Alf, I’ve been dodging Tornadoes, Ms river floodings, and Alcor!
New Orleans Lady…
Unless the bill has changed, I am not certain Neil Quartaro knows that this particular bill is exclusively for this event. The bill may have been further amended and I could be dead wrong about this.
Regardless, from what I’ve read, I definitely support the change for this particular event. Furthermore, Mr. Quartaro’s opinion that drilling an 18,000 foot high pressure/high temperature well in 5,000 feet of water is the equivalent of a regular commercial vessel traversing the ocean is a bit of a stretch in my
Opinion.
Well, from a classroom they may both appear the same, but in actuality the risk to all personnel aboard is increased on a drilling unit. (probably why we jump Off the platform/rig into the ocean to
Be rescued by a vessel not attached to a well that is blowing out.)
Easy Direct Link to radio interview from NOLA’s post.
Following are a few excerpts from the article I posted on June 8th.
"The Deepwater Horizon Survivors’ Fairness Act would amend the Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas Act to allow the victims’ families to claim non-compensatory damages, such as pain and suffering and loss of companionship. Both laws prohibit such claims. The bill also would change the Shipowners’ Liability Act of 1851, which limits a vessel owner’s liability to the value of the vessel and its freight.The Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday approved a bill to help the families of the 11 victims of last year’s Deepwater Horizon blowout by changing outdated federal maritime laws, one going back to the 1850s, to make it possible to recover damages from BP, rig operator Transocean and rig subcontractors.
The Death on the High Seas Act, which dates to the 1920s, effectively prevents the victims’ families from suing BP, Transocean and the other companies involved by limiting compensation to funeral expenses and lost wages.
The bill also allows the injured workers and families of victims to bring suit without a final judgment in the Transocean limitation of liability action, which the company filed in May 2010 and would limit its liability to just under $27 million.
The bill only affects the specific victims of the Deepwater Horizon explosion."
NATIONAL BRIEFING | SOUTH
Louisiana: Coast Guard Investigates Origin of Oil Slick in Gulf of Mexico
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 8, 2011
The Plaquemines Parish president, Billy Nungesser, says oil has been spotted in the waters off the coast near Venice and that he believes the seven-mile slick is from last year’s BP spill. Mr. Nungesser says there have been no recent reports to the Coast Guard of spilled oil in the area. The origin of the oil has not been determined. The Coast Guard has sent pollution investigators to take samples.
NWF: Tests at LSU show slick new oil, not from BP
WBXH - 12 hours agoEntertainment News from AP
The National Wildlife Federation said tests at Louisiana State University indicate the oil slick spotted earlier this week off Plaquemines Parish was fresh South Louisiana crude, rather than oil from last year’s BP spill. …
Oh my, I guess Nunguesser was JUST GUESSIN’ !!!
Mr nunnGuesser is an embarressment to me ,esp.after reading, how he and his cronies, profited from the BP oil spill workers. (only a few million).
[I]Deepwater Horizon[/I] - Prospects For Criminal Prosecution http://www.blankrome.com/index.cfm
[B]June 2011 (No. 1)[/B]
[I][B]For The Defense[/B][/I]
[B]The Casualty[/B]
On the night of April 20, 2010, there was a loss of well control during a temporary suspension operation at BP’s Macando Well in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in the release of a massive cloud of hydrocarbon gases around the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit [I]Deepwater Horizon[/I]. The crew’s efforts to control or divert the flow of hydrocarbon gases were unsuccessful: at approximately 9:50 pm, the rig was rocked by the first of a rapid series of catastrophic explosions, and an intense fire broke out on the drill floor. Eleven crew members were killed by the explosions and fire. Shortly thereafter, the surviving crew members and other personnel aboard the rig abandoned ship and were recovered by a supply boat that was standing nearby.
[I]The Deepwater Horizon[/I] sank on April 22, but oil continued to flow from the well until August 2010, when BP’s static kill procedure finally succeeded in choking off the flow. This blowout was the largest accidental marine oil spill in U.S. history, and it caused extensive environmental and economic damages in the Gulf of Mexico and beyond.
[B]Federal Enforcement Actions[/B]
The [I]Deepwater Horizon[/I] casualty quickly gave rise to a number of administrative investigations that were charged with determining the cause(s) of the casualty and identifying potential corrective actions to reduce the risk of such casualties in the future. BP initiated an autonomous claims procedure for damage claims resulting from the oil spill, and hundreds of lawsuits were filed in federal and state courts, most of which were subsequently consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) that is being managed by a district judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana. On June 1, 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice had initiated parallel civil and criminal investigations to determine whether federal enforcement actions were warranted. On December 15, 2010, the Admiralty Branch of the Civil Division filed a civil complaint in the [I]Deepwater Horizon[/I] MDL against the lessee of the well, the operator of the rig and others, seeking removal costs and civil penalties, based upon the quantity of oil released, under the Clean Water Act. The government specifically reserved the right to amend its complaint at a later date to include additional defendants and/or causes of action.
With respect to criminal enforcement, the [I]Deepwater Horizon[/I] Task Force, comprised of agents from numerous federal and state investigative agencies, has been collecting evidence for nearly a year concerning potential criminal violations of federal laws. Until recently, the [I]Deepwater Horizon[/I] Task Force was headed by a senior prosecutor from the Environmental Crimes Section, and the criminal investigation was thus being supervised by the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division. During March 2011, the Department of Justice announced that the leadership of the Task Force was being transferred to an Assistant U.S. Attorney, formerly with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, and responsibility for supervision of the criminal investigation was shifted to the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division.
This has created the unprecedented situation in which the oversight of the most significant pollution event of this generation is being handled by the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Department of Justice, with the Environmental and Natural Resources Division apparently playing only an advisory role in both enforcement actions. Although the initial complaint filed by the Civil Division in the MDL does not contain any surprising causes of action, that complaint could well be amended to include civil fraud allegations or other causes of action not typically pursued in civil environmental enforcement actions. It remains to be seen what affect the Criminal Division’s leadership will have on the nature and scope of any resulting criminal enforcement action.
[B]Potential Criminal Charges[/B]
The timing of the filing of criminal charges in the [I]Deepwater Horizon[/I] matter will be determined by several factors, very likely including the conclusion of the Joint U.S. Coast Guard and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement casualty investigation, which is scheduled to issue its final report by the end of July 2011.
It is likely that the criminal investigation into this casualty will focus on potential criminal liability for the eleven deaths caused by the explosions and fire aboard the rig. The Seaman’s Manslaughter Statute, which is a felony with a potential maximum sentence of ten years of imprisonment, provides for criminal liability based upon proof of simple negligence that results in a death aboard a vessel. The application of the manslaughter statute in this matter will present significant legal causation issues, as well as jurisdictional issues of first impression, given that the rig was approximately 50 miles offshore at the time of the casualty.
The criminal case also likely will include misdemeanor charges under the Clean Water Act predicated on proof of negligent conduct that caused the discharge of harmful quantities of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, which then migrated into the coastal waters of the United States. If the Alternative Fines Act is utilized, the potential criminal fine for a negligent Clean Water Act offense could be up to twice the pecuniary loss caused by the violation.
The oil spill resulted in the deaths of thousands of migratory birds, so it is also probable that the criminal prosecution will involve misdemeanor charges under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which is a strict liability statute. Criminal fines for violations of this statute too could be calculated under the Alternative Fines Act.
There are also indications that the Department of Justice is examining the potential for criminal fraud charges, potentially based on post-incident conduct that was intended to minimize the estimates of oil flowing from the well so as to reduce the potential penalty calculations under the Clean Water Act. The inclusion of criminal fraud charges would substantially alter the character of the criminal enforcement case, and could significantly expand the pool of potential targets of the criminal prosecution.
If the Department of Justice concludes that there is sufficient evidence to pursue charges under the Seaman’s Manslaughter Statute or under one of the criminal fraud statutes, it would significantly diminish the potential for a negotiated resolution with any organizational and individual targets. When this circumstance is coupled with the extensive discovery record that has been and will continue to be generated by the administrative investigations and the on-going [I]Deepwater Horizon[/I] MDL, it is likely that any criminal prosecution will result in a complex, protracted trial, which would involve substantial factual and legal challenges for the government. by Blank Rome LLP
http://mobile.nola.com/advnola/pm_29227/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=4A59RFdM
Weatherford U.S. LP agrees to pay BP $75 million to settle claims
The Associated Press
Posted: 06/20/2011 3:53 PM
BP PLC has settled out of court with one of the companies it contracted for work on the Deepwater Horizon rig before a deadly explosion killed 11 workers and spawned last year’s massive Gulf oil spill.
The deal announced Monday calls for Weatherford U.S. LP to pay $75 million to BP. In exchange, BP will cover Weatherford for certain claims related to the disaster, including those over pollution damage.
BP says it will apply the money to the $20 billion fund it created to compensate individuals and businesses in the aftermath of the oil spill.
Weatherford made a device designed to help contain the cement at the bottom BP’s blown-out well.
[B]Tony Hayward could face Texas court over Deepwater Horizon case[/B]
BP’s former chief may be called to give evidence in US according to prospectus for his comeback venture, Vallares
[ul]
[li]S[B]imon Goodley[/B][/li][li]guardian.co.uk, Monday 20 June 2011 20.27 BST[/li][li]Article history[/li][/ul]
Tony Hayward sworn in prior to testifying about BP’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill at a hearing in Washington in June 2010. The former BP boss could face court in the US this year. Photograph: Larry Downing/Reuters
Tony Hayward, the former boss of BP, is likely to be summoned by US lawyers to give further evidence to a Texas court about last year’s Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
The case, led by investors in the oil group, has been filed against various defendants including BP and Hayward over the adequacy of the group’s safety measures and its historical safety record.
The expected summons follows a deposition given by Hayward earlier this month to Louisiana litigators over combined compensation claims against BP, which allege personal injury, wrongful death and property damage.
News of the latest hearing was revealed in the listing prospectus of Vallares, the cash shell created by Hayward and the financier Nat Rothschild that raised £1.35bn last week to invest in oil and gas businesses in emerging markets.
The prospectus warns investors: “In the case of Mr Hayward, the company cannot rule out the possibility that he may be required to spend time responding to charges, investigations, lawsuits or other proceedings deriving from the oil spill from the oil rig ‘Deepwater Horizon’ in the Gulf of Mexico … It is possible that Mr Hayward will also sit for a separate deposition in relation to the Texas MDL [multi-district litigation]”.
While insisting that criminal proceedings against Hayward are unlikely, the document adds: "The company cannot exclude the possibility that US federal or state agencies will pursue criminal charges or regulatory proceedings against Mr Hayward at some point in the future … It is possible that in the course of any investigation, US federal or state agencies may ask Mr Hayward to provide documents or testimony."
Vallares represents the start of corporate rehabilitation for Hayward following a terrible 2010, during which he was savaged by critics over his handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Barack Obama, the US president, even said he would have sacked Hayward for downplaying the catastrophe, and he eventually left the company last autumn.
The prospectus reveals further details of Hayward’s comeback. He is using a large chunk of borrowed funds, having been lent an amount that “will not exceed £2m … from an affiliate of Credit Suisse” to acquire his stake in the new venture.
In total Hayward, whose experience of the oil and gas markets is considered vital by Vallares in its efforts to find high-quality investments, subscribed to £2.4m worth of shares at £10 each alongside other investors. As a founder, he was also allowed to buy 1.6m more shares at an average price of £1 each, although most of the cheap shares can only be traded after Vallares has made a transaction, with a further portion converting after the share price has reached a certain level.
The prospectus also documents the rise of Rothschild, who is now valued at about £1bn, via his interests in ventures such as Vallares’ forerunner, Vallar, which has invested in Indonesian coal assets, and the Atticus hedge fund. The document states: “[Rothschild’s] hedge fund investment and advisory activities, and business interests, on which he spent the majority of his time between 1996 and early 2011, have generated in excess of $850m [£510m] from initial capital put at risk of approximately $50m.”
New Orleans Lady…
I am posting this “Nungesser for Lt. Governor” news story just for you. I think you will enjoy several of the comments at the end of the story. I wish a few other Plaquemines Parish residents would post here (both positive and negative) to enlighten voters statewide about the current state of affairs down at “the end of the world.”
Nungesser ain’t playin’ - The Independent Weekly
Written by: Walter Pierce
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
A day after announcing his intention to seek the lieutenant governor’s seat this fall, Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser is already touring state and pressing the flesh with a big, honkin’, fiberglass pachyderm in tow.
Nungesser’s “For All of Louisiana Tour” made a stop Tuesday at Trynd Ristorante in downtown Lafayette, one of two appearances by the south Louisiana politico; he will also be at Pujo Street Café in Lake Charles this evening.
The Republican is in his second term as chief executive of Plaquemines Parish Government. Nungesser is perhaps best known for being the face of coastal Louisiana during the 2010 BP oil spill disaster and aftermath. On Monday as the Nungesser campaign spread the word of his candidacy, current Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne — Nungesser’s presumed main obstacle in the October election — released a video containing a robo-call Nungesser made urging voters to support Dardenne in the special election for lieutenant governor, which The Ind’s Leslie Turkblogged Monday.
Comments (4)
Subscribe to this comment’s feed
…
written by Denise , June 21, 2011 - 11:55 am
Geaux get 'em, Billy. As a registered republican, I did NOT support Dardenne and never will. He only wanted a paycheck.
Teach them how you should represent, and promote the real people of Louisiana.
…
written by PlaqueminesResident , June 21, 2011 - 12:03 pm
I live in Plaquemines Parish. Billy Nungesser is a thug and should win an acting award. He is the WORST Parish President we have ever had and is currently under FEDERAL INVESTIGATION for parish professional services contract he refused to send out to bid after the hurricanes in 2005 and 2008. He is also under Federal Investigation for pushing oil spill cleanup contracts to his cronies, friends and family, leaving out the local commercial fisherman. No doubt Billy is running around this State telling people, “I don’t need this job, but I saw a job that desperately needed to be done” Well that’s the same bull he told Plaquemines residents during the election here and guess what? The job here is not done. He’s done nothing for Plaquemines Parish, but everything for Billy Nungesser. He wants to be responsible for tourism in this state? He can’t even get tourist to Plaquemines Parish, the one real tourist attraction in this parish has been wasting away since Katrina and he refuses to do anything to rebuild the old historic courthouse that burned down after a fire. He’s a sham, Plaqueines Parish is in horrid shape and its not because of Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike or the oil spill, its because Billy is selling out Plaquemines Parish to the highest bidder - himself!
…
written by Hahny , June 21, 2011 - 12:10 pm
We ain’t playin’ and we ain’t votin’ for him either, the residents of Plaquemines Parish sick and tired of this man and what he’s done to Plaquemines Parish. He’s under Federal Investigation for all he’s done and what he continues to do. The man is an idiot.
Transocean released their internal investigation this morning.
Thank you captmrb for posting the link to the Transocean report.
I noticed a section in the report referring to the several changes in the temporary P&A procedures during the final days that New Orleans Lady has alluded to several times in the past few months. Her posts generally did not draw any comments from the rest of us. I know she will be excited to see this in somebody’s report.
NOLA some of your favorite points of contention are summarized in one location from the TO report below from:
Risk Assessment and Process Safety:
BP also failed to assess the risk of the temporary abandonment procedure used at Macondo, generating at least five different temporary abandonment plans for the Macondo well between April 12, 2010 and April 20, 2010. After this series of last-minute alterations, BP proceeded with a temporary abandonment plan that created unnecessary risk and did not have the required approval by the MMS.
Most significantly, the final plan called for underbalancing the well before conducting a negative pressure test to verify the integrity of the downhole cement or setting a cement plug to act as an additional barrier to flow. It does not appear that BP used risk assessment procedures or prepared Management of Change documents for these decisions or otherwise addressed these risks and the potential adverse effects on personnel and process safety.
Thank you,captmrb, and Infomania for posting , and remarking on the Transocean Report. It was wise, on their part, to wait instead of reporting prematurely, with out all the facts in place. THe DNV have recently, been given an extention, on their 2nd report!! I hope it results in with us being able to make informed conclusions, although we may never know the entire story, for obvious reasons mentioned. Infomania, your article re. Mr nunGuesser running for LT GOV. of La reminds me of an interview, on TV with Sen. John McCain,where he was asked , in 2007 if he would be interested in running for V.P. of the U.S., and his answer was, ’ I already spent 5 years in a prisoner of war camp!! ’ THe LT GOV. postition, in my opinion, is just that. THEY DO NOTHING!! That would be an appropriate position for nunGUesser, as that is what he is best at!!
[QUOTE=Infomania;51464]Thank you captmrb for posting the link to the Transocean report.
I noticed a section in the report referring to the several changes in the temporary P&A procedures during the final days that New Orleans Lady has alluded to several times in the past few months. Her posts generally did not draw any comments from the rest of us. I know she will be excited to see this in somebody’s report.
NOLA some of your favorite points of contention are summarized in one location from the TO report below from:
Risk Assessment and Process Safety:
BP also failed to assess the risk of the temporary abandonment procedure used at Macondo, generating at least five different temporary abandonment plans for the Macondo well between April 12, 2010 and April 20, 2010. After this series of last-minute alterations, BP proceeded with a temporary abandonment plan that created unnecessary risk and did not have the required approval by the MMS.
Most significantly, the final plan called for underbalancing the well before conducting a negative pressure test to verify the integrity of the downhole cement or setting a cement plug to act as an additional barrier to flow. It does not appear that BP used risk assessment procedures or prepared Management of Change documents for these decisions or otherwise addressed these risks and the potential adverse effects on personnel and process safety.
[B]Infomania, the statement is incorrect. The well was never underbalanced before the negative test took place. Underbalance, took place during the negative test. Overbalance was restored with the opening of the Annular, and the well became underbalanced during the displacement when hydrostatic pressure gradually reduced as the heavy fluids were displaced from the well.[/B] [/QUOTE]
There are always alternatives to be considered in the final stages of any well. For anyone to suggest that analysis was absent is incorrect. A mistake was made interpreting the results of the negative test. Both gauges should have read zero. They gambled on the vessel. They screwed up! All leading personnel on the vessel screwed up! But, we can blame all the engineers onshore if it pleases our sensibilities!
humor break
//youtu.be/_AWhEFplR68
[QUOTE=alcor;51518]There are always alternatives to be considered in the final stages of any well. For anyone to suggest that analysis was absent is incorrect. A mistake was made interpreting the results of the negative test. Both gauges should have read zero. They gambled on the vessel. They screwed up! All leading personnel on the vessel screwed up! But, we can blame all the engineers onshore if it pleases our sensibilities![/QUOTE]
For sure… they all screwed up. But the question that remains unanswered is “why they screwed up so badly”? Vidrine and Kaluza have some answers to this!.. but…What pathetic individuals they are!
[QUOTE=Alf;51596]For sure… they all screwed up. But the question that remains unanswered is “why they screwed up so badly”? Vidrine and Kaluza have some answers to this!.. but…What pathetic individuals they are![/QUOTE]
The objective was to circulate the heavy Pill above the BOP in order have SW in the pipe, the annulus (up to the BOP), and the Kill line. When the mud pumps are stopped and the Kill line opened and vented no pressure should have been seen on the DP gauge and no flow should have been seen on the Kill Line during the intended negative test. After all, the test is to measure whether or not pressure increases or remains stable at zero. Stable and zero, means the well passes the negative test and the cement barrier is intact and capable of securing and containing the hydrocarbons from exiting the reservoir with the maximum required differential pressure. The barriers have been tested in this circumstance.
Vidrine, Kaluza, and those TO personnel performing the test, must have realised something was amiss when they couldn’t reduce the pressure to zero. They realised, I presume, that some of the Heavy Pill was not fully displaced above the BOP, and that, some of the Pill apparently fell down the Annulus when the Annular didn’t seal and Drill Pipe pressure was bled off. I won’t go into the mistakes concerning bleeding off on the DP.
The obvious observation to me is that there is no way that the decision-makers on the DF knew how much Pill was below the BOP. But, it wouldn’t have been hard to calculate:
Drill Pipe pressure when the pumps stopped (shut in pressure) tells us exactly the position of the Pill in the Annulus based on the pressure reading on the DP, a value the Driller should have been aware of. They could have opened the Annular and kept pumping until the displacement was correct and DPP with pumps off as predicted/calculated. It seems so obvious now! It should have been calculated in advance!
Anyway, the decision makers are faced with a dilemma as to how to pass the test in the circumstances facing them. There’s +/- 1400 psi on DPP gauge and ‘0’ on the Kill line. What made them think they could still get a good test with the well underbalanced (as intended with SW)? They cannot achieve the negative test with Pill in the Annulus. And yet, they debated various theories on why DPP was rising. Thermal expansion will occur and it is customary to bleed off to zero several times and continue observing. This may take hours for an acceptable test if high well temperatures exist. But, you wouldn’t see fluid gushing from the well when bleeding off, and you wouldn’t see immediate increase in pressure to 1400 psi.
So, what convinced them that they had a good test? More importantly, what convinced them they had a good test…in accordance with intended differential pressure? This would never be possible with anything but zero on both gauges, simulating the expected underbalance in the well after full displacement.
The Negative test could not be achieved with pressure on the gauges. All decision-makers on the DF failed, even though the OIM always insisted on negative tests (God only knows what tests he performed in the past). Perhaps, he failed to explain to his crew how to conduct them. And, ultimately Vidrine and Kaluza failed as it is their responsibility to pass or fail the test. Were they accepting a watered-down test? Did they accept the results based on calculation errors?
Pressure and Volume!!! (Always Tell a Tale).
[QUOTE=alcor;51619]The objective was to circulate the heavy Pill above the BOP in order have SW in the pipe, the annulus (up to the BOP), and the Kill line. When the mud pumps are stopped and the Kill line opened and vented no pressure should have been seen on the DP gauge and no flow should have been seen on the Kill Line during the intended negative test. After all, the test is to measure whether or not pressure increases or remains stable at zero. Stable and zero, means the well passes the negative test and the cement barrier is intact and capable of securing and containing the hydrocarbons from exiting the reservoir with the maximum required differential pressure. The barriers have been tested in this circumstance.
Vidrine, Kaluza, and those TO personnel performing the test, must have realised something was amiss when they couldn’t reduce the pressure to zero. They realised, I presume, that some of the Heavy Pill was not fully displaced above the BOP, and that, some of the Pill apparently fell down the Annulus when the Annular didn’t seal and Drill Pipe pressure was bled off. I won’t go into the mistakes concerning bleeding off on the DP.
The obvious observation to me is that there is no way that the decision-makers on the DF knew how much Pill was below the BOP. But, it wouldn’t have been hard to calculate:
Drill Pipe pressure when the pumps stopped (shut in pressure) tells us exactly the position of the Pill in the Annulus based on the pressure reading on the DP, a value the Driller should have been aware of. They could have opened the Annular and kept pumping until the displacement was correct and DPP with pumps off as predicted/calculated. It seems so obvious now! It should have been calculated in advance!
Anyway, the decision makers are faced with a dilemma as to how to pass the test in the circumstances facing them. There’s +/- 1400 psi on DPP gauge and ‘0’ on the Kill line. What made them think they could still get a good test with the well underbalanced (as intended with SW)? They cannot achieve the negative test with Pill in the Annulus. And yet, they debated various theories on why DPP was rising. Thermal expansion will occur and it is customary to bleed off to zero several times and continue observing. This may take hours for an acceptable test if high well temperatures exist. But, you wouldn’t see fluid gushing from the well when bleeding off, and you wouldn’t see immediate increase in pressure to 1400 psi.
So, what convinced them that they had a good test? More importantly, what convinced them they had a good test…in accordance with intended differential pressure? This would never be possible with anything but zero on both gauges, simulating the expected underbalance in the well after full displacement.
The Negative test could not be achieved with pressure on the gauges. All decision-makers on the DF failed, even though the OIM always insisted on negative tests (God only knows what tests he performed in the past). Perhaps, he failed to explain to his crew how to conduct them. And, ultimately Vidrine and Kaluza failed as it is their responsibility to pass or fail the test. Were they accepting a watered-down test? Did they accept the results based on calculation errors?
Pressure and Volume!!! (Always Tell a Tale).[/QUOTE]
The basics (as you point out above) are obvious to all of us in this part of the oil industry… we’ve all come to the same conclusions in our own various ways since day 1, and we can all keep repeating the same comments… and go nowhere!.
However, it’s time for everyone to move forwards… and try to understand “why” these things occurred as they did. There are far simpler ways to do a negative/inflow test… but they take a few hours longer overall.
Unfortunately the TO drilling crew on shift that night can’t answer… the remaining TO senior personel on the rig were “otherwise engaged” with insignificant VIP’s… so that leaves at least 2 individuals who could shed light on what happened (albeit somewhat biased).
So, I repeat what I said earlier… when will Vidrine and Kaluza be brought to account?
[QUOTE=Alf;51691]The basics (as you point out above) are obvious to all of us in this part of the oil industry… we’ve all come to the same conclusions in our own various ways since day 1, and we can all keep repeating the same comments… and go nowhere!.
However, it’s time for everyone to move forwards… and try to understand “why” these things occurred as they did. There are far simpler ways to do a negative/inflow test… but they take a few hours longer overall.
Unfortunately the TO drilling crew on shift that night can’t answer… the remaining TO senior personel on the rig were “otherwise engaged” with insignificant VIP’s… so that leaves at least 2 individuals who could shed light on what happened (albeit somewhat biased).
So, I repeat what I said earlier… when will Vidrine and Kaluza be brought to account?[/QUOTE]
The fifth amendment means these guys will never testify. But, I assume a prosecution will take place where conclusions can be drawn based on the facts we know, the fact that a negative test simply was not verified. And, the OIM is not immune from prosecution! Meantime, the clean-up costs and associated legal battles appear to be taking precedence. And, the Gov’t are learning a thing or two about offshore drilling!
ASSERTING FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
This is a good read. Definitely worth your time to view and understand the different legal dilemmas potential witnesses who at any time may be turned into defendants in either civil or criminal cases in the near or future.
I think it’s time for the Department of Justice to file whatever criminal charges they intend to pursue against individuals.
[QUOTE=alcor;51699]The fifth amendment means these guys will never testify. But, I assume a prosecution will take place where conclusions can be drawn based on the facts we know, the fact that a negative test simply was not verified. And, the OIM is not immune from prosecution! Meantime, the clean-up costs and associated legal battles appear to be taking precedence. And, the Gov’t are learning a thing or two about offshore drilling![/QUOTE]
I’m sure you are right… it’s that “redneck, Bubba” culture that the World keeps coming up against.
[QUOTE=captmrb;51446]Transocean released their internal investigation this morning.
Link here[/QUOTE]
Thanks [B]captmrb[/B].
The above TO investigation reports contain some interesting reading… re snippets of info from
"[B]BP Investigation Team Interview of Robert Kaluza, April 28, 2010, BP-HZN-MBI00021237[/B]“
and
”[B]BP Investigation Team Interview of Don Vidrine, April 27, 2010, BP-HZN-MBI00021406[/B]"
I guess these “Interviews” will never see the light of day!