Video Proof The Sea Floor Moved....Discussion of Explosions in the Gulf...Is BP Causing Them?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 07:40 PM
Just curious... the videos you posted have the date in the bottom right corner: 8/17/10 which is a couple of months ago. Not saying there isn't a problem still, but the vids are a couple of months old (The pick you posted is from today, which made me think at first you were supllying a screen shot from one of the videos.)

I don't doubt there are still problems. I think you're spot-on there. Do you have any current videos?


posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 07:43 PM
Gotta leave for work, but wanted to leave you with this pic I just took....after spraying dispersants, now they are "jetting hydrates" AGAIN.....which means hydrates are building up inside....why is it important if the well is dead?

posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by new_here

The reason there are no videos from September till now (that I know of....I'm still searching)is because they have cut the feeds....there are only 2 cameras up now, and they aren't showing much. The reason I know it is still going on is because I watch the feeds that are on (when they are on) and catch a glimpse of it from time to soon as it starts, they cut the feed before I can get a shot of it.. Anyway....I continue to watch in the hopes that I can can catch well as a few other people. BTW nice to meet you!

posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 07:52 PM
reply to post by new_here

The pic was from today.....I took it from the live feed. Sorry if I confused you. My friend Ektar should be on here soon....Ektar captures still shots from the videos, breaks them down and posts them....and does a great job! I'm sure E will be here soon.
edit on 14-10-2010 by StealthyKat because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 08:00 PM
reply to post by BK Lim

I noticed it leaning today, because they had not shown the base in a very long time. I just happened to be lucky enough to pop on there as they were showing it and then they zoomed in on the "bullseye" which shows tilt....and it was all the way to the side, This was the same thing that happened with the BOP they removed. I'll catch up in the morning...I'm late for work haha!

posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 09:21 PM
Just wanted to leave a quick message (I;m on break LOL!)....I meant to state that I did not capture these....all credit goes to the people who made it and posted it on youtube. The ones that are mine are the still shots....just wanted to clear that up! videos....

posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 09:26 PM
Hi guys I'm here...just catching up. Thanks Kat for the new thread! It's exciting to see we have some new people on here on the thread. I will continue to post on both sites as I feel it's important to keep that thread up to date as well as keep it going. It has been a great avenue & although we don't see much action, many people still check it out & read the updates without posting anything.

I have video footage from the last 2 days don't know how to get it here...I posted my 1st video on ATS last night but I got it from youtube & figured it out. It shows Kat's photos (which I have too) but also other equipment...


posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 10:02 PM
Photos from 11 Oct...
One thing I have noticed lately in current photos & videos,
at least in the past few weeks, LOCATIONS are not listed...

Strange how the BOP is leaning in 1st photo & appears straight in the other...

Can see leaks along the left side of the pipe...

Spraying something...

Sorry this was full screen....Oil & Hydrate build up...


posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 10:19 PM
Okay, the following content was contributed by BK Lim. I am merely copy/pasting it here, so if you have questions about anything below, direct those questions to BK Lim and I'm sure he'd be happy to answer them for you.

Note: I cleaned up your links BK and I *think* I got them all right as well as including the right video you were replying to. If there's any mistakes, let me know and I'll try to fix them.


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.


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 unauthorized 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 vaporized 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 Matt Simmons was not wrong in theorizing 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.


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.


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 here.

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 analyzed in the CSI forensic of the DWH wreckage, see diagrams here.

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 here.

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 authorized.

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 went 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.


A reply to the following video

This clip is interesting because the 3 or 4 lights were placed facing the recording camera. My guess is they were experimenting and recording the effect or rather the visual effectiveness of their dispersion technique.

I cannot see the coordinates properly but am guessing it is pretty close to Well A. They could be injecting Corexit directly into the well and let the gas, oil and corexit mix before, they seep out through the faults and fissures. It is more economical and effective and less PR damaging. They could be doing some sort of calibrating as well from the amount of light received. When they record the directly, you see the white to yellow to orange symmetrical pattern @ 03:23 mins, they are trying to see the light dispersion, cloudiness and light intensity passing through the “cloud”.

Notice also the 3rd light went off at 01:02 and replaced by another (4th Light) more powerful light which then went off at 1:23. Then either move or another light came out at 1:31. I do not think the recording ROV or camera was moving. Maybe someone can point out to me if it is moving. But I think they are trying to measure the distance and angle (triangular beam) and comparing them with calculated distances.

You will notice that the clouds and bubbles are moving in only one direction – to the left of the camera. At that depth I would think the natural seabed current would be negligible. The dispersed cloud stay and increase in density. Thus they could be using a propeller (from one of the ROV) to create gentle current. Constant stream of clouds rather than increasing density.

Now it does not mean there is no gas or dispersed oil outside the illuminated zone. As you can see in the later video posted by StealthyKat, the visibility is affected by the amount of light. The visible dots that ascend at a steeper angle (rising higher vs distance) are droplets of oil – more light reflected from the bigger droplets.

Air or gas bubbles absorb light so they can appear to be darker and also ascend the fastest. Solid particles can reflect or block the lights depending on their orientation – thus giving the cloudy appearance.

Clay particles because of their platy lattice structure and attraction of the hydroxyl ions, tend to stay in suspension will only settle in very calm water. I guess there is also a lot of heavy drilling mud. So when you see the cloud settling down in realtime rov video, it is not the “natural clay” sediment but the heavy-drilling mud dust. If BP is smart (and I think so with all the experts working under them), they could be using this to their advantage. Mixing the dispersant underground, they could make the dispersed oil heavier by attaching to the mud particles. It would not be too difficult a process.

Occasionally you get larger irregular shaped dark blobs - I think these are droplets very close to the camera, that they block the lights out completely and camera out of focus. You can get large chunks of sediment thrown off in a very turbulent flow or explosion but not in this video. It looks like they were set up for a steady stream experiment or observation.


A reply to the following video

I do not know if they were injecting dispersant, they were sure expecting the seabed to heave and burst. I cannot see the coordinates clearly but I think this is quite close to Well A, along the fault line. This place must have been blowing quite regularly for them to be ready to record the event.

Looks like the ROV operators had been told under strict order not to tell but they certainly can show. So at least some of them want to leak out to the world what BP doesn’t want to tell.

The overall picture here tells me that this area had blown so often, the clayey seabed sediment had been totally replaced by heavy drilling mud. If you check the earlier seabed you can still see potholes. I will be writing on this "evolution of the seafloor features" shortly illustrating the first natural seabed features to the current heavy loose seafloor.

As the top layer gets heavier, the "dispersed fluid (oil, gas, water, slurry and dispersant)" will have to accumulate till high pressure before bursting. That's why you see a significant heave before the bubble burst. In an earlier video, the heave was hardly perceptible because the top layer was less heavy and the sediment less cohesive.

This is a good video to illustrate. You know we can all learn a little bit of sedimentology from all this.

To your question, if the robot was injecting dispersant, no it is not the dispersant causing the seabed to swell and burst. But going back to my earlier comments, it would be far more effective and economical for them to mix the dispersant inside the well or at least at a deeper level.

I would like to add that in natural seabed, once the top layer is breached, subsequent gas accumulation cannot build up the pressure. Thus you will find smaller pockmarks within or at the sides of the first “bubble burst” or crater. The size of the crater (which we call pockmark) can be between 10 to 150 m in diameter depending on the thickness, homogeneity and strength (or cohesiveness). In some odd cases, you will see not circular but skewed pockmarks but that is another story. Subsequent gas will form pockmark clusters instead. Each pockmark within the cluster is about 3 to 15m in diameter.


A reply to the following video

This video and the operation you were talking about suggest to me that they could be trying to grout the fissures beneath the sub-seabed. If you can get the coordinates of these I would be interested to plot them and see if these locations form a pattern.

I would not be surprised at all to see - dispersant operation , grouting operation and just observation/calibration operation going on at various locations at the same time. If grouting had been going on, then it just confirms that BP knew the seabed is badly fractured and was attempting to seal these fissures with grout.


Reply to this video

Okay this is interesting and more like the "natural gas seeps" we normally see at seabed. When I say natural I am only referring to the gas escaping and not the "high pressure hoses" going into the seabed.

It means there is a steady stream of gas – not a bubble type of fluid accumulation. That means the fissure is pretty narrow. Notice the jet stream is moving from one point to another in a linear manner. Also notice that the gas and some bubbles of oil goes straight up. That means very little dispersant and relatively still water; resulting in a “tornado” swirling column but only above the leak point.


Another thing is all these videos are in August. We should compare these with those in May, June and July.

Also look for the timing. If the gas-charged fluid built up naturally and blow along any point of the fault lines, it may be a bit difficult to “chase butterflies” if you know what I mean. If it is like the Video I have just seen (the one posted by PtownVet 13 Aug) where the ROV Camera was ready and waiting for the “big Blow” then it has to be “manually timed”. How many minutes before the whole thing blows over and settle down? In other words, is there a periodic timing?

If there is always a bunch of cables nearby, a slow build-up to a explosion (timing) and another ROV moving around to check the cable, followed by the colour of the burst etc, then I am pretty sure they are grouting.

If the pressure builds up from natural seepages, the pattern would be a huge blow and then taper off as the pressure eases off as “natural supply” is slow. If there is a natural constant stream of gas escaping, it should be continuous and not on /off as if it was manually controlled. The “tornado” is one good example. If there is a quick succession of bursts, 1 blow after another with only a short interval in between, it can’t be natural. Natural gas accumulation because they need time to charge up, cannot blow stop and blow as if they are controlled by “valves”.


This is just a short video to show underwater grouting being poured manually. Most it is done by high pressure injection into holes bored below the top surface layer. I suppose some seabed anchor-plates may be needed to keep the high pressure hoses and cables for monitoring devices from being dislodged and to free the ROV for other operations. Occasionally the pressure grouting may blowout at weak zones - which is the mayhem you see. The changing colours represent different materials being blowout from pure grout mixture to residual oil / gas / dispersed fluid etc.

In a natural blow out, imagine like an explosion, the bigger particles fall like projectiles spreading from the centre of the source of the explosion. In pressurise grouting - since there is continuous pressure, you will see the bigger black particles (oil?) moving more erratically.


This is one takes the cake in hole preparation for grouting. Thanks StealthKat for the post.

They dig up a hole “deep” into the subseabed, bury the injector head and cement it up. In a previous video, you see a circular whiter patch of seabed with the cables sticking out at the edge. They needed to cement the hole to prevent the high pressured injection from coming up the dug hole. The objective is to force the grout into the fissures and blocked the oil from seeping out.

Notice the coords are E 1,587, 889 N 10 431 568 (please check nos, not very clear) which plots 115 km to the east. But if you substitute the first four digit (E 1,587) with (E 1,202) then the location of this “grouting hole” is just 98 feet E of Well A. See my article on how BP adulterated the coordinates to fool the world.


The intensity and length of the blast (large whitish debris -probably cemented chunks, ropes being flunk vertically upwards) suggests either

the ROV was recording very close to the open gushing well which should be mainly vertical direction with blackish plumes (unlikely)

continuous high pressure injection of dispersant (unlikely) or grout (most likely).

Guess what – the location is 185 ft WNW of well A, which is along the fault line passing very close to Well A and Well B (50-100 ft).

The previous “grouting hole” was 98 ft E of Well A. So what does this tell you? It confirms a fault line which has been “leaking” oil and gas. The word I used is “leaking” but from the video recording, it is no where near leaking. It is “blasting” and that could have only come from pressurized grouting.

Looking at the video – we can roughly make out – Aker Solution as the contractor. We should check up whether the contractor is carrying out “subseabed grouting for BP”. Their website is here.

posted on Oct, 14 2010 @ 10:47 PM
reply to post by StealthyKat

Here is a video that supports your idea!

They are going to nuke to control the problem.Lindsey is prove to be a solid source of information

now if this is correct then What would be the outcomes.. ??

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 12:10 AM
reply to post by Kratos1220

Thank you Kratos!! This is the ultimate being able to watch the videos with commentary following...
I had always hoped this would happen. Often the video & dialog don't mesh on a thread due to
to response time...your re post of BK LIM makes the thread & understanding much easier for everyone,
especially newcomers.


posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 12:56 AM
I guess the difficulty here is trying to understand why, if there is anything damning to be seen through those live feeds, why is BP allowing them to exist? If it were an unbiased third party running the cams, well yes, then I might give this all some credibility. So the question really is, WHY are there live feeds available at all?

The only answer that truly makes any sense is that BP is allowing the live feeds just for the entertainment value of seeing people watching very mundane events being shown and coming up with outlandish "interpretations" of what they are seeing. Seriously folks, if BP is allowing you to see the videos, do you REALLY think you are going to see anything significant that would be damaging to them in absolutely ANY way?

This line of reasoning is quite probably why many folks stopped watching that live feed thread pinned at the top of the forum.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 05:56 AM
reply to post by Kratos1220

A lot of thanks to Kratos1220 for putting all my posting with video (wow !!) all in one place for easy reading. Now I am embarrassed for some of the grammatical errors. Sorry I will try to be more careful next time when posting.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:21 AM
reply to post by Rich Z

Rich Z, I also asked that question initially. I found the answers and that’s why I am posting on the internet to let the rest know or to confirm their suspicion.

BP had no choice but to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act, pressed by Congress and public. Say if BP were to refuse giving out any video feed and operate in the dark, there would have been more backlashes. Given the choice, I would provide the information, albeit distorted ones. “The most dangerous of all falsehoods is a slightly distorted truth” – Lichtenberg.

The fact is BP knew they had an enormous disaster at hand and a lengthy one. There is no way they can hide the truth. The next best thing is to distort it to their advantage. Of all our five senses, the sense of sight is the most easy to fool. That why I call it the ART of Mass Deception. BP then spent 3 times as much money (close to 100 million USD) on publicity, mass media etc. Next they bought up all the professional technical blogs (like TOD, Drilling Ahead, Gcaptain etc) to mislead the public. That’s why I do not post and waste time at these blogs heavily populated by BP schills. Then BP provides generous grants, contracts and aids to all the NGOs, research prgrammes etc so that these researches would reflect more favourably with BP. Even before this disaster happened, I had already alienated many of my colleagues in the geohazards segment and college friends in the Oil Industry. Many of the geohazards assessment had been glossed over and the real hazards watered down. The reasons are far too many to list here. You have to read my many articles at

BP did not count on a few independent from inside the industry to expose these. After all would you give up > ¼ million USD/year earnings just to help out Mother Nature. Most would chose to keep their mouth shut and work quietly, just hoping that when disaster strikes, they are not the ones on the rig.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:26 AM
reply to post by Rich Z

Rich Z

These videos also serve to panic the public. If the public were convinced that a calamity would befall, they would actually beg and be grateful for BP to stay on to clean up the mess. Eventually they knew the public would tire out without knowing or would not want or could not face the real truth. Nothing works better than to create fear of the unknown.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 08:18 AM
reply to post by mustfarhan

I hope they never detonate a nuclear device.... I agree with him that it was not a conspiracy to blow up the was greed that made them cut corners and rush the job, and it was an accident because of that.....the conspiracy started AFTER the blow out. They are trying so hard to cover the DAMAGE their accident caused...they don't want people to know and now they are desperately trying to seal the cracks that opened up in the sea floor (which is causing some these explosions I have come to believe) That's why they haven't left yet. There is more than 1 well with problems also. This is so far from over. I think they announced the well is dead (it's not) so that they could take the live feeds down, knowing people would lose interest once they announced that.....then they could start the operations they don't want us to see.They announced the well was "killed" on September 19..... There were explosions before August, but after August 1, they picked up dramatically, after the feeds were reduced.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 08:30 AM
reply to post by Rich Z

BP was ORDERED to provide the live feeds by the government. They didn't want to do it, and wouldn't do it voluntarily, so finally they were forced to by law. They fought it all the way. Once they got them up, the feeds were crystal clear, and you could see every detail, until they realized how many people were watching and recording.... then they tried everything to make it difficult to see what was going on. They used color filters, they did heavy pixelation, and many times cut the feeds off completely when something happened. So, to answer your question, they did not do this willingly at all. BTW, I was one who thought people were exaggerating....until I started watching the feeds and videos just about every day. The things I saw made me change my mind about that.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 08:43 AM
reply to post by Rich Z

The purpose of this thread is not to provide "outlandish interpretations" at all. We are simply trying to get information out and find answers, since we get zero information from BP. I am not a "doomer" and I try to research things before I post, to debunk any outlandish interpretations. I am not a scientist, so yes, I am wrong sometimes, but if I find I am, I admit and correct it. That's why we are so grateful to have BK Lim here, who is a geologist, and his interpretation of these videos....based on science.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 09:27 AM
Here's a video from 13 Sept...


posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 09:40 AM
BK....I thought this might interest you....this pic is from June 20th......since y
ou mentioned the fact that there may being grouting going on. These pics show a very fissured area, where they were injecting a white substance (cement?)....there is a little patch of it on the surface next to the nozzle....your thoughts?

top topics
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in