* by Photobucket commons
I just got through watching a four part series on YouTube by a cat running the tvryb Channel. He has gotten a hold of BP's official exploratory plan OCS-G 32306, submitted to and approved by MMS, the Mineral Management Services, for drilling and temporarily abandoning NOT ONE BUT TWO WELLS in the Macondo Prospect/ MISSISSIPPI CANYON BLOCK 252. The document, which was stamped in Feb of 2009, displays the exact coordinates of both proposed exploratory wells, designated Well A & Well B, and includes a detailed survey map pinpointing their location.
Over the course of the following four videos that you can access below, "tvryb" dissects each page of this document and bounces its coordinates and dates against the real time footage provided by the robot cameras on the scene of "The" wellhead and drill hole, as if that is THE ONLY WELL. The survey coordinates showing up on the roving camera right now are within a few feet of Well A, not exactly, 100% matching the coordinates but very, very close. These certainly are not the coordinates for proposed Well B, which are several hundred feet away.
Here's the rub. Well A was supposed to be drilled and capped in less than a hundred days between April 15 and July 24 in 2009, and Well B between April 15, 2010 and July 24, 2010.
So was Well A delayed, and is it the same well BP publicly stated that they commenced drilling on around October of 2009, but had abandoned due to multiple problems somewhere around Feb 2010? Deepwater Horizon BP employee Mike Williams, in his famous documentary with 60 Minutes, explains how BP had to abandon and plug this fractured well. Watch this video commencing around 3:30 into it to hear Williams explain this and the necessity of starting a second drill well as soon as possible, if not sooner.
BP was originally supposed to commence drilling on Well B on April 15, but was it actually started earlier due to the above scheduling crisis? Was that the well, with the same coordinates, being drilled when the blowout occurred on April 20? It seems logical to assume this, because those are the coordinates surveyed and approved in the MMS document.
There is always the chance that BP started drilling on Well B first, and then switched to Well A, but I have to assume they would have to formally petition MMS to do so, and I don't know of any followup documents submitted by BP as of yet in this regard. So, short of some evidence that the well preferences were reversed, the hypothetical question then becomes, did BP pull off a dog and pony show to "cap" or "recap" Well A, which wasn't the gushing well in the first place, and simply removed the cameras from Well B to Well A to monitor a well that perhaps has only minor leaks, and meanwhile just left Well B, with a steady stream or dispersants aimed right at it to break up the black crude, to its own devices?
I may be blowing smoke, but it is undeniable that "tvryb" has raised some serious points that must be investigated, and we must demand that BP explain what Well A and Well B (or however they may be designated now) are or are not, and then put roving cameras on both wells, the one abandoned in early 2010 and the subsequent one that blew out.
Following are tvryb's four videos. Study them closely: