Unqualified Opinion - Literally

Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

According to the Times Picayune, David Jones, counsel for Cameron, and Richard Godfrey, representing BP, have provided some strong reasons to be skeptical of Det Norske Veritas' report on what caused the blowout preventer to fail.

During hearings held yesterday by the Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation in Metairie, LA, some key reasons to doubt the findings from DNV that were brought to light include:

  • The computer model used by examiners at DNV (to support findings that allege BOP failure due to shear rams inability to cut bent and shifted drill pipe) represented an impossibility. Under cross examination by Jones, Neil Thompson of DNV admitted that the model placement, showing the drill pipe inside the wall of the BOP, was an error.
  • Thompson, the project manager for DNV, also acknowledged that he had "never laid eyes on a blowout preventer" prior to his examination of the DWH's BOP.
  • The DNV's assumptions about which valves of the BOP were closed contradict the testimony of surviving rig hands.
  • The pipe that was bent according to computer models was found to be straight under direct observation.

Rigzone Commentary:

What we find even more interesting than these disputed facts is that the major news media outlets either are not running this story or are burying these facts at the end of articles and thus downplaying the importance.

Clearly, this investigation is being run in a manner seeking to fulfill the current political agendas and aren't truly interested in determining how to make this industry safer.

More info on the Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill


Click on the button below to add a comment.
Post a Comment
Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.
Pamela Harry | Apr. 11, 2011
I had some doubts about this company and their findings to begin with and now they are confirmed. The news media going along with current political agendas? Who would have thought such a thing possible? (They really do need a sarcastic font!)

Andrew Kay | Apr. 9, 2011
Thank you for sharing this news. Its important stuff.

James Drouin | Apr. 9, 2011
The DNV / BOEMRE report is unfortunately, nothing more than an example of a company with a reputation that far exceeds its actual capabilities. Section 1.7, titled "Recommendations for Further Testing" clearly outlines a series of tests that would conclusively prove or disprove their theory. Those tests were not allowed by the BOEMRE. Under those circumstances, DNV should have lead their report with a disclaimer that clearly put that interference by BOEMRE front and center.

Sam Sandlin | Apr. 8, 2011
I agree with the last paragraph, particularly ...

Richard S. | Apr. 6, 2011
It amazes me how the government and the Coast Guard became Well Control experts overnight. I believe the government has a agenda here to slow down and shut down offshore drilling. It is truly hard to think that anyone in their right mind would take the word of a DNV representative that has never seen a BOP. I think that the testimony or the surviving rig hands would have a great deal of relevance in this case.This is just another case of government incompetence.

Stephen Forster | Apr. 6, 2011
I quote directly from the report Vol 1 "5.2 Technical Working Group The Parties In Interest Technical Working Group (TWG) was made up of technical representatives from interested parties including: Transocean, BP, Cameron, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), Department of Justice, and two technical representatives from the Multi-District Litigation. Meetings were held with the TWG on a daily basis to review site safety issues and the testing plan for the day. In addition, meetings were held on Wednesday afternoon to review the next week’s work plan. Impromptu meetings were held with the TWG, or individual members of the TWG, to discuss issues as the DNV Investigation Team or the TWG deemed necessary." I do not understand why Cameron did not make a formal complaint prior to the publishing of the reports?

Kurt Anderson | Apr. 5, 2011
Few accidents have no human factor involved. This accident has many. Where were the data engineers to monitor fluid transfer and account for every bbl of drilling mud being displaced? They should have picked up an excessive displacement, and should have seen an increasing rate of displacement as the wellbore intrusion expanded as it migrated up the hole. Current onshore norm is to supply plenty of monitoring technology, but no one tasked solely in answering every alarm and accounting for every change in drilling/engineering parameters. Is it the same offshore now? At the very least, the accident shows a failure of not only equipment, but humans as well. Failures in planning, execution, staffing, and leadership resulted in equipment failures, 11 men killed, and an immense environmental disaster.

Wayne Philpot | Apr. 5, 2011
This investigation is too important to be worm infested, but I suspect that with all the political ramifications, there's nothing but worm infestation possible. I'm in hopes that experienced folks somehow get hold of the reins.

Ron Stacks | Apr. 5, 2011
always remember in most instances, indecision is the key to flexibility and in this case, politics.

Louis Calabria | Apr. 5, 2011
In total agreement with your assessment. L. Calabria, Managing Member


Our Privacy Pledge

Deepwater Horizon Images
Smoke Rising from Horizon (Apr 22) Macondo Oil Slick (Apr 25) Macondo Cofferdam Structure Deepwater Horizon Sinking (Apr 22)
Deepwater Horizon in Flames (Apr 20) Deepwater Horizon Debris/Smoke (Apr 22) Deepwater Horizon & Vessel (Apr 22) Smoke from Deepwater Horizon (Apr 21)
71 more images view image library

Brent Crude Oil : $51.78/BBL 0.77%
Light Crude Oil : $50.85/BBL 0.83%
Natural Gas : $2.99/MMBtu 4.77%
Updated in last 24 hours