[21twelve]

“Had they left the heavy mud in the hole none of this would have happened (99.9% sure). I have heard no logical explanation of why this was done and that gives me concern, a lot of concern.”

I don’t think there was, or will be a “logical” reason. The BP company man said something to the effect of “I’m the boss here, do it. That’s what the pinchers (BOP) are for”. I can completely understand that. Some blowhard company man that thinks he knows more than the driller and crew that had been fighting this beast for months.

A company man under pressure to get the well done. Passing that “kick the dog” and “I’m the boss” attitude to the crew.

What I CAN’T understand is why, once they started replacing the mud with sea water, and started seeing problems they didn’t stop. Instead they interpreted the data (pressure jumps, etc.) in the best possible light so they could continue the risky process. They stopped twice IIRC to monitor the jumps and data, and went on anyway.

Were the original driller and crew gone and replaced by a completion crew or something? I had just a brief experience of being on a rig for a couple of summers. But, at the least the company man could have been locked in his trailer by the crew. Or, slipped on the wet spot and fell into the mud pit.

Although I suppose things are different on an independet land well vs. these ocean rigs. Still.

[The Cajun]

It just doesn't make sense, Keep the heavy mud in, finish the job despite all the other screw ups. If you have to close the BOP rams because of replacing the heavy mud and they work, you loose a lot of time and possibly the well anyway because you shear the drill pipe, it falls into the well and you have one hell of a mess at best.
I just can't understand the decision in any way other than a crazy company man (or worse) running the show.

[Ragnar54]

From the Hot Air site:

I totally agree with that. The Feds failed, up and down.
Ragspierre on June 19, 2010 at 3:28 P

That’s one point of view. The other might be that they were completely successful in “their” objectives.

5. Five Republican (one changed to I) Govs had their states damaged
4. 16% of economy effectively shut down.
3. Total offshore oil drilling ban
2. Provided a platform for pushing “Cap and Tax”
1. Soros will make a huge sum off this

CC
CapedConservative on June 20, 2010 at 7:31 AM

The simplest explanation (no North Korean navy needed) is that the administration identified an individual in a position to increase the risk of a blowout. The Chicago Way would involved "persuading" the individual to take the appropriate action. Even if a blowout did not occur, there was no political risk and minimal expense in making the attempt.