Page 50 - test2

to the installation of centralizers during the temporary abandonment procedure
is discussed in more detail below.

On April 18, 2010, Halliburton modeled the well with seven centralizers
installed between 18,305 feet and 18,035 feet measured depth, with 45‐foot
spacing. The resulting gas flow potential was severe at a reservoir zone of 18,200
feet measured depth.

At approximately 8:58 p.m. on April 18, Jesse Gagliano, a Halliburton
cementing engineer, sent an email to several BP and Halliburton personnel
attaching this version of the OptiCem model, along with partial lab results on
compressive strength and Halliburton’s recommended cementing procedure for
the Macondo well cement job.
99

BP used the April 18 OptiCem report as the basis for the actual cement job
it performed on April 19.

6. Weaknesses in the Cement Modeling

The Panel identified the following incorrect assumptions in the April 18
OptiCem model:

 The model assumed a pore pressure of 13.97 ppg for the hydrocarbon
zone at 18,200 feet based on a linear profile between 17,700 feet and 18,305
feet. This was inconsistent with the measured pore pressure value of this
zone, which was 12.5 to 12.6 ppg.

 Halliburton’s report used incorrect centralizer data. The model used a
nominal diameter of 8.622 inches, but the installed centralizers had an
actual diameter of 10.5 inches. The model also spaced the centralizers 45
feet apart instead of using the actual, variable centralizer spacing BP
100
specified to Halliburton. The model also assumed seven centralizers
rather than the six that actually were used in the Macondo production
casing cement job.

99 BP‐HZN‐MBI00128708.
100 BP specified that centralizers would be spaced at varying intervals. See BP‐HZN‐MBI00127389.

45