Reply #8: It's interesting that Halliburton seems to have been a chief malefactor....

[Peace Patriot]

Just read this post by nashville_brook

Oil spill disaster marked by BP mistakes from the outset - St Pete Times
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8469441

--

Oil spill disaster marked by BP mistakes from the outset

By John Barry, Times Staff Writer


One day it will take a book or many books to categorize the gusher of BP's mistakes and miscalculations. But many damnable errors, spectacular misjudgments and horribly false assurances have already come to light since the start of this nation's Summer of Oil. Based on government hearings and investigative reports these past two months, here are the worst.

April 14-15: Six days before the explosion, BP won approval from the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service for a series of permit changes that would help it speedily conclude its over-budget drilling operation at Deepwater Horizon. BP had already won a "categorical exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act the previous year. The changes it got on April 14-15 allowed BP to install a cheaper, smaller, single pipe in the length of the well, rather than double-lined pipe. A double-lined pipe would offer protection from escaping gas, but BP argued that the single pipe made the best financial sense.

April 20: On the day of the explosion, BP executives came on board Deepwater Horizon to celebrate the rig's safety record. At the same time, Halliburton, a contractor for BP, was trying to temporarily plug and cap the well with cement so the drilling rig could be moved to another job. BP now says mud might have contaminated the cement Halliburton used. Technicians noticed a rise in pressure from the well that suggested the cement wasn't holding. They did tests. One test showed a "very large abnormality.'' They took another test and misread it, declaring the well safe. BP called that a "fundamental mistake."

Although the pressure was rising, the workers began withdrawing drilling mud — which holds down oil and gas in the well. They replaced the drilling mud with seawater, which is standard procedure if all is well. Some workers say they objected but were overruled by a BP "company man." As they injected seawater, they observed a dangerous jump in pressure from oil and gas rising in the well.

The rig exploded. Technicians then hesitated to switch on their last line of defense — a blowout preventer, which is supposed to seal the well in a disaster. They waited for an official approval from BP. When they did switch it on, it had no hydraulic power. BP now says a seal may have leaked.

April 22: BP sent a robot camera down to look at the well. It said it found no leaking oil.

(MORE)

(my emphasis)

http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/water/article1099273.ece

--------------------

The writer attributes all of it to "mistakes" and "bad judgements." But with Halliburton involved--one of the most evil corporations on earth--you gotta wonder.

This article has raised another question in my mind. WHY was BP shutting down this well? It obviously was still producing lots and lots of oil. Why was it moving the rig to another oil site? I don't know if there is anything lurking in the answer to this question. Just curious.

Another thing that strikes me in reading this article is that nothing is definite about WHY the rig exploded. It's not that "spectacular" misjudgements can't happen when lots and lots and lots of money is involved along with notoriously greed, malfeasant corporations. We know they can and do. But I was just impressed with the iffiness of these explanations. Mud "MIGHT HAVE" contaminated "the cement Halliburton used"? Did it? Is this part of the "blame game" (BP trying to spread the blame around)? Was this "spectacular" malfeasance (by Halliburton)? Or what? But mainly, IS this what actually happened? And if so, how and why?