successful cement job due to formulation breakdown. this is an internal bp confidential document from mid april. have you seen this document before? i saw it as a consequence of the letter but you did not see it at the time? but there were bp folks who saw it, correct? do your knowledge? there were certainly bp people who saw this. okay. the document said there would be potential need verify with a bond log and perform a remedial cement job, but bp chose the riskier approach. secondly, bp chose the riskier centralizer option. experts told us in testimony to this committee, the best practice would have been to use 21 centralizers, but bp only used 6. if you take a look at tab eight, it says on page 18, it says you did this even though your
well design and the chairman waxman talked about this for a moment. the best practice would have been to use a liner and tieback which provides four barriers to prevent the flow of dangerous hydrocarbons to the well made. instead bp chose a look string approach which has only two barriers. and internal document of the company warned that this approach was not recommended because, quote, cementing simulations indicate it s unlikely to be a successful cement job. and you can look at tab six of the notebook you have in front of you to see that. it says cement simulations indicate it is unlikely to be a successful cement job due to formulation breakdown. this is an internal bp confidential document from mid april. have you seen this document before? i say the as a consequence of