It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


An email from a "BP Insider" -- Possible Conspiracies Are Numerous

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
According to this email the first event might have happened hours before the explosion that sunk the rig. This puts the event happening on April 19th...the day predicted here to be the big false flag operation by TPTB.

There was a lot of information out when this first happened that the explosion was ignored for 3 hours until the distress call was made again. Supposedly an explosion was reported, then retracted, then reported again 3 hours later?

There are so many threads on this subject that I wouldn't know where to begin to look for the original post about that though?

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:45 PM

It's hard to believe BP would do this [...]

I personally don't think BP intended to blow up the rig, etc. I put this all down to some stupid executive over-riding what his engineer's are telling him - and he's just yelling back "Drill! baby! Drill!" and telling them to do "it" ("it" being presumably something unsafe), or they're fired.

As we often find-out in big disasters, there are often a serious of stupid "it" moments. It was quite likely not just one bad decision, but a series of them - probably all in the name of profitability.

It may even turn-out that drilling at this depth and in this region was one of the very first and most serious bad decisions.

Sounds like there are concerns about the nature of the sea floor in that region, underlying faults, etc. Of course, it will be months (if not years) when we find out if any of that was a factor, or just conjecture.

[edit on 2010-6-14 by EnhancedInterrogator]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:48 PM
With more and more detail, this is pointing to people having knowledge about the rig before the explosion.

A false flag? It doesn't seem like it. I think the military might have found something of use down there and are using BP's help to dig it up.

The explosion could be a diversion to stop the media from reporting whatever they are digging up. That seems like the only explanation as to why they have to keep people who want to help out.

There too much secrecy for it to be an oil spill. This seems like something of an epic proportion that is happening.

My second thought:

It could be a race against time. BP could have tapped the biggest methane pocket ever.

My imagination is running wild.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:50 PM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


My thread you refer to was actually a a genuine question and actually not representative of my personal views....

That link (to this thread) was fascinating.. It does make you wonder what is really going on but alas we mere mortals will probably never know the truth until it's too late......
I understand that to change the world, the way in which things are done , the staus quo then we ALL need to abstain from participating in the consumer society we all belong to.
I find that hard, not because I don't agree but because how can I change any system from the outside..?? You have to work from within and I have found that philantrophy (bad spelling) when used well can achieve lots...... it's not just and easing of guilt but a challenge to 'MAKE A DIFFERENCE'...

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:52 PM

An account published in the Journal Thursday quotes Andrea Fleytas, 23, who helped operate the Deepwater Horizon's navigation machinery. She was the first to make a Mayday call after noticing that no one in command had issued a distress call. In the ensuing chaos, Ms. Fleytas jumped overboard and was one of 115 people eventually rescued by the Bankston, a nearby vessel.

There is one account of the distress call failure, but I know I read another one that specifically said 3 hours.

This source also quotes the Congressional hearings about the presence of BP "Company Men" on the rig overriding normal safety protocol and rushing the operation, and then there is this:

A BP official on the rig at the time of the explosion, Robert Kaluza, used his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and refused to provide testimony to the hearings, which are being held in Louisiana.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:52 PM
What I don't understand, and maybe someone can explain it, why couldn't they just drill relief wells before it blew and shut it off? Is there some law that stops that from happening? It seems to be a ridiculous motive but that is probably because I don't know enough about it.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:53 PM
Hey look guys! It's a really neat way to herd up people from coastal states and shove them into FEMA camps.

Isn't that cute?

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Looking_Glass]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:56 PM
reply to post by Lebowski achiever

Probably because relief wells take a lot of time, not to mention
"permits" which require explanations, and answers BP would not
want to give.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
What I don't understand, and maybe someone can explain it, why couldn't they just drill relief wells before it blew and shut it off? Is there some law that stops that from happening? It seems to be a ridiculous motive but that is probably because I don't know enough about it.

My guess would be that drilling a new well, would require a new permit - which would (presumably) require government approval or something. Of course, that would raise questions about why it would be needed - which might require them to admit that that screwed something up, etc.

A big part of the issue in question is how far back did this well operation have issues? A few hours before the blow-out? a few days? a few months? since the beginning?

Were there "just" equipment and procedural/safely compromises? or is there something more unsafe about trying to exploit in this area or at this depth?

[edit on 2010-6-14 by EnhancedInterrogator]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:57 PM
duplicate; reason unknown

[edit on 14-6-2010 by manta78]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:02 PM

The doodlebs (seismic analysts) we talk to have stories of repeated rhythmic events at the well head days before the blowout that was the original reason for several being on rig at the time of the blowout.

Suggests to me that someting unusual from a geological perspective was happening prior to the blow out. And was being investigated at the time.

But that seems to be contradicted by

All of us concerned BPers (yes, there are many) are talking that something or someone was at the bop and either deliberately caused the blowout or made a grave error that caused the bop to malfunction when the inevitable blowout happened.

The idea that the blow out was not a failing of a piece of equipment supplied by a US firm but rather due to some unexpected and unprecented geological event, I can see as possible.

Of course, the question then is what was that geological event? Was that itself caused by human activity? Or did the geological event lead to something being done that in turn caused the equipment to fail?

I'm not sure though what 'rhythmic event' exactly means? Seismic tremors? A pulse in the oil flow?

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:04 PM
all i have to say about this is ,
successful troll is successful!

and maybe another thing, this sounds like ramblings of a madman to me.

Oh and if his IP is a sign that he may be telling the truth, check out my IP!
if they are any indication to truthfulness I can tell you a whopper!

Also, if he is a "a fan of ATS" why not just start a thread about this?
BECAUSE without any sources or links it would have been laughed at. But if he "leaks" his paranoia via email....

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Just Wondering]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:06 PM
Explosion, the navy, Gulf of Mexico; it is starting to make sense.

The GoM was a popular UXO (Unexploded Ordnance) site. I was doing a reading as to why BP was still trying to map the ground, and why the navy would be involved.

Than I came across this:

You learn the darnedest things on the internets. For example, I just found out that the Gulf of Mexico is the primary disposal site for unexploded military munitions - over 30 million pounds of bombs, projectiles and chemical ordnance.

And because records are spotty and incomplete, we don't know exactly where these dumps are.

(Are you following me?)

Many of these bombs are unstable. Just about anything could detonate them - say, an oil rig that's digging deeper than what owners noted on their permit application. So we're leasing offshore drilling rights to oil companies IN A FRICKIN' MINE FIELD. (You'll notice this NY Times piece on the problems of offshore drilling doesn't even mention it.)

Crooks and Liars

Maybe they are trying to work with the navy to map out where these undetonated bombs are and safe routes.

Does anyone know the logistics of how bombs work 5000ft underwater?

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:08 PM
Well here's something I have a few concerns about. I was reading an article earlier today and apparently there is damage under the sea floor. Anywhere from 1000 feet below it or more. And now raw oil is seeping into the bedrock, and into fault lines (apparently, there's a fault line where they were drilling).

Now there is oil seeping up through the ocean floor all over the place, which begs me to question: how the hell do you stop it at this point?

I'm worried that the entire oil well is going to drain out into the ocean. Which, if that happens, our oceans are completely dead. Didn't the bible mention that our oceans would die and that would be one of the signs of the Apocalypse? 2012, people.

Quick Edit: Also, look at current events. The entire world is war-mongering at the moment. Russia is planning to send in troops to quell dissent in a neighboring country, Iran & Turkey are picking a fight with Israel, the US is involved in two separate wars with a possible 3rd on the way ... and now the American farm lands are flooding.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by The Theorist]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Looking_Glass
Hey look guys! It's really neat way to herd up people from coastal states and shove them into FEMA camps.

Isn't that cute?

How often has that happened in the past when oil from a massive spill has washed up on a shore?

Okay this covers a bigger area and the total amount of oil is now larger, but the concentration in any one place will likely be no different to, say, the Torre Canyon, Exxon Valdez, Sea Empress, Braer ...... none of which resulted in any evacuations whatsoever.

What will be needed is an awful lot of folk to clear up the shoreline afterwards!

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:10 PM
They'd [BP] already lost/invested in a $20M drilling venture nearby, which ended unsuccessfully.

They'd been warned Not only by professional "boots on the ground" But Also by groups tasked by the MMS, to assess and provide said data/determinations.

They [BP, whomever] apparently ignored and overroad said alerts, warnings and precautionary mentions.

While it sucks to be them, having to stave off/deal with the liabilities for such, what bout the Myriad of trickle down" jobs, livelyhoods and tourism this will impact? .. and that's not to even mention those who May very well find themselves "evacuated" due to the seemingly inevitable air-quality crap.

Way too far, with no "light" currently shining at the end of he tunnel. (?)

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:11 PM
duplicate post

[edit on 14-6-2010 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

If you have a balloon filled with oil under pressure, and it begins to leak, it does no good to start shoving something else in from another point... that would only intensify the original leak by increasing the pressure. On the other hand, if you began releasing the pressure from another point, that would indeed reduce the original leak by reducing the pressure.

I call BS on the idea that the relief wells are there to pump in mud. That method only works when the mud is pumped in just below the leak (bottom kill) and the outflow helps seal it, not when drilling in a completely different location.


posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by EnhancedInterrogator

Thanks EI and Manta, Thanks for the explanation. I had not realised that it took a lot of permits to drill a well but of course it makes sense. Having said that, I am still not buying that they did it deliberately. Why would they blow all that 'precious' oil out into the ocean uncontrollably? There is no guarantee that this will ever stop and the tab they will have to pick up is of gargantuan proportions. What about the irreparable damage done to their reputation? No, there is all to lose and nothing to gain for BP to do this deliberately.

I would say it is gross negligence, people trying to score points and taking shortcuts in the process which caused this astronomical catastrophe.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:11 PM
Wonderful tutorial on Relief Wells. Yes they do provide thick mud or other media to plug the hole, but they are also capable of "producing" a reservoir at high capacity to relieve pressure! So, YES, BP could profit from the relief wells!

This document mentions the possibility of underground blow-outs many times. Apparently this is a big concern, especially in certain strata. Lime is one of the most dangerous strata for drilling, and I know most of the Gulf Coast has Limestone as its significant aquifer and strata. If that is the case at this site, then even the relief well may not work sufficiently.

Here is the link and quotes:

The original purpose of a relief well was to relieve pressure on a blowing formation by drilling a vertical well around the blowout and producing it (them) at high rates.

Specialty kill fluids. In 1976, specialty fluids were used during a unique cratered blowout in the Persian Gulf from a high permeability gas section of the Asmari formation at 3,500 ft. Hole size was 17-1/2 in. With casing at 1,100 ft. Four relief wells gained hydraulic communication with the borehole, but were unable to control the flow with conventional kill fluids. This resulted in first use of polymer systems as kill fluids. Two polymer types were pumped through separate relief wells. An extremely viscous, cross-linked guar gum was pumped into salt cavities above the reservoir, and a high molecular weight HEC polymer was pumped into the reservoir matrix. The guar filled the cavities and decreased gas flow while the HEC blocked off loss of kill fluid to the vuggy, fractured reservoir matrix.

A similar technique was successful on Mexico's offshore Ixtoc blowout in 1980.

Dynamic kill. In 1978, Mobil Oil documented the technique of "dynamic kill" on a prolific gas blowout in Arun field, Indonesia.4 The technique involves circulating a light initial fluid, such as water, with sufficient friction pressure to kill the blowout (hence the name "dynamic"), followed by mud with sufficient density to contain reservoir pressure. Advantages include its use when kill pressures in the well bore must be developed in a controlled manner to prevent formation fracture; simple hydraulic calculations; and use of the relief well drillstring for real time measurement of BHP during pumping. Disadvantages include high hp requirements for killing a well with a light fluid. This technique laid the foundation for future engineered kill procedure designs.

The relief well has traditionally been a last resort when other surface kill efforts fail. This has changed with increasing technology requirements for horizontal, deep, offshore, hostile environment, or high pressure wells. Questions arose whether blowouts of some wells could be killed at all, especially with the possibility of under ground blowouts. Fortunately, relief well advancements paralleled this period of technology growth and now provide viable blowout control options. The operator of a blowing well will likely consider surface capping methods before snubbing or relief well options.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in