Saturday, August 7, 2010

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.


Sheila Williams
BP Group Press Officer
Tel: (office) + 44 (0)2074964851
Mobile: +44 (0) 07788190449

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.]

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.

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:




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.

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.


  1. I still think you're jumping the proverbial gun. This is not, as you put it, 100% concrete evidence. Although it is very compelling and quite damning towards BP, there is still a loose end that needs explaining.

    This is not a rhetorical question: does anyone know how the positioning system works for the ROVs? If so, please explain.

    Sometimes the ROV coordinates in the feeds will be somewhat stable, with a random component of not more than several feet (i.e, well A could be seen as 1202798 to 1202808). Other times, however, the coordinates jump by a couple thousand feet. For a great example of this, check out youtube / watch?v=O-rJH9xB7fk. @50sec, it reads what looks to be 1204504. Then at 52sec, it jumps to what looks like 1202411. Searching around youtube for ROV feeds will show a whole spectrum of uncertainties in coordinates- some varying by 10 feet, others by 100, some by 400, and that last one by 2000. Now I don't know what method they're using to get the coordinates and how much error or interference is involved, but given the system has been designed to display a resolution of two hundredths of a foot, does it seem reasonable for the measurement to be off by a couple thousand feet? And a change of a couple thousand in just a second? If this was the case, how could they even guide the ROVs? they'd be driving by sight alone, right?

    How does this make sense? What's going on here? Is BP using real ROV video and overlaying fake readouts to prevent us from pinning down the real coordinates of all of these feeds? Or is the positioning system really that fraught with interference and noise? This is an important question that needs to be answered in the pursuit for the truth. If not resolved, it can be a gaping hole in the attempt at pinpointing the ROV locations.

  2. BurnBP-you are saying you are hearing incorrect lies as told to the poster by BP.


    There should BE NO LEAKS yet live feed shows there clearly are-somewhere. There should be none ANYWHERE.

    If you want to argue with the poster share your own live feeds and correspondences with BP. Otherwise saying his proof that BP is lying isn't 1,000 percent solid though "compelling" says to me: "I know they're lying as there is still oil flowing but I don't know why."

    How are you helping? If you raise questions at least make an attempt to answer them before going on a persons blog and shooting down their perspective.

    Again-how,BurnBP, are you helping? You have answered none of your own questions.

  3. I am helping by pointing out that there are still some holes here which need to be closed. This has happened before with other large-scale cover-ups. Someone thinks they see a discrepancy which reveals the cover-up and spreads it as a definitive, proof-positive exposé. The idea catches on and once big enough, is presented to those with more scholastic knowledge of the subject. The experts immediately see the hole and pound on it relentlessly until the truth movement has been largely discredited in the eyes of the public. You're now crazy for entertaining the idea that BP and the NOAA would lie to you.

    I'm attempting to help by calling attention to that hole and giving us ample time to determine what's really going on here- allowing us to form an intelligent rebuttal when the time comes to use it. Burying your head in the sand and not considering the possibility that the very data you are using to build your argument is not reliable is a great way to come out of a real, intelligent discussion with a lot of egg on your face. Let's make sure the data is reliable first BEFORE calling our officials liars. I guarantee they have enough resources to hire experts who can discredit this argument in a second. But hey, if you want to throw caution to the wind, be my guest. See where it takes you. I, for one, would like to see BP held accountable- and every accusation fired their way that falls short of the mark WILL be used to the defense of BP.

  4. Thank you for your anonymous comments. Someone, perhaps the same person asked the same question about coordinates jumping around and being inaccurate. I counter with these:

    And you'll note that there was no such variance in the coordinates during the short video clip shown by RT. Someone in that older blog post's comment section helped me out by responding with this:

    Equipped according to DNV AUTR (NMD Class II) DP requirements.
    Type: Kongsberg SDP 21
    References: 2 x DGPS, Tautwire, HiPAP 500, HPR

    HiPAP and HPR are underwater acoustic nav systems that provide the position of the rov integrated with the GPS position of the support vessel."

    So it appears that the Skandi Neptune mothership uses GPS tracking on the surface and that the Skandi ROVs use their own underwater sonar-style system, and the three communicate with each other to establish the precise location of the subs, underwater, in real time. And the location must be extremely accurate if BP or any other company want to be able to find equipment nearly a mile down, where visibility is limited and a visual search of an area only roughly established would be very time-consuming, if not impossible.

    I'll try to research these actual systems for you all, but I'm neither a technician nor an engineer. But it seems logical to me that any navigational system designed to allow deep-diving ROVs to locate specific targets would, out of necessity, have to be accurate to a scale of feet. GPS on the ground is accurate to a few feet. These ROVs represent the highest level of nautical technology outside of military craft. I think they are very accurate as to position, and that the minor fluctuations we always see in the live feeds are merely the ROVs bobbing along with the underwater current and, when the oil was still shown to be gushing, interference from that stream's pressure. And if every once in a blue moon, this "jumping around" of the coordinates is seen, then yes, maybe acoustic interference down below knocks the system for a loop, for short periods of time.

    I have never seen coordinate jumping myself on the live feeds, and I've watched hours and hours of them, waiting to try and catch anomalies. If you or anyone can find repeated video evidence of this alleged navigational inaccuracy, please send me the links by commenting here, and I'd be glad to review the videos and, if necessary, alter my position. Does that sound reasonable?

    In any case, thank you for your comments. As long as there is no name calling between people, I don't at all mind being called wrong. And you are right, Anonymous, that this isn't 100% absolute bulletproof evidence. I wrote that just after I discovered the RT video and was over-excited because I believed it to prove what I had suspected for weeks. But I don't go back and change what I've written unless I find spelling or grammatical errors. Going back and changing things I've written, things predicted that turned out to be wrong would be disingenuous.

    This dumb blog is a snapshot of what is in my mind each day. So you can go back and find many things I was wrong about. You can also find more about which I was proven correct. So keep commenting, let's keep the discussion going, and get to the truth about the Gulf oil disaster. I hope I am wrong and that it was a terrible string of mistakes, accidents, and negligent moves, but I fear I'm more correct than you think... Thanks for your time.

  5. This just in -- Skandi Neptune, the mothership from which the ROVs are operated, has her own page on Facebook. Be friends with an inanimate object today!

  6. OK, Anonymouses, here is some addition technical information on Skandi Neptune and it's navigational, station-keeping and communications suites:

    "The Skandi Neptune was built in 2001 as a cable lay vessel and converted to a multi-purpose offshore support vessel in 2005. The vessel is currently on long term charter to Subsea 7. The vessel has been designed and constructed to a very high standard and has the ability to perform a variety of offshore and subsea operations. The following systems provide the vessel with the ability to perform multi-purpose roles, including ROV support, flexible pipelay installations and offshore construction projects. • Two stern mounted main azimuth thrusters combined with a retractable forward azimuth thruster and two bow tunnel thrusters provide excellent manoeuvring capabilities. • A Class 2 (DYNPOS AUTR) Kongsberg Simrad SDP 22 DP System with DGPS, tautwire, HiPAP and HPR reference systems provides a high degree of position keeping accuracy. • An active heave compensated 140 tonne SWL deck crane provides high capacity offshore construction capabilities with the ability to perform ship to ship transfers. • An ROV spread comprising of two permanent side launched 3000m rated workclass ROVs with a full suite of support facilities. • A 7.2 m x 7.2 m moonpool, 130 tonne traction winch and stern sheave arrangement is provided specifically for the installation of flexible pipe and cable from deck mounted portable lay spread systems. • High specification accommodation for 106 persons consisting of single and double berth cabins. A range of office suites and conference facilities are available for project purposes. • A worldwide communication system including KU Band, Inmarsat B and Inmarsat C. The KU Band system can be modified for C Band operations, dependent on area of operation. • An offshore helideck rated for Super Puma L2 operations complete with helideck monitoring system. • A 60 tonne SWL stern mounted A-Frame."

    From this web site to give credit where it is due:{CD42F682-310D-4E21-B64D-AADE9898B8D1}&sent=stored

  7. OK, Anonymouses, the Skandi Neptune is equipped with an enhanced GPS system called DGPS -- Differential GPS. That's how, along with the acoustically-based onboard nav system in the rovers, the coordinate measurements can be made so precise. Behold:

  8. Excellent work, BanksterBuster (don't know where you dug that up, but bravo). Knowing that it's sonar implies the coords should be quite precise. And for the record, I don't doubt you're wrong. I believe you're spot on, but I'm one who dwells on bulletproofing things (especially since I know how much resistance this information will be met with in the mainstream eye).

    Check this:
    WTF? The depth numbers seem to be updating correctly, but the X,Y coords are frozen (finally begins updating at the very end of the clip). I'm no expert, but that looks like a BOP to me (no sarcasm there... I really could be mistaken), so it should be either coords A or B, but it's not.
    And this one... well... some of the time the coords are WAY off (2000+ feet). Some of the time it's reporting a location near B, and the rest, near A. I have no idea what site this really is. How convenient for BP this little bug is, so we can't truly know the ROV's location.

    I've searched google video for literally hours trying to find a convincing video of BOP B gushing (coords within 50 feet or so), but haven't succeeded.

    So now I'm to believe BP has a sophisticated navigation system in place to drive the ROVs, but that system is crippled to uselessness by inaccurate readings? I just don't buy it. Could this be another layer of BS they're throwing on top of everything else to hide the fact that both wells blew out? I've also seen a lot of footage without any coordinates on it. I wonder if the feed natively has the HUD overlaid, or if BP has to superimpose the two to get what we see. If the latter is the case, that makes it so much easier for them to fake numbers.

  9. There is far more to this attempt to depopulate the gulf states, halt the gulf stream, kill the birthing ground of many atlantic marine species etc ad nauseum...

    That 'far more' can be found succinctly documented by three obscured writers; all else is, IMO, derivative.

    Eustace Mullins: Secrets of the Federal Reserve

    William Guy Carr: Pawns in the Game

    Fritz Springmeier: 13 Families and 'Monarch'

    Ignore their politics, their agendas and their (alleged!) felonies - these books explain in very clear terms just what humanity is up against.

    I think this fits with your header panel here ;-)

    "Attempting to distill information on the New World Order down to a level that is easy for the average citizen to understand. Information is power and my only interest is in a non-violent resistance to the global banking elite."

    Try maybe? Not an easy site to navigate but it's all there - for now...

    Good luck in overcoming our servitude, the answer is within.


  10. Trying to make it easier...

    'key' Mullins here:-

    Stay wide awake through those three books and we'll jail these mega-psychotics this decade once enough people are up to speed. Meanwhile the persecution will mount and spread - classic Niemuller situation right now (Chris Story murdered?)

    Communicating via 'Blogger' doesn't exactly help - how about a freenet or usenet presence?

  11. Yeah, I know only five people read my stupid blog. I did get my articles about BP showing the wrong well, then showing two wells, one which of course not exist on Mike Rivero's What Really Happened site and he's mentioned them three times on air.

    I just emailed Drudge, on the 1:1,000,000 chance he'd investigate. I just sent it to my local NBC news affiliate in San Antonio, am going to send it to my newspaper.

    Check the top of my blog for two very simple, easy to understand fliers you can print out or send as JPEGs to your friends. I busted these criminals and I'm determined to get the info out there.

    Had been planning to go to the FBI office in town but am too tired -- I've been up for almost 24 hours working on this story.

  12. Unfortunately, BP has a typo in their report (page 10) which you're using as the picture showing well B's location. It says the X coordinate of the well ends in 4194, but it's really 1494 (as shown on the other pages- 3, 11) as required for them to be the stated 314 feet apart (as confirmed by their given GPS coordinates of the wells). Small issue, I know, but nonetheless... It does, however, make the coordinates for B match even better.

  13. Good one, BB777

    Don't ever give up. Didja notice even Chussodovsky's calling for forcible reaction to govt now? There's not much time left for the banksters but the more people who are aware and active the better.


    "For the first time in human history
    Mankind is politically awakened!
    This is a total new reality"
    Brzezinski at CFR. 2010

  14. FBI? What for? Since Robert Mueller took over it's been nothing but an elite tool. Remember that Wayne Madsen report back in 2000 that nailed him as the guy who 'lost' thousand of pages of evidence from the OKC disaster?

  15. au contraire, mon amis, 6 people read your (stupid) blog. excellent work here!

  16. Please don't go to the FBI. We will never hear from you again. I think you should contact the Sara Palin people.

  17. BP did not expect or may have ovelooked the fact that somebody would take the time to investigate these underwater video feeds. Thousands of people may look at something, yet few take the time to see, to challenge and to verify.
    In regards to that BP PR response, she would have to seek permission from higher ups before releasing any information to the general public, aka she is told what to say.

  18. Yeah, I see what you mean. I was seeing +2000 off and even +3000 off, but I definitely think there are 2 wells.

    Thank you for compiling all this information. <3 Best of luck.

  19. sorry I know you don't like anonymous comments... but... 7 people read your blog. You should send all this to Cooper 360.

  20. Just another variable to add.. which I think could explain the variance in position.. is the heading of the ROV, which means the ROV is not always looking at the same side of the BOP. A Rov facing well A with heading 150, then facing again well A with heading 90 would have to have a different longitude and Latitude as he is moving around the BOP. That could explain why they are sometimes off when around well A and B.

    anyway.. just my 2 cents

    just noticed in many videos that the heading was sometimes VERY different

  21. Me again, the new anonymous guy. Right at this moment, the Skandi ROV 1 is technically showing Well A, at a heading of 90. His position is
    E: 1202731.--

    which is real close to well A coodinates

  22. Me again again....

    just raising a question... could this be why they are building 2 relief wells ?

  23. Thank you again, Anonymouses. And I don't mind Anonymouses, just people who call me names without having the decency to identify themselves. Keep on posting anonymous comments as long as it keeps a civil conversation moving ahead. If I'm wrong and you can send me evidence to debunk my theories, please do and I will admit on my dumb blog that I am wrong and give the debunker thanks and credit in a new post.

    Yes, 3:10PM Anonymous, you are only seeing Well A on television now and I guarantee you will never see the ROVs at site B again. Either way it's happened, work at site B is over. Either they did successfully cap that one in addition to A (assuming it exists, which I maintain it does) or BP have figured out that it was too badly damaged to cap.

    Either way it does not matter because BP's engineers found at least two cracks in the well casing, reportedly around 4500 and 7000 feet below the ocean floor. So even if Well B is capped above the ocean floor the oil and methane is simply redirected to those cracks in the casing, which Lindsey Williams' sources say is not damaged in just two places but "shattered."

    Read the CBS story about the cracked casing here:

    Use the search term "Lindsey Williams CD" to hear his excellent 7-part series on the Gulf oil disaster. But not even he, who is the go-to guest on Coast-to-Coast AM on the situation has figured out what I have. Matt Simmons talked of two wells to the media and is now dead, found so in mysterious circumstances in his hot tub.

    I hope I don't end up shooting myself twice in the back of the head with a long-barreled shotgun, or arrested for crimes on trumped-up charges, as many enemies of governments and large corporations are.

  24. 3:22PM Anonymous:

    Thank you for that suggestion. I'll have to cogitate on that for a while, I don't want to throw out speculation... It does make sense if there are indeed two relief wells down there to drill two relief wells.

    But the story on the news, and I actually believe BP on this, was that they started drilling two relief wells simultaneously in case one of them missed intersecting the relief well. They described it something like trying to hit a straw thousands of feet below ground with a drill the size of another straw. The BOP's pipe diameter above ground is 18.75 inches, according to Transocean's web page about Deepwater Horizon, and the well bore itself underground is I believe 16 inches, with another inch or two of steel casing around it, what is left of that casing, anyway.

    So trying to hit something that small with a drill going down thousands of feet is a tricky task. I would be a good cover story for BP to say they're drilling two relief wells if they were only publicly trying to hit Well A but were secretly planning to tap Well B underground as well, that is if hitting them were not as difficult as they claim.

    They probably couldn't get away with secretly drilling another pair of relief wells for Well B because the drilling rigs would be obvious.And with directional drilling, they don't have to have the rigs positioned in any particular spot in order to hit either Well A or Well B. They can change direction underground.

    Your postulation makes a lot of sense to me, 3:22PM Anonymous. Thank you very much for that. I'm going to make that into a new post.

    And don't forget, newer readers of this article, to check out my latest, better and best evidence of the fraud, even better than what is in this post that started the conversation:

  25. focus on the Y coordinate instead of the X, and you will see that all the videos are that of Well A. The coordinates are that of the underwater robot, not what is being imaged, so there is quite a bit of variation in the coordinates, but they are always much closer to Well A then Well B. Who knows what happened to Well B, but there has never been video showing oil leaking from that location.

  26. Hi. It's Jim here from England. I've been watching this drama unfold for months now. I have looked online at all sorts of articles & watched hours of footage on this disaster. just wanted to say that after all this I'm very much a BP sceptic!
    I'm a big fan of the 2 wells theory. Anyone that believes BP needs to see a shrink. It's a huge cover up!
    You guys have explained things that I would only repeat except for what they were drilling into. Some say the reservoir they have tapped into is full of abiotic oil under extreme pressure. To my knowledge only the Russians have experience with extracting abiotic oil but they haven't been invited to the party! I don't believe BP has the know how, technical expertise or experience to safely tap the reservoir. It requires technology required that BP doesn't have. I also think they are frightened to finish drilling the relief well as they're not sure what's going to happen when they intersect the damaged well. We'll never know the true outcome, unless it's a success operation of course!
    I also believe they are hiding the oil under the ocean with Corexit to make out the oil has gone. Gone? Yeah right! Estimates put the spill at over 4 million gallons a day! I don't subscribe to the view that it's gone.
    Keep up the good work guys. I shall be following this with interest

  27. Thank you, Jim from England. I agree with you about the abiotic oil theory. There is no way through natural geologic processes, tectonic movement etc., that thousands of cubic miles of petroleum from dead peat moss and dinosaurs got trapped 18,000 feet below the ocean floor. Not possible. But if the big oil companies admitted that abiotic oil is real, the price for oil would drop like a rock. So it's their little open secret to keep their wallets fat. Cheers!

  28. Hi there. GPS and DGPS use the WGS84 geoid for reference, which is slightly different of the Lambert coordinate system AFAIK. However the difference should not be more than a few dozen meters in the worst case, for what I recall from my years working in small-scale hydrography. But I'm in a hurry and cannot stop now to figure out the calculations.

  29. For people wondering about the Y-coordinate, there is a typo in the document BP filed with MMS.

    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.

  30. Jim from England again.
    You need to hear these interviews with AC Griffith an ex CIA whistleblower who has had some top level to stuff we can only imagine about! The interview site says this about him:
    "A.C. Griffith was associated with the National Security Agency. He carried a top secret, cryptographic clearance. In more recent times he was associated with Central Intelligence Agency operations . He was married to a lady lawyer - judge and his father-in-law was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia"

    You can hear the interview here,it's in 3 parts. There's some heavy shit in it man!

    There's a 2 part interview with James Fox, a documentary film maker there. He's as close to the centre of the spill as you can get & talks about a whole area media blackout public no go zone. I mean wtf? Isn't that blatantly against your constitution? I mean, even your president isn't interested & if you believe AC Griffith then that's the reason, as he really ISN'T interested!

  31. kind regards from germany.#

    beware of NWO - spinners.