Page 141 - test2

objectives of the forensic examination were to determine how the BOP stack
performed during the blowout, identify any failures that may have occurred,
determine the sequence of events leading to any potential failures of the BOP
stack, and evaluate the effects, if any, of a series of modifications to the BOP stack
that BP and Transocean officials had implemented before the blowout.

The examination was designed to evaluate: (1) whether leaks on the BOP
stack were factors in the BOP stack’s performance during the blowout and
during the ROV intervention efforts; (2) whether any modifications made to the
control logic and stack adversely affected the BOP stack’s performance; and (3)
whether any other relevant factor, including manufacturing defects, deferral of
necessary repairs affecting functionality, and maintenance history affected the
BOP’s ability to operate as intended.

The forensic examination sought to recreate the pre‐blowout conditions of
the BOP stack. Two methods were used to achieve this: (1) working backwards
from the current condition of the BOP stack through all of the interventions; and
(2) comparing the as‐received condition of the BOP stack with drawings and
records reflecting the state of the BOP stack prior to April 20, 2010.

DNV’s investigative process was an iterative process that integrated the
BOP stack function testing, the collection of evidence, preservation of evidence
(especially the drill pipe contained in the wellbores of the BOP and LMRP),
examination of materials, damage assessment and video and photo
documentation.

3. The Forensic Examination Technical Working Group

During intervention operations, the companies familiar with the Deepwater
Horizon BOP stack identified many modifications made to the stack since its
original delivery by Cameron. As a result, technical consultation with
Transocean and Cameron was critical for both the effectiveness of examination
and for the safety of the examiners. Recognizing this, a technical working group
(“TWG”) was established to provide DNV with technical support and expertise
as DNV conducted its forensic examination. The TWG included one expert and
one alternative each from Cameron, Transocean and BP; an expert working for
the United States Department of Justice; two experts representing the plaintiffs in

136