A Tale Of Two Wells – Is BP and the Government Showing Us The Wrong Well?
Posted by Alexander Higgins - August 7, 2010 at 5:21 am - Permalink - Source via Alexander Higgins Blog
Loading ...So here is the latest going around the internet.
I haven’t vetted it yet so watch and make your own judgment.
If the font is to small watch in full screen.
This post points out exactly what the discrepancy is with the change in coordinates and I will need to go back through my videos to figure out what is happening here.
On page 3 (of the above plan) BP gives the coordinates for both planned wells.
Well “a” is at 1202799 and 10431610
These are the coordinates of the location we are currently being shown.Please note the coordinates on the following video clip from 06/07/2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brfBcehwnP8
1202476 and 10431302.Here is another clip from that day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBAvH9T-QX4
Here, the ROV spends most of its time at 1202497 and 10431358. …about 50 feet apart.
The problem is that those coordinates are 4 or 500 feet away from the coordinates of the capped structure we are currently being shown.
Now here is a clip from the location we are currently being shown. …
coordinates are 1202812 and 10431617. This clip…which doesn’t show oil spewing…is from 05/27/2010.
Putting the coordinates side by side:
1202476 1202812
10431302 10431617
These numbers are denominated in FEET.
You can see there are hundreds of feet separating the 2 locations. Approx 4 or 500 feet.The coordinates we are currently being shown since the BOP was capped:
1202794 and 10431616
This is the same location as the 05/27 clip.===================================
Me: But on the other hand, where is the oil that would still be leaking from well B? Are they vacuuming it into a tanker? To a Shell oil pipeline that runs through the MC 252 block? Spraying corexit (in large quantities) at the sea-floor? All? Or is the oil really still there?
===================================
Feds Can’t Find Oil But Satellite Photos Show BP Gulf Oil Spill Covering 12,000 Square Miles
Alexander Higgins – July 31, 2010
The federal government and media is reporting that the BP gulf oil spill has disappeared but satellite photos show a slick covering over 12,000 square miles of the Gulf. …
======================================
[link to www.cstars.miami.edu]
======================================
anon: Project “Deep Spill”, in 2000, did an inquiry on behalf of the government and oil companies and found that only 2% of oil from deep water blowouts reaches the surface.
======================================
anon: If you live in the Gulf region PLEASE: “40% Of Residents Exposed To BP Gulf Oil Spill Suffer From Respitory Problems And Skin Lesions”
[link to blog.alexanderhiggins.com]
======================================
And don’t eat the crab. [link to www.fox8live.com] “Disturbing discovery of crabs filled with black substance”
======================================
And this post…
allow me to first point out a discrepancy in the permit doc. The PDF Map coords are the correct coords for both Wells. The coords given on the chart for Well B is wrong. The N coord on chart is 10434194.00 and on the map is 10431494.00.
That is obviously a mis-print. When I plug in the coords you give on the video before TS Bonnie, for Well B, against the map coords, there is a difference of 433ft (333S and 277E from map loc).
Plugging in the coords for Well A after TS Bonnie, there is a difference of 232ft (68N and 222W from map loc).
I used the ROV Coordinate Calculator at
[link to blog.alexanderhiggins.com]
to get these numbers. To me… this makes everything even more suspicious. Someone please check me on this.=================================
=================================
I got to here.
For the record I do not have all of the facts but no one does and I am constantly researching to find out what they are.
That being said 60 minutes does report that BP abandoned Well A.
However, it was my understanding that BP was drilling Well A the entire time and and according to documents Well B was not planned to be started until April.
If the documents are accurate and BP did indeed follow the plans it submitted the drilling of Well B never happened because Well A blew up.
Unless….
BP did mention killing Well A in emails sent to the MMS in March after Well A collapsed on the drill string and the drill string and other tools became stuck in the well.
After the well collapsed well activity reports submitted to the MMS show that Wellbore number changed from 00 to 01.
Does that indicate the BP changed wells?
I don’t think it does and from the emails I gather that BP killed the well by filling the bottom with cement (plug back ) and then drilled a new hole through the new cement plug on the bottom of the well (bypass)
I guess the question to be answered here is where did 60 minutes get the information that Well A was abandoned?
Update: August 10th, 2010 10:10 AM EST
Just to clarify the correct Y, the distance north from the equator in feet) coordinate, for well B is : 10431494
The proof is simple.
If the north coordinate was 10434194 then well B would be 2577 feet north of well A (10431617 – 10434194 = -2577) clearly the BP Gulf Oil Spill Well Plan shows well B is southwest of well A not northwest.
Readers who viewed this page, also viewed:
Gerald Celente: “Economic Martial Law Will Be Declared”- Reign-of-Terror Continues As Japanese Volcano Erupts
- Explosive Gulf Oil Special Report: Crime, PSYOP, Global Impact
Feds Can’t Find Oil But Satellite Photos Show BP Gulf Oil Spill Covering 12,000 Square Miles
Kindra Arnesen Turns Whistleblower and Exposes The BP And Government Coverup
The Crime of the Century: What BP and US Government Don’t Want You to Know
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May answer a question I've been contemplating.
Whatever happened to the "leaning BOP" everyone before TS Bonnie spoke about?.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] the rest of this great post here Comments (0) Posted in BP News [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It's also possible that looking at the DEPTH readings on the ROV videos may be revealing.
Just a thought.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by GENUG, Alexander Higgins. Alexander Higgins said: A Tale Of Two Wells – Is BP and the Government Showing Us The Wrong Well? http://bit.ly/c9pld3 [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Y-coordinate of the proposed Well-B is INDEED a problem in all of this.
Somehow it got misquoted as 10431494 when it's clearly shown on the Initial Exploration Plan as 10434194.
THEN, as seen above, the theorists for some reason went with "that is obviously a misprint" and continued on using the non-BP coordinate….although the "Tale" video does list it correctly – they ignore the issue.
Without proof of a misprint, there is NO reason to consider any other Y-coordinate for Well-B than 10434194.
NONE of ANY of the Videos have so far gotten even close to a -34194 with the range for ALL their A AND B locations ONLY fluctuating between -31244 to -31685, a range of 441…
To reach -34194 would take another 2,509…a MUCH more obvious change of location…
especially for someone like me who doesn't understand or know how to plot out these numbers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Re jonebe above:
Yes there’s a typo discrepancy in the MMS permit doc. The Y coord for Well B is not 10434194.00, it’s 10431494.00. The 1 and 4 are transposed in the typo on page 10.
So , yes the OCS Plan page for Well B has a wrong Y coord on MMS page 10.
You said: “the theorists for some reason”
Here’s the reason: the correct coords ARE on MMS pdf page 3 and page 11.
Confirm – the MMS plan is here:
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/29/29977.pdf
Well B is 10431494.00
I’ll have a rov x,y map later Mon 9 Aug. Will post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I see it now…
BUT…Why do you assume that the typo is on page 10 rather than pages 3 & 11…???
Page 10 looks like the LEAST likely page the mistake would be made on…with the draftsman/mapmaker being the one to transpose the numbers incorrectly on his drawings on pages 3 & 11…
It appears though that the SAME longitude is used alongside all three instances of the lamber coordinate…thus it seems that what might resolve the issue is to confirm a conversion from that longitude to a lamber coordinate…???
That longitude is 88degrees22'00.581"W
I have NO ability to do this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
that only confirms that you beleive the typo occurred on page 10 RATHER than page 3 & 11…
can you explain your decision…?
do you know the math to do a conversion of that lattitude…?? i couldn't find a simple converter…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
meant to say longitude…88degrees22'00.581"W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Even the "Tale of Two Wells video that you reference states the location of Well-B as having a Y-coordinate of -34194…
and then 25 seconds later they state "you can see the coordinates for Well B in this video" and then say and show you that video with a Y-coordinate of -31685.95
makes ZERO sense
Filmmaker screwed any chance of persuasion by using page 10 version of coordinate rather than page 3&10…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I've raised the issue with the video producer on youtube. But it's simple, really.
The correct Y for well B is : 10431494
The video ROV coordinate is : 10431685
Which is under 200 feet away from the B well.
But look closely at 2:34 in the video and
you'll see the coordinate is really 10431585
Just about 100 feet away from the B well plan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry, FD BUT you HAVE to offer some proof that the Y-coordinate of the proposed Well-B was at one or the other….because you SAY it WAS is NOT good enough…
It would appear from your ability to do the plotting on your website that you could convert that longitude…?
UNTIL somebody DOES, this theory is pretty darn weak…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yes yes, FD, I already saw the coordinate change from -31685 to -31585…something i already was intending to note AND something that only weakens the TWO Well theory…
Why? Cause the ROV does NOT move and yet the coordinate skips 100 feet…!!! I'm not sure what's going on but it's a relatively common occurence…maybe something to do with the accuracy at these depths…
the conspiracist Filmmaker should have made his edit so as not to reveal the skipping..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This will confirm the location.
And more….
Much more:
BP’s Immaculate Deception
http://fintandunne.com/BP-Immaculate-Deception.htm
Two Wells Special Investigation Report
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“the conspiracist Filmmaker”
Let’s leave name-calling and use facts.
You said:
“you HAVE to offer some proof that the
Y-coordinate of the proposed Well-B was
at one or the other”
Ok, here’s the proof:
1) The cartographic map on page 3 of the MMS
pdf was prepared by professional cartographers
who knew all about Latitude and Longitude and
even gave the ‘so-called’ false northing and
easting used to generate the Lambert X,Y.
If the professional cartographers from
C & C technologies who drew that map draw that
well B is at “10431494″ – then that’s the
CORRECT figure.
2) Look closely and you’ll see Page 11 of the
MMS is also a prof. cartographic presentation.
It also gives Well B at at “10431494.”
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/29/29977.pdf
3) The only page wrong is page 10, a scan of a
manually filled-in paper OCS application form.
That’s down to some lower tech level person
who filled in the official MMS form.
4) Check my chart at:
http://fintandunne.com/BP-Immaculate-Deception.htm
It shows a cluster of ROV’s around “10431494.”
There are four different videos confirming
ROVs around that location on three different
dates.
And all videos show a BOP: At B well location!
So what are they doing there?
At this preliminary stage of investigation, I
don’t know what’s going on either. But I’m very
interested in finding out. We need more video
samples on various dates to build a picture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have conclusive video evidence from BP’s own ROV cameras that they are indeed currently showing wrong well. What I also uncovered are three rare videos showing the other well. Two sets of videos with onscreen coordinates clearly representing the twin well sites which BP filed to drill with the Minerals Management Service. It’s right here, plain and simple, with BP’s own video feeds and filed document to damn them:
http://jailthebanksters.blogspot.com/2010/08/gone-in-18-seconds-bps-lie-dismissed.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I posted an update to clarify the correct y coordinate for well B above.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] A Tale Of Two Wells – Is BP and the Government Showing Us The Wrong Well? [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] reddit learns what you like as you vote on existing links or submit your own! 1•••Is BP video footage showing the wrong well? Coordinates don't lie. (blog.alexanderhiggins.com)submitted 1 hour ago by [deleted]1 [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…would ya’ll stop going round and round with the SAME argument and show some further proof…
CLEARLY the surveyor/cartographer drew Well-B at Y-coordinate -31494. Duh…BUT that ONLY proves that they drew Well-B at -31494, NOT that it’s the CORRECT location.
…cause this was only a proposal…there was NO Well-A or Well-B for the surveyor to bump into and thus describe on a survey…they were only proposed at this point.
The surveyor/cartographer was TOLD to place the imaginary Wells at certain positions…and it would appear that those orders TOLD them to place Well-B at Y-coordinate -31494 and THUS they DID as TOLD…as rendered on the maps on pages 3 & 11.
BUT should they have, in fact, been TOLD to place the proposed/imaginary Well-B at -34194…??? as seen on the official application form on page 10?…OR since these were imaginary objects, did the surveyor make the transcription error…? Who Knows…?
And why demean the application form as being filled in by a “lower down tech” and even that it’s a “scan”…? oy vey…It’s an OFFICIAL application and would hopefully be reviewed before submission…and are you suggesting that copy machines make transcription errors…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I asked once:
but NO response…seemed pretty simple for you amateur cartographers…
SO – I’ll try and do it myself…proceeded to download Map charting software and various charts including NOAA chart #11366-Approaches to Mississippi River…
ok ok, let’s see here…DAMN – NO Lambert coordinates or converters…
Well then, let’s just plot out the latitudes and longitudes and see what we get…
Remember the latitudes and longitudes are EXACTLY the same for Well-A AND Well-B on ALL three pages in question: 3,10 & 11…ONLY the corresponding Lambert Y-longitude for Well-B differs…
ok ok – here we go…
plotting Well-A at 28°44’17.277″N 88°21 ’57.340″W
and now plotting Well-B at 28°44’16.027″N 88°22’00.581 “W
UtOh: Well-B would be South-West of Well-A…and AHiggins says AND his little ROV calculator shows that a Lambert Y-coordinate of -34194 would make Well-B NORTH-West of Well-A…
NOT looking good BP… more to come…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
continuing…
checking the distance between those two Lat/Long coordinates… ah crap – i’m doing something wrong here in this program (Maptech Chart Navigator)…let’s see if i can find an easy online point-to point Lat/Long calculator… ok ok, here:
http://williams.best.vwh.net/gccalc.htm
input Well-A: 28°44’17.277″N 88°21 ’57.340″W
input Well-B: 28°44’16.027″N 88°22’00.581 “W
select output in feet and “earth model” as NAD27 (whatever THAT is, BUT the BP charts say they were based on that)
UtOH…distance between wells: 314.9 feet…the exact same distance between Well-A and the ROV when you place the ROV at Well-B/Lambert Y-coordinate -31494…
ok ok – so i’ve done a roundabout LAT/LONG to Lambert conversion…and using a little deduction…it looks like this clarifies that the intended proposed location of Well-B IS at Lambert Y-coordinate 10431494 as shown on pages 3 & 11 and that the error is on page 10…
Thus the conspiracy theorists and filmmakers ARE using the CORRECT coordinates in their analysis… there’s a little proof, FD…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks johnebe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I did pretty much the same procedure using the Corps program USACE "Corspcon" to convert the Lat/Long to UTM NAD27 as verification and came up with almost the identical Lamber Coords (within a foot)as published in the Bathymetric chart. Those coordinates on the chart are correct and about 315 feet apart.
WELL #A:
28d 44' 17.277" N X: 1,202,803.88'
88d 21' 57.340" W Y: 10,431,617.00'
WELL #B:
28d 44' 16.027" N X: 1,202,514.00'
88d 22' 00.581" W Y: 10,431,494.00'
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Just recently after BP capped the leaking well Matt stood by his earlier claims that the well being shown the public is a fake and BP has a second well leaking in the Gulf. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Bob, Apologize if this has been posted before, but have you been following the reports of the ROVs Lamber coordinates actually being located on well "A" rather than "B". This is rather baffling and disturbing if true. Here are a couple links about this: http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/08/07/tale-wells-bp-government-showing-wrong/ [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] you're on the real Facebook web site. Also be sure to only download software from sites you trust.http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/08/07/tale-wells-bp-government-showing-wrong/ContinueGo back to FacebookHelpLoginFacebook [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I know enough cartography to know what Lambert co-ordinates are (and these aren’t Lambert, by the way, they’re Universal Transverse Mercator). And I know enough cartography to know the difference between NAD27 and WGS84. And I have computer codes that plot the ROV co-ordinates superimposed on the bathymetry. And I’ve got a whole lot of data obtained from watching those ROV co-ordinates (and copying them down only when they aren’t jumping around hundreds of feet – when they are, they’re worthless).
And I can state quite conclusively. Gertie the voilcano is located at Well A. I’ve got that from ROV’s with their claws right in the spew.
The most recent update of my map of seafloor locations is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/4741841599/sizes/o/ . It’s from 3 August, so the surface ship locations aren’t quite right (although the HOS Achiever, Q4000, Skandi Neptune, BOA Sub C, and Development Driller sisters hardly move at all because they’re tethered to their respective risers). Assets marked in yellow have been observed on multiple days or by multiple ROV’s.
I don’t know where the “Well B” idea came from; I’ve seen it reported erroneously in several places. But the accident happened at the Well A site.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
it would seem that you’ve been able to learn all the wonderful things that you know without the ability to READ – cause you sure haven’t read THIS discussion…NOR attempted to participate…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Most likely is a malfunction in the encoder that burns the telemetry into the video. The ROV operators have separate readout of the telemetry information – including quantities that the video doesn't show. The numbers in the video are for the public and maybe the SIMOPS people.
The other possibility is that one of the COMPATT sonobuoys is giving a hinky signal, and so the long-baseline array is giving a correct fix only intermittently. But I don't think that an ROV pilot would particularly want to operate under those conditions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kevin:
“ROV co-ordinates… jumping around hundreds of feet”
Jumping by up to 1,000 feet in some cases.
Why would that be? Considering that the ROVs are likely using a Long Base Line (‘LBL’ ) array AND a Doppler Velocity Log (DVL) to smooth calculation of position?
See: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6698#comment-670170
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not been participating in this discussion? No, I just got sent a link to it the other day. Whether I can read or not, I can see with my own eyes where the ROV’s are when the telemetry is stable. And I’ve seen them running hydraulic lines to the ENE of the BOP, and chemical lines to the WSW. Out some hundreds of feet. If there were anything there as big as a second BOP, it would have been visible.
And I haven’t seen a big jump in the co-ordinates before and after Bonnie. The well location matched the Well A location in the bathymetric map in the MMS filing. Both before and after Bonnie. Could it be that they drilled Site B first, and that was the one that was abandoned? That seems a simpler explanation than the construction of a false BOP.
There are just too many things that would have to be faked for this story to hang together. Co-ordinates reported by several ROV’s. The position of the Discovery Enterprise reported by AIS when the Top Hat was in place. Two out of three transcriptions of the location in the MMS filing. The two things that don’t match: an earlier report that the blowout was from Well B (perhaps confusing “Well B” on the MMS filing with “the second well drilled”), and one of three places in the MMS filing itself.
And note that the AIS-reported positions of the ships match their relative positions in news photographs. So you really need a pretty massive and far-reaching conspiracy: either doctor all the photographs or compromise all the AIS reports, plus erect a second BOP at a different location, plus generate false but consistent telemetry reports, plus somehow hide the second BOP from ROV’s cruising outward from the first one. I’m sorry, I can’t manage to make my mind encompass that. To me it’s much more plausible to say that if there were a well drilled and abandoned, it was Well B, and that Well A is the blown-out well. (And incidentally, that one of the three places in the MMS filing where the co-ordinates were listed transposed the digits.)
Also, to feed speculation farther, there are two earlier exploratory wells on MC252. Look on the bathymetric chart in the MMS filing. You’ll see them off to the southwest. They’re both over a mile away from anywhere that I’ve seen the ROV’s or their tenders.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kevin:
“Most likely is a malfunction in the encoder”
that burns the telemetry into the video.
The ROV operators have separate readout
of the telemetry information…..”
Yep, I figured the ROVs had their own private telemetry, and I’m afraid I’m not as inclined to believe that a “malfunction” is causing the coordinate variations.
In fact, I’m not inclined to believe anything put out by BP -including public displays of the supposed coordinates.
As a programmer I’d love to hear more about this “malfunction.” It’s not like the depth, heading or X,Y blamks out. It changes!
The telemetry is computed topside, so you just tap the feed going back to the ROVs with simple programming code:
Private telemetry in–>CODE–>Same Telemetry out.
How complicated is that?
Except in this case we get:
Telemetry in–>CODE–>Different Telemetry out.
Has it occurred to you BP might have motivation to fog the public’s access to good data?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] explains further, 7-Aug: [...] BP did mention killing Well A in emails sent to the MMS [Minerals Management [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] would be interested to know… Here's Alexander Higgins' analysis so far on the 2 well theory: http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/201…showing-wrong/ And more confirmation that the sea floor has been leaking oil and gas ever since the 'capping' of [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] anyone know anything about this??A Tale of Two Wells (Dedicated to Matt Simmons R.I.P.) A Tale of Two Wells (Dedicated to Matt Simmons R.I.P.)There was a link to this blog also……http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/08/07/tale-wells-bp-government-showing-wrong/ [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Just recently after BP capped the leaking well Matt stood by his earlier claims that the well being shown the public is a fake and BP has a second well leaking in the Gulf. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Just recently after BP capped the leaking well Matt stood by his earlier claims that the well being shown the public is a fake and BP has a second well leaking in the Gulf. [...]