Oh yes - the sparkling, showering, scintillating spectrum shooting back and wrapping the global community in an untidy, relaxed and happy bow of contentment.
2 Likes
Itās a damn good thing they moved the CEOās office to Dubai.
I do hope Mr. Halliburton passes the monthly piss tests.
If they can find any piss. Heās been taking it for so long, thereās not much about.
There are plenty of reasons to hate on Halliburton. This however is not one of them. Please take the extra time to read not just the headline. If you did youād see āHalliburton had recommended to BP the use of 21 centralizers in the Macondo well. BP opted to use six centralizers instead.ā
and the evidence destroyed would have actually helped Halliburton
āDisplace 3D simulation program to compare the impact of using six versus 21 centralizers. Displace 3D was a next-generation simulation program that was being developed to model fluid interfaces and their movement through the wellbore and annulus of a well. These simulations indicated that there was little difference between using six and 21 centralizers. Program Manager was directed to, and did, destroy these results.ā
1 Like
hahaha. Whatās wrong with you? This is America! Zimmerman walks and Halliburton gets a slap on the wrist.
Wow what year is it
i donāt think so. It shows their reccommendation was crap too and they couldnāl lay blame entirely to BP in this particular point.
I canāt tell what it says about their simulation program
Please explain how recommending nearly three times more of these safety stops was crap? Had BP followed Halliburtonās original recommendation we might have avoided most, if not all, of this tragedy. The destroyed evidence would have proven their simulation programs flawed.
1 Like
2 Likes
Nothing about this actually makes sense. According to the DOJ, Halliburtor recommended 21 centralizers. BP went with 6. Halliburton ran two simulations that showed 6 centralizers would be as effective as 21. If that is the case, then no one did anything wrong. BP used an appropriate amount of centralizers. Halliburton made an overly conservative recommendation. And the blowout was a tragic accident.
So why delete the data on the simulations? It doesnāt really make sense.
Efforts to forensically recover the original destroyed Displace 3D computer simulations during ensuing civil litigation and federal criminal investigation by the Deepwater Horizon Task Force were unsuccessful.
The data recovery was unsuccessful, so we only have the DOJ and Halliburtonās assurances that the simulations showed 6 centralizers would work as well 21.
This story would make a hell of a lot more sense if the simulations showed that using only 6 centralizers would definitely or probably cause a blowout. In that case, both Halliburton and BP would have known there was a problem and neither company corrected it and they both. That would be evidence worth hiding.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
