Additionallytheproductioncasingstringshoewassetin

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: s “Hitec” monitoring system on the rig had paddle‐type sensors. As fluid rushed past, the fluid pushed and lifted the paddle. The system calculated flow rate based on how much the paddle moved. 138 The return flow line was the conduit within the pit system. 139 BP‐HZN‐MBI137370. 140 Testimony of John Gisclair, Joint Investigation Hearing, October 8, 2010, at 100. 136 137 55 you would always use the pit volumes, you would never use the flow‐out over a given time.” 141 The Panel independently assessed the difference between the flow‐in and flow‐out data and calculated that a maximum of approximately 80 bbls of fluids (+/‐ 10 percent based on the flow‐in and flow‐out data) could have been lost during the cementing job. Using Sperry‐Sun data of flow‐in and flow‐out, measured in gallons per minute and recorded every five seconds, the Panel generated a flow‐out vs. flow‐in chart (Figure 5). The Panel converted the Sperry‐Sun data from gallons per minute to barrels per minute. The chartʹs x‐ axis shows the time (hours/minutes/seconds) during which the cement job occurred at the Macondo well. On the y‐axis, the flow‐in value was plotted against the flow‐out value in barrels per minute. The difference between the flow‐in and flow‐out values throughout the duration of the cement job was approximately 80 barrels. Assuming a 10% margin of error in the flow‐out meter, the Panel calculated that an...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online