Damage to a wellbore during drilling is fairly common.
I suppose it is common to have the drilling apparatus also become swallowed up into the hole resulting in another set of tools having to be sent down to sever the pipe? Is that common? Pushing the pace in the pursuit of cost cutting ended up costing BP more money than if the manager had operated at a steady and moderate pace.
It does not lead to catastrophic failures such as what happened with the DwH.
When the rubber chunks from the blowout preventer were discovered by Mike Williams, the electronics technician who you claim is 'only passing on 2nd and 3rd person hearsay', even though HE FOUND IT, his concerns were disregarded and he was told that it was "no big deal". The blowout preventer should have been replaced immediately before any more drilling was to commence.
Based on the context of your post it appeared that there was an attempt to link wellbore damage possibly incurred due to rate of penetration as the cause of the accident.
Apparantly, you are not absorbing what you are reading. I never said that nor did I infer wellbore damage was the direct cause of the accident. I'll say it again for you. Cost cutting and the need to make up for lost time by cutting corners and compromising safety is the DIRECT CAUSE OF THIS ACCIDENT. PERIOD. A faulty blowout preventer and a faulty control pod, both left unrepaired were the direct causes.
it is clear to me that 60 minutes and you have taken a couple of things that are crafted and intoned to sound bad but but are neither necessarily bad nor unusual and you've applied them out of context in order to derive a conclusion which meets with an agenda which appeals to your personal set of non-scientific beliefs.
LOL. You seem to infer that you've done more extensive fact finding and research than the producers of 60 minutes. You also discredit one of the last engineers to escape with his life who sat in on management meetings all along. WERE YOU THERE AS WELL? Sorry chap, but I'll take the information from that expose and form my opinions from there, rather than a conscientious objector with no facts.... Remember what you said yesterday????
"You nor I know if the accident was precipitated by an attempt to reduce costs."
"people obviously derive some sort of satisfaction from speculation but forming opinions without being informed is not useful and often harmful"
Yesterday, you knew nothing about the details of this incident and you encouraged me not to rush to judgement until the facts came to light. You've made quite the transformation in the last 24 hours to a fully informed expert on this incident.
Part of your thesis seems to be that this accident resulted from cutting corners or rushing the job in order to save costs.
NO, actually, all of it.
While that could be the case it is not yet proven in a comprehensive peer-reviewed scientific study nor a court of law.
We are not in court and all that we can do at this juncture in time is to form opinions based on the facts we are given. That comment strikes me as a comment coming from an defense attorney who is representing BP in this matter.
However, even in the latter case it is not clear that destruction of the annular seal would necessarily lead to a blowout and you should note that you have not heard from any immediate sources regarding those details.
What are you talking about? The fella you heard from picked the rubber chunks up and carried them to the driller shack to present his findings! He is the immediate source!
In addition, the blowout preventer is still on the seafloor so any assessments of blowout preventer component functionality or failure are probably inconclusive.
True, at this point the blowout preventer is yet to be examined in the sunlight along with a comprehensive examination of the faulty control pod.
I can assure you as somebody who does work in the industry that any fulltime (i.e. non-fixed term contract) employee of BP or RIG who was on the DwH or is working on the remediation is NOT speaking to reporters.
Oh, mums the word, eh? It's that statement that will lead me not to respond to your posts any longer, after this one. You are clearly bias and your views are skewed by the need to protect the integrity of your fellow 'good ole boys'.
I'm sure any lawyer on this board can explain to you why employees of these and related companies will not speculate about the cause(s) of the accident NOR speculate or comment on remediation of the leak (that's for JBOG). Those lawyers can also explain to you why hearsay generally isn't admissable as evidence (I'm not a lawyer but i suspect it has something to do with objectivity and reliability).
I'm not a lawyer either. Up to now I was under the impression that we were having a different discussion. You now seem to be infering that you are taking the fifth....LOLOL
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
