“To put it simply, there was a bad cement job,” Chief Executive Tony Hayward said in a statement.
Oh gee, guess Tony forgot to mention that Halliburton strongly recommended AGAINST the type of cement job BP wanted. Halliburton also recommended to circulate bottoms up, which BP DID NOT DO. BP threw all of Halliburton’s recommendations in the trash can and did what they wanted to do even though they were warned, not only by Halliburton, but also by Schlumberger that the well was likely to blow.
Guess Tony also forgot to mention that it was BP’s decision to displace the heavy (14+lbs),expensive, oil based mud to another ship and replace it with 8.5 lbs seawater. That made it difficult to monitor the well flow as the level in the various pits could not be used to determine accurately the return flow, which made it difficult to detect the well flowing.
BP reminds of of Obama - blame anybody and everybody else, but never take any responsibility for your own actions.
This is horseshit to say it was a bad cement job. I scanned the report this morning and will read it in more detail.
The report said it was NOT a bad well design because the blowout did not come through the annulus but instead came through the shoe and up the production casing.
What this means, dear reader, is that the floats didn’t hold and the rumor that circulated about a wet shoe and surging the floats up to nine times in an attempt to get them to hold is most plausible. PILOT ERROR AND FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE FAILED FLOAT IS AT THE ROOT OF THIS.
THE bad well design may not have caused the problem but it was and is a bad well design.
I pity the fellows who wrote this report because they gave up a lot of their integrity. They were in a no win position. It should have been done by a third party instead of chaired internally.
BP have remained true to form... committee based, unwilling to take responsibility, blame everybody but yourself, unethical.