Records indicate that several weeks prior to the incident, an inadvertent dislocation of pipe in the blowout preventer occurred when a worker bumped the controls which relocated the piping. Although “chunks” of the rubber component were found in drilling fluid, which indicated there was an issue with the blowout preventer, no actions were taken by BP, Transocean (Deepwater Horizon), or Cameron International; the manufacturer of the Blowout Preventer, although regular inspections of the Blowout Preventer are required. Additionally, records indicate that based on the design of the well “Macondo”, 21 centralizers were required to stabilize the cement casing of the well, however, only 6 …show more content…
During the initial test, results indicated a leak of hydrocarbons into the well which resulted from pressure on the drill pipe. After a second test, which indicated similar results, collaboration among BP, Halliburton, and Transocean, resulted in a third test, which tested the main drill shaft which did not indicate pressure fluctuations or leakages. Compounding this matter was the fact that “BP did not have a standard procedure in place on how to conduct the negative pressure test, nor was there guidance on how to interpret the results” (Crandall, Parnell, & Spillan (2013). Thus, as a result of the readings obtained from the third readings, BP concluded that the well was sealed