DISASTER BP: Sobering geology analysis the ROV's can't show us

[milkydoo]

I considered making a new thread for this, and then just posted to the main BP thread, but CountryMouse believes it deserves its' own thread, and I agree, so here it is.

Found this at Rense, as usual:

It's a fairly long read, but well worth it. It's fit for the layman, like myself, and depicts what 'probably happened', and it really makes a lot of sense and answers a lot of questions.

And it does not lead to a happy ending..... Please go to the link for the full read with lots of illustrations.

http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/201...acondo-blowout-so-disastrous-beyond-patch-up-

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]No wonder the drillers described the Macondo well as a “Hell Well”. Compare this nightmare scenario with the Texaco Rigel well which was drilled safely just a km away from the salt dome. BP’s management should have correlated the drilling problems with the geological structure. If they had done that (which is the gist of this article), they would have realised that the Macondo well was just a disaster waiting to happen. They should have taken the responsible way out by abandoning the well before reaching the reservoir.

By failing to do that, they were just postponing the inevitable. The “giant aquifer system” was fully charged and just waiting for any mistake to trigger the blowout. No wonder the directors and top executives were rushing to sell off their shares after the 11 March incident, in anticipation of the worse to come." [/FONT]

Thanks to CountryMouse for the quote.

 

[Brutus]

I considered making a new thread for this, and then just posted to the main BP thread, but CountryMouse believes it deserves its' own thread, and I agree, so here it is.

Found this at Rense, as usual:

It's a fairly long read, but well worth it. It's fit for the layman, like myself, and depicts what 'probably happened', and it really makes a lot of sense and answers a lot of questions.

And it does not lead to a happy ending..... Please go to the link for the full read with lots of illustrations.

http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/201...acondo-blowout-so-disastrous-beyond-patch-up-

Thanks to CountryMouse for the quote.

 

[Green Co.]

Written for laymen, those who have absolutely no knowledge of why a well is drilled where it is. There are pretty pictures on the article, of salt domes & oil leaks. But from where did they derive this geological information? Where are the drilling logs/mud logs that would show beyond a doubt what was encountered? Where are the seismographic logs that indicate the type & density of the soils.. ..

A whole lot of speculation, probably a revenue generating article for BK Lim and Rense. Just making the fog denser.

 

[Countrymouse]

Brutus---you'll have to direct the "rolleyes" at Tom McDowell as well, for on the main "oil spill" thread his comment regarding this article was that it was "an interesting read" which he thanked Milkydoo for posting. He also characterized the Static Kill as BP's "next experiment", and pointed out that we the public really have no way of knowing if it's successful or not, since it's taking place far underground and only BP will be privvy to the pressure readings that tell how it's going, unless, as he pointed out, " something breaks loose."

I know you think everyone who is skeptical of BP's "we now have everything under control and everything is rosy" scenario is an idiot--you've made no secret of the fact that you think that of me---but before you start imputing that to everything you come across, I would ask you to actually read the article.

I would think, given Tom's proven record of level-headed knowledgeable input on the true mechanics of the Macondo well ever since this thing began, that he wouldn't call something "interesting" if he thought it to be poppycock. Even when he's had to debunk something, he's always done it politely and respectfully.

The sign of a true gentleman, and (in my experience) of a man who truly knows what he is talking about, and so doesn't have to put others down to prove how intelligent he is.

Which is why Tom's opinion holds great weight with me.

Please read the article before you debunk it.

 

[Countrymouse]

Written for laymen, those who have absolutely no knowledge of why a well is drilled where it is. There are pretty pictures on the article, of salt domes & oil leaks. But from where did they derive this geological information? Where are the drilling logs/mud logs that would show beyond a doubt what was encountered? Where are the seismographic logs that indicate the type & density of the soils.. ..

A whole lot of speculation, probably a revenue generating article for BK Lim and Rense. Just making the fog denser.

The fact that the mud logs were never made available is one of the points of the article, though that term was never used. I'm hoping you read the article as well as looked at the pictures?---because that is the writer's oft-mentioned complaint, that we need that seismographic data.

As to where he got the data for drawing the maps he did--perhaps from the logs from the other, earlier well (the Texaco Rigel)?

 

[Green Co.]

The fact that the mud logs were never made available is one of the points of the article, though that term was never used.
Nor would I expect them to be made available. BP & Transocean will have many lawsuits coming. They will not voluntarily give up anything that might implicate wrong doing. The only way drillers & mud logs will be made available is thru the court's subpoena.
I'm hoping you read the article as well as looked at the pictures?---because that is the writer's oft-mentioned complaint, that we need that seismographic data.
The seismographic survey belongs to the agency/business that commissioned it. If it was an oil producer that paid for it, whether or not it was BP, we will not see it. These surveys are terribly expensive, if they were made available to the public, a competitor could use it to outbid the survey owner as they would have less costs in locating prospects. However, the USGS does much surveying of the GOM, and those should be available, even if having to go thru the FOIA.

As to where he got the data for drawing the maps he did--perhaps from the logs from the other, earlier well (the Texaco Rigel)? I'm sure that if the author had had surveys/logs from Texaco, he would have said so, to corroborate his hypothesis.

Bed time, folks.

 

[Countrymouse]

In actually "reading" the article (novel concept, I know), I found the following indications of where he got the information for the drawings:

1. "The geological model presented here is based on facts derived from past blowout investigations that had been equally puzzling...The fact that this geological model had been independently generalized from data and information available on the public domain means that there is room for more detailed infill and ample opportunities for BP’s technical experts to prove the model wrong."

2. Some of the data is said to be derived from BP's own bathemetric chart, with this link given to it: http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/201...something-wrong-with-bps-macondo-bathy-chart-

3. Both the BP bathemetric chart and "satellite images of the seafloor obtained from Google Earth" were consulted in indicating that "both Macondo’s wells (A & B) were located on an escarpment" and that the "Texaco Rigel well which is about 2.43 km from BP Macondo A, is about 1 km away from the edge of the escarpment."

The author then speculates what underground structures would normally underlie such a formation, and he takes as his "model" (he clearly says it is a 'model', not established fact, and that we NEED the info on the actual geologic structures from BP to determine what is really down there) that the formation is a salt dome, but then says "any vertical geological structure like an intrusive dyke or a vertically inclined fault zone (lateral fault), would essentially produce the same effects."

His POINT, I think, is told in this sentence: "It provides a fresh perspective into the blowout investigation which until now had been overly focused on the drilling itself. If the well blowout was already a disaster in waiting, there is absolutely nothing the drilling crew could do to prevent the blowout, short of abandoning the well prior to reaching the reservoir...if subsequent revelations (from yet to be published data or information) substantiate or improve on the accuracy of the model, then this geological modeling effort, is heading the right direction in providing a more sound basis for corrective measures towards making the oil industry safer from such future disasters."

And I, for one, believe THAT is a worthy goal---and NEVER would I sanction any company withholding information that could eventually save lives and prevent another such disaster as we've seen in the Gulf--I know BP is playing the "CYA" game, but in my book that's unconscionable.

 

[Ragnarok]

Please read the article before you debunk it.

Does count as "debunking"?

 

[milkydoo]

I'm giving this a bump. It's worth a read for those who haven't seen it.

....and please stop trying to feather your cap by way of complaining about the missing mud logs. The experts have demanded them; BP is not yielding. There's nothing we can do but speculate without them.

 

[Hfcomms]

Science 1, Nutters 0

On the oil leak, that is.

Workers stopped pumping mud in after about eight hours of their "static kill" procedure and were monitoring the well to ensure it remained stable, BP said.

"The well pressure is now being controlled by the hydrostatic pressure of the drilling mud, the desired outcome of the static kill procedure," the company said in a statement.

Yep. No big surprise there by the way. See, the well was under hydrostatic control with the weight of the drilling mud before they displaced the riser, so if you could get the mud back into the well in a column, it would work again.

Of course the nutters out there - and you know who they are - claimed "100,000+ psi of pressure" and other similar nonsense.

So now we have a static pressure (at the top) at or near zero, with the weight of the mud holding the oil in, exactly as it was before the riser was displaced - and exactly what physics says will happen.

For those of you who listened to those that were running "death of everything in the Gulf, film at 11", you might want to reconsider how you get your "news", and whether such people might have had a conflict of interest (like, oh, being short BP perhaps?)

Yes, the SEC is allegedly looking into possible "irregularities" in BP's shares. 'Ya think there might be something there? People running their yaps about "unkillable wells", "methane bubbles" and other similar nonsense?

Heh, it's not against the law to be certifiably insane - unless, of course you short a company's stock before running nonsense like that in the media.

Time will tell if anyone did that.

This is not to diminish what I believe were acts of gross negligence on that platform prior to the explosion. I believe there is plenty of evidence now in the record in the form of sworn testimony alone to implicate some of the people and firms involved in that regard. 11 men are dead and clearly a severe ecological impact did take place.

But "we're all gonna die" was never realistically on the table, and those so-called "media outlets" that gave these nutballs a voice have some very tough questions to answer and, I believe, to the extent that they're licensed broadcasters on the public airwaves, they should answer them as part of a determination as to whether those licenses should be revoked.

http://market-ticker.org/

 

[Sysman]

Let me see if I understand...

They pumped enough heavy mud into the 2.5 mile long pipe to equalize the ~7,000 PSI well pressure. So the pressure at the well head is now 0 PSI, I can buy that...

The concern is damage to the pipe, a way for the oil to escape the pipe, find a way to the seafloor, and begin leaking from the seafloor...

There -could be- some damage to the pipe. That second pipe in the riser, when they cut it, did come from someplace. However, it is possible the second pipe came from somewhere "inside" the failed BOP. That would be good news, it would mean the pipe from the seafloor on down is still solid...

The big if, is the pipe damaged? If it is, and perhaps the pros can correct me if I'm wrong, I think the critical factor is, where is the damage...

If the damage is at the 2.4 mile mark in a 2.5 mile pipe, then there is no problem. That extra 0.1 mile isn't going to make a bit of difference. 2.4 miles of "earth" is still enough to keep the ~7,000 PSI in check, just like it always has (with the exception of the "drip drip" natural leaks that have always been there)...

On the other end of the scale, if the damage was only 0.1 mile down, we'ld have known long ago. If this was the case, as soon as they turned the last valve on the new cap/BOP, and "sealed in" that ~7,000 PSI, there would be an "explosion" of the seafloor, the BOP would fall over, and vast amounts of oil would be gushing from the seafloor around the well...

So, what happens if the pipe is damaged somewhere between 0.1 and 2.4 miles, that is the real question...

Let's say it is broken 1 mile down. Is that 1 mile of "earth" enough to hold back the hi-pressure oil/gas looking for a way out? I've heard that the first mile of seafloor around the well is like "powdered sugar". So again, I think we would have known by now if the pipe is broken in the first mile. Powdered sugar vs. ~7,000 PSI is no contest...

Looks to me like the pipe would need to be broken at about the 1.5 mile mark. A half mile of "solid earth" plus a mile of "powdered sugar" may not be enough to hold back that ~7,000 PSI of oil/gas. And it could take a while to "work its way up"...

What are the odds?

 

[Countrymouse]

Science 1, Nutters 0

... you might want to reconsider how you get your "news", and whether such people might have had a conflict of interest (like, oh, being short BP perhaps?)

Yes, the SEC is allegedly looking into possible "irregularities" in BP's shares.

I don't suppose our U.S. SEC will look into the rather large (to use British 'understatement') sale of BP stock, BY BP executives, BEFORE the well even blew--in some cases, only DAYS before, since those are British citizens and a British company, and thus not under SEC authority.

Talk about shorting stock.....

What did the BP execs know?

And when did they know it?

I still say there is much more to this story than a simple "Oh golly gee, whoops--we made a mistake folks, but we promise we'll fix it..."

 

[Ozlady]

This video maintains from the official documentation that BP drilled two wells (A & B) and that going by the coordinates the live feed we have been seeing is from the first well that they had abandoned not the second one that blew up



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlrHind-Eic&feature=player_embedded

 

[BoatGuy]

Written for laymen, those who have absolutely no knowledge of why a well is drilled where it is. There are pretty pictures on the article, of salt domes & oil leaks. But from where did they derive this geological information? Where are the drilling logs/mud logs that would show beyond a doubt what was encountered? Where are the seismographic logs that indicate the type & density of the soils.. ..

A whole lot of speculation, probably a revenue generating article for BK Lim and Rense. Just making the fog denser.

Agreed and well said. The drilling and mud logs will not see the light of day until the trials start.

 

[milkydoo]

This video maintains from the official documentation that BP drilled two wells (A & B) and that going by the coordinates the live feed we have been seeing is from the first well that they had abandoned not the second one that blew up



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlrHind-Eic&feature=player_embedded

Thanks for that. This guy explains the A-B Well controversy about as well as anyone could.

And once again, for the skeptics, Matt Simmons and others, have stated that there is 'no way that 5 inch riser pipe is the source of all that oil'. They have said that there must be another blown out well.

They have also stated that the geology is destroyed, and cannot be repaired.

This isn't over by a long shot........

 

[Rucus Sunday]

Y2K Part Deux didn't work out (again) and we're left to wonder why. Dang it.

When "it" comes, "it" will probably come at an unexpected time from an unexpected source, and not from an expected unexpected source.

 

[Sysman]

BP drilled two wells (A & B) and that going by the coordinates the live feed we have been seeing is from the first well that they had abandoned

This guy explains the A-B Well controversy about as well as anyone could.

Umm, there are 27,000 ABANDONED wells in the Gulf. I think BP has more than a couple...

When you think of oil in the Gulf, think of those old western movies from Texas. Remember those scenes where all you could see was oil wells side by side, all the way to the horizon, every few acres had a well, thousands of 'em. That's what we now have, underwater in the Gulf...

no way that 5 inch riser pipe is the source of all that oil'

Once again I say, where is the proof? Where is all this oil that should still be gushing from "another" well? Why are they having trouble finding ANY oil on the surface TODAY???

Are you saying BP has successfully "dispersed" all the oil from this "other" well, they've managed to "sink" ALL the oil from this "other" well???

Gimme a break...

Look, I'm not trying to stick up for BP. I believe they do deserve most of the blame for this disaster, and there is a price that will be paid...

I'm just tired of all this off the wall speculation, that has no supporting evidence, other than the opinion of some "expert"...

SHOW ME, damn it...

 

[Ozlady]

Sysman...Umm, there are 27,000 ABANDONED wells in the Gulf. I think BP has more than a couple...

Hmmm, did you watch the vid? Has the original official Initial Exploration Plan for Mississippi Canyon Block 252 and gives the exact coordinates for both wells. Also the coordinates shown on the 'live feed' appear not to be correct for the well in question.

 

[Green Co.]

Perhaps if folks would study the effects of two other off-shore drilling accidents. I'd suggest the Ixtoc in Mexican waters back in the '70's, and the very recent Montara in Australian waters, we might get a clue as to how crude acts in relation to H2O.

Now, another well spewing oil into the GOM? Consider the Montara, less oil, shallower water, no chemical dispersants... there was oil sheen for 10,000 SQ MILES!

Plus, There would have to be several support ships at this phantom BP well, in order to control the subs, inject dispersants, etc.... Has anyone seen any such sea surface activity on the NASA runs? Oh yeah... probably edited out.....

 

[Sysman]

did you watch the vid?

Yea, I watched it, all 9:41 of it...

Here was my first hint. What was the very first thing he said - "I saw on the internet" (so it must be true).

Who is this guy that made the vid? What does he know, what does he do for a living? Should we now consider him an "expert" just because he mentioned the name Matt Simmons? What makes him any different from you or me or every other Joe Sixpack that has a computer and an "opinion"?

I'll bet you a great big kiss, that if you give me a couple hours of "internet research", I'll be able to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the transistor was discovered after the crash of an alien spaceship at area 51....

Again I say so what. So what if BP has an abandoned well in the same area. Look, if you went for a "walk around the block" down there, it would be almost impossible to ~NOT~ trip over another well, either abandoned or in production. This is a "hot zone", they really do have wells, EVERYWHERE!

Hey, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I love you guys. But I just don't see any "logic" in this argument. I've been a computer programmer for 4+ decades, logic is my favorite hobby. There is a reason why all us nerds love Spock...

This guy may call his vid "NO BS !!". But as a faithful American Joe Sixpack, I've got another opinion, even if it is my totally unprofessional, know nothing opinion...

(Thanks to whoever I stole this GIF from )

.

 

[Hfcomms]

And once again, for the skeptics, Matt Simmons and others, have stated that there is 'no way that 5 inch riser pipe is the source of all that oil'. They have said that there must be another blown out well.

They have also stated that the geology is destroyed, and cannot be repaired.

This isn't over by a long shot........

The proof is in the pudding milky, as they say. If this well is simply an adjunct and the real problem is on the sea floor a mile or two away that can't be contained then why are we seeing a drastic reduction in oil fouling since the capping of the well that we do know about? If the theorists like Simmons are correct then the capping of this well is simply a side show and things should be continuing to get worse and not better. Yet the physical evidence is demonstrating that Simmons and the doom prognosticators are not correct in their evaluation of this disaster. Why would Simmons as an example hold to his viewpoint? Denninger has a theory as well as I posted yesterday.


Heh, it's not against the law to be certifiably insane - unless, of course you short a company's stock before running nonsense like that in the media. Time will tell if anyone did that....


Simmons is an investment banker in the oil realm. Certainly we can trust a banker to give us a valid and unbiased viewpoint can we not?

 

[milkydoo]

Guys, I understand the risk of trusting any expert without full evidence to back them up, but the evidence, and the facts have been hidden, buried and manipulated since day one.

Remember that old saying: "If you've done nothing wrong, then you've got nothing to hide."

I like to apply that saying, not to the individual citizen, but to corporations and the government. If BP has done nothing wrong, then why hide the mud logs? Those mud logs very obviously have some damning evidence in them. Damning evidence weighs more on the side of doom than skepticism.

Follow this:

BP = Not Trustworthy

Government = Not Trustworthy

NOAA = Possibly trustworthy

Alternative News Experts (Simmons, Landau, etc.) Possibly Trustworthy

As a layman, when the evidence is being deliberately hidden, and the government has very obviously shirked their responsibility, then I have no choice but to speculate on the side of doom.

Oh, two more things:

1) If this static and bottom kill at least plug the leak off the pipe we've been seeing (not counting any other blown out geology leaks elsewhere), then we should not see any more leaks coming from the new BOP.

2) If they switch the ROV cameras off right after the bottom kill, then my 'lying scumbag corporation meter' is going to peg.

This A-B Well has been known for quite some time in the alternative news (the real news), so why isn't BP and the gov. using the proper terminology for this site?

I haven't heard anything about this double well drill in the MSM. Why? It's relevant information. Why has it never been discussed?

And I do note that you guys aren't disputing the documentation that this guy found, which proves that they at least applied for a drill permit for two Macando wells.

One thing I always find humorous (and sad), is how the skeptics continue to play pollyanna, after each and every new lie is discovered and new manipulation uncovered. The string of lies and manipulations keeps getting longer, but the ROV reality tv show we've been watching says, "Problem Solved", so it must be.....

Where's all the oil? Where do you think: It's in the ocean.

Btw, I heard Rush the other week say that there's enough microbes in a can of beer to clean up all of the oil, so here's a tip for every one down there: Just go out to the beach and pop a cold one in the surf, or if you're boating, dump a few cans over board, and we'll be set.

If only BP could have talked to Rush first. All they ever needed to clean this up was 6-Pack of Milwaukee's Best (make sure you recycle the cans please).