A mild euphemism with the analysis of some professionals

The BP tanker just unveil his line of defence to avoid having to resolve only the totality of the invoice of the black in the Gulf of the Mexico, measured tide to several tens of billions of dollars. At the end of four months of investigation, the British tanker yesterday issued a 190 page report on the causes of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon platform, which resulted the death of 11 people in late April.

Unsurprisingly, the group is not unique to this tragedy involved, but considers that it is the result of a combination of human and material failures. BP distinguishes 8 key factors, citing loose an erroneous analysis of pressure testing, inadequate maintenance of some equipment and the failure of the cement barrier separating sealed reservoir of oil wells.

The oil group then recognizes a share of the responsibility of its engineers, but he also rejected a part of the blame on its partners, the Group Transocean, owner of the platform and services American Halliburton Company, in charge of the cementation of the well. "For more than 40 minutes, Transocean teams have not become aware and have not responded to the arrival of oil in the well", says BP.

The set design from the action

The Group recalled that the obturator block, which would normally close the well when binding with the platform is interrupted, is not entered in action. And it, "probably because critical components did not work." Online focus, Transocean teams, in charge of the maintenance of equipment. The report also considers that there was "a bad work of cementing" the well, which could put in question Halliburton. So far, BP recognizes that its teams on the spot "did not fully comply" to control the well cementation procedures. A mild euphemism with the analysis of some professionals.

Finally, the tanker rejected any misconception of the well. "It seems unlikely that the design of the well is at the origin of the accident, where the investigation has shown that hydrocarbons have invaded the casing of production from the well Fund," says the CEO of BP, Tony Hayward, who must leave his post October 1. A key point because the tanker is responsible for the design of the well. If this design was questioned, the group might be accused of "serious misconduct", which would considerably increase the invoice.

"The report suggests that the disaster has nothing to do with the design of the well, but with the operational." This involving the teams of the platform, that is, BP, Transocean and other providers. "I am not persuaded that it was not a bad design", David Pursell, Director of the Investment Bank Tudor Pickering, quoted by the Agency Bloomberg responded. What is the opinion of professionals "BP has made the impasses." Is that what they did was abnormal "Not too", said an expert. Prudent, BP said that his report is not the "end point" of investigations into the disaster. "Our work has been limited by the lack of direct contact with witnesses and some material," explained the security boss, Mark Bly.

Conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard, a federal inquiry must lead at the beginning of next year. After three months of investigation and the hearing of dozens of witnesses, some simple questions remain unanswered. Who was responsible for the security on the site "Everyone is supposed to feel responsible," said Kent Wells, senior Vice President for BP hearings end of August. "Everyone is responsible, no one is responsible for," summarized the captain Hung Nguyen, who co-chairs the commission of inquiry.