This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: 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...
View Full Document