Dave wrote:
On Jun 18, 10:26 am, dpb wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote:

...

... based on what I've gleaned from the news reports.
Analysis:
1. To save time/$, they didn't ...
2. To save time/$, they "hung" ...
3. To save time/$, they used only ...
4. To save time/$, they used ...
...
I think we get the drift here.

I find it amazing that after spending multi-millions to bring in a
helluva a good-producing well, that apparently everyone thinks that at
that point the said "Since this is such a lucrative well that's going to
produce thousands of barrels of crude a day at a minimum of $75 or
$80/bbl, let's risk all that by seeing how shoddily we can now finish
off the work..."

Yeah, right...sounds like what would have happened to me...

--

You bring a project in on time and under budget, you get the big
bonus. You miss your deadline and you go over budget, you don't get
that bonus, you don't get that new car, you do get a harsh review at
end of the year.

You lose a multi-million dollar cash cow and cost billions on a
designed, intended set of operations? Not hardly...

Something went wrong; what, precisely, will only be known when the
postmortems are complete and maybe not entirely even then.

It's unlikely imo that any decisions were made expressly for the purpose
of shaving corners; that there may have been poor judgment or even
engineering mistakes is quite possible but I'd wager there wasn't
anything the folks involved did that was any different than they did
routinely and had worked in the past.

"Stuff happens..."

That the end result ended up in a botched operation this time doesn't
infer intent.

--


--