Page 51 - test2

 While Halliburton modeled the mud as an oil‐based mud with a constant
density of 14.17 ppg, the synthetic oil‐based mud actually used in the well
was compressible and had a variable density.

 Halliburton’s cement job design included using base oil with a density of
6.7 ppg. BP actually used the 6.7 ppg density base oil in the final cement
job, but Halliburton’s April 18 model assumed that the base oil would
have a 6.5 ppg density.

 In the April 18 model, Halliburton assumed 135° F as the bottom hole
circulating temperature, but BP modeling showed that circulating
temperature during cementing would be 140° F.

The Panel found no evidence that, despite the inconsistencies described
above, BP questioned the data in the April 18 model before the blowout. Nor did
the Panel find any evidence that BP shared the OptiCem model information with
the Transocean crew or personnel onshore. Given the importance of the
production casing cement job to the integrity of the well, access to OptiCem data
was critical to allowing the rig crew to fully understand the risks.

C. Gas Flow Potential

BP witnesses testified that they were not aware of, nor did they review,
the gas flow potential calculations included in the OptiCem model report. Brett
Cocales, a BP operations engineer, testified that he was “not familiar with gas
flow as it relates to cementing.” Testimony from BP personnel demonstrated
101
that they did not fully understand the gas flow potential outputs reflected in the
OptiCem models and instead only considered the ECD charts in evaluating the
cement model results.
102

In the OptiCem models, gas flow potential higher than seven is typically
considered severe. Despite the severe gas flow potential indicated by its April 18
OptiCem model, Halliburton employees provided the following testimony
demonstrating that they believed the OptiCem models did not raise immediate
safety concerns:

101 Testimony of Brett Cocales, Joint Investigation Hearing, August 27, 2010 at 155.
102 Cocales Testimony at 22; Testimony of David Sims, Joint Investigation Hearing, August 26,
2010 at 223.

46