BP could have prevented blowout: investigator

Feb 17, 2011
A US Coast Guard handout image of fire boat response crews as they battle the blazing remnants of the BP operated off shore oil rig, Deepwater Horizon, in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010. BP's oil well in the Gulf of Mexico might never have blown last year if the company's engineers had been consulted about a key test that pointed to a defective cement job, investigators reported Thursday.

BP's oil well in the Gulf of Mexico might never have blown last year if the company's engineers had been consulted about a key test that pointed to a defective cement job, investigators reported Thursday.

Those and other details were disclosed in a report wrapping up an investigation by a presidential commission that blamed the April 20, 2010 disaster on management failures by BP, Halliburton and Transocean.

A massive explosion on the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon rig killed 11 workers, sank the rig and sent millions of barrels of oil flowing into the Gulf over a three month period, wreaking havoc on the region's environment and economy.

The report by the commission's lead counsel, Fred Bartlit, zeroed in on the failure of the cement well casing put in by Halliburton and a key negative pressure test just before the blowout that should have warned BP supervisors of a problem.

But investigators found that "well site leaders accepted facially implausible explanations for the negative test results."

Even after the blowout of the Macondo well, a BP official attributed it to "a bladder effect," rather than failed cement, surprising BP's vice president for drilling and completions, who was on the rig during the test.

"If anyone had consulted him or any other shore-based engineer, the blowout might never have happened," Bartlit's report said.

"Every industry expert the investigative team met with dismissed the so-called bladder effect as a fiction that could not have accounted for the pressure readings the men saw on April 20."

An oil slick on the outside edge of the protective barrier formed by the Chandeleur Islands in the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon platform disaster off Louisiana in 2010. BP's oil well in the Gulf of Mexico might never have blown last year if the company's engineers had been consulted about a key test that pointed to a defective cement job, investigators reported Thursday.

The report also said that BP officials had been aware for years of problems with Halliburton's work and the quality of the oil services giant's personnel.

"BP’s engineers had been forced to 'work around' the Halliburton engineer assigned to Macondo for years -- they said that he was 'not cutting it' and that he often waited too long to conduct critical tests.

"But they neither reviewed his work at Macondo carefully, nor even checked to see that he conducted testing in a timely manner -- even though they knew that their last minute changes to the cement design test could cause problems and that using nitrogen foamed cement could pose 'significant stability challenges.'"

Nor did they fully review his cement design, the report said.

An internal BP cement specialist was asked to provide support on an ad hoc basis, but he left the country without carefully reviewing the cement design, and never saw information about the cement slurry design or the lab test results until six days after the disaster.

"When he reviewed those materials, several aspects of Halliburton’s design surprised him," it said.

Oil covered brown pelicans found off the Louisiana coast and affected by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico wait in a holding pen for cleaning in Buras, Louisiana, in 2010. BP's oil well in the Gulf of Mexico might never have blown last year if the company's engineers had been consulted about a key test that pointed to a defective cement job, investigators reported Thursday.

The Transocean crew also missed several signs that there were hydrocarbons on the night of the blowout.

"At 9:27 pm, less than 15 minutes before the blowout began, they did notice an anomaly in pressure data from the well, and shut down operations to investigate," the report said.

"They noticed several anomalies that should have caused serious concern, but showed no hint of alarm," it said.

The rig's crew activated a blowout preventer seconds before the blowout began. But by then it was too late, the report said.

"Even if the BOP (blowout preventer) had functioned flawlessly, the rig would have exploded and 11 men would have died," it said.

Explore further: Nepal to end rescue operation on trekking route

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

BP removes cap from plugged well in Gulf of Mexico

Sep 02, 2010

BP on Thursday removed a massive cap which had stemmed the flow of oil from its ruptured well deep in the Gulf of Mexico in a key step toward killing the well once and for all, officials said.

Experts question BP's take on Gulf oil spill

Sep 27, 2010

(AP) -- Engineering experts probing the Gulf of Mexico oil spill exposed holes in BP's internal investigation as the company was questioned Sunday for the first time in public about its findings.

Commission won't be last word on Gulf oil spill

Jan 06, 2011

(AP) -- A presidential commission's conclusion on the largest offshore oil spill in history that decisions meant to save time and money created an unreasonable amount of risk won't be the final word on the ...

BP did not put profit before safety on Gulf well: probe

Nov 09, 2010

A US presidential panel probing the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster examined Tuesday the oil industry's safety culture, after its lead investigator said he found no evidence BP and its partners had sacrificed ...

Panel: Gulf oil spill could happen again

Jan 06, 2011

(AP) -- Disasters like the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig could happen again without significant reform, according to the conclusions of a presidential panel that has the companies involved in the ...

Recommended for you

Historian unearths origins of Mexico's water crisis

2 hours ago

A historic three-year drought has left California bone dry. But the state, along with much of the Southwest, is not alone in its water crisis. Mexico, too, is facing a severe water shortage, and Stanford ...

Nepal to end rescue operation on trekking route

6 hours ago

Nepal was wrapping up rescue operations in its northern mountains Monday, saying all the hikers believed to have been stranded on a trekking route by a series of deadly blizzards are now safe.

Major breakthrough could help detoxify pollutants

20 hours ago

Scientists at The University of Manchester hope a major breakthrough could lead to more effective methods for detoxifying dangerous pollutants like PCBs and dioxins. The result is a culmination of 15 years of research and ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Roland
3 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2011
BP is trying to pass the buck. BP ordered Halliburton to use fewer than normal centering spacers, over objections by Halliburton. BP says: "he often waited too long". In fact, Halliburton was waiting for the cement to set up before testing it, but BP refused to wait and sent the Halliburton crew ashore early.
Also, the Transocean crew knew the BOP was damaged, when they found bits of rubber in the drilling mud. They were alarmed about it. But BP mgmt refused to stop drilling to replace the BOP. Bottom line: BP mgmt was in a hurry because time is money.
geokstr
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2011
It really made no difference that there was an oil spill. Obama was committed to finding some way, any way, to stop drilling and exploration, and this was just the perfect excuse to feed the envirofreaks with.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2011
Usually, with this kind of situation, where lives were lost and where there will be decades of law suits and possible criminal charges, the truth will not come out for a very long time, if ever. Everyone who can possibly be blamed has a huge incentive to point fingers at others. The fact that many of the best witnesses are now dead makes it even harder to get to the bottom. For every 'true fact' that gets out, there is probably also a 'false fact' and a secret that we will never know. You'll notice that the majority of official statements at this point will be made by attorneys rather than directly by the companies involved. That way there is a disconnect between the statements and anybody specific at the company. It's a layer of protection.