Friday, May 21, 2010

Haliburton to BP: We Blame You

Click to enlarge

Nola.com and other sources are claiming that BP had invited a testing firm called Schlumberger (SLB) to perform something called a Cement Bond Log (CBL) test in the days before the rig went nova.
In the words of Tim Probert, a Halliburton's executive, the CBL is "the only test that can really determine the actual effectiveness" of the well's seal.

For some reason, the SLB folks left the Deepwater Horizon without performing the CBL test.

The rumor mill is citing a considerably more dramatic version of events.
  • SLB shows up to do test
  • SLB sees oil rig is "kicking heavily", tells BP to shut down the well.
  • BP does not.
  • SLB asks to be taken off the rig
  • BP tells them to wait for the next flight.
  • SLB charters their own helocopter and leaves as soon as possible.
  • Hours later the Deepwater Horizon blows up.

However, the rumor mill has a number of things wrong (Nola.com's account says the SLB folks were only on standby to perform the test, were not asked to and then left on a regularly scheduled BP flight). Nor was BP required to perform this test:
According to Probert, government regulators at the Minerals Management Service don't require a well owner like BP to order a cement bond log unless it feels uncertain about any of the earlier tests. It's not clear what the results of the positive and negative pressure tests were.
But the human drama of the rumor mill would seem like a good place to start asking questions, though. Did the SLB folks see a well that was "kicking heavily?" - Did they ask to perform their test? Were they concerned for their safety or that of the rig?

Haliburton is clearly making the case they they were in the right - but their version is more information that can be used to pry more information out into the open.

We'll see what BP's response is - and if the SLB folks are willing to go on the record.

(H/t Felix Salmon)

3 comments:

AUL said...

The site oil drum has done some very balanced stuff on this. Another view.

Os said...

I'm thinking about this mess and why would these guys so blatantly lie, if there is a good chance the lie will unravel?

I believe they are very intelligent, so I fear the situation must be catastrophic (as in the Gulf coast will never be the same again). If they tell the truth they go bankrupt and all sort of people go to jail.

If they lie, they buy time to

a. Make the lie plausible
b. Shift the blame
c. Change the political landscape in their favor
d. Mobilize personal parachutes

I'm going to go with five times the estimate for the leak, and that it won't get fixed for another two months. I really hope I'm wrong, but I just have this nagging suspicion I'm really close.

AUL said...

Based on every individual expert analysis, 25,000 Bpd is the minimum estimate, ~72,000 is the mean estimate.

The 'optimist' in me says the cover-up is always worse than the original issue.

The thing that bothers me(beyond the devastation of the gulf) is that this administration has been abetting the cover-up. Rand Paul and his 'it's not American to criticize American companies' dumbass speech is obviously so wrong, but this admin talks tough but does not act it.

Seems that while it's not un American to criticize a company, it is un American to actually treat them hostilely. No matter the actual Americanness of the company.