. Additionally, the video of the shows the fractured seafloor near the third well crater. This had been covered in part by gigantic amounts of cement and drilling mud. This fact also confirms the impossibility that BP was not aware of the explosion, since work had already been done to cover up the crater and site of the explosion caused by the indiscriminate drilling and the detonation performed that caused the crater in the first place.


As monumental as all these facts may seem, should the federal agencies allow truly independent investigators to take charge of the oil spill site, and complete a whole new investigation, the public would learn even more about the investigations conducted by citizen groups and independent researchers as well as to reveal even more of the information we do not know. For example, an full investigation would show exactly how ROV videos were altered to hide the real state of BOP#1, which had been blown in pieces and whose parts were buried on the seafloor. The same situation occurred with wellheads and casings from well BE, the third illegally drilled well. The videos were cut and pasted to cover up the times and dates of the explosions as well as other aspects such as coordinates, headings, altitudes, depths, job description.

The making of the false videos and their presentation as proof that everything was under control was one of BP’s main lies in Congress. It was intended to support their claim that the leaks were coming from well A, as supposed to Well BE. Further research would also show how exactly BP substituted the blow out preventer at well A and lying about it being the original BOP. This BOP withstood the explosions on well A up until April 22, but was destroyed by the second detonation on that same day. This, as posed before, caused the massive flooding of the Gulf of Mexico with oil from the Macondo Reservoir. The result of this flood was a panic-driven initiative to use Corexit to try to clean the waters. As we now know, Corexit does not have that capacity. It only turns the pockets of oil into smaller particles without actually cleaning the ocean.

In order to pull this plan off, BP had about two weeks to carry out the changes, while the people were shown ROV video footage of well A. BP then installed a second BOP at well A, which later was presented as an intact BOP bent-riser assembly. “A forensic examination on this fake BOP#2 naturally raised more questions than answers and left many important questions unanswered.”

These are just a few of the facts that would be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt — not that more of it is necessary in order to know the truth –.


Testimonies continue to reveal the dire consequences of the BP oil spill from two years ago continue to pour in from different reports ranging from individuals — who on their own dollar travel to the region to document the scenario of death and sickness now developing around the coastal areas — to foundations and non-profit organizations that provide residents of the Gulf and the rest of the world the information the main stream media does not.

An article from the Surfrider Foundation dated April 17, 2012, shows the extent of the persistent toxicity at different locations. Just as many other activists have done it, the foundation demonstrates how people who live in the region are exposed to toxins in the water, the sand and the air. “We saw hazmat-suit wearing workers leaving the beach as the sun rose over the horizon. They had worked during the night and were leaving just as the tourists came over the sand dunes for a day at the beach. The workers had worked hard and picked up what oil globs that could be seen by the naked eye (aided by a little extra UV light). If it was safe for tourists then why would workers have such protection? If it wasn’t safe why weren’t the tourists being told that?”

According to the previous report, between 800,000 to 1,000,000 gallons of Corexit have been used in order to disperse the oil coming out from the Macondo Reservoir. The Surfrider Foundation released a report entitled: “State of the Beach“, a study that provides the latest details about the Gulf of Mexico on-going disaster. The report related that the large amounts of Corexit being sprayed over the Gulf’s waters is making it impossible for microbes to digest the oil. “The persistence of Corexit mixed with crude oil has now weathered to tar, yet is traceable to BP’s Deepwater Horizon brew through its chemical fingerprint. The mix creates a fluorescent signature visible under UV light.”

In an article dated October 2010, environmental reporter Julia Whitty documented the magnitude of the disaster up to that time. By her account, methane was shooting up from the well drilled by the Deepwater Horizon rig, exploding at the well’s head. Those gases and the oil that came out from the bottom of the ocean floor would later turn the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig into the least of the problems. The Surfrider Foundation’s report speaks about four main relevant facts:

* The use of Corexit is inhibiting the microbial degradation of hydrocarbons in the crude oil and has enabled concentrations of the organic pollutants known as PAH to stay above levels considered carcinogenic by the NIH and OSHA.
* 26 of 32 sampling sites in Florida and Alabama had PAH concentrations exceeding safe limits.
* Only three locations were found free of PAH contamination.
* Carcinogenic PAH compounds from the toxic tar are concentrating in surface layers of the beach and from there leaching into lower layers of beach sediment. This could potentially lead to contamination of groundwater sources.

The complete study from the Foundation written by James H. “Rip” Kirby III, is accessible to the public online. His study tested samples of crude oil in the northern Gulf of Mexico from the day the spill happened. Field testing from May 2010 were conducted at beaches before the crude oil from spill made its way there. Additional testing was done on tar samples for a trend analysis of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PAH) that analyzed concentration levels. This tests began March 2011 and were completed in November 2011. Overall, 71 samples were tested. “Tests for 38 different PAH analytes were done on 48 samples. Oil range organics (ORO) tests were done on 23 samples. Compared to the Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) or carcinogenic exposure limit for PAH analytes listed as coal tar derivatives, 90% of the positively identified analyses exceeded the IDLH limit,” reads the report.

For months and months, federal agencies assured Gulf residents and tourists that it was safe to consume seafood from Gulf waters, even though visual proof showed otherwise. Now, a report issued by Al-Jazeera confirms the worst fears regarding food safety and how it has declined since the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig. Both scientists and residents of the Gulf region continue to find not only contaminated sea animals, but also others that have suffered mutations as a consequence of the exposure to chemicals used to supposedly clean the waters from the oil spill. As reported by “horribly mutated shrimp, fish with oozing sores, underdeveloped blue crabs lacking claws, eyeless crabs and shrimp” along with “shrimp with abnormal growths, female shrimp with their babies still attached to them, and shrimp with oiled gills.” And this seems to be only the beginning. See visual proof of the mutations and contamination in this news report. In a press communique, BP responded to the questions of food contamination by saying that both NOAA and the FDA guaranteed that seafood from the Gulf was as safe as it was before the oil spill disaster.Meanwhile, NOAA declined to comment on the findings of the investigation conducted by Al-Jazeera, saying there would be a conflict of interest because the organization was involved in the lawsuit against BP.

The results of the tests conducted to back up the investigation show not only mutation and contamination, but also the decline in the number of kinds of sea life as well as the number of those sea animals. These facts add to the already existing economic and environmental Armageddon that the oil spill has caused and continues to cause for residents and visitors. BP has responded to investigations and evidence of fraud, perjury and lies with numerous PR campaigns and has moved fast to settle as much of the problem as possible outside the traditional legal processes. “The fishermen have never seen anything like this,” says Dr. Jim Cowan, who works at Louisiana State University’s Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences. “And in my 20 years working on red snapper, looking at somewhere between 20 and 30,000 fish, I’ve never seen anything like this either.” Al-Jazeera reports that fishermen have witnessed how 50 per cent of the shrimp caught during the last high season were damaged with mutations or missing body parts, a consequence of BP’s oil and dispersants. “Disturbingly, not only do the shrimp lack eyes, they even lack eye sockets,” says Tracy Kuhns, who is a commercial fisher in  Barataria, Louisiana. According toxicologists like Dr. Riki Ott, who survived the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the usage of dispersants is a draconian experiment being performed by BP. Corexit is know to have a combination of solvents, petroleum distillates, 2-butoxyethanol, among others, which work by dissolving oil, grease, and rubber. Mr. Ott said to Al Jazeera that the solvents in the chemicals are toxic to people, and that “it is something the medical community has long known”.

Separate studies have already demonstrated that oil dispersants like Corexit have mutagenic effects, which directly explains why seafood are experiencing the type of physical changes reported by fishers and residents, as well as why large mammals such as dolphins are appearing dead on the beaches all along the Gulf of Mexico. As it has been shown by several studies, the deformities caused by the chemicals carry out their effects through several generations, especially in those animals whose life span is shorter. The chemicals do indeed enter and negatively affect the genes. Although deformities and major health problems are not seen in humans, many residents of the Gulf have already been found sick or have died to the exposure to the chemicals sprayed over them. The chemicals can be absorbed through breathing, ingestion of contaminated food and water, through the skin or even the eyes. Early symptoms of intoxication manifest as headaches, vomiting, diarrhea, chest pains, hypertension, central nervous system depression, neurotoxic effects, cardiac arrhythmia and cardiovascular damage. In the worst case scenario, the person dies if not treated or if an explicit detox program is not followed and repeated frequently.

A study conducted by Dr. Andrew Whitehead, from Louisiana State University, that analyzed the negative effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was published on the Journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last October. The report speaks volumes about the physiological effects of the oil disaster and shows a clear link between the BP oil spill and the intoxication of the waters, sea life and Gulf residents. “We found is a very clear, genome-wide signal, a very clear signal of exposure to the toxic components of oil that coincided with the timing and the locations of the oil,” said Whitehead during an interview with Al-Jazeera.

The oil industry has gotten away with so many crimes that government agencies, regulators and even the public have become conformed at best. The BP oil disaster happened — in part — as a consequence of a wave of exemptions to allow risky drilling operations without following proper safety procedures and it was the US federal government, through its multiple agencies the one that granted those exemptions. This makes the government as guilty as BP; guilty of the mass killing of life in the Gulf region. So, even if the same complicit government managed to try BP for its actions, who will indict the government for its complicity in this catastrophe? As oil industry insiders informed the public back in 2010, there was indeed an agenda to wipe out all life throughout the Gulf of Mexico at first, and everywhere else around it later.

The BP oil spill disaster, as we have abundantly reported, was the result of a combination of factors; among them, greed, lack of accountability, corruption and government collusion with powerful out-of-control corporations. Now, when it comes to simply letting the disaster get worse and worse, both the government and BP have taught us that their nature is rooted into a cesspit that is deeper and darker than anything humans are familiar with, a level that goes beyond corruption and disregard for responsibility. The actions and the inaction, the cover ups, the lying, the levels of conspiracy and deceit, the smoke screens and the expressed complicity not to solve the disaster they themselves created can only be explained by the degree of Evil with which corporations traditionally operate. It is in this times when the thoughts that government does not work for the people are effectively reinforced. It is becoming tiring to report on this issue without seeing any action taken against the corporations and the government agencies that allow those corporations to operate above the laws that the rest of us are obligated to abide by. This state of affairs also shows us the magnitude of the problem the people are up against. The problem is, as defined evidence, a direct and open war against us the people. An additional caveat is that given the inability of the public to demand answers and action, the warmongers hold all the chips in their power and while this stays the same, the war will continue to be waged on the same uneven table.

Fondo Marino del Golfo de México Inestable, Fracturado y Derramando Hidrocarburos

Petróleo y el gas siguen filtrándose sin cesar, dice un experto. Fugas tóxicas plantean importantes riesgos para la salud pública.

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
11 de octubre 2011

El desastre del Golfo de México no ha desaparecido. De hecho, ha crecido exponencialmente desde que los principales medios de comunicación dejaron de hablar al respecto. De acuerdo con la Alianza para el Rescate del Golfo, una organización integrada por científicos, profesionales médicos y otros de la industria pesquera, el problema no se puede simplificar a los daños ya causados por el derrame de petróleo. Es peor, mucho peor.

Piscinas de petróleo crudo flotando en la superficie de las aguas del Golfo de México en el sitio de la plataforma hundida de BP / Transocean, Deepwater Horizon el 27 de abril de 2010. Getty Images

The Real Agenda recibió información exclusiva sobre el estado actual de la emergencia permanente en el Golfo de México. La última evaluación realizada por la Alianza para el Rescate del Golfo no sólo pone de manifiesto que el derrame de petróleo aún está sucediendo, pero también que el fondo marino del Golfo de México está más inestable que nunca desde la explosión en 2010. Además, el análisis realizado por expertos como BK Lim, muestran que los riesgos geológicos desarrollados que se derivan de la fuga material tóxico, combinado con el uso continuo del dispersante químico altamente tóxico llamado Corexit dará lugar muy probablemente a la desaparición permanente de la vida marina, mientras aumenta los riesgos para la salud pública, tal como sucedió después del derrame de petróleo conocido como Exxon Valdez en donde se utilizaron dispersantes químicos idénticos. Esto resultó en una disminución acelerada de la vida marina hasta que, por ejemplo, la industria del arenque se derrumbó por completo y nunca logró recuperarse.

En una carta fechada del 14 de enero 2011 que fue enviada al congresista Fred Upton, Presidente del Comité de Energía y Comercio de la Cámara de Representantes, y el congresista John Shimkus Presidente del Subcomité sobre Medio Ambiente y Economía, BK Lim advirtió a los congresistas y sus comisiones sobre el estado actual del fondo marino en el Golfo de México (GOM). En el documento, Lim ofrece una evaluación detallada sobre la emergencia. El experto explicó el por qué es necesario tomar medidas de inmediato. La evaluación de la situación de emergencia en el Golfo realizada por el Sr. Lim parece creíble y se basa en sus 30 años de experiencia en el análisis de estructuras geológicas en sitios de perforación en tierra y bajo el agua para las principales compañías de la industria petrolera así como contratistas que estudian los riesgos geológicos de estas perforaciones, tales como Fugro Geodetic (M) Sdn Bhd, TL Geohydrographics Sdn Bhd, y RPS Energy Pty Ltd.

“La vaporización de grandes cantidades de hidratos de metano en una escala nunca antes vista, la liberación de las tensiones entre la corteza inferior y superior que resulta en los sucesos anormales de baja magnitud, sismos superficiales adyacentes a la falla de Nuevo Madrid, la erosión subterránea debajo del lecho marino en las inmediaciones del borde de la plataforma socavan la estabilidad de los taludes con la generación de posibles tsunamis, y deslizamientos de tierra submarinos gigantes,” dijo Lim.

Como sabemos ahora, la explosión de BP que costó la vida a 11 trabajadores no fue un accidente, sino negligencia – en el mejor de los casos – y una conspiración en el peor. La última evaluación de la Alianza de Rescate del Golfo parece reforzar el hecho de que BP perforó el pozo de Macondo con un interés cuestionable por el daño que causaría al mismo, al fondo del mar y el medio ambiente marino.

“No hay duda de que las filtraciones de petróleo, columnas de gas, fisuras y cráteres que explotan en el fondo del mar alrededor de la abertura del Pozo Macondo, observadas a partir de los videos del ROV, han sido el resultado directo de la perforación indiscriminada, junto con la inyección de dispersantes y otras actividades de recuperación no reveladas “, detalla el documento enviado al congresista Upton el 14 de enero de este año. El resultado directo de la explosión de la plataforma de Deepwater Horizon fue la destrucción masiva de vida por muchos kilómetros. La limpieza inadecuada ayudó a agravar el desastre, condenó a la zona a vivir con toneladas de dispersantes químicos tóxicos que simplemente destruyen los ecosistemas y afectan negativamente la salud de miles de personas que viven cerca y millones de personas que dependen directa e indirectamente en la belleza natural, la pesca, el turismo y la vida marina y el medio ambiente.

Una revisión de los documentos y artículos de prensa durante los días y semanas después de la explosión, muestra claramente que BP estaba tratando de ganar tiempo con tácticas dilatorias diferentes y no estaba dispuesto a revelar la verdad y la magnitud del desastre. Mientras que BP estaba oficialmente luchando para cerrar el Pozo A uno de sus contratistas y otras embarcaciones andaban con otras operaciones submarinas secretas, muchas de las cuales no parecen estar en sintonía con la urgencia de cerrar “un tercer pozo no revelado de donde brotaba aún más petróleo“. Por ejemplo hay un video que muestra a un ROV borrando el nombre de otra empresa petrolera de un tubo que se trajo de otro pozo y que se usaría para cerrar los pozos de Macondo. BP Clean off Co Logo on BOP – Porqué? – mostraron videos del 9 de junio de 2010. Otros videos mostraron petróleo que brotaba de los cráteres en el suelo marino y la actividad de un ROV con explosiones (demolición?), de corte y remoción de las cubiertas en el fondo marino y de un agujero (otro pozo?), desmantelando un tubo e inyectando materiales en el fondo del mar a varios cientos de metros del Pozo A. ¿Cómo podría un tubo destruido quedar en el fondo del mar durante dos semanas, del 3 al 16 de julio, mientras que BP estaba mostrando a una audiencia mundial el cierre del único pozo (Pozo A) y la supuesta reducción de la cantidad de petróleo derramado entre Junio y Julio 15?

De hecho, en informes de varios medios de comunicación ilustrados con animaciones poco después del desastre, se sugerían tres ubicaciones diferentes de fugas de petróleo. BP admitió inicialmente tres fugas, pero convenientemente redujo estas a sólo una más tarde, haciendo caso omiso a explicar el “por qué, cuándo y cómo”. BP había mantenido desde el principio que había perforado un pozo solamente. De mi análisis a principios de agosto 2010 llegué a la conclusión de que BP no podría haber perforado un solo pozo. Tenían que haber perforado 3 pozos para que toda la información conflictiva tuviera sentido. Véanse los informes de los medios de comunicación aquí.

Videos también confirmaron que incluso ya en mayo y junio, el petróleo y el gas estaban saliendo del fondo del mar en lugares que estaban entre 7 y 20 kilómetros lejos del Pozo A. Una foto de satélite el 25 de mayo indica una buena correlación entre el petróleo que salía del fondo marino y las fallas y los domos de sal.

Evidentemente, los numerosos vídeos colocados en Youtube sólo confirman que BP y varias agencias federales que se encontraban en la escena no revelaron todos los detalles al público, como que habían cantidades desconocidas de hidrocarburos filtrándose desde el los pozos a altas presiones y que salían a través de múltiples fractura en el fondo del mar. “No es posible detener este petróleo”, dice el análisis del Sr. Lim. “Hasta que se encuentre una solución para sellar estas fisuras, los hidrocarburos, incluyendo sulfuro de hidrógeno (H2S), seguirán saliendo sin control”.


El documento enviado al congresista Fred Upton se acompaña de fotos, videos y otros documentos que apoyan las preocupaciones expresadas por la Alianza de Rescate del Golfo. Así como un médico con años de experiencia visualiza y análisis rayos X y puede ver de inmediato cuando un hueso está fracturado o otra enfermedad cuando el resto no lo vemos ni entendemos su importancia, el Sr. Lim tiene años de experiencia en la visualización de vídeos bajo el agua y las filtraciones de gas y rápidamente puede ver y analizar lo que está ocurriendo. En su carta, Lim describe lo que ocurre en una serie de videos bajo el agua tomados por el ROV alrededor y cerca de la boca del pozo.

En uno de los videos, el Pozo A, como se le conoce, parece liberar nubes de agua saturadas con metano, burbujas de gas de metano y metano re-cristalizado que flotan cerca del lecho marino en las cercanías de la boca del pozo Macondo. Además de esto, dice la carta, también es posible ver las nuevas fisuras y un abultado fondo marino junto con un cráter ya explotó.

Un segundo video muestra cómo la cuerda que guía al ROV desaparece en una nube densa, bastante oscura del líquido aceitoso. El documento del Sr. Lim explica cómo los materiales y el lodo de perforaciones antiguas que fueron llevadas a otras altitudes por las columnas de gas en el agua se puede ver en el video volviendo a caer en el fondo del mar. Estas columnas de gas provienen de fisuras de ventilación recién activadas y formadas debido a la inestabilidad del fondo del mar y la fragilidad. El video también muestra metano re-recristalizado, el cual aparece como transparente con materiales multicolores flotando en el agua.

El tercer video muestra la “expulsión periódica del gas a través de una de las fisuras en el fondo del mar. Como géiseres, el escape de gas necesita acumularse debajo de la cubierta de sedimentos superior hasta que la presión acumulada supera la presión combinada de la columna de agua y la de las expulsiones periódicas anteriores”, explica el informe elaborado por la Alianza. De acuerdo con las imágenes obtenidas de un video del ROV, hay piscinas de sedimentos de petróleo en todo el fondo marino que son el resultado directo de la marea negra.

“Aunque es muy difícil, en las actuales circunstancias, obtener imágenes claras de lo que está pasando a esa profundidad, mi amplia formación y experiencia en el análisis de este tipo de situaciones, en combinación con estas filmaciones y otras a las que tuve acceso, son una prueba que el petróleo y el gas siguen filtrándose sin cesar desde el depósito fuera de control”, advierte BK Lim en su carta enviada a los congresistas Upton y Shimkus el 14 de enero de 2011.

Imágenes de vídeo recogidas de forma independiente en lugares como Saint Louis Bay Beach, Pensacola Beach, Santa Rosa Beach, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refugee y otros lugares del Golfo muestran una gran cantidad de espuma del dispersante Corexit. Como Corexit sólo se puede utilizar para hundir petróleo nuevo en los primeros dos días de este subir a la superficie, es otra prueba de que hay un intento para hundir el petróleo fresco debajo de la superficie. Las capas superficiales de betún (tarballs del petróleo) que llegaron a la superficie del agua tan reciente como el 6 de septiembre debido a la oleada de la tormenta tropical también se están viendo en grandes cantidades. De acuerdo con fuentes cercanas a la Alianza de Rescate del Golfo, el 18 de agosto de 2011, los miembros de EcoRigs, salieron y recogieron muestras de la superficie del agua que contiene petróleo que se creía que pertenecía al derrame de petróleo de BP. También grabaron imágenes de vídeo de una mancha de crudo pesado en la playa de Mississippi. Las muestras de agua y petróleo fueron examinados por laboratorios independientes y la primera de las muestras que regresó del laboratorio el 28 de septiembre confirmó sus preocupaciones: el petróleo pertenece al Pozo Macondo de BP.

Análisis de muestras de agua hecho de forma independiente por EcoRigs muestra una correlación positiva con las muestras del derrame de petróleo de BP. “La presencia de muestras frescos de BP MC 252 en las aguas superficiales 2-14 meses después de que se informó de que había cerrado el pozo sugiere que el petróleo del pozo BP DWH 252 MC puede haber encontrado nuevas vías para salir del fondo del mar.” Las evaluaciones realizadas también revelan que el producto químico tóxico Corexit se está aplicando ahora directamente en la fuga subterránea ubicada a 1500 metros bajo la superficie del océano en la boca del pozo. Esto se hace con la intención de provocar la descomposición del petróleo de modo que las partículas más pequeñas no llegan a la superficie y el derrame de petróleo continua siendo encubierto.


Al igual que con Katrina, más de un año después del derrame de petróleo en el Golfo de México, el gobierno federal ha demostrado su ineptitud para resolver adecuadamente las consecuencias de un desastre mayor. En documentos separados reunidos por la Alianza para el Rescate del Golfo, se muestran detalles más reveladores sobre cómo BP y el gobierno manejaron el desastre del derrame de petróleo. “El cráter colapsado en el tercer pozo estaba arrojando más de 100.000 barriles por día. (100.000 barriles es una estimación basada en la cantidad de petróleo que se vió en la superficie). Aún peor es la mezcla altamente corrosiva de la salmuera, gas y petróleo que sale de las grietas y las secciones permeables de la formación, la creación de nuevas vías para el fondo del mar “, dice Lim. La Alianza se suscribió a la práctica estándar de la industria de realizar un estudio más detallado del fondo marino tan rápido como era posible, para establecer la magnitud de los daños en el fondo del mar después de la explosión. Así como los rayos X que ayuda al cirujano en la localización exacta y la planificación de la intervención quirúrgica más adecuada, una exploración detallada del fondo marino y del subsuelo marino ciertamente puede ayudar a dar el enfoque más estratégico para detener la liberación de hidrocarburos en el pozo o pozos. Después de ignorar los repetidos llamamientos para ese estudio del fondo marino desde la explosión, BP y la Agencia de Administración Oceánica Nacional (NOAA) anunciaron repentinamente un estudio de investigación utilizando el Explorador de la NOAA Okeanos 15 meses más tarde. La única conclusión lógica de esta tardía investigación es:

“Un estudio del fondo marino al inicio revelaría las verdades desagradables sobre el fondo del mar fracturado y la formación de acumulaciones de sal que estaban tratando de ocultar”, continuó el Sr. Lim. Después de más de un año de inyectar tóxicos, colocar parches y destruir todas las pruebas fundamentales en el lecho marino alrededor de los pozos que Macondo, BP estaba lo suficientemente segura de que el “fondo del mar modificado” no sería incriminatorio para ellos. Según el Sr. Lim, British Petroleum fue muy cuidadoso de no mencionar el hecho de que habían perforado 3 pozos. Si este hecho hubiera salido a la luz pública, hubiera causado una bomba que podría haber sido la base para una acusación por perforar sin permiso. “Eso es lo que más temen”, dice Lim. BP también tuvo cuidado de aislar a los equipos de perforación uno del otro, que de acuerdo con Lim, es contra las normas de seguridad debido a que los equipos de perforación deben ser informados sobre los problemas técnicos encontrados y los peligros en las etapas de perforación anteriores. Aunque BP no podría haber esperado que los tres pozos explotaran, éste era un resultado casi seguro debido a la formación de gas interconectadas poco profundas (que fue una de las principales causas de sus numerosos problemas). Además, después de las peticiones urgentes por recomendaciones, una solicitud formal se hizo a la Guardia Costera en nombre del Constituyente David Fakouri con la Fundación Económica de Louisiana que exigía un estudio del fondo marino y una evaluación de daños con un observador independiente; pero la petición fue denegada.

El estudio del fondo marino reciente pasó a tener un énfasis totalmente diferente en sus prioridades. Esto llevó al experto en riesgos geológicos, BK Lim, a la siguiente conclusión:

“La pista del trayecto del buque parecía sugerir mayor énfasis en los bordes sur-occidental de la Cúpula de Biloxi, el sur de filo de Whiting Dome y en general al sur de Macondo. Aunque aún puede haber razones válidas para geológicamente dar énfasis al sur de los pozos de Macondo, el margen de la plataforma 6 a 8 km al noroeste de Macondo y la fuerte erosión de los bordes al noroeste de Whiting deberían ser revisados al menos en algunas líneas (ver áreas P1 y P2).

Los barcos de BP habían sido observados trabajando desde hace bastante tiempo en ambas áreas. La pluma de 22 millas de largo bajo el agua (primero negada por BP y más tarde confirmado por muchos cruceros de investigación independientes), se sospecha que se originó a partir de las grietas en el fondo del mar en estos lugares. Al evitar estas áreas críticas, es difícil creer que la investigación puede ser verdaderamente objetiva e independiente cuando se busca la causa de la explosión de Macondo.

Casi todos los avistamientos de petróleo se encuentran al norte de los pozos de Macondo, no al sur. ¿Por qué la investigación deliberadamente (?) evita el margen de la plataforma al norte de Macondo? En marzo de 2011, se sospechaba que los nuevos vertidos de petróleo provenían de “filtraciones en el fondo del mar” al norte del campo Matherhorn. Los bordes de la plataforma de Mississippi-Alabama, parecían bastante fracturados con grietas grandes y están en peligro de caer en deslizamientos de tierra submarinos gigantes. Deslizamientos de tierra submarinos son más eficaces en la generación de tsunamis que los terremotos sin deslizamientos de tierra importantes. Tanto los terremotos en Japón en 2011 y Sumatra en 2004 causaron tsunamis gigantes, debido a la gran masa que acompañan el desplazamiento submarino “.

Durante las primeras semanas de la catástrofe, había una lucha dentro de la BP entre aquellos que querían dejar en claro la realidad de la situación y otro grupo que quería ocultarlo. Al parecer, el último grupo logró ganar la lucha y se decidió utilizar el pozo con el menor número de problemas (el primero y más superficial, un pozo, el cual fue perforado a unos 5.000 metros por debajo de línea de lodo) para ser la escena que los medios de comunicación mostrarían al mundo como el “show de como solucionar un derrame de petróleo”. La tercera y mayor filtración en el Pozo 3, que Matt Simmons mantuvo como “el pozo más profundo que alcanzó el depósito de petróleo Macondo”, se mantuvo fuera de la luz pública.

Una fuente confidencial informó a The Real Agenda que la evidencia científica creíble que se ha reunido da una probabilidad alta a las alegaciones de que el petróleo, de hecho, continúa saliendo del suelo marino debido a las fugas la insuficiencia de los protocolos de respuesta a derrames que fueron empleados por la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA), la Guardia Costera y otros funcionarios federales y estatales que atendieron la catástrofe. Según la fuente, la recopilación de la evidencia científica no es sólo un edicto de errores preocupantes pero también muestra la negligencia criminal que resulta en una tragedia empeorada a lo largo de los Estados del Golfo y del Golfo de México que resultó en graves consecuencias para el ecosistema y la salud humana; con la EPA a la cabeza de la mala gestión.

La fuente informa además que entre mayo de 2010 y marzo de 2011 mucho después del supuesto arreglo del pozo de BP en julio de 2010, el promedio de niveles de toxicidad en las aguas de la región del Golfo entre Texas y Florida persistía en niveles peligrosos y que, en algunos casos, habían niveles miles de veces mayores a los que establece la EPA. Fue durante este mismo período de tiempo que las agencias del gobierno federal publicaron propaganda diciendo que todo en el Golfo de México estaba a salvo, incluyendo pescados y mariscos, el aire y el agua de mar.

Se ha alegado que los métodos usados por NOAA fueron deficientes, lo que resultó en la conclusión de que “todo está bien ahora en el Golfo”, que fue proclamado por los organismos responsables. Una de las preocupaciones aparte es el hecho de que BP tiene un fondo de 500 millones de dólares para continuar los estudios sobre los efectos posteriores del derrame y el uso de Corexit. Esto preocupa a los científicos independientes quienes advierten sobre la transparencia y la disponibilidad de esta información al público. A los científicos de BP o contratados por el gobierno no se les permite dar a conocer o discutir cualquiera de sus datos hasta su entrega a sus empleadores. Se estima que algunos de estos estudios tardarán varios años, y el público no sabrá la verdad hasta años más tarde.

El 13 de septiembre 2011, petróleo nuevo se vio cerca de donde sucedió la explosión original de BP. Debido al hecho de que la EPA insiste en usar Corexit como la única solución posible al problema, la cuestión más importante hasta el momento es -las terribles consecuencias del uso de Corexit- que no están siendo abordadas. Corexit no sólo contamina el Golfo de México y las poblaciones humanas establecidas en este, pero también es ineficaz en remediar el problema central: la limpieza de las aguas del Golfo lo más rápido posible. Lo único que Corexit ha demostrado es su eficacia para contaminar las aguas y el Golfo como un todo. ¿Por qué entonces la EPA y el gobierno federal insisten en su uso? Es interesante notar que ninguna de las declaraciones oficiales ni de la EPA, del estado o las compañías petroleras manifiestan que Corexit limpie las aguas. Ellos, sin embargo, en repetidas ocasiones dijeron que Corexit es “eficaz”, para inducir al público a pensar que Corexit limpia las aguas. Lo que Corexit hace muy eficientemente es hundir el petróleo bajo la superficie para que este no sea visto ni cuantificado. Corexit también divide el petróleo en pequeñas partículas expande la contaminación a lo largo y ancho; lo que hace que los problemas potenciales de exposición al tóxico para los seres humanos y toda la flora y la fauna sean exponencialmente peores.


En su página web, la EPA está de acuerdo en que el uso Corexit como una herramienta para limpiar el Golfo tiene cosas buenas y malas. La pregunta es, ¿dónde están los aspectos positivos? El petróleo no se limpia, pero las aguas y el ecosistema completo están contaminandos. Teniendo en cuenta la línea de acción del Gobierno Federal, parece que la tarea es empeorar las cosas, en lugar de mejorarlas. Incluso después de que BP pidío que se hicieran pruebas en el petróleo expulsado de la plataforma Deepwater Horizon con otros productos alternativos no tóxicos, cuya eficacia ya ha sido probada en la limpieza de derrames, la EPA se negó a permitir que las tecnologías alternativas fueran utilizadas.

Uno de los productos más apreciados sugeridos por los científicos y grupos ambientalistas y de conservación para limpiar derrames de petróleo es el Oil Spill Eater II, que no sólo está aprobado por la EPA, pero también aparece como parte de una lista oficial de productos para la limpieza de derrames de petróleo, denominado Plan Nacional de Contingencia plan (o lista de NCP) que han sido probados y aprobados como viables para situaciones de emergencia como la que está ocurriendo en el Golfo de México.

De acuerdo con la Alianza para el Rescate del Golfo, las solicitudes de BP para el uso en derrames de petróleo del producto Oil Pill Eater II fueron rechazados por la EPA y las autoridades regionales que controlan a los funcionarios del equipo de respuesta. The Real Agenda, recibió otros documentos que muestran las peticiones formales hechas por los Gobernadores de Louisiana, Alabama y Mississippi para utilizar o llevar a cabo ensayos con OSE II en sus estados. En junio de 2010, la EPA envió una carta al gobernador Jindal de Luisiana, negando el uso de métodos de biorremediación para limpiar el petróleo de la explosión ocurrida en la plataforma Deepwater Horizon. Documentos obtenidos por la Alianza para el Rescate del Golfo, la carta enviada a Jindal tenía una serie de inexactitudes y afirmaciones engañosas, y mostró una sorprendente falta de comprensión del proceso natural que la madre naturaleza sigue para limpiar un derrame de petróleo. Esto se hizo efectiva la eliminación del producto no contaminante OSE II que como se dijo anteriormente está en la lista de NCP para su uso en el Golfo de México. El único producto no tóxico que no encajaba con la descripción detallada de por qué la EPA determinó que la biorremediación tendría sólo un valor limitado, sin saberlo, influyó en la no utilización inmediata de OSE II. Cuando esto se señaló a la EPA en una carta posterior de enviada por OSEI Corporation, la empresa que fabrica y distribuye OSE II, la EPA ignoró la carta. El Jefe Legal de BP America, declaró en una conferencia telefónica con la Corporación OSEI, en septiembre de 2011 que BP no podría utilizar OSE II para tratar el vertido de petróleo debido a que “BP estaba obligado a acatar la decisión del gobierno” -obligado por el mandato de la EPA [a seguir usando] Corexit. En consecuencia, se estima por fuentes externas a BP que esta empresa podría “haber ahorrado un estimado de 36 mil millones en costos de limpieza si se hubiera aprobado el uso del producto alternativo a Corexit. Miembros de la Alianza para el Rescate del Golfo dicen poseer una voluminosa documentación que prueba que la EPA arbitrariamente bloquea cualquier intento de utilizar métodos ecológicos para limpiar el Golfo y en cambio prefiere usar Corexit sin tener en cuenta los daños causados a la vida marina y la salud pública que causa el dispersante químico Corexit.

El uso de tecnologías más amigables, no sólo podría haber salvado el ecosistema del Golfo en las primeras etapas del desastre, pero también habría reducido los costos del proceso de limpieza, tanto para el gobierno federal como para la propia BP y habría evitado el daño incalculable causado hasta ahora. En cambio, el desastre en el Golfo sigue poniendo en peligro todo y a todos por los altos niveles de contaminación tóxica, y los costos del proceso de limpieza – que se estiman ahora en las decenas de miles de millones de dólares- siguen multiplicándose.

Teniendo en cuenta la decisión de la EPA de no ayudar a resolver el desastre del derrame de petróleo en el Golfo de México, las organizaciones comunitarias como la Fundación Surfrider y el Centro de la Diversidad Biológica han presentado denuncias judiciales que piden a la EPA que lleve a cabo estudios a largo plazo que evalúen los impactos de Corexit en el medio ambiente y las especies en peligro de extinción. Se espera que estos juicios actúen como un llamado de atención a la EPA, NOAA y la Guardia Costera de los EE.UU., que parecen haber hecho un esfuerzo consciente para bloquear todas las alternativas dirigidas a la utilización de OSE II o cualquier otro producto respetuoso del medio ambiente y tecnologías o técnicas realmente eficaces para limpiar el Golfo con rapidez y eficacia.

Luis R. Miranda es un periodista con 15 años de experiencia. Él es el fundador y editor de The Real Agenda. Aprenda más sobre Luis aquí.