B.K. Lim – BP Disaster Interpreted by Risk Assessment Oil Geologist

Why it could not have happened as reported by BP.

B.K. Lim has come up with a staggering theory that may explain some of the nagging unanswered questions about undersea craters, gushers, explosions, oil and gas plumes coming from the seafloor,  GPS coordinates for ROV operations that do not add up,   and the conflicting well locations…Well A and Well B.  B.K. Lin is a respected Geologist who has 20  years of experience assessing Geological Data in terms of Risk for Big Oil clients.  It’s pretty clear to me that we may never know the truth.  I’m publishing his theory, not because I necessarily believe it’s true, but rather that it needs to be put out there so that the public can read further and make up their own mind.

Fugre 1 ROV activities chart

Diagrammatic illustrations are used to explain why the Deepwater Horizon blowout could not have happened as reported by BP. BP could not have been drilling at Well A location when the 20th April blowout occurred, but an undisclosed seabed location (S20BC) 720ft NW of Well A. BP capped the wrong well as many had long suspected but unable to prove without insiders’ information.

If the shoe fits, ……. There are probably more evidence out there, in the ROVs’ videos, emails, logs etc which are more incriminating. There must always be a story beneath all these. Why would BP go through such an extensive and elaborate cover-up? It just doesn’t add up. Unless ……..?

LT student


Glad you are back. Had been waiting for your posting. Excellent diagrams. OMG. How can they do such a thing? Who do they think they are to play with our lives?

Thanks BK. This thing is far from being wrapped up,as the administration is saying, and some people are saying they did a great job. Yeah, mission accomplished. Sure.

This is interesting, and when are the liars in this incedent going to be exposed?

There will be many in the Obama administration that need to be exposed, and fired.Or jailed

  • 5 votes

Reply#1 – Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:39 AM EDT

Clarification of 2nd well that was blown up on 20th April 2010. Most would assume it is Well B. No it is not. For some obvious reasons (to be disclosed later), BP drilled at another location 720 ft NW of Well A. It might be shocking to most but it is a fact oil companies and offshore contractors do not faithfully and accurately report what is actually going on in the field. What is a few hundred feet in the middle of the ocean thousands of feet deep?

Back in the good old days where shore-based positioning systems (Hifix, Argo, Syledis etc) were the state of the art systems; where you have to record more than a week at a stationary point to get enough decent satellite passes to locate where you were, you would be lucky to get within 50 m of your target absolute position.

Most oil companies would apply for a backup location (in this case Well B) close by since they were unsure whether it would even be drilled. At 300ft apart (between well A and B), even a layman from outside the oil industry would see that it is ridiculously near especially when the ocean depth is 5000 ft (6%) and your target is another 18000 ft. That distance is just 6% and 1.3% respectively. No for all purposes and intent, well B location is for “show only”location wise. It has other purposes.

A second well would be useful in case of unexpected delay. As in BP’s case, the permit for well A and B run from 15 April-24 July 2009 and from 15 April till 24 July 2010 (100 days each) respectively. So it is handy as evident in BP’s case. Since each well will take between 2 weeks to 4 weeks actual drilling, you do not need 100 days. But it comes in handy so that you do not run foul of the law.

BP re-entered Well A on 6th Feb 2010. By right it would be reported as Well B since the permit for Well A ran out on 24 July 2009. In fact Well A, drilled by Marianas from 7 Oct till 9 Nov 2009 did not exactly fit the permit details either (see link).


Even from this few events, you can see that the details given in the MMS BP permit and exploration plan (ref: OCS-G 32306 control no: N-9349 submitted Feb 2009) did not remotely match the actual field events. Is this not proof of what I had been saying all along? What goes on in the field offshore is not always accurately reported; let alone future events applied for more than a year before the drilling has even started. In my long career, I had investigated and proven many wells and boreholes had been drilled at the wrong places; some by more than 500 m from their intended location. In one survey, the survey area shifted by more than 1.5 km. There were deliberate cover-ups of course (like in BP’s case) to save their own skin, once the initial discrepancies were noted.

In the end truth will prevail as always but it takes time and efforts. If you have survived as many blowout, drilling and survey fiascos as I have (on the truth side I mean), you will know that there are a lot of sharks swimming out there in the offshore industry. BP’s cover-ups are not new to me. In fact I would be truly surprised and amazed if BP had been an angel.

My postings had been strategically timed and laden with predictive “traps” to prove the hidden moves behind this Charade of the Century. It will become clearer with the coming posting “Of predictability, disasters and insider trading”.


Mr. Kim, Are we to assume the oil is still flowing from the unreported blow out crater? Why is it not rising to the surface like the other oil? Can it be stopped? How can the blow out crater be verified? What is to be done? thank you.

BK Lim

Yes probably but the ROVs are not showing any video of it. I doubt if BP is willing to show the unadulterated videos of the blown-out crater. At this stage, I would be very sceptical of any data coming out of BP as the videos of other seabed could be shown giving the S20BC’s coord. BP would do anything to discredit me or this posting.

I am probably letting the cat out of the bag. BP could have capped the Bogus Well (Well A) much earlier or the relief wells could have been drilled faster to kill the gushing well. How would it look if the Bogus Well A (which was inadequately plugged and started leaking again after the 20 April massive blowout) was capped in May and oil was still gushing out from the S20BC open well (suspected 20 April blownout crater)? So all attempts to kill well A had to fail or were designed to fail. See how easy the latest “Top Static Kill” was?

Remember the Containment Domes fanfare. It was cancelled due to some flimsy excuses even before they were deployed. Before the 10th of May, BP was sincerely trying to contain the spill with the Containment Dome until some smart Alex suggested the Switch-A-Roo plan to refocus the world’s attention to Well A. Deploying the containment domes would have exposed S20BC location to the world. Video of it was shown to the world before 11 May when BP started to float the “Top Kill” idea through the BOP at Well A.

The reasons should be obvious if you have been paying attention. I have a nagging suspicion that if everything else failed, BP will just leave the S20BC open well as “a natural seep”; 3 months are probably long enough to reduce the gushing oil to resemble a more natural oil leak. Have you noticed BP’s Bogus Press had been amplifying the thousands of leaking abandoned wells and natural oil seeps in the gulf and redirecting world’s attention to BOP on Well A, after mid May.

At least that was the devious plan. Man proposes but GOD disposes.Hope that answers your questions.

Why is it not rising to the surface like the other oil?

This leads to the question why so much dispersant (corexit) was used. If you were to plot the ROVs’ dispersant ops, they would no doubt be centred on this S20BC location. Again the ROV data may be adulterated to discredit this disclosure. I am pretty sure all the ROVs’ operators had been “threatened” to secrecy. Some may not even know (just follow orders) of this top level Crime of Mass Deception.