Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Recapping: Well B

Tonight I discovered two more videos showing the well at site B which BP claim they never built. Two more daggers in the body of lies that company has been trying to smother the media and the American people with. Behold the well that does not exist:


And again:


Remember what we are dealing with here -- it's all about the coordinates. For any newer people not familiar with my investigation and conspiracy theory, BP only admit to having drilled one well at the MC252 survey site, the so-called Macondo well. They applied with the government to drill two, a bit less than 300 feet apart from each other. BP's own press relations officer, Ms. Shirley Williams, told me personally that:

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.

So according to BP's official line these days, only one well was drilled and equipment installed only at one of the proposed sites. But according to the interview that 60 minutes did with Mike Williams, a senior member of Deepwater Horizon's crew, the well that they were drilling, the one that blew out, was the second -- the first well had to be capped and abandoned after problems developed in the well and casing. Nearly every single video you have ever seen on TV and on the Internet is indeed of the well at site A, the only well that BP admit exists.

I have combed through hundreds and hundreds of videos online to find the extraordinarily rare ones which do indeed show what Mike Williams was speaking of -- that there is a second well, it was damaged and, at least a handful of times, BP forgot to cut the publicly available, live streaming feeds from their ROV cameras when they were surveying that second well. It does exist and you see it above. To recap for the newer people:

Well A is the only one admitted to exist. Video of it is as common as dirt. Here is that well, followed by an image of BP's Initial Exploration Plan filed with the Minerals Management Service, denoting the location of Well A. Note the X-coordinate of Well A from the BP document compared to that on screen:


Now I will show you the very rare, assorted still frame grabs I managed to locate from Youtube videos on various days, earlier on in the operations at MC252. The last video I managed to find thus far of the non-existent Well B is from June 20. After that, it appears that a meeting was held and the people operating the ROVs told in no uncertain terms never to let video of the well at site B, which certainly does exist, out again to the public. Here is the location of Well B, from the same document, followed by the stills of it. Remember to look at the X-coordinates on the ROVs' screens compared to the sites of Wells A and B:

WELL B (not supposed to be there):

I now know that a couple of the earliest videos I thought I'd discovered of Well B, including the one clip from Russia Today, were probably in fact showing oil shooting out from the broken riser pipe. The above four images are not of a pipe, they are of a well. It is clear as day.

Well A is located at X=1202803.88 and 99.999% of all videos on Youtube show the ROVs around that well. The numbers on screen and in the BP/MMS document will never match exactly because that coordinate represents the point at the center of the wells. In addition, the ROVs must necessarily be at some distance to that which they are tasked to film, in order to get the items of interest in frame. But nearly every single video ever broadcast on TV or archived on Youtube shows Well A, the only one (according to BP), and the onscreen coordinates are always in the range of X=1202750 - X=1202825.

Well B does exist even though it is supposed not to, and I have caught four very clear instances from BP's own ROV cameras of it, and collected them here for you. Remember, Well B is at X=12020514. These four videos show without a doubt that the cameras are looking at site B, not site A, and indeed are filming a second well. It's just that we were never meant to see that video. And even if a few times when BP were filming site B they accidentally forgot to flip the kill switch to the public web feeds, so what? No one would be curious enough to investigate their fraud, smart enough to look up their filed document showing that they did in fact apply for two wells, and spend hours putting the whole thing in a semi-concise, hopefully coherent form for others to discover and udnerstand.

I'm not that smart, but I am curious and determined. I'm also pissed of at what I believe to be evidence of massive fraud on behalf of BP. It's a simple matter of matching two pairs of numbers -- Well A's site in the document to the common videos of Well A all over the place. Then match Well B's proposed site to what you see onscreen four different times. It's down there, people.

The only problem is this: we do not know what the current status of Well B is, the well which does not exist but which you can see spewing oil in these videos and still frames. Because, as Thad Allen admitted a couple of days ago he, and thus the government and media get 100% of the information coming out of the Gulf of Mexico from a single source -- BP. And they have a built-in survival instinct to hide the truth because it would mean the end of the company if it were proven that they've been lying to everyone since the beginning of this disaster.

You may go back and read the story of the two wells from the first day I noticed something was wrong by following these links:

RED ALERT: The Other Well
Gone in 18 Seconds: BP's Lie Dismissed
Caught on Camera Again: Non-Existent Well B

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.

Thanks to Fintan Dunne I have been made aware of a fifth video showing Well B, this one by far the best of the lot. The screen capture is very clear and so is the water quality, making it quite easy to see a complete well there. The X-coordinate on the video shifts slightly, as the ROV moves around to view different parts of the well. Remember, the Lamber coordinates are in feet, so in the video a typical position is X=1202544.78, so the sub is sitting 30 feet away from the Well B site:


  1. I think this has been posted before but the coordinates you keep showing for well-B are a misprint in the OCS form, this has been verified through the conversion of the Lat/Long, the correct coords:

    WELL #B:
    28d 44' 16.027" N, X: 1,202,514.00'
    88d 22' 00.581" W, Y:10,431,494.00'

    so Y is
    10,431,494' not

  2. Yes, thank you, Anonymous, I'll update that for you. I also noticed that if you go to the Initial Exploration Plan, the correct figure matching your calculations appears on the big color map of the region. I had not noticed the correct figure appearing there until I zoomed in while viewing the PDF but you are correct.