Gone in 18 Seconds -- BP's Lie Dismissed

First, I would like to credit "Marine Scout" for posting this discussion in an online forum. Once again, I did not discover this video, I'm only reporting on it. Second, I encourage you to hover your mouse over the lower right corner of the video and click on the Youtube logo when it fades up -- viewing the video on Youtube's own site you will be able to get better resolution than you can with it embedded here.

But it only takes 18 seconds to realize that what I first wrote about several days ago is in fact the awful truth -- BP are lying when they say that their well is capped with no oil leaking out from other spots in the ground, that there was only one well leaking oil and that all the oil in the Gulf has magically disappeared. One well, the one you see on TV is capped. The other one, Well B, where Deepwater Horizon blew is probably not capped at all. Insiders reported in the weeks after the explosion that the blowout preventer on that well was blown miles away by the force of the blast. In any case, BP have officially denied to me that a second well exists or that they even ever gained government permission to drill Well B, even though they applied for it. And even though, as you will see, there is equipment at the B site and it was leaking oil just like its sister well.

I wrote an email a couple days ago to BP's press office, challenging them on the discrepancy in the Skandi ROV footage I had captured, which I posted about on this blog earlier in the week. Here is the response I received:

BP ‘s exploration plans for Mississippi Canyon, Block 252, references two possible well locations -- well location "A" and well location "B." But BP eventually sought and received approval to drill only one well -- a well at the "A" location referenced in the exploration plan. This one well is now known as the MC252 (or Macondo) exploratory well. The Transocean Marianas rig started drilling the MC252 exploratory well in October 2009. The Marianas rig was subsequently damaged by Hurricane Ida, so in February 2009 the Transocean Deepwater Horizon was brought in to finish the well.


Regards

Sheila Williams
BP Group Press Officer
Tel: (office) + 44 (0)2074964851
Mobile: +44 (0) 07788190449
e-mail: sheila.williams@uk.bp.com

I almost gave up and believed her. But I clearly recalled hearing both on the radio and on television that BP drilled one well first, ran into problems, capped it and moved to a second site, which is where Deepwater Horizon drilled the doomed well and the rig exploded. According to Ms. Williams, all activity occurred at one site, site A, but I couldn't absolutely prove with the video I captured myself that we were being shown two wells on television -- all I had was proof that we were being shown the first well, Well A and not Well B, where the explosion occurred. None of what Ms. Williams says makes sense. Now there is incontrovertible video evidence of BP's deception.

Watch in this short video as their lie is revealed. The X-coordinate, toward the upper left of the ROV's onscreen display is what to look for. It's actually labeled E for East, but when going back and looking at the Initial Exploration Plan that BP filed that equals the X-axis on the map of the sea floor. The video is blurry, but you can make out "E: 1202512.35" A couple seconds later you see "E: 1202879.69." Then after another few seconds when the television switches to another clip, the ROV is sitting at "E: 1202496.94."

Go look at the PDF file linked above from the Minerals Management Service -- BP applied to drill Well A at "X:1202803.88" and Well B at "X: 1202514.00." There it is, plain as day. There were two wells drilled, as has been reported once or twice in the mainstream media. Ms. Williams of BP is spreading disinformation. Here you will see an image of BP's filed plan for Well A followed by a capture from the second of the three underwater shots in the video:




And since that video from RT is a bit blurry and lacking in contrast between the white numbers onscreen and the petroleum behind it, here is a video that I myself captured on June 13, showing the ROV at "X: 1202800.32" though the numbers shift very slightly as the sub sways with the ocean current. That is just a hair away from X-1202803.88 where Well A is, and that hair is the distance from the ROV to the equipment itself. It is looking at Well A.





Now that you've seen Well A, where BP's subs are now, I'll show you the rare mystery footage. We will now switch sites and you will see the location of Well B in that same document that BP filed with the government followed by screens captured from the first and third underwater scenes in the RT video linked to at the top of this post:





So there it is in black and white next to living color. BP are lying. Ms. Williams either lied or was given false information to send me in order to attempt to throw me off track. Two wells, two distinct locations, twin wellheads and all the other equipment. And still the video from the Skandi subs are showing Well A on your network and cable news, but you clearly see a well at location B also spewing oil in the Youtube video.

This is 100% concrete evidence that we have been and still are being lied to, except that we are no longer being deceived, thanks to Youtuber who first brought to my attention the discrepancy in the underwater coordinates, and the forum user who linked to this 18-second video.

Ladies and gentlemen, I implore you to spread this information to your local media, to your friends and family, neighbors, co-workers, anyone who will listen. This information must enter the mainstream media if BP are to be brought to justice for this deception. So far Mike Rivero is the only media figure who has discussed this. But it takes less than half a minute to see for yourself the con job that the company is still getting away with. Get this video and PDF file of BP's exploration plan to Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Cooper, Olbermann, Maddow, anybody.

The entire country is furious with what BP has done and not done in the Gulf. This is not a left vs. right issue, everyone cares. Everyone cares and everyone, no matter their political affiliation, wants to know the truth. Here is the truth in a very quick, easy-to-understand gift-wrapped package. Two wells, both having been damaged and spewing oil and methane into the Gulf of Mexico.

I wonder what Ms. Williams of BP will say now? Why, if BP "eventually sought and received approval to drill only one well -- a well at the 'A' location referenced in the exploration plan" as she wrote me is there footage from their own ROV of not only second well, at the B location they applied for, but why was it also spewing oil at the end of May. I suppose Ms. Williams will claim that that was stock footage, or that the location finding system on the Skandi ROV just happened to send an erroneous signal fooling the computers into believing that it was somewhere it wasn't. Only that random, non-existent somewhere just so happened to precisely where BP applied for Well B.

The time when BP could get away with their continual lying is over now. The government must immediately investigate why BP has two wells and why both were caught on video from their own submersibles and broadcast on television leaking. Then the company should be shut down and their assets seized for this grand deception, trying to wriggle their way out from being financially responsible for the worst environmental disaster in recorded human history.

[To see my original post after having discovered the fraud, follow this link.]

UPDATE:
I have just discovered another video on Youtube, completely separate from the RT footage that was broadcast, on a different day, showing a much clearer view of Well B spewing oil, and you can clearly see that oil is coming directly out of the well, which was not as clearly defined in the RT video. Behold:



This video is from June 7 and shows in very distinct numbers that the ROV is located at X-1202476.576. Well B's location in other words. The well which BP still refuses to admit exists. What say you now, Ms. Williams? Busted.


UPDATE 2:
Just so that people can have the evidence of both wells with their separate coordinates on one screen without having to scroll up and down, I'll repost a video from Well A with it's coordinates easily visible. Compare and contrast! X-1202476 on the video above, X-1202796-1202803 in the other, fluctuating slightly, and remember that this is Well A, it's just the bottom of these pair because I decided to add it later on as an update:



UPDATE 3:
FOUR PICTURES TELL THE WHOLE STORY

WELL A:





WELL B:




BP's own document shows Well A's location at X:1202803.88 and their ROV shows X-1202802.63. BP's Exploration Plan shows Well B to be drilled at X:1202514.00 and their ROV is shown sitting in front of a different gushing well at X-1202476.56. Neither ROV position can ever be shown on screen as exactly the coordinates in BP's document, because that is the center of the well pipe. In order for the numbers to be exactly the same down to the decimal point, the ROVs would have to be filming inside the well casings, which is, of course, impossible. Plus the subs have to maintain some distance between themselves and the center of the well simply in order to be able to catch what BP has them looking at in their video frames.

Two wells, two gushers, two distinct positions as clearly seen on BP's own screens. Where are you Ms. Williams of BP Public Relations? Looking for another job, probably. If I am correct and we have been lied to the whole time, you really don't want to be handling P.R. for the company. I await challenges from the Anonymouses in the comments section.



UPDATE 4:
An anonymous commenter brought something back to my attention which had been written by someone to me before, and I simply forgot to update my articles. The Y coordinate for Well B which was printed in the section of BP's Initial Exploration Plan I've been using for the Well A vs. Well B comparison is a typo. The true figure for Well B should appear as Y=10431494, not Y=10434194. No conspiracy here, just a simple keystroke error resulting in the transposition of a '4' and a '1' in the middle of the number.

The anonymous commenter noticed this on his or her own and calculated the correct figure by translating the latitude-longitude figures, but this is confirmed elsewhere in the same Plan -- if you scroll past the first couple of pages you will find a large color map of the site, and the coordinates printed there for site B are the correct ones, corroborating what the commenter noticed. I have been only concentrating on the X coordinate but it's nice of that person to have noticed the error in BP's filing and let me know about it.