Posted on 12/05/2011 6:42:19 PM PST by trumandogz
BP on Monday accused Halliburton of destroying potentially damaging internal test results that showed that the cement it used to secure the Macondo well that blew out in the Gulf of Mexico last year was unstable.
(Excerpt) Read more at fuelfix.com ...
BP v. Halliburton, a liberal wet dream.
....must be news coming out about Dumbo’s vacation that needs cover.
There were so many shortcuts taken, apparently most at BP’s behest. Halliburton was just one contractor. Of course, it being associated with the Bushes, everybody in the lamestream media blames Halliburton.
I see the “Blame Bush” derangement syndrome is still in full swing...
Haliburton? I thought this was BP’s cluster——.
BP as in Blowout Preventor, thats where the failure took place. Had it worked as designed there would have been no spill ot leakage.
“BP as in Blowout Preventor, thats where the failure took place. Had it worked as designed there would have been no spill ot leakage.”
The above is an untrue statement.
Cement?
Unstable?
Amazing, at my age, to see that adjective applied to cement. I learn something new every day.
Cement?
Unstable?
Amazing, at my age, to see that adjective applied to cement. I learn something new every day.
Ruels! When you mention “Haliburton”, you are suppose to say “Dick Cheney” in the same sentence.
Ruels! When you mention “Haliburton”, you are suppose to say “Dick Cheney” in the same sentence.
Less weight means less hydrostatic pressure until it sets, but will accept down hole gas as it exits the bottom of the casing to the outside well bore on the way back up.
They would have also collected cement samples during the job (did in the 80's) for the customer.
I don’t think the blowout preventer was designed to withstand the torque of a million pounds of pipe falling over.
Interesting this. One of the original stories had the Haliburton employees insisting they be allowed to leave the rig as they were claiming that the cement they were ordered to use was not up to snuff.
I believe those were Smith or Schlumberger hands that evacuated the platform.
Remembering the concensus was the blowout preventor’s one working hydraulic ram tried to pinch a coupling which would not crush.
From reputations, Haliburton is way ahead of BP regading corner cutting. They are unlikely to be able to pin this on Haliburton.
Sounds like you’ve been around a cement job or two.
What’s your opinion of nitrifying (adding compressibility) to the cement in a well full of 14+ ppg very viscous OBM. Cement has to serve two functions, 1) get the mud out by laminar displacemet requiring well tuned friction and density heiarchy and 2) set up hard pretty quick after placement.
I seriously doubt BP did not make HAL leave a field blend around for testing. But I guess that went down with the rig. Thats the one that really matters. Everyuting else is pilot belend and not necessarily representative of actual blend, rig water & liquid adds the day, time and palce of the disaster.
My guess, BP loses this one.
Correct. The BP guys (suits) pushed to shortcut the process. A top Haliburton official (I believe a senior engineer) on site was livid and stated it was a critical mistake. He warned them of the danger and was overruled. I believe he charted a helicopter to get his crew off site ASAP. A few hours later the rig blew. I think this is close to what happened. The actual facts/timelines should be available.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.