MSNBC July 15: Matt Simmons still says BP covering up MASSIVE HOLE miles away, c

[Serpo]

Whether this true of not................


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scl2dgK_-Nw&feature=player_embedded

[ximmy]

funny... or sad... how everyone forgot about this admission...

BP Official Admits to Damage BENEATH THE SEA FLOOR

As I noted Tuesday, there is growing evidence that BP's oil well - technically called the "well casing" or "well bore" - has suffered damage beneath the level of the sea floor.

The evidence is growing stronger and stronger that there is substantial damage beneath the sea floor. Indeed, it appears that BP officials themselves have admitted to such damage. This has enormous impacts on both the amount of oil leaking into the Gulf, and the prospects for quickly stopping the leak this summer.

On May 31st, the Washington Post noted:

Sources at two companies involved with the well said that BP also discovered new damage inside the well below the seafloor and that, as a result, some of the drilling mud that was successfully forced into the well was going off to the side into rock formations.

"We discovered things that were broken in the sub-surface," said a BP official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. He said that mud was making it "out to the side, into the formation.

"http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/06/evidence-points-to-destruction-beneath.html

[Phoenix]

Simmons is too polite. The US Government DOES KNOW about the sea floor leaks, and is hiding it.

That a rupture in the sea floor occurred a long distance away, miles, is just phenomenal, and ominous. The rock around the riser, apparently for miles in radius, is spider-webbing with fissures.

[Libertytree]

Simmons is too polite. The US Government DOES KNOW about the sea floor leaks, and is hiding it.

That a rupture in the sea floor occurred a long distance away, miles, is just phenomenal, and ominous. The rock around the riser, apparently for miles in radius, is spider-webbing with fissures.


Got links/source?

I'm leary as hell too but if you've got the hard info please share it.

[Serpo]

Simmons is too polite. The US Government DOES KNOW about the sea floor leaks, and is hiding it.

That a rupture in the sea floor occurred a long distance away, miles, is just phenomenal, and ominous. The rock around the riser, apparently for miles in radius, is spider-webbing with fissures.


Got links/source?
Exactly was going to mention that.....let me guess no links no source

I'm leary as hell too but if you've got the hard info please share it.

[Phoenix]

Simmons is too polite. The US Government DOES KNOW about the sea floor leaks, and is hiding it.

That a rupture in the sea floor occurred a long distance away, miles, is just phenomenal, and ominous. The rock around the riser, apparently for miles in radius, is spider-webbing with fissures.


Got links/source?

I'm leary as hell too but if you've got the hard info please share it.


No links or "source" other than my own logical extrapolation of the available evidence. If the oil from the Deep Water Horizon riser is flowing out of a fissure miles away, I find it impossible to believe that such a fissure in the bedrock is singular. There are probably many like it, but not yet through the surface. Once the new cap is fully pressurized (IF it will pressurize - the riser might be damaged high up), some of them will likely look like Old Faithful.

Did BP actually have any geologists study this drill site for integrity, or did they just "hears dare be oil down dare" and start punching a hole?

This should have all been foreseeable. Was it? If not, who exactly determined this essentially experimental drill was a sound plan? Was there no precautionary principle application at all, did none of the "engineers" and "scientists" on the BP payroll THINK about the potential implications of this non-routine drill?

[uranian]

simmons is destroying his career and credibility if this all turns out to be bollocks, so unless there are other, murkier agendas (not unlikely, given his involvement with the CFR), i'm guessing he's telling the truth. next few days should be interesting anyway...if BP have managed to seal the well, and we're still seeing more oil spewing into the sea in a week or 2, they're going to have to admit something else is going on.

[uranian]

more to add to the general confusion. simmons said that the NOAA vessel thomas jefferson crew had to wear gas masks in the vicinity of the well. given that the crew manifest is on NOAA's site, i emailed a few and asked them about this:


I can tell you that when I was aboard on June 3-11, nobody wore gas masks for any reason aboard the vessel.

Alex De Robertis (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CBUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.noaa.gov%2Fsciencemissions%2F PDFs%2Ftj_deepwaterhorizon_responsemissionreport_j une3_11_2010final.pdf&ei=7tNRTOPxIqb-0gTw5524Cw&usg=AFQjCNFgug0Zv8R9hicCMOL7ux_BaVqFlw)

in contrasting news, Researchers confirm subsea Gulf oil plumes are from BP well (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/23/98088/researchers-confirm-subsea-gulf.html):


USF scientists found microscopic droplets of biodegraded oil at varying depths beneath the Gulf's surface, the university said in a statement.

One layer was 100 feet thick; it was found 45 nautical miles north-northeast of the well site, officials said.

The researchers found the plumes after models created by a USF expert in ocean currents, Robert Weisberg, predicted subsurface oil from the Deepwater Horizon well would move toward the north-northeast, USF said.

"The clouds were found near the DeSoto Canyon, a critical area that interacts with Florida's spawning grounds," USF said.

The NOAA study made similar findings. According to the report, which was reviewed by 19 scientists known as the Joint Analysis Group, data collected by five research ships deployed in the Gulf from May 19 to June 19 showed oil suspended in the water between 1,000 and 1,300 meters — about 3,280 feet to 4,265 feet.

The NOAA scientists detected the oil by measuring its fluorescence — many of the droplets are too small to detect otherwise — and said that that measurement linked it to the BP well.

The report said the oil had been detected in heaviest concentrations near the BP well and that its concentrations dropped as the ships moved away from the well, but that not enough samples had been taken to determine the full "horizontal extent" of the plumes.

An interesting analysis here (http://worldvisionportal.org/wvpforum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=931), too:


The major oil leak source that is creating enormous undersea lakes of oil a/k/a oil plumes - which BP then mixes Corexit into - is the ancient seabed Gulf of Mexico volcanic crater commonly called the Biloxi Dome.

The recent July capping and pressure testing of BP Deepwater Horizon well #1 did NOT cause the Biloxi Dome leaks as they were verified between May 19 and June 19 while the Deepwater Horizon well was still leaking oil.

the red markers on the map below are NOAA identified leaks:

http://worldvisionportal.org/images/LeaksID.gif

so if i'm understanding this correctly (and it aint just more bullshit), this guy is suggesting (as does simmons) that the problem leaks are actually 6.8 miles away from the macondo wellhead, on the edge of this ancient volcanic crater.

[Large Sarge]

regarding the E-mails and such, more than likely all those folks aboard the research vessels have signed new non-disclosure agreements

Simmons has gotten most of the story correct so far.

and yes my understanding is that the real problem is 7 miles away.


its just a hard concept for me, that this well, being 5-6 miles deep (in the ocean floor), when it fractures (underground), sends a new breach 7 miles away.

seems like it would break the surface closer to the well than that, but I am no geologist, maybe that was the first real weak point in the geology??

[uranian]

agreed that who knows where the NOAA guy is coming from. oil drum has an interesting take on simmons:


3. The real spill has caused a lake of oil larger than Washington state.

In the talk at Camden, New Jersey, Simmons claimed that BP was intentionally misleading the public and the government about the extent of the spill and that it would take a heavy toll in human lives:

That submerged lake of oil has grown larger than the size of Washington state and is approximately 500 feet thick, according to Simmons' estimate.

"It's thick oil, flowing like lava . . . covering a large part of the Gulf of Mexico and taking the oxygen out," said Simmons. When it mixes with the upper layer, the toxicity will be released, and when it comes ashore Simmons predicts it will take a heavy toll in human lives.

Response

The area of Washington state is 71,303 square miles. If the lake is 500 feet thick, this would imply 177 trillion barrels of oil in the lake, vs. 2-4 trillion barrels estimated total reserves plus production to date for the world.

Also, claims of a quantity of oil this large are not consistent with Simmons' claim of 120,000 barrels/day from the "real" well bore. For example, at this flow rate for 90 days, a spill the size of WA would only be 10 microns thick (.01 mm).

Finally, the lake of oil defies the laws of physics by staying on the sea floor and not rising to the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, because most of this type of oil is lighter than water, so would be expected to rise.

4. Methane is lethal and toxic.

In an interview on NPR on July 15th, Simmons made the following claims:

It’s this toxic waste and crude and it’s releasing methane gases that are absolutely lethal which is why all the fish and dolphins and sharks and whales are dying. And workers too, which is why so many have gotten sick, or maybe really sick.

“The health problems are so serious,” Simmons said. “When you inhale methane you just die.”

Response

There are many natural sources of methane in the environment, including belching cattle and decomposing organic matter. Many of us use natural gas - mostly methane - to heat our homes. All of us inhale methane every day. While methane is clearly flammable and it is a potent greenhouse gas, it is completely non-toxic. Methane, like the nitrogen that makes up 78% of the earth’s atmosphere, is a simple asphyxiant. What that means is that it could kill you by displacing oxygen, but methane itself is non-toxic (unlike carbon monoxide, for example).

In the same interview, Simmons discussed the toxicity of hydrogen sulfide gas, which is often present in petroleum reservoirs (although not significantly in Macondo). He noted that low-level concentrations can be fatal, and that workers are trained to put gas masks on quickly if monitors detect its presence. He then states that methane is more toxic than hydrogen sulfide. As per above, this is completely erroneous; hydrogen sulfide is highly toxic while methane is non-toxic.

worth checking out the whole article (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6789).

[StackerKen]

Simmons is too polite. The US Government DOES KNOW about the sea floor leaks, and is hiding it.

That a rupture in the sea floor occurred a long distance away, miles, is just phenomenal, and ominous. The rock around the riser, apparently for miles in radius, is spider-webbing with fissures.


Are they putting dispersant on these leaks as well?

If not why isn't the oil showing up ?

Track the Gulf of Mexico oil spill movement in animated graphic
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/gulf_of_mexico_oil_spill_anima.html

[Large Sarge]

Simmons is too polite. The US Government DOES KNOW about the sea floor leaks, and is hiding it.

That a rupture in the sea floor occurred a long distance away, miles, is just phenomenal, and ominous. The rock around the riser, apparently for miles in radius, is spider-webbing with fissures.


Are they putting dispersant on these leaks as well?

If not why isn't the oil showing up ?

Track the Gulf of Mexico oil spill movement in animated graphic
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/gulf_of_mexico_oil_spill_anima.html


I am not sure, but some of this might be a temperature issue

the oil is emerging a mile below the surface, the temperature of the water is cold, I seem to remember 30 degrees or so, plus the pressures involved.

the temperature of the surface water is like 85 degrees or so

and then someone pointed out that the gulf stream only goes to a depth of a thousand feet or so, which means that deep water/oil sits undisturbed. (4000 feet of deep water, undisturbed)

just a theory/speculation on my part

I believe the info above is correct, how I am applying it might be wrong.