Tests suggest Macondo cement was unstable, spill commission told

Nick Snow
OGJ Washington Editor

WASHINGTON, DC, Oct. 29 -- Laboratory tests of cement and additives closely resembling what BP PLC used in its Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico strongly suggest that the mixture was unstable, the chief counsel for US President Barack Obama’s independent commission investigating the Apr. 20 accident and subsequent crude oil spill said on Oct. 28.

Halliburton Co., which provided the Macondo well’s cement, said several hours later in an initial response that it was reviewing the study, which it felt raised a number of questions. The company said it believed significant differences between its own cement tests and tests performed for the commission may be due to differences in the cement materials tested.

“We have known for some time that the cement used to secure the production casing and isolate the hydrocarbon zone at the bottom of the Macondo well must have failed in some manner. That cement should have prevented hydrocarbons from entering the well,” Fred H. Bartlit Jr., a founding partner of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP in Denver, said in a letter to commission members that also was signed by Sean C. Grimsley, of the same law firm, and Sambhav N. Sankar, of the US Department of Justice.

They said they asked Halliburton to supply commission investigators with samples of materials used in the BP well. The oil field service company provided off-the-shelf cement and additive materials that were used there from its stock. Although they were not from specific batches used at the Macondo well, they were identical in all other ways to the slurry used there, the letter said.

In its response, Halliburton said its internal tests used “the unique blend of cement and additives that existed on the rig at the time Halliburton’s tests were conducted.” It also noted that a federal court preservation order prevented it from providing the commission with cement, additives, and water from the rig, adding that these materials would soon be released to the Marine Board of Investigation.

Chevron did tests
The letter said that Chevron Corp., which “employs some of the industry’s most respected cement experts, and maintains a state-of-the-art testing facility in Houston,” agreed to test the cement slurry on the commission’s behalf. “Halliburton agreed that the Chevron lab was highly qualified for this work,” it added.

“Chevron’s report states, among other things, that its lab personnel were unable to generate stable foam cement in the laboratory using the materials provided by Halliburton and available design information regarding the slurry used at the Macondo well,” the letter continued. “Although laboratory foam stability tests cannot replicate field conditions perfectly, these data strongly suggest that the foam cement used at Macondo was unstable. This may have contributed to the blowout.”

The lawyers noted that when Chevron provided them with preliminary results of the tests, they asked Halliburton, which had publicly stated that it tested the Macondo cement on Apr. 19-20 and those tests indicated it was stable, to provide all the data from those tests. Documents supplied showed that Halliburton conducted at least four such foam stability tests, three of which suggested the mixture was unstable before a final test, using a modified procedure, indicated that the mixture would hold, according to the letter.

Halliburton responded that two of those tests were preliminary pilots conducted in February and did not include, as the letter noted, the same slurry mixture and design as that actually used at the Macondo well because final well conditions were not known at that time. “Additionally, there are a number of significant differences in testing parameters, including depth, pressure, temperature and additive changes, between Halliburton’s February tests and two subsequent tests Halliburton conducted in April,” it said.

“Finally, we want to emphasize that even if our concerns regarding the foam slurry design at Macondo are well-founded, the story of the blowout does not turn solely on the quality of the Macondo cement job,” the letter said. “Cementing wells is a complex endeavor and industry experts inform us that cementing failures are not uncommon even in the best of circumstances. Because it may be anticipated that a particular cement job may be faulty, the oil industry has developed tests, such as the negative pressure test and cement evaluation logs, to identify cementing failures. It has also developed methods to remedy deficient cement jobs.”

Two possible tests
“Halliburton believes that had BP conducted a cement bond log test, or had BP and others properly interpreted a negative-pressure test, these tests would have revealed any problems with Halliburton’s cement,” the oil field service company said in its response.

It said a cement bond log test is the only available means to evaluate a cement bond’s integrity, but that BP, as the well’s owner, chose not to run one and that several of its employees said that one was planned for later and remedial work would be done at that time. The negative pressure test, which evaluates the production casing’s integrity to provide a barrier to the reservoir, was run but did not produce successful results which employees on the rig of BP and Transocean Ltd., which owned the semisubmersible rig drilling the Macondo well, misinterpreted, it added.

Other factors contributing to the Apr. 20 well blowout and explosion that killed 11 workers and BP’s well design decisions have been broadly criticized, Halliburton noted.

The commission will hold its next hearing Nov. 8-9 in Washington, where it is scheduled to discuss causes of the well’s blowout, rig explosion, and subsequent crude oil spill that took months to contain and control. Bartlit, Grimsley, and Sankar attached a copy of the results of Chevron’s laboratory tests to their letter, and said an expert from the company would attend the Nov. 9 hearing to discuss the report.

Contact Nick Snow at nicks@pennwell.com.

Related Articles

The ANWR blitz

02/02/2015 Deception begins with a 58-sec video on the White House web site in which President Barack Obama says he'll ask Congress to make the whole Arctic N...

Chevron’s $35 billion capital budget down 13% from last year

01/30/2015 Chevron Corp. will allocate $35 billion in its capital and exploratory investment program for 2015, including $4 billion of planned expenditures by...

Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips join to explore, appraise Gulf of Mexico leases

01/28/2015 Chevron Corp. subsidiary Chevron USA Inc., BP PLC unit BP Exploration & Production Inc., and ConocoPhillips Co. have pledged to work together t...

Gazprom Neft reviews progress on refinery modernization efforts

01/19/2015 The second phase of JSC Gazprom Neft's program to modernize and upgrade its Russian refineries to improve processing capacities, oil conversion rat...

Chevron makes oil discovery in deepwater gulf Anchor prospect

01/06/2015 Chevron Corp. reported a discovery of oil pay in multiple Lower Tertiary Wilcox sands in its Anchor prospect’s Green Canyon Block 807 Well No. 2, d...

Chevron, ONGC Videsh among firms awarded permits by New Zealand

12/22/2014 New Zealand's government has awarded six onshore permits across the Taranaki, West Coast, and East Coast basins, and nine offshore permits across t...

Canada Briefs

12/12/2014

Chevron, ONGC among companies awarded 15 exploration permits by New Zealand

12/09/2014 New Zealand’s government has awarded six onshore permits across the Taranaki, West Coast, and East Coast basins, and nine offshore permits across t...

CSB releases final report on Chevron Richmond refinery fire

11/17/2014 The US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) has issued the final regulatory report on its investigation of the August 2012 pipe rupture and ensuing fire at ...
White Papers

Pipeline Integrity: Best Practices to Prevent, Detect, and Mitigate Commodity Releases

Commodity releases can have catastrophic consequences, so ensuring pipeline integrity is crucial for p...
Sponsored by

AVEVA’s Digital Asset Approach - Defining a new era of collaboration in capital projects and asset operations

There is constant, intensive change in the capital projects and asset life cycle management. New chall...
Sponsored by

Transforming the Oil and Gas Industry with EPPM

With budgets in the billions, timelines spanning years, and life cycles extending over decades, oil an...
Sponsored by

Asset Decommissioning in Oil & Gas: Transforming Business

Asset intensive organizations like Oil and Gas have their own industry specific challenges when it com...
Sponsored by

Squeezing the Green: How to Cut Petroleum Downstream Costs and Optimize Processing Efficiencies with Enterprise Project Portfolio Management Solutions

As the downstream petroleum industry grapples with change in every sector and at every level, includin...
Sponsored by

7 Steps to Improve Oil & Gas Asset Decommissioning

Global competition and volatile markets are creating a challenging business climate for project based ...
Sponsored by

The impact of aging infrastructure in process manufacturing industries

Process manufacturing companies in the oil and gas, utilities, chemicals and natural resource industri...
Sponsored by

What is System Level Thermo-Fluid Analysis?

This paper will explain some of the fundamentals of System Level Thermo-Fluid Analysis and demonstrate...
Available Webcasts


Cognitive Solutions for Upstream Oil and Gas

When Fri, Jun 12, 2015

The oil & gas sector is under pressure on all sides. Reserves are limited and it’s becoming increasingly expensive to find and extract new resources. Margins are already being squeezed in an industry where one wrong decision can cost millions. Analyzing data used in energy exploration can save millions of dollars as we develop ways to predict where and how to extract the world’s massive energy reserves.

This session with IBM Subject Matter Experts will discuss how IBM Cognitive Solutions contribute to the oil and gas industry using predictive analytics and cognitive computing, as well as real time streaming for exploration and drilling.

register:WEBCAST


The Alternative Fuel Movement: Four Need-to-Know Excise Tax Complexities

When Thu, Jun 4, 2015

Discussion on how to approach, and ultimately embrace, the alternative fuel market by pulling back the veil on excise tax complexities. Taxes may be an aggravating part of daily operations, but their accuracy is crucial in your path towards business success.

register:WEBCAST



On Demand

Prevention, Detection and Mitigation of pipeline leaks in the modern world

Thu, Apr 30, 2015

Preventing, detecting and mitigating leaks or commodity releases from pipelines are a top priority for all pipeline companies. This presentation will look at various aspects related to preventing, detecting and mitigating pipeline commodity releases from a generic and conceptual point of view, while at the same time look at the variety of offerings available from Schneider Electric to meet some of the requirements associated with pipeline integrity management. 

register:WEBCAST


Global LNG: Adjusting to New Realities

Fri, Mar 20, 2015

Oil & Gas Journal’s March 20, 2015, webcast will look at how global LNG trade will be affected over the next 12-24 months by falling crude oil prices and changing patterns and pressures of demand. Will US LNG production play a role in balancing markets? Or will it add to a growing global oversupply of LNG for markets remote from easier natural gas supply? Will new buyers with marginal credit, smaller requirements, or great need for flexibility begin to look attractive to suppliers? How will high-cost, mega-projects in Australia respond to new construction cost trends?

register:WEBCAST


Careers at TOTAL

Careers at TOTAL - Videos

More than 600 job openings are now online, watch videos and learn more!

 

Click Here to Watch

Other Oil & Gas Industry Jobs

Search More Job Listings >>
Stay Connected