Parker Waichman LLP

Report Questions Key BQ Decision of Deepwater Horizon Explosion

Several days prior to the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, BP used a cheaper, riskier method to seal off the oil well, according to a New York Times report. The approach taken by the company was described as the “best economic case” in a BP document provided to the Times by a Congressional investigator. The […]

Several days prior to the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, BP used a cheaper, riskier method to seal off the oil well, according to a New York Times report. The approach taken by the company was described as the “best economic case” in a BP document provided to the Times by a Congressional investigator.

The type of casing BP chose for Deepwater Horizon could allow gases from the well to leak as far as the wellhead, where only a single seal would serve as a barrier. The alternative would have provided two barriers.

While more expensive initially, the type of casing BP ultimately chose would be cheaper and more versatile in the long-term. But such a casing could also cause problems if drilling mud or cement is lost or pushed away from the well into porous rocks as it is pumped, the Times said. Apparently, that did happen several times, including once in March when the rig lost all of its drilling mud, and again just a few days before the April 20 blast.

A Wall Street Journal report published today is also shining light on some key decisions made by BP officials aboard Deepwater Horizon that may have contributed to the disaster. For instance, they cut short a procedure involving drilling fluid that is designed to detect gas in the well and remove it before it becomes a problem. They also skipped a quality test of the cement around the pipe, despite signs of problems with the cement job and a warning from cement contractor Halliburton Co.

Both of these decisions meant that rising gas had an easier path up and out of the well, the Journal said. Then, the day of the explosion, it was decided to proceed with removing heavy drilling fluid known as “mud,” despite results of a critical negative pressure test that BP officials have conceded was a an “indicator of a very large abnormality.” According to a Congressional memo released yesterday, BP officials have since said the decision to continue work may have been “a fundamental mistake”.

The Journal is also reporting that there was a “skirmish” between TransOcean workers and BP officials on the rig the day of the explosion. TransOcean owned and operated the rig, and leased it to BP. Apparently, TransOcean officials disagreed with a decision by BP’s top manager about how to remove drilling mud and replace it with lighter seawater before sealing it with a cement plug. Removing the mud keeps it from polluting the sea but also means there’s less weight to hold down any gas, the Journal said.

After the mud was removed, BP was supposed to install a giant spring to lock the seal at the top of the well that would have helped prevent leakage in the event that gas was coming up the sides of the well, pushing against the seal. However, the Journal said there is no indication in the rig’s activity logs that the spring was ever installed.

BP also opted to remove the mud before placing a final cement plug inside the well. That left little to prevent any gas inside the pipe from rising to the rig, the Journal said.

Finally, the BP official overseeing the final well test did not have much experience with deep water drilling, the Journal said. He told congressional investigators that he was aboard to “learn about deep water.”

According to the Journal, some of BP’s choices allowed it to minimize costly delays. Work on the well was behind schedule. According to a company document seen by the Journal, BP approved spending $96.2 million and about 78 days on the well. The target time was much less—about 51 days. By April 20, the well was in its 80th day due to delays.

A technician who operated underwater robots and worked for a subcontractor on the rig told the Journal that he thought too many jobs were being done at once.

What Our Clients Say About Us
We have worked with thousands of clients and we appreciate them and their positive reviews. Here are just a few recent client reviews...
5 Star Reviews 150
Positive: Professionalism , Responsiveness I had a positive experience with Parker Waichman. My contact Christina Morace has been extremely helpful. She was professional, knowledgeable and always quick to respond to my inquiries.
Shan Pang
3 years ago
5 Star Reviews 150
My Experience with the lawyer Jessie Salcedo has been excellent, she has helped me at all times and answered any questions I had at some point. Thank you! Jessie Salcedo Paralegal Parker Waichman LLP
Keisha Reyes
4 years ago
5 Star Reviews 150
I was very pleased with Parker Wakeman and the Paralegal that assisted me her name was Tina Morace she was wonderful and made this process very easy for me Thank you very much
Thomas Gruter
5 months ago

Why Choose Us to Help You?

We Take Care of Everything
Your situation is stressful enough: Let us take on the deadlines, paperwork, investigation, and litigation. We'll handle every detail so you don't have to worry.
No Recovery = No Legal Fees
We work on a contingency-fee basis, meaning that we only get paid from a portion of your settlement or jury award. If you don't get compensation, you owe us nothing.
Decades of Experience
Your situation is stressful enough: Let us take on the deadlines, paperwork, investigation, and litigation. We'll handle every detail so you don't have to worry.
Respected by Our Peers
Judges, insurance adjusters, and fellow attorneys all speak highly of our skills, and we've earned numerous accolades, including a flawless rating from AVVO.
We Have Many Locations To Serve You
We have the experience and the skilled litigators to win your case. Contact us and speak with a real attorney who can help you.
Long Island – Nassau
Parker Waichman LLP
6 Harbor Park Drive
Port Washington, NY 11050
Long Island – Suffolk
Parker Waichman LLP
201 Old Country Road – Suite 145
Melville, NY 11747
New York
Parker Waichman LLP
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Queens
Parker Waichman LLP
118-35 Queens Boulevard, Suite 400
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Brooklyn
Parker Waichman LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West
One Pierrepont Plaza, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
New Jersey
Parker Waichman LLP
80 Main Street, Suite 265
West Orange, NJ 07052
Florida
Parker Waichman LLP
27299 Riverview Center Boulevard
Suite 108
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Nationwide Service
Parker Waichman LLP
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038