BP Has Maintained An Illusion Around The Blown Macondo Well: That Veil Is Now Being Pierced

Conclusive Evidence Well A is not the well that blew up on 20 April – part 3 AoMD

By BK Lim, Geohazards Specialist

11 Sept 2010- This article is dedicated to the victims of 911 and the people who are still working to unearth the truth.


From the very beginning, BP has officially stated that they had drilled Only One Well i.e. Well A that reached the reservoir and blew up on 20 April 2010. Even before my previous articles, there was already widespread suspicion that BP had drilled at least 2 wells, one whose BOP was blown off on 20 April and another one which is currently being capped to fool the world. In my posting DWH Blowout Csi: Why It Could Not Have Happened As Reported By BP on 13 Aug 2010, the CSI showed that it would not have been possible for Deepwater Horizon (DWH) to be drilling at Well A location.

On 20 Aug when the alternative media and bloggers’ sphere were still a buzzed with the revelation of two wells, The Mystery Of The April 20 Blowout was published to introduce the next shocker – the existence of a third well, the actual well (S20BC) which blew on 20 April 2010, 720 ft NNW of Well A.

This article provides the conclusive argument that any well which was drilled down to reservoir and blew up on 20 April 2010 cannot be the same well that was capped since the well head would have been badly damaged by the second explosion.

Many would wonder why the revelations have come out in installments. If few had believed the late Matt Simmons, a reputed visionary in the Oil Industry, even fewer would believe the lowly geohazards specialist from a third world country. It would be foolhardy of anyone to expect BP with its mighty Mass Deception machinery, to allow anyone to reveal the truth lying down. That is not to say legitimate criticisms of our argument are not welcomed. It is just to forewarn readers of the forth-coming downpour of dirt to suppress this vital truth of the BP’s Oil Spill disaster.

The significance of the reported second explosion.

(Memo dated 8 June 2010 Committee on Energy & Commerce)

At 10:22hrs 22 April 2010 a second explosion caused DWH to sink after burning for 2 days taking with it a riser pipe which remained attached to the BOP.

None of the main media and BP’s sponsored blogs reported or discussed the significance of the second explosion. The questions in figure 117-1 were used to dispute the CSI analysis. In their argument, the riser and BOP had to be intact for at least 2 days in order to feed the intense fire on the burning WDH and the tight circle of oil around it. This is however valid only until the second explosion.

Fintan and BP’s goons at TOD had used this “half-truth” to decimate Matt Simmons’ assertions (that the well head was badly damaged and the BOP had blown off), without the following consideration:

For a second explosion to occur (after the initial blowout and continuous oil and gas flow to the surface) there must be substantially higher pressure beyond breaking or failure point (the basis of all explosions). But how could there be a pressure build-up when the oil and gas were freely flowing to the surface?
It is no big surprise the second explosion was not even observed by any of the surface vessels fighting the fire. The impact at seabed which blew off the BOP and severed the riser connection to DWH was too deep beneath sea to be observed at sea level.
At 5000ft below sea level, the effect of the second explosion could be seen but not heard on the high frequency audio range, even if the ROV had a high frequency acoustic tracking device. The vibration of the explosion would be below the few hundred Hertz range. Thus for the second explosion to be reported, the ROV which had earlier tried to manually shut down the BOP, must have recorded the visual effect of the explosion. The soft seabed in the vicinity of the wellhead would suffer more damage (reason for the seabed crater) than the robustly built BOP. The BOP assembly, tightly secured on the well head, probably survived the impact intact but fell over with the bent riser.
But Matt Simmons was not at the site and definitely not an ROV operator. How could he have known this? Obviously this information must have been leaked out by insider(s). If this information had not been accurate, BP’s goons would not have bothered to dispute it with such tenacity.

Although my independent CSI analysis arrived at the same conclusion months later, the same incomplete argument was readily used to refute my analysis. The urgency in Fintan’s demand for answers was both surprising and reassuring. It was surprising because of Fintan’s sudden 180º change from being supportive to outright prejudiced condemnation in a public forum. I had earlier confided in Fintan, as a trusted member of my BP’s Oil Spill Truth Seekers circle. It was reassuring because the ferocity and promptness of the attack could only mean that I was on the right track. If I had been off-tangent, they would have left me alone to drift away. Why would they attack someone giving free service to their agenda?

BP had been “loudly” silent on the second and more devastating explosion even though it is most critical in the investigation. The second explosion proves that the gas influx in the initial blow-out could not have come directly from the reservoir. It also meant that the cement plug sealing the well from the reservoir did not fail immediately as widely believed. It is the failure of the cement plug 2 days later, that caused the second more powerful explosion.

Twisted Tale Of The Missing 3rd Well That Blew – Art Of Mass Deception -part 2 – 25 Aug2010

Only “the well that never was” (S20BC) reached the reservoir and blew up. The reason there is still so much gas and oil in the gulf today despite BP’s denial, is because S20BC’s top hole was badly damaged by the second explosion 2 days later after the initial blowout that caused the fire on DWH. The initial blowout was caused by gas influx from the EGCP (extended gas charged pressure) that had built up within the GWSF (gas-saturated weak sub-formation) zone. See Why Is Bps Macondo Blowout So Disastrous Beyond Patch Up? The second explosion that blew off the BOP and broke the lower fifth of the riser, resulted from a sudden high pressure surge of gas and oil from the reservoir when the bottom cement plug finally kaput (breached) big time.

We often use the word “blown off” quite loosely. In this case the BOP was blown off intact like a projectile rather than “cracking open or blown to pieces”. There was some resistance from the sea water but not the hard knocks to cause any dents. Imagine firing a shot gun barrel with a bolt screwed on the barrel. Would the barrel split open or the bolt shattered to pieces?

Why would the second explosion be more powerful than the first (initial) blowout?

With continuous oil and gas flow to the surface after the initial blowout, there are only a few ways for the pressure to build up to an explosive level. Either the flow was blocked until the pressure built up or a sudden and larger influx of oil forced itself into the well bore. As there was no evidence of a block, the latter explanation is most likely.

As first suggested in Why Is Bps Macondo Blowout So Disastrous Beyond Patch Up?, the initial blowout was caused by a gas influx from the EGCP (extended gas charged pressure) that had built up within the GWSF (gas-saturated weak sub-formation) zone. With hydraulic connection between the poorly-cemented casing-formation annulus and the GWSF zone, the initial gas influx could kick in from any one of the leaks in the well.

The second explosion only occurred after bottom cement plug finally kaput (breached) big time. The sudden high pressure surge of oil from the reservoir probably shot up the debris from the well bottom into the drill-string and the annulus. Unlike gas which is compressible, oil does not. The high pressured oil and blocked casing, parts of liners and drill-string acted like “pistons” that thrust, broke and forced a broken drill pipe up into the BOP. The seabed around the wellhead would have suffered the most from such a violent impact. In almost every violent blow-out, a blow-out crater and a badly damaged well head are inevitable. If Well A were to be the well that reached the reservoir and blew on 20 April 2010, its well-head would not have survived the second explosion intact. Then, Well A could not be the STAR of the longest running magic show on earth, “BP’s 7 attempts to kill the zombie well that refused to lay dead.”

BP had two alternatives after the second explosion. Either declare to the world the true situation as asserted by Matt Simmons or choose to fool the world by capping Well A.

In conclusion, the well that reached the reservoir could not be capped. The well that could be capped did not reach reservoir.

For detailed background information regarding this presentation, please click on the link below:

The root causes of BP’s oil spill & the imminent threat of more oil-related disasters. Part 1


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to BP Has Maintained An Illusion Around The Blown Macondo Well: That Veil Is Now Being Pierced

  1. Pingback: BP Has Maintained An Illusion Around The Blown Macondo Well: That Veil Is Now Being Pierced « thefloridianguy.com

  2. Gonzo says:

    Dear BK Lim
    Thanks for your continuous efforts to help us know the truth of what has happened and is happening regarding the BP blownout wells in the Gulf of Mexico… Should we then assume that you still think that the gushing well is still gushing out oil but, as you explained in a previous reply to a comment by a reader, that BP is injecting extraordinary amounts of the Corexit dispersant right at the mouth of the gushing well to insure that the oil does not surface up but stays down at the bottom of the sea? It is frighhtening to think this could be the case! And my other question is: As you may know, some observers think that the explosion may have been sabotage. Their main support are the pictures that show the weird rectangular hole left in the heliport plank of the DWH rig just before it sank. In this video:

    We can see that the hole must have been caused from above, because the structure below the heliport pad is not damaged. Thanks for your keen and kind attention and for being a beacon of truth in this very confusing case that has very ominous implications for life in this world, especially if the spilled oil turns out to be radioactive as there is some evidence it could be. And after what happened to Matt Simmons, we pray that you are taking good care of yourself!.

    • BK Lim says:

      We have seen on the earlier ROV video footage of dispersant operations and since there is a blank-out now, we have to assume the operation is on going. The other indication is their reluctance to bottom kill the Wild Well (S20BC) with the relief well even though they are less than 10 ft away. Their chance of success is very low if the well is still gushing as strongly as ever.

      If they are not using dispersant like corexit, the oil would go straight up to the sea surface and BP cannot hide this. One reader brought up a very interesting point which escapes my attention. This is where readers’ input is very important. Since the beginning I already knew that S20BC (4970 ft) is shallower than Well A (4990 ft) by 20 ft. But most readers do not realise this until the posting of “the little mole hill that is really a mountain”.

      If the terrain if flat and the dispersed oil flowing sub-horizontally away from the source, it would spread radially right? Then the ROVs at Well A should be seeing the thick cloud of dispersed oil. It was after the publication of the “Little Mole hill” that many readers realised the terrain is sloping all the way to the peak marked X. Since the dispersed oil-water-corexit fluid is still lighter than water, it flows northwards up the terrain. That is why the ROV at Well A do not see the clouds of dispersed oil-water-corexit fluid. That is why there were recent reports of 22 miles of this dispersed oil-water-corexit fluid – see http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/08/27/22-mile-river-oil-bp-originates-biloxi-dome-5-7-miles-southwest-bp-3682/, trapped at the canyon bottom North of the open gushing well.

    • BK Lim says:

      I have not been investigating from that angle so I will refrain from commenting on this “sabotage” theory.

  3. Josh says:

    I would also like to know what you believe the current situation is below. Do you believe oil is still gushing unabated at the sea floor. If this is the case, then what?
    Thank you for all your analysis.

    • BK Lim says:

      We can only speculate since BP is not releasing any information and still denying that there is a open gushing well besides Well A. I believe the few responsible for this are criminally liable and that’s why such an elaborate hoax was set up to cover their tracks.
      But as we see more oil in the sediment and the poisonous effect of Corexit and hydrocarbons in the water, it is clear that the open gushing well is as strong as ever. And the oil is spreading and settling on the seafloor far away from the BP’s wells. See the soil sampling by UGA.

  4. xdrfox says:

    I had suspected that a second well as many, I saw oil coming from the sea floor when a rovers cam showed a large crack with oil coming out, much oil, seeing is believing, it took me back, and talking with a few realizing how the oil was being dealt with. Still no fly overs and last week they even shut off more air space. When the video came out of the Saratoga spilling and the ship dumping Corexit from the stern, that shut the air a few days later. Good job on the write and thanks for connecting the dots. …
    THIS NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED !! Floor leaking ??
    To Gulf Oil Spill on Friday, July 16, 2010 1:19 … http://beforeitsnews.com/story/104/276/THIS_NEEDS_TO_BE_VERIFIED_Floor_leaking.html

  5. WRAY EDWARDS says:

    So if there’s a well “that could not be capped”, is it still gushing and how come we don’t see the oil all over the place now…are they masking it with massive infusions of Corexit or what??

  6. C.Dodds says:

    If it was not so potentially cataclysmic for the whole world, this whole BP tale would make an intriguing crime story, except that fiction would have placed the criminals in gaol for terrorism some time ago, the obfuscations and deceit being too silly for even an average IQ reader to accept.

    Why is this BP well cover-up allowed to continue? Testimonies tell us that people in the gulf are getting corexit poisoning, and that many folk are extremely worried about their families. To allow corexit poisoning to continue and to promote such threats to people’s lives is clearly terrorism. There are enough laws already to put those who are willfully promoting such terrorism behind bars. Why is this not being done?

    I have two major concerns. Firstly that there could be still a well gushing, and secondly that corexit continues to be sprayed.

    • BK Lim says:

      The crooks have been able to get away by greasing their way at the top. We can only get their crimes of mass destruction exposed if there is sufficient public pressure. Otherwise it will stay hidden forever like 911. The lives loss will be in vain. People will lose interest over time and that’s what BP is hoping for.

  7. xdrfox says:

    BOP Found
    By Matt Simmons on MSNBC
    July 15, 2010 – 1:44:44 PM

  8. HolyMoses says:

    Ditto above. I am new & knew to the argument/assertions made here and by Matt Simmons (RIP). But I likewise strain my Logic & Reason meter to believe that the real culprit is still gushing full bore.

    It truly does strain credulity to believe that BP could CoreExit – zap more than 70-80% of the gusher, maybe even 90% if I want to be highly inclined and begin make-believing. But 100% !?!? Would not even 4-5% continue making a significant showing on the surface somewhere?

    If indeed the full amount is invisibly cumulating in the region, a veritable ocean ELE would be looming somewhere down the road, barring an eventual REAL plugging of the REAL gusher.

    • BK Lim says:

      We do not know what they are currently do to that wild well or the Relief well for that matter. From our analysis of their past actions, BP cannot be trusted at all.

      The open gusher well is 20 ft higher and 714 ft upslope of Well A. As the dispersed oil-corexit-water fluid is probably lighter than water, the mixed fluid flows sub-horizontally upslope to where the recently found 22 mile long gas plume before the shelf edge.

      For the oil to be so well-mixed, they must have the corexit injected into the well casing or a chamber device before the fluid mixture is released out.

      Now if only we can get some insiders to spill it out. Could Matt’s death be a warning?

    • xdrfox says:

      This may give your answer to your question,
      “NEW OIL WAS SURFACING” and BLACK crude “SUDDENLY” came ashore — 16 MILES of beaches and marshes hit in Louisiana
      September 13th, 2010 at 03:45 PM

      The Times-Picayune reported yesterday, “A new wave of black oil suddenly came ashore west of the Mississippi River on Friday and Saturday, coating beaches and fouling interior marshes, according to anglers’ reports.”

      “Aglers returning to Lafitte told Sidney Bourgeois, of Joe’s Landing, that new oil was surfacing on the

      they have been spraying Corexit on surface like Wac-Ka-Mole each time it would come up along the Gulf.

  9. Concrete man says:

    Many years ago I gave up on Fintan Dunne. He never mentions Zionism and his website is a jumble of hard to read and follow arguments. He debated Richard Gage of 911 truth but it was unclear what Dunne’s premise was, but Gage is an authoritative architect who lays out his arguments in scientific and understandable language. I suspect Dunne is either a bit of a wacko or some sort of Illuminati disinfo agent.

  10. Concrete man says:

    Good points made by Holy Moses. It is hard to believe the dispersants are stopping almost all the oil from a full blown hole to rise to the surface. That is a logical conclusion (and I hope they have actually stopped it, despite my total hatred of oil companies). On the other hand, I heard from Matt Smith of the Project Gulf Impact as of Sept 7 or thereabouts that there was still massive spraying of dispersants from airplanes. Is this to deal with NEW oil or the OLD oil??? We just want to know the truth!!!
    This is horrible either way you cut it.

    • BK Lim says:

      Concrete Man
      My take is; it is cheaper and more effective to mix it at the source. Plus it is easier to hide the operation. The recent soil sampling by UGA is interesting in that the mixture flocculates and settles down as a layer. See the link above.

  11. jay gray says:

    OK, I have an opportunity to spend December in St Pete and January/February in Miami (100’s of miles from the wells).

    Is it a good idea? Or are there continuing health risks?

  12. michelle says:

    So I am assuming that millions of gallons of oil are still flowing into the Gulf, and if that is true than the currents will foul up causing severe climate problems that will be seen and felt within the next couple of years. But the amount of Corexit, a neurotoxin, being dumped in water & sky to hide this mess serves a double effect. In other words were talking about a huge ocean being mixed with Corexit and all the other chems waiting for a hurricane or two to pick up and froth the mix into something more than acid rain. We are talking about genocide. People, animals, crops will all fall when that monster goo comes ashore.

  13. Howard T. Lewis III says:

    Apparently our nation’s leadership does not well understand the difference between life and death. I was hoping our military could help us out here. Why else would they be military? If the oil is still a major flow and is being mixed as it leaves the top layer, recognition that the best talent in America is not running the show has become long over-due and a note home to our leaderships’ parents is needed. Nothing but a group of brats in desperate need of a parental ass whipping.

    • BK Lim says:

      I would totally agree with you. I would add that Tony Hayward and his top gang should be criminally liable for the crime of mass destruction.

  14. Commander Z says:

    If the BOP from the Gusher Well was blown off would it not have been damaged enough to be seen? If this BOP was re-installed on the first well head (A?) then would not some damage be seen? Was another BOP put in place?

    • BK Lim says:

      Commander Z
      There are a lot of things they could do or did not do. There are 2 drilling vessels with 2 BOP’s or even spare ones. BP knew they had faulty BOP from the start. For so many months they did not rectify it. Does that paint a picture of a responsible corporate company?
      In a financial disaster, the CEO would be asked to step down immediately. But here Tony Hayward has until October, to shred every piece of evidence incriminating him or his band of musketeers. Does that answer your questions?

      • Commander Z says:

        Mr. Lim, Thanks for your response. If the “Gusher Well” is still spewing oil will this not at some point reach a certain saturation point where it will fill the ocean bottom to the point that it cannot be contained or covered up? What is your esimated time of “Point of No Return” for the Gulf and then spreading to the Atlantic?

      • BK Lim says:

        Commander Z
        I do not have an estimate. My expertise is in site forensic and geohazards. I am not too familiar with the gulf to make any forecast. I leave to the scientists’ capable hands. Sorry.

  15. Concrete man says:

    Could someone comment on this:

    How Much Oil Has BP Drilled Into? Try THIS On…


  16. Pingback: BP Has Maintained An Illusion Around The Blown Macondo Well: That Veil Is Now Being Pierced « thefloridianguy.com

  17. 322skull says:

    Excelllllennnnt………….remember the……… MAGICK number….[3]……..word for word………………..A fortiori…………..322

  18. D.B. Keller says:

    I’m with you on all points except your 4th floating paragraph, line 2,
    in your Introduction : please correct to “. . . the late Matt Simmons . . .”.

    ( I knew he was silenced the absolute instant I saw his obituary. )

    Thank you, and Brave On everyone in your quest for the Truth
    in this most massive of all obscenities to us since the ‘Brits burned
    the White House in 1814.

    – D.B.K.

  19. Commander Z says:



  20. Seerxlnt says:

    Months ago on ROV I saw a ‘gusher’ at hese coordinates. Would this be location of S20BC? E: 1202677.03; N: 10431694.18
    If everyone knows the location, why don’t we send down cameras?

    • xdrfox says:

      If you can give me a link to others report seeing that Live feed that day I would be grateful, It is like seeing a UFO and you want to talk to someone or verify through others. I know there is a lot of knowledge about but would like to find other then Matt Simmons talking about it for I saw his videos about a week later after my sighting on rov cam. I was relieved to know I wasn’t alone in what was really going on down there. Although his talk was highly questionable by many then. Now we have oil and New red oil coming ashore again… from where ? Guess !

      • BK Lim says:

        You are not alone but our nos are still not enough to force BP or the politicians to do something concrete. Not eyewash bullsh!t

    • BK Lim says:

      No, that is not the S20BC. That location is only 138 ft from Well A. They had been fudging up the coords on the ROV. The correct way is to plot successive locations on an excel spreadsheet. I have noticed jumps in the position towards Well A. Normally nav jumps due to positioning error should be random but iver several plots they seem to consistently jumped towards well A. This could only mean the operator is trying to put an offset to the true nav pos and they don’t always get it exactly right – trials and error.

    • BK Lim says:

      The average coords are E:1,202,504.06 N: 10,432,302.84
      and the avg depth 4,969.30 (round it to 4970 ft)

      Notice that it is shallower than Well A by 20 ft, because it is upslope. The oil+corexit flow sub-horizontally upslope since they are still less dense than sea water. That’s why you don’t see them flooding down to well A where the ROV can see them.

    • xdrfox says:

      They are hammering us back, For sure.. Nothing on Mainstream news, all the other leaks getting attention but not the biggest story. I got confronted months ago for Articles. … Their here !! … A strange encounter at Ormond Beach, where spill hits the beach and the News ! …
      … To Gulf Oil Spill on Saturday, July 10, 2010 11:16 …
      http://beforeitsnews.com/story/98/793/Their_here_…_A_strange_encounter_at_Ormond_Beach,_where_spill_hits_the_beach_and_the_News.html … Felt like Chief Broody in the Jaws movie. : |

  21. Chris says:

    If there was a cover-up then the Obama administration would have to be smack dab in the middle of it. How many of you obvious libs(democrats) have protested outside the White House regarding this issue? How many of you liberals have decided to withhold campaign contributions from the Democrats who are in control of both the executive and legislative branches of the Federal government? Just curious… How many of you have called for Obama to be impeached as this cover-up if it exists would be a direct violation of his oath of office. Think about it for a minute. You guys are saying that a President of the United States is complicit in the possible destruction of the world’s oceans and surely the deaths of millions of people.

    If you come back with “well BP is covering it up and Obama doesn’t know anything about it”, then you will have lost all credibility as the Fed. Gov. knows everything.

    Personally, I think all of you are paranoid and have way too much time on your hands.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s