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

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 4^o. 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?

Advertisement

BP Banned From US Government Contracts

SKYNEWS | NOVEMBER 28, 2012

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 Gulf Oil Spill Revisited

Corexit Plus Oil Is A Continuing Threat, Says Gulf Rescue Alliance.

GULF RESCUE ALLIANCE | APRIL 20, 2012

Sunday, April 22nd is not only Earth Day, it also marks the 2nd anniversary of the unprecedented Macondo Prospect oil gusher into the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) which began the infamous BP Gulf Oil Spill – a triggered geological anomaly separate from the Deepwater Horizon disaster on 20 April 2010.

The Gulf Rescue Alliance (GRA) has published “DEEPWATER UNKNOWNS -TWO YEARS AFTER” in observance of this day unearthing new details about this oil spill event. This extraordinarily revealing account is set against “a backdrop of recently published scientific studies indicating sick and dying dolphins, coral and other sea life; bacteria laden tar balls washing onto beaches, an intoxicated Gulf food chain and a Macondo geohazard risk zone over a mile below the surface that some experts say has the potential of releasing toxic gas and oil into the Gulf of Mexico for the next 25 years.”

There has been a wave of articles recently published detailing the many health problems and medical concerns which both government and industry have yet to acknowledge.  Many of these studies point out the obvious; that when you mix a tremendous volume of released oil with methane gas and further mix it with a toxic dispersant like Corexit, as they have done throughout this oil spill, a chemical cocktail is created that will have as far-reaching ecological ramifications as it will profound environmental consequences.  

Health and environmental advocacy groups of concerned citizens have demanded that the government operate with more transparency in the GOM.  For instance, it was reported by GRA in “Digging Under the Macondo Tombstones” that “a petition to demand an independent ROV survey of the seabed floor” has been circulated to compel the US Federal Government to fulfill its statutory responsibilities to the residents of the GOM coastline.[DSW1] 

Contrary to recent reports, BP and government officials have held firm that oil is no longer leaking and sightings of new oil are merely ‘natural seeps’.   A Geohazards Specialist who has worked from afar analyzing the state of the seafloor around the Macondo explains why this is likely not the case:  

“After months of spewing a corrosive mix of gas, oil and brine into the fragile faulted Gulf Salt-Geology, even the most optimistic geologists would come to the grim conclusion that the 18,300 ft well is no longer the only vertical conduit out of the reservoir.  ~ BK Lim Geohazard Expert

Another very telling story has been reported by Barbara Wiseman, President of The Earth Organization (TEO). “At the beginning of the disaster, TEO investigated to find effective, non-toxic technologies currently available in adequate supply to clean up an oil spill of this size.  Once we isolated the best solutions, we then investigated to find what the barriers to getting them implemented were.  The barriers have all come down to specific people in the EPA.  They are, in effect, holding the Gulf hostage and, for some unexplained reason, won’t let it be cleaned up.”

Hence, two years after, workable technology for cleaning up the spill damage is blocked by what GRA calls an “EPA blind sighted by its own bureaucratic web”.  This stark observation was made by one with deep experience in this field: “The toxic dispersants add absolutely nothing to EFFECTIVE RESPONSE.  There is no scientific basis for it, and their use violates The Clean Water Act, EPA’s charter and common sense.  All stakeholders continue doing the same thing over and over again, with the exact same negative outcome—although the EPA calls the toxins in dispersants’ reasonable tradeoffs’, Corexit and dispersants like it, have a horrible track record”, said Steven Pedigo, CEO OSEI Corporation.

The Gulf Rescue Alliance has likewise posted important questions and presented previously unknown facts about the true state of the Macondo well, which have yet to make it into the mainstream media after almost two years.  Their report to Congress on February 24, 2012 is both revelatory and alarming.  Conclusive Evidence That BP Misrepresented Gulf Oil Spill Sent To Congress and now Deepwater Unknowns ought to be studied by officials throughout the concerned state governments, as well as by all the coastal counties and beachfront communities rimming the GOM coastline.

Earth Day presents a perfect opportunity for all concerned citizens living and working near the Gulf Coast to come together to resolve some of these weighty matters. Only by proactively addressing the true state of the Gulf of Mexico, will the waters, beaches, wetlands and estuaries ever have hope of being cleaned up.