#Login Register


  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
Home 


The Truth is Coming Out...
03-20-2013, 03:23 AM #1
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
"A former Halliburton lab manager testified Tuesday that a company official asked him not to record results of a cement stability test related to the well in the 2010 Gulf oil spill disaster."

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/03/19/trans...ill-trial/



I knew the Contractors had to have had a hand in this. There was just too much that had to go wrong before this to have happened.

Been saying this the whole time...

beerbong.gif
03-20-2013, 03:35 AM #2
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,020 Threads:1,474 Joined:Feb 2011
Yes you have Taco. drinking.gif
03-21-2013, 02:46 AM #3
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
"he refused to dismiss claims against the three main firms involved — BP, Transocean and Halliburton."


Yup/agree on dat


http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/03/20/gulf-...o-cameron/


beerbong.gif
03-21-2013, 02:54 AM #4
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,396 Threads:1,439 Joined:Feb 2011
You were absolutely correct Taco, and I agreed 100%. The Boots & Coots grab just prior to this all going down was enough evidence for me as to who was responsible. They made a killing off their own ineptitude; ain't it grand?

wonder.gif
03-22-2013, 08:33 AM #5
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011

I've said this from day-1. Halliburton's cement slurry design in Macondo should be in question. I took so much shït from people that had no ƒükking clue....

“The cumulative effect of Halliburton’s pattern of destruction and spoliation of evidence has been to deprive the court and the parties of significant post-incident evidence relevant to the inherent quality and performance of the cement Halliburton provided for the job at the Macondo well, and the role of that Halliburton slurry design as a cause of the events of April 20, 2010,” BP said."


http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/03/21/bp-al...ill-trial/


Halliburton is going to be in DEEP shït now.

This is the part of the trial that all the skeletons are dug out of the closet.

Schill for big oil my ass...

beerbong.gif

03-22-2013, 10:37 AM #6
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,396 Threads:1,439 Joined:Feb 2011
lmao2.gif You're in the business, I trust your opinions are based on fact. You were certainly right about this fiasco. Now, to see what actually happens to them in terms of fines and criminal negligence... coffeetime.gif

wonder.gif
03-23-2013, 07:35 AM #7
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
Two questions Taco:

1. Did the cement cure too slowly or not at all?
2. What should have happened after the inconclusive pressure test?
03-23-2013, 10:09 AM #8
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
(03-23-2013, 07:35 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  Two questions Taco:

1. Did the cement cure too slowly or not at all?
2. What should have happened after the inconclusive pressure test?


1) In this case a cement slurry is a mixture of additives to a cement to obtain certain properties. Usually the cement jobs that seal the annulus is nitrogen charged (among other ingredients) to reduce weight beneficial to not promote excess weight on your formation walls. However what failed is the temporary plugs Halliburon was in process of setting. I do not know the type of cement and coagulants used for these plugs which failed and now Halliburton is found to have destroyed evidence/samples and reports.

2) There are positive (above the plug) and negative pressure testing (below the plug). With regard to negative pressure test the density of the heavy fluids above the plug must be reduced to allow a certain pressure below the plug for a certain amount of time. What should have happened is while testing the plug should have held the pressure under the plug. THEN and ONLY THEN do you go to the next step and replace the heavy fluids with light seawater. But NOOOOOOOO those jackasses did not get a confirmed acceptable test and gambled that the test was ok/good enough and went to the next step and the cement plug failed.


Again if they had not started replacing the heavy fluids with seawater (at what point of the transfer I do not know) then the plug would not have failed and failed BOP would not have even be needed. Just keep the heavy fluids in the cased borehole keeping the demon in the cage so to speak...


Hope this makes sense, had a few cocktails tonight....beerbong.gif
03-23-2013, 10:22 AM #9
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
Again you have to remember they were in process of temporarily plugging that well to move the 1-million USD/day Deepwater Horizon rig off location to be replaced by a smaller less expensive rig for the completions phase. This procedure is common and safe if you pay attention to proper protocol. Which they (BP, Halliburton and Transocean) evidently did not.

Also remember BP is responsible for the well while Transocean is responsible for the drilling rig. And Halliburton is responsible for the cementing jobs...

gaah.gif



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com