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: ow whether the spacer would be compatible with the synthetic based mud that it was displacing. BP also did not have any information about the long‐term stability of the interface between the spacer and the seawater. 204 The Panel found no evidence that BP had provided the rig crew with design specifications for the spacer. The Panel reviewed evidence, including BP internal emails, that indicated that BP chose to use the lost circulation materials as a spacer to avoid having to dispose of the materials onshore. 205 If the materials were circulated through the Testimony of Ronald Sepulvado, Joint Investigation Hearing, July 20, 2010, at 145. Testimony of Steve Robinson, Joint Investigation Hearing, December 8, 2010, at 114. 205 BP‐HZN‐MBI00262887. 203 204 87 well, the requirement to dispose of the materials onshore could be avoided because the applicable regulations provide an exemption provided for water‐ based drilling fluids and allow such fluids to be disposed overboard. 206 BP personnel and MI‐SWACO personnel agreed on the...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 01/18/2014 for the course BEPP 305 taught by Professor Nini during the Fall '11 term at UPenn.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online