[QUOTE=Alf;37031]You need to move away from the idea of a “hole” (which would have been the initial case) and now visualise it more as a split or tear. The 16" was set in tension ie under tensile load. The continued flowrates thru’ that split, no doubt combined with stress concentrations as you say, will by now have caused that 16" to fail ie a break/failure all around it’s circumference in the area of either 1 or 3 rupture disks.
This is only one likely scenario… no one knows for sure, but it’s also possible the 16" may have been damaged elsewhere from the huge flow thru’ it and even from the bending of the Wellhead… the BOP is leaning/tilting.
The rupture disks could even have been damaged when they were installed when the 16" was first run? (as someone else has recently posted)
CM1 has already pointed out that if there is a flowpath thru’ the 16" steel casing, then outside of that is a direct flowpath to formation and then to seabed.
During Hafle’s testimony, the lawyer for TO (Kohnke) had a document +/-200pages which I believe was the well programme for this Macondo well. I don’t know if the USCG accepted the document later as evidence??
If so, then that would provide a lot of answers re the design of the well, and in particular it should also contain the full casing design.[/QUOTE]
If this is the case, we could literally see the whole thing topple over right in front of our eyes. I was up very early this morning & saw one of the ROVs looking at the mus line. It definitely looked to me like there was a massive plume coming from about 25-50’ away from the way the well head was leaning. I would have thought it would be on the other side.