Slashdot Mirror


Modeling Software Showed BP Cement As Unstable

DMandPenfold writes "Advanced modeling software analyzed the cementing conditions for BP's Deepwater Horizon oil well as unstable, days before the blast that killed 11 oil rig workers and let millions of barrels of oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico. Halliburton, the company that carried out the cement job, used its own modeling software called OptiCem, to support arguments that more stability was needed for the piping and cement. ... An OptiCem test on 15 April, five days before the blast, stipulated that from Halliburton’s point of view, 21 ‘centralizers’ needed to be added to the well bore. The centralizers are used to provide space around the oil pipe casing within the well, as cement is poured around it, and are a vital part of safe drilling. BP initially adhered to the OptiCem software test and ordered 15 extra centralizers. But when technicians on the rig received the extra centralizers they mistakenly decided the new centralizers were the incorrect type. At this point BP proceeded with the drilling anyway, with the six centralizers, deciding another known technique of injecting cement in other places would work."

29 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Politically connected by revscat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So what? BP has massive amounts of money, as well as political connections out the ass. Nothing is going to happen to them, even if half of the Gulf Coast population winds up with cancer. Complain away, Slashdot. If it makes you feel better to post on the intertubes, excellent. Meanwhile, nothing gets done.

    1. Re:Politically connected by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I don't understand, with these "Corporation that doesn't give a fuck and has more politicians in its pocket than you ever will fucks over some more luckless saps" stories is why there isn't more extralegal violence associated with them.

      Obviously, subjecting large corporations to serious penalties under law would be unamerican, and we generally avoid it; but America is crawling with angry and well armed people, many without too much to lose, and spree-killing is something we start practicing in high school.

      Why isn't there an enraged ex-fisherman with an AR-15 lurking outside the window of every BP C-level whose name is publicly known? People get killed all the time over petty shit, why not the big stuff?

    2. Re:Politically connected by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obviously, the rational thing is to fatalistically suck it up and try to move on

      That depends.

      Sometimes, the most rational course of action requires doing what little you can to send a simple, clear, and potentially bloody message of "don't do this again". In particular, when you have almost nothing left to lose, and those who destroyed you have almost no risk of seeing any meaningful penalties.

      A handful of BP execs dead at the hands of the fishermen they ruined would do a whole heap more to prevent another such catastrophe, than any monetary penalties ever could. "Companies" behave like complete sociopaths, abusing both convention and law to maximize profits; the humans running companies, however, can experience real fear.

    3. Re:Politically connected by icebraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Usually those shootings are not premeditated - the guy just picks up his gun, drives back to work/home and starts shooting.

      Killing some executives requires a plan. Finding their addresses, driving hundreds of miles, etc; Plenty of time to lose the "heat of the moment" and realize the consequences of such actions.

      Also, having a company and not a person to be raged at makes it harder. They don't have such strong feelings against the particular people, they might not even know who they are.

    4. Re:Politically connected by thijsh · · Score: 4, Informative

      So what? BP has massive amounts of money, as well as political connections out the ass.

      Something did get done. Look at the graph of BP stock. Zoom to 1 year and notice the huge dip following april 20th. They (and their stockholders) did lose money over this...
      Beside that they also (temporarily) lost political connections, to them it's all fine when it's deals in the dark, but when the spotlight is on BP no politician wants to support them.

      So their irresponsibilty caused them to lose some of the two powers they care about, money and connections. It will make them think twice before fucking up on this scale ever again, they may not care about the environment or the fishermen, but they care about losing money and connections.

    5. Re:Politically connected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It'd be a start if the blame was even being spread fairly. This US obsession with blaming BP entirely largely started by Obama as he needed to deflect political attention away from his own incompetence, but BP was only one of a few companies who deserve blame. BP was certainly the majority stakeholder, but whilst BP has from the start accepted it's fair share of the blame - it never once said it'd pay anything less than the full costs of cleanup and compensation. You can't even claim that BP were the ones raking the profits from the well and hence the ones that deserve to pay because other companies including the US oil company Anadarko, and Japanese company Mitsui also had a share in the well but to date have dodged all responsibility, and then there's the fact that companies like Transocean and Halliburton still profited from the well by being contracted to play the part they did in the first place.

      I'm amazed that so little criticism is being pushed towards Halliburton, when it seems they were in fact guilty of at least some degree of negligence - even the US panel investigating the spill is beginning to accept that now-

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11648354

      It's incredible that Americans seem to feel the need for a foreign bogeyman in incidents like this, that despite Halliburton's record in it's dealings regarding the Iraq war all blame is deflected away from it, and companies like Anadarko, Mitsui, and Transocean.

      Sure BP fucked up, sure they were getting the biggest slice of profits, but at least they're the one company out of all those involved who has from the start been willing to pay for the fuckup, even though it seems pretty now that BP might actually have been the company that least screwed up compared to it's partner Transocean, and compared ot Halliburton:

      http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/u-s-spill-panel-examines-causes-of-bp-oil-spill-reuters_molt-7a2344c54e1b.html;_ylt=Atte73PsYsywCFWErVA85UrBXGwF;_ylu=X3oDMTE2MTRia2tlBHBvcwMxMgRzZWMDdG9wc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDdXNzcGlsbHBhbmVs?x=0

      It's sad that the one company that takes responsibility and offers to pay full costs from the outset gets demonised, whilst those others who are responsible keep getting given a free ride by the press and public and are still to this day refusing to accept blame, or pay their share of the costs despite the mounting evidence that they were in fact more responsible for fucking up than BP themselves.

    6. Re:Politically connected by fat4eyes · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem with threatening people with death for their crimes is that they compensate by making sure that their crimes are big enough to warrant the risk of losing their life. Killing some executive does not kill the company and its drive for profit, and the one that replaces him will just commit a bigger crime that is worth the risk of being killed. And since corporations will always be driven by profit, the only real way to prevent such negligence from happening again is to make it such that such negligence that leads to damage to other people's livelihoods is _not_ profitable. Then it's in their interest not to screw up.

    7. Re:Politically connected by camperdave · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wait a minute. Why is BP getting blamed for all this? Sure, they operated the well, but it was all rental equipment. Why Transocean or Hyundai getting any heat? Three quarters of the incidents on oil drilling platforms are on Transocean owned platforms, even though less than half the rigs being operated are from Transocean. Oh, and guess who manufactured the blow-out preventer on the Deep-Horizon Oil Spill. You guessed it: Transocean.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:Politically connected by cusco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Press Corps(e) wants to dumb down the news as much as possible, they can't include too many bad guys in the story without confusing the sheeple. Not many people have heard of Transocean or Mitsui (even I had never heard of Anadarko), and most only associate Haliburton with the Iraq fiasco. Everyone knows that BP is an oil company, the disaster is on an oil platform, so BP is the designated villain for this story. Sad but true.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    9. Re:Politically connected by MarcQuadra · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I bought-in like mad when the stock started going below $40/share. I made a bunch of loot, and I'm just a regular working Joe. There's a reason stocks are 'public', it means anyone can buy them.

      It drives me mad when people say that investing is something for 'people with lots of power and money', It's not rocket-science, and anyone can do it. Investing has netted me about $15K of spending cash in the last two years, all on a middle-class salary.

      Anyone with half a brain knows that institutional investors were dumping BP stock because their clients were angry at them and it was driving the stock down; the fiscal fundamentals would put the shares back over $40 once things stabilized. I'm still holding, though. I suspect a lot of the $20B put aside won't get used and BP will resume dividends again soon. Once that happens, there's no reason the stock won't bump up another 30%.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    10. Re:Politically connected by fat4eyes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The same reason why you get charged for manslaughter if you run over someone with a rented car: you were driving.

    11. Re:Politically connected by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It has nothing to do with BP being foreign. I suspect that most Americans think BP is an American company (I know at least one slashdotter wanted Congress to confiscate all of BP's assets). BP gets all of the blame because it serves the interests of several groups (much of the press, some politicians. etc) to have a single"villain".

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    12. Re:Politically connected by camperdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe, but who gets charged if the wheel falls off and kills somebody? At some point the makers of shoddy equipment need to be called to task.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:Politically connected by Shotgun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even worse is that when "that dirty fisherman" does cap Tony, the next C-level will put up higher walls and add security and then feel smug in dumping in the backyards of the "dirty proles", because they are stupid and violent.

      These guys don't fear death. They've got plenty of security to handle us. What they fear is poverty and the resulting public humiliation.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    14. Re:Politically connected by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you value money over moral or ethical actions, awesome.

      I considered it, but buying into BP would probably impact my ability to sleep at night.

      Have fun with your blood money.

  2. Re:BP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually I do believe

    "Thank you Captain Hindsight", is more appropriate of a comment here.

  3. It's A Big Mystery by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Sherlock, we could find a place to put the blame if only we knew what kind of rock they were drilling through."
    "Sedimentary, my dear Watson, sedimentary."

  4. BP's fault, but not their fault. by Flowstone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Translation:
    "We have concrete evidence that bp not only dropped the ball, but insisted on risking screwing themselves over. However we're not going to say it was their fault, as they're a big oil company that pays us alot of money."
    so much for biting the hand that feeds you.

    1. Re:BP's fault, but not their fault. by The+Dodger · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, shut up! It's obvious to anyone with an IQ above single digits that the constant sniping at BP is nothing but a xenophobic witch-hunt, fomented by a faltering White House to distract attention from their own failings. The Oil Spill Commission has already found that BP did not sacrifice safety in favour of profits so give us all a fucking break!

      Why don't you direct some of your ire at the federal investigators who haven't yet started an examination of the blowout preventer (made by a US firm, by the way) that FAILED TO WORK, even though it's been sitting in a NASA faciloty for TWO MONTHS!

      Morons.

    2. Re:BP's fault, but not their fault. by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Oh, shut up! It's obvious to anyone with an IQ above single digits that the constant sniping at BP is nothing but a xenophobic witch-hunt, fomented by a faltering White House to distract attention from their own failings."

      I thought you were kidding, but reading your other posts makes it clear you were being serious. I guess it's not just religious fundamentalists whose thoughts are indistinguishable from parody.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
  5. Sometimes smart people make mistakes by davidwr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The issue isn't "omg they ignored the modeling - those bastards!"

    The issues are:

    1) Was their mistaken belief that the stabilizers were the wrong size reasonable under the circumstances, was it due to an understandable human error, or was it due to gross incompetence?

    2) Was the backup plan based on sound engineering and sound industry practices, or was it a "we think this will be okay, let's cross our fingers and drill?"

    If the mistake on the stabilizers was reasonable under the circumstances and the backup plan was based on sound engineering and sound industry practices, I don't see any blame as it relates to this particular decision.

    On the other hand, if either decision was based on incompetence, then it's easy to pin blame. If the mistake was based on something less than incompetence - say, a competent person demonstrating the reality that good human beings occasionally make mistakes and making a bad or careless decision at what would turn out to be the worst possible time - then there is blame but the punishment for that person should not be as severe as that of incompetence.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  6. So who's in the dock? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For what, you ask? Negligent homicide. Because somebody decided to drill in a situation they knew to be unsafe, putting the lives of everyone on the rig, including those with no choice in the matter, at risk for the sake of profits. A few criminal prosecutions would change that culture quickly, otherwise it's just a cost of doing business.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  7. Oh, and by the way... by The+Dodger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ..BP didn't do the cementing. Halliburton did. So, if Halliburton's model showed that more centralizers were required but they decided to go ahead with the cementing anyway, seems to me that they were negligent.

    It's like a builder telling the developer "We should use beams and girders in this wall to make it stronger" and the developer saying "Hmmm. We haven't got any steel beams to hand. Can you use reinforced concrete instead and maybe make the wall thicker?". If the builder says "Yeah, sure!" and goes ahead, he can't blame the developer if the wall later collapses.

    I sense desperate attempts at ass-covering on Halliburton's part. Probably worried about all their lucrative no-competition Pentagon contracts.

    1. Re:Oh, and by the way... by stdarg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Halliburton did the cementing, then said hey it's wrong, then BP proceeded with drilling anyway, rather than redoing the cement. Halliburton didn't do the drilling so I don't see how you can blame them.

      According to the Oil Spill Commission’s findings this week, Brian Morel, drilling engineer at BP, wrote an email to Brett Cocales, another BP engineer, as the drilling proceeded, saying: “Who cares, it’s done, end of story, we’ll probably be fine”.
      [...]
      At a hearing in July, BP’s well team leader, John Guide, explained the decision not to go with the software’s recommendations. “The model is – first of all, it’s not accurate all the time. ...I put very, very little faith in the model because it’s wrong a lot.”

      BP still drilled with “no direct indicators of cement success” and no cement evaluation log, the Oil Spill commission said. The company conducted a separate negative pressure test, an oil engineering test designed to show whether the casing and cement would hold against significant pressure, and isolate potentially dangerous hydrocarbons.

      The test was failed, but was – for an unexplained reason – deemed a “complete success” by both BP and rig owner Transocean at the time, a presentation on Monday said.

      That's pretty blatant. Halliburton warned them, BP did their own separate test, which failed. Then they're like, oh well let's do it anyway! And you find a way to blame Halliburton in that?

    2. Re:Oh, and by the way... by The+Dodger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let's take a look at the original Oil Spill commission letter reporting back to the commissioners on the findings relating to the Halliburton cement, shall we?

      "The documents provided to us by Halliburton show, among other things, that its personnel conducted at least four foam stability tests relevant to the Macondo cement slurry. The first two tests were conducted in February 2010 using different well design parameters and a slightly different slurry recipe than was finally used. Both tests indicated that this foam slurry design was unstable.

      "Halliburton provided data from one of the two February tests to BP in an email dated March 8, 2010. The data appeared in a technical report along with other information. There is no indication that Halliburton highlighted to BP the significance of the foam stability data or that BP personnel raised any questions about it. There is no indication that Halliburton provided the data from the other February test to BP.

      "Halliburton conducted two additional foam stability tests in April, this time using the actual recipe and design poured at the Macondo well. We believe that its personnel conducted the first of these two tests on or about April 13, seven days before the blowout. Lab personnel used slightly different lab protocols than they had used in February. Although there are some indications that lab personnel may have conducted this test improperly, it once again indicated that the foam slurry design was unstable. The results of this test were reported internally within Halliburton by at least April 17, though it appears that Halliburton never provided the data to BP."

      One of the four conclusions in that letter was that "Halliburton (and perhaps BP) should have considered redesigning the foam slurry before pumping it at the Macondo well."

      There's plenty of blame to go 'round. People should quit the pretence that it's all BP's fault.

    3. Re:Oh, and by the way... by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's what I actually suspect: BP and Halliburton were both responsible to some degree. Because of that, the companies will insist on separate trials if it ever gets to court, and the defense in each of the two trials will be "the other guy did it". That way, neither of them has to actually take responsibility for their actions.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:Oh, and by the way... by The+Dodger · · Score: 3, Informative

      One significant difference between the two is that BP has accepted it's responsibility and has voluntarily waived the $75m statutory limit on monetary damages (contained in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990), instead establishing a $20bn compensation fund. And that's on top of the clean-up costs.

      Meanwhile, Halliburton and Conway are keeping their heads down, desperately hoping that no one notices that it was their cement and blowout preventer that failed to, y'know, prevent the blowout from happening in the first place.

      Note that there's a difference between responsibility and blame. BP are responsible for cleaning up the spill, because they are the operator of the lease. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are to blame for what happened (although I broadly agree that the blame is probably shared between several of the parties involved).

  8. Re:When "systematic" becomes "invisible"... by The+Dodger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about we go right back to the source of the problem and track down the bastard who issued the licence to drill in such deep water to begin with? Surely it's obvious to even the most dim-witted American politician that drilling in 5,000 feet of water is going to entail some risks?

  9. Wondering about that myself by tekrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, I can't figure it out. People on the street shoot each other over liquor store robberies for a $100, but when your livelihood is affected to the tune of tens of thousands, people sit in their sofas watching American Idol.

    Never mind some fisherman picking off BP execs, I'm shocked no one has been picking off mortgage brokers, bankers, and other high-ups that handed us the Great Depression, that will essentially, last for the remainer of our lives (all indicators point to things getting worse, not better, unless you're already in the top 1%).

    Even more amsuing is that that south is filled with gun-nuts, you'd think that at least one of them would get riled up enough to do something. Amazing that they'll shoot at each other about a scratch on the pickup truck, but when it comes down to REAL things, they act like they have no power.

    Maybe there's something to those chemtrails after all, as the populace is handing the country over to a few elite, with no fight whatsoever. John Carpenter's "They Live" is starting to look like a documentary. Where's the Hoffman lenses when you need them?

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.