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.


The "Up to the Minute" BP Livefeed Discussion Thread

page: 261
<< 258  259  260    262  263  264 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 06:52 PM
reply to post by Nogard2012

HA HAAAA!!!! Yeah...they tend to leave an impression alright! An INDULLABLE impression! LMAO! Thanx! I needed that!

posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 07:19 PM

Originally posted by StealthyKat
Here is some info on "Atlantis"......second verse, same as the first.....this is dangerous.

thanks for that tip:

here is another good article on the subject:

“We have evidence that Atlantis is unsafe and is in danger of creating an even worse spill than the one caused by the Deepwater Horizon explosion,” Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch’s executive director in Washington, said today in a statemen

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 06:12 AM
reply to post by StealthyKat

Once the seabed swell ruptures, the gas/oil/water fluid mixture with sediment and drilling mud get thrown upwards into the water column. The oil/gas continue to rise - picked up by the sonar scans as spots. The oil and gas differentiates out in rate of ascent due to differences in density. The natural clay sediment, being lighter and also contain variable amounts of water trapped in the mineral structure by polar attraction, remain in suspension for a much longer time. So the cloudy particles settling down - so visible on the ROV video in real time , are not, I repeat are not natural clay settling down but heavy drilling mud. By this process, the original clay sediment are winnowed away and the top seabed layer progressively increased in heavy drilling mud content.

This explains why there were such hefty losses in drilling mud and the wells could not be sealed. My article
explains how this can occur in a gas-saturated weak sub-formation (GWSF) zone.

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by BK Lim

Wow.... That was what I thought it could be. So, what is your opinion on what is going on? Is there something dangerous it dangerous now? I don't know if you were able to read a lot here as it is a very long thread, but myself, and others have been seeing what look like massive eruptions, including what looks like volcanic rock being ejected. When I have seen them, they were VERY violent, and the camera is ALWAYS situated where the source is just to the right of the screen so you cannot view the whole thing. These have been happening since the beginning, and very frequent. Do you think it is methane (if so, what is igniting it and causing explosions this huge?), or is it volcanic? Could it be intentional? I have so many questions. What do you think will be the result of this? I saw another one a few days ago, but they shut off the feeds before I could capture it. If you like, I could post some links to the explosions I am referring to (different than this video) Once again, THANK YOU....your input is MUCH appreciated! These explosions worry me more than the oil....I know things like that happen in the seas and oceans naturally....BUT they are so frequent, and so big, and last for hours sometimes....and for some reason...NOT being talked about on the news or by BP. If it were ok, it seems they would just say "no need to worry, it's a natural thing" or something....I have sent emails, letters, and video to various news media and gov officials...NO ONE is interested. Am I over reacting? I just feel in my gut that something is not right ( I WANT a scientific answer)...
edit on 10-10-2010 by StealthyKat because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 07:44 AM
reply to post by BK Lim

Your articles explain so much....are you saying that the eruptions are caused by the substances (oil and methane) being forced out of areas of the sea bed now that the well is cemented, because it has no where else to go, then builds up to such pressure that it bursts from the sea floor violently? I hope I don't sound ignorant, but I'm no geologist....If this is correct, what will be the eventual result?

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 08:03 AM
Here is another article by BK....VERY interesting! Be sure to read the comments as explains so much, about the different wells, and the fact that it is in a dangerous geological location which they drilled...BK...aren't these the asphalt volcanoe's locations too?
edit on 10-10-2010 by StealthyKat because: correction

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by StealthyKat

I am still researching on the geology of the area, especially the biloxi dome which was written some where as an asphalt volcano. I have been looking at mud volcanoes which I saw on many of my own projects. Contrary to popular beliefs (BK Lim in publication), mud volcanoes are not molten mud being squeezed out from great depth to the seabed or ground level. The principal fluids are petrogenic gas from reservoir mixed with brine. At shallow clayey strata, these hot fluids erode and dissolve clay into a slurry which is expelled through the mud volcano vent and flows out as mud. Fluids mixture of brine and gas are sufficiently mobile to cause this. Oil or asphalt would be too viscous and take too long to migrate as permeability is an important factor.

If you look at both the twin cones on the Biloxi dome, they are not very steep. I would expect asphalt being more viscous would be more steep, convex cones. The typical thing about mud volcanoes, they can be continuous flow or periodic ie. the gas pressure needs to be charged up before exploding their blocked vents. The composition of the mud slurry changes with each accumulation. Some strata of the mud volcano can also be richer in oil content -- resulting in a dirty asphalt layer.

My personal belief is that the "mole hill" where the Macondo wells were drilled is more likely to be a mud volcano. It will explain the nightmare drilling problems BP had and the numerous out-of well control situations leading to the final blowout on 20 April. BP spent 4 months (including 1 month in 2009). It takes only 3-6 weeks to drill a well. BP could not have drilled only 1 well. They drilled 3 wells, that is for sure.

So if mud volcanoes are in Biloxi Domes and on the Macondo wells site, it means gas was already leaking to the seafloor naturally through the various faulted pathways. In that kind of situation it would be very very difficult to cement (seal) the well bore. No wonder they were loosing massive amount of drilling mud and cement. The cement job is to strengthen the well and isolate the different strata. But with a poorly cemented well, it acts more like a vertical conduit connecting (instead of isolating) different hydraulics at various levels.

It is for this reason, BP knew it was a hopeless case to "permanently kill" the S20BC well, the only one that reaches the reservoir but also the illegal, unreported and unauthorised well. BP had to resort to the "Magic Show" in capping the well. It only dispersed the oil and gas through the various faults - in the hope that all these can be disputed as "natural seeps" on the basis that no wells were drilled at those locations. In dispersing the hot oil and gases far and wide into the shallow strata above the "hydrate stable level", BP has inadvertently warmed up and vaporised more hydrates into fluid gases that add to the problem. Given time, the circulating fluids will erode and create more permeable pathways and subsequently more gases.

The problem has not been solved yet. That is why I call this "a living disaster with an urgency".

So the late Matts Simmons was not wrong in theorising that the whole seafloor could be unstable given time for the sub-seabed erosion to propagate. Large submarine landslides can be induced if their seabed under-toe stability is compromised. The only question is the length of time - that is another prediction.

We should all join hands and demand that BP correct this problem instead of declaring a hollow victory - just like George Bush did months after the Iraq invasion; only to drag on the war for years until now with no end in sight.

edit on 10-10-2010 by BK Lim because: grammar, sentence construction

edit on 10-10-2010 by BK Lim because: Add - no end in sight.

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by StealthyKat

No, StealthyKat you are not over reacting. Due to the distorted truths and information spewed out by BP, your confusion is understandable. That is their objective. When we are confused, we demand the right answers and remedy.

Yes I will be happy to view and analyse any video you think it is important. That is the reason I explain my analyses in very plain understandable logical English so that others can share the workload of re-examining the videos and bring to discussion.

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 08:34 PM
Kat's Sea Floor Subduction Video Stills in Series...I tried to mark the changes in the Sea Floor...
Notes from Video -
**At 2:20 A large Crack is in view on the Left side of the screen;
Depth on left side appears to be ~4850; ALT ~100'
** 2:23 Light comes on readings remain the same...
** 2:26 A Big Light comes on Depth appears to be ~4850' ; ALT ~100'
** 3:19 Depth ~ 4850' ; ALT ~100'...changes come at 3:20 after subduction occurs.

Notice differences in the formations & crack sizes ; follow arrow (a) & this piece eventually breaks away...

Also notice, looking straight across from the arrow going to your left & just a "hair up" & on the other side of the crack...there is a shadow that looks like a small 1/2 dot...however it eventually becomes more clear & is stationary through the whole Subduction. The "Shadow" remains consistent as the floor moves & shifts to the right.

Chunk (a) has now crumbled-off & fallen into the crack of the sliding floor...

The stationary object on the right & the stationary shadow on the left as well as numbers of depth & alt remaining the same during the Subduction time between 2:20 - 3:19 will help prove Kat's Subduction Theory.
Sorry it's a long post, but seems interesting & relevant.

I had mentioned the possibility of BK Lims 3rd Well theory back in Aug...great articles! However at the time I could not find any sources to back it up. Are there other sources to prove the 3rd Well?


posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 09:29 PM
reply to post by Ektar

Third well???
All i hear is two original wells
Evidenced by the fact that the feeds themselves always say MC 252 #1
(except for two nights ago when DDII 2 said Atlantis which was kinda bizarre)

BP never even mentions a second well in there one hundred something something page report and in it all they stated was the same problems over and over three times before finally giving details on those causes and then blaming them all on others.

And they turn off the feeds again.

edit on 10-10-2010 by Nogard2012 because: BP report

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by Nogard2012

Sorry but you need to check the site out...I could not copy & paste location information...
I found a report by BK LIM in the middle of Aug 2010...I could not find any backing information. However in the latest reports, BK Lim provides more info on Well Locations as well as ROV True Positions & timing....

"The little Mole Hill that is really a Mountain"
[In my opinion, the erroneous and fraudulent Macondo bathymetry had a terribly misleading effect. Anyone looking at the highly smoothened Macondo bathymetry would be inclined to think that well A, Well B and S20BC were located on a gentle uniform slope. But the "smoothened seafloor morphology" belies the apparent sharp transition from sloping to flat seafloor, the distinct convex outline of the base of the escarpment and the 3º general slope.]


posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by Ektar

Ektar, the proofs for the 3rd well are in the CSI forensic of the DWH wreckage, the conclusive evidences (provided by the 2nd underwater explosion, logs, MMS emails & application to spud etc) and the fact that Well A could not continue after the drilling rods were stuck by the formation cave-in at 4000-5000ft open well, that Well B was plugged at 750ft above the open base at 13,100 ft.

BP had to drill from a 3rd well location. They cannot sidetrack from either Well A or Well B because of the very serious problems at shallow depth and by sidetracking at a wide angle, BP would miss their target at 18000ft bsb.

The coast guard log also gave the location of the 3rd well; at 714 ft NE of well A. There are just too many to detail out here. Best to check out the articles - which are broken up to make it easier to digest. If you still have questions post them here or at the comments column of each posting. That way I can understand and zoom in faster.

Thanks for wanting to seek the truth.

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 08:45 AM
reply to post by Ektar

GREAT shots Ektar!!!! Thanxs! I am looking for other vids of this area from the see if I can find some other incidents. They had cams trained on this area throughout the whole BP fiasco. I believe it was for good reason....Keep up the good work!!!

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 10:20 AM
reply to post by BK Lim

Thank you for ALL your information re Well #3....I'm glad there are more sources to back
your information and for helping some of us have a better understanding of the Sea Floor Subduction.

So Is S20BC still leaking? I haven't seen any full (whole BOP) photos or videos, only the close ups...


posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 10:24 AM
reply to post by StealthyKat

I think Higgins had a video of the sea floor movement & maybe the dude we called "obnoxious" (no offense)
due to repeating himself over & over again....those were the two I remember...will try
to locate more for you. Great Job!!!


posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by Nogard2012

Below is a brief summary I submitted to at the request of their journalist.

The first direct proof for the 3rd well is the Deepwater Horizon wreckage. The first article that explains this is

Basically, the main DWH wreck is either too far (1000ft if the riser is broken) or too near (if the riser is intact ie approx 4,000 - 5000ft) from well A. For the riser wreck to be standing 1500ft above the seafloor, it could have only occurred as analysed in the CSI forensic of the DWH wreckage, see diagrams in

The first few ROV videos in May also showed the gas/oil gushing from a broken pipe in a seabed crater, which matched the coastguard log of 714 ft NW of Well A. My forensic analysis estimated 720ft. BP accidentally exposed the truth when they lied that burning DWH had drifted. DWH could not have drifted in calm weather and because there was no slack in the steel riser. The accurate distance of 714 ft could have only been calculated using coordinates obtained from the ROV. But the coordinates were measured close to BOP at seabed not at the burning DWH on the sea surface. So BP was caught lying -

The broken pipe dips into the ground towards the north with the open gushing end facing south. So oil was flowing from north to south. If there is no riser connection from Well A, 714ft further south, how could the gushing oil have come from the BOP at Well A? This is the most important discrepancy in BP's official story.

With these 4 main points, the whole picture becomes clearer. More conclusive evidences are provided by the 2nd underwater explosion, logs, MMS emails & application to spud etc in

Working backwards, it makes sense since Well A could not continue after the drilling rods were stuck by the formation cave-in at 4000-5000ft open bore. Then BP moved to Well B which again encountered problems and a near-blowout after drilling down to 13,100 ft. It had to stop and plugged the well 750 ft above the open bottom. To side track wide enough to avoid the problem zone, the well would miss the oil target. If the well was not sidetrack wide enough it would still have the same problem.

Thus, BP had to drill from a 3rd well location. There are some more evidences but these are the main points.

This 3rd well was not reported, and no permit applied for it. So it is not authorised.

BP tried to apply for it a few days before the blowout occured on 20 April 2010. But it was too late. In any case the blowout was so severe, there was no hope of sealing the well with a broken well head. So since Well A was leaking gas and oil (it was not properly plugged due to the stuck drilling rods) BP used well A to fool the world that it was the leaking well and pretend to "kill it". Well A was only 5000 ft. So they could kill it much earlier like in May. But they cannot pretend to kill well A in May when the 3rd well was still openly gushing oil out. The relief well C was not ready to kill it yet from the bottom. So BP had to pretend and wait until the Relief Well C can reach the bottom of the 3rd well.

If Well A was killed in May, and the sea still filled with oil, BP's Mass Deception would be exposed. IT is simple logic.

The main cause of the blowout was the gas-saturated weak sub-formation (GWSF) zone which did not allow the well to be properly cemented and sealed. That is why I am showing all the ROV evidences which confirmed there were massive losses of drilling mud and cement which resurfaced through the faults up to the seabed. The well-cementing had not effectively sealed the well annulus with the formation, allowing the drilling fluid (drilling mud, gas and some oil) to freely flow outside the well.

When the Equivalent Circulation Density (ECD) was lowered (replacing drilling mud with salt water) gas from the GWSF zone forced back into the well through the leaks and caused the blowout. But the initial blowout was not that strong - a lot of gas to cause the fire but the well head, BOP and riser were still intact. 2 days later, the bottom cement plug kaputt and this time the oil forced out from the reservoir like a "hydraulic piston". This toppled and broke the well head, jammed up the drilling rods and toppled the BOP. The steel riser of course broke off (as shown in my CSI illustration) into 2 parts to form the odd twisted, standing riser wreck.

This interpretation fits everything so perfectly, it cannot be wrong. Maybe some 10-20% details still missing but 80-90% right. BP's official version is very inconsistent and does not make any sense at all. That is why I do this analysis to prove that BP is lying and covering up the magnitude of the disaster.

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 02:00 PM
And now there looking at the fish again.

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 05:47 PM
reply to post by BK Lim

Thank you don't know how much help you have been....Ektar had been saying this, just like I was trying to tell people what I was seeing in the way of eruptions have helped so much! Please keep it coming. I am going to post a few videos which I would love to hear your thoughts on. Some could be nothing, but they look quite bad.....I'm no I hope you can give us some insight into what the videos show..... Be back to post them asap! If not tonight, by tomorrow morning...

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 06:07 PM
OK BK is one of the first I would like your opinion on. It is rather long, and slow at times, but it's important to watch the whole thing, because it's interesting how this "substance" moves and changes both in color and direction of movement. To me it apprears chemical or a gas. But the interesting part is the same blinding bright white substance.....EXACTLY like in the subduction is an extremely bright white....then changes to a blueish hue, then to dark orange/yellow. I'm going to just post all that I have in a row. Can't wait to hear what you think......Ektar? Have you seen these?

posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 06:23 PM

new topics

top topics

<< 258  259  260    262  263  264 >>

log in