|
31 Oct 10 - 05:49 PM (#3020288) Subject: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: Arthur_itus I am surprised that people in USA haven't apologised to BP. The following report puts the blame initially at an American company called Halliburton. Does that mean BP can sue them and the USA for loss of business and defamation of character by the President of the USA. I guess not. The report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11649345 |
|
31 Oct 10 - 06:02 PM (#3020299) Subject: RE: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: pdq Nice try, but the cement was not the cause of the problems. The blowout preventer attached to the pipe did not work. |
|
31 Oct 10 - 06:06 PM (#3020302) Subject: RE: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: Arthur_itus Quote The firms drilling a BP Gulf of Mexico oil well had tests showing cement used to seal it before it blew out was unstable, US investigators have found. The findings conflict with statements by US oil contractor Halliburton, which supplied the cement and has said tests showed it was stable. But a presidential panel on the disaster found that three tests prior to the blowout showed the opposite. |
|
31 Oct 10 - 06:09 PM (#3020304) Subject: RE: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: Lox Arthur, in case you weren't aware, readers in the USA are unable to access the BBC news pages that we in the UK get, so are unlikely to be able to watch that vid or read that report. ... Which means of ourse that PDQ probably hasn't read or seen it either ... ... but that shouldn't stop him or anyone else discrediting it out of hand if they feel so inclined ... |
|
31 Oct 10 - 06:16 PM (#3020309) Subject: RE: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: Arthur_itus Lox really sorry about. I have captured the text and here it is. I guess it's important to accept that BP were at fault, but Halliburton seemingly are also at fault. Quote from BBC News. BP oil disaster: Pre-spill tests 'showed cement flaw' The blowout caused an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig that killed 11 workers Cement used to seal the Macondo well may have contributed to the blowout that caused the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, US investigators have found. Both BP, which owned the well, and Halliburton, the contractor responsible for the cement, were aware of tests showing it was unstable, they said. Halliburton has denied the claims, saying the tests were invalid as they were on a different kind of cement. The 20 April blowout led to the worst environmental disaster in US history. Eleven workers on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig were killed by an explosion which followed, and hundreds of miles of coast were polluted. The well was finally capped on 15 July, after an estimated 4.9m barrels of oil (171m gallons) had leaked into the sea, and fully sealed last month. In a letter to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, its chief counsel Fred Bartlit said BP and Halliburton both had test results showing the foam slurry - created by injecting nitrogen into cement - used to seal the well before the blowout did not meet industry standards for stability. Halliburton carried out four separate tests. In three of them, the results showed the mixture to be unstable and potentially prone to failure. The fourth test produced more positive results, but these might not have been available by the time work on the well got under way on 19 April, Mr Bartlit wrote. Finally, Halliburton and BP both had results in March showing that a very similar mix to the one pumped into the Macondo well would be unstable. Halliburton does not believe that the foam cement design used on the Macondo well was the cause of the incident" End Quote Halliburton statement "But neither acted upon that data," Mr Bartlit wrote. "Halliburton (and perhaps BP) should have considered redesigning the foam slurry before pumping it at the Macondo well." Halliburton later issued a statement saying it believed there were significant differences between its own tests and those performed by the commission. "The commission tested off-the-shelf cement and additives, whereas Halliburton tested the unique blend of cement and additives that existed on the rig at the time Haliburton's tests were conducted," it said. The company also denied any suggestion that it knowingly used a potentially defective product, suggesting that the failed internal tests were invalid because the cement mixture was different from the one eventually used in the well. However, the last-minute changes demanded by BP meant that the final cement mix was not tested fully, it admitted. Earlier statements by the company had said tests had shown the cement to be stable. Halliburton also criticised BP for not performing a cement bond log test, which checks the cement is secure after it has been pumped down the well, or properly interpreting the negative-pressure test. The oil spill devastated wildlife along the Gulf Coast "Given these numerous intervening causes, Halliburton does not believe that the foam cement design used on the Macondo well was the cause of the incident." The BBC's Iain MacKenzie in Washington says the oil spill commission's findings go some way to supporting BP's own investigation, which found failings in the composition of the cement. However, the full report has yet to be published and at this stage the investigators stop short of apportioning blame, our correspondent says. Mr Bartlit also noted shortcomings by Transocean, which operated the Deepwater Horizon rig on behalf of BP. "Because it may be anticipated that a particular cement job may be faulty, the oil industry has developed tests, such as the negative pressure test and cement evaluation logs, to identify cementing failures. It has also developed methods to remedy deficient cement jobs," he wrote. "BP and/or Transocean personnel misinterpreted or chose not to conduct such tests at the Macondo well," he added. But Mr Bartlit also cautioned in his letter that "the story of the blowout does not turn solely on the quality of the Macondo cement job". |
|
31 Oct 10 - 06:31 PM (#3020317) Subject: RE: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: pdq Actually, Haliburton did give at least one of the reports to BP in early March, but nobody considered the cement a threat to the well. Here is a discussion of the real cause: Deepwater Horizon blowout "During the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion incident on April 20, 2010, the blowout preventer should have been activated automatically, cutting the drillstring and sealing the well to preclude a blowout and subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but it failed to fully engage. Underwater robots (ROVs) later were used to manually trigger the blind shear ram preventer, to no avail. As of May 2010 it is unknown why the blowout preventer failed. Chief surveyor John David Forsyth of the American Bureau of Shipping testified in hearings before the Joint Investigation of the Minerals Management Service and the U.S. Coast Guard investigating the causes of the explosion that his agency last inspected the rig's blowout preventer in 2005. BP representatives suggested that the preventer could have suffered a hydraulic leak. Gamma-ray imaging of the preventer conducted on May 12 and May 13, 2010 showed that the preventer's internal valves were partially closed and were restricting the flow of oil. Whether the valves closed automatically during the explosion or were shut manually by remotely operated vehicle work is unknown.[8] A statement released by Congressman Bart Stupak revealed that, among other issues, the emergency disconnect system (EDS) did not function as intended and may have malfunctioned due to the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon. The permit for the Macondo Prospect by the Minerals Management Service in 2009 did not require redundant acoustic control means. Inasmuch as the BOPs could not be closed successfully by underwater manipulation (ROV Intervention), pending results of a complete investigation it is uncertain whether this omission was a factor in the blowout. Documents discussed during congressional hearings June 17, 2010, suggested that a battery in the device's control pod was flat and that the rig's owner, Transocean, may have "modified" Cameron's equipment for the Macondo site (including incorrectly routing hydraulic pressure to a stack test valve instead of a pipe ram BOP) which increased the risk of BOP failure, in spite of warnings from their contractor to that effect. Another hypothesis is that a junction in the drilling pipe may have been positioned in the BOP stack in such way that its shear rams had an insurmountable thickness of material to cut through. It was later discovered that a second piece of tubing got into the BOP stack at some point during the Macondo incident, potentially explaining the failure of the BOP shearing mechanism. As of July 2010 it is unknown whether the tubing might be casing that shot up through the well or perhaps broken drill pipe that dropped into the well. On July 10, 2010 BP began operations to install a sealing cap, also known as a capping stack, atop the failed blowout preventer stack. Based on BP's video feeds of the operation the sealing cap assembly, called Top Hat 10, includes a stack of three blind shear ram BOPs manufactured by Hydril (a GE Oil & Gas company), one of Cameron's chief competitors. By July 15 the 3 ram capping stack had sealed the Macondo well, if only temporarily, for the first time in 87 days. The U.S. government wants the failed blowout preventer to be replaced in case of any pressure that occurs when the relief well intersects with the well.] On September 3 at 1:20 p.m. CDT the 300 ton failed blowout preventer was removed from the well and began being slowly lifted to the surface.[13] Later that day a replacement blowout preventer was placed on the well. On September 4 at 6:54 p.m. CDT the failed blowout preventer reached the surface of the water and at 9:16 p.m. CDT it was placed in a special container on board the vessel Helix Q4000. The failed blowout preventer will be taken to a NASA facility in Louisiana for examination." |
|
31 Oct 10 - 06:34 PM (#3020319) Subject: RE: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: Arthur_itus I guess we will have to wait and see. I am just angry at the crap that was thrown at BP and the USA companies were whiter than white. |
|
31 Oct 10 - 06:40 PM (#3020322) Subject: RE: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: pdq Yes, the crap thrown at BP was a disgrace. They are one of the most responsible players in the oil game. That said, shifting the blame to Haliburton smells of politics since a former VP was once its CEO. Or, perhaps a move to get back some of the 20 billion extorted from BP by our esteemed prez. |
|
31 Oct 10 - 06:49 PM (#3020325) Subject: RE: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: Arthur_itus Well whatever, I hope the real truth comes out and all those guilty share the blame and cost. Above all I hope that Abama is courtious enough to aplogise to Bp for taking them so much to task and not teh others. I don't suppose that will happen. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 01:28 AM (#3020486) Subject: RE: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: Teribus The cement bond logging thing is a "red herring" if the leak past the cement was at the shoe (i.e. the cement plug furtherst down) the cement bond logging operation would have only shown how good the uppermost cement plug was. Four tests were carried out two in February, both failed, and it was the results of the second of those tests that were passed ashore to BP on the 8th March. A third test was undertaken on 17th April which again failed and finally a fourth test was carried out on the 19th April which was successful. In this test 8 barrels of retardent per 100 gallons of cement was used, the instruction given by BP was for Halliburton to use 9 barrels per 100 gallons. Talk in the media refer to testing and labs and somehow create the impression that cement samples are made up and sent ashore to be lab tested ashore, they are not the "lab" they are talking about is normally a "portacabin" on the rig where cement blocks are made up and tested on site - it has to be done that way as the cement you test has got to be the cement you pour down the hole. What remains to be seen is exactly how Halliburton flagged up to BP that the cement samples they reported on on the 8th March failed test, as Halliburton had previously said that they had told BP that the cement was OK - That is the apparent lie they have been caught out on. I have always said from the start that two things failed: 1) The cement job 2) The BOP Both were out of BP's control and neither were BP responsibilities, that is why Operating Companies hire specialist contractors. When things go wrong those companies should also shoulder their share of the blame. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 01:47 AM (#3020491) Subject: RE: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: Donuel There are apology chapels in the Tea Party amusment park in Tennesee where you can apologize to BP for a small donation. I have a map of the park. ITs way better than the Creationist Museum. Don't go blaming BP or Halliburton for anything. You should know there is absolutely NO SWORN TESTIMONY regarding any guilt whatsoever of Halliburton or BP! They all took the 5th. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 03:07 PM (#3020974) Subject: RE: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: Richard Bridge Damn me I am going to have to agree with Teribus - I was saying exactly the same from early on! |
|
01 Nov 10 - 03:14 PM (#3020982) Subject: RE: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: gnu It's simple. There was a tragedy. Whoever was the main player is liable. After that, let the entities involved sort it out. But get help to those affected. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 03:18 PM (#3020986) Subject: RE: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: Arthur_itus Richard doesn't need any help :-) |
|
01 Nov 10 - 03:24 PM (#3020994) Subject: RE: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: Bobert Ummm, where was Dick Cheney the night the well blew??? |
|
01 Nov 10 - 07:07 PM (#3021180) Subject: RE: BS: Well I never. Halliburton were to blame From: Richard Bridge gnu, that's a wild imagination you have there. |