mr. vargo maybe you disagree with that also? let's put it up again, please. cement failed to isolate hydrocarbons and annular space. >> i agree that it did not isolated. >> so you agree with proposition number two? thank you. our next point is the pre-job laboratory data should have prompted a redesign of the cement slurry. mr. bly do you have a view on that? >> i think it is worth making a comment on this because there has been new information since we concluded our report. when our report came out, we had signaled that we felt this was the case, and we saw, or we didn't see evidence that some critical information had been looked at in the testing, and used in the design process. that was particularly around from stability and other matters. and that was our view at the time of our report. i was interested to see the letter that came out within the last 10 days from the commission that seemed to concur with that, and in fact that there may have been even further information that wasn't availab

halliburton, mr. vargo, do you have a position as to whether the foam pumped down the well was likely to have been stable? >> results that were provided prior to the execution of the job indicated stability. i know there was testing done prior to that, to the contrary but as far as the results that i reviewed prior to the operation and i believe you showed them up there before, 1.8 on top and bottom, that would indicate and i would say that an engineer looking at that would assume that that is a stable system and they would go ahead and execute the job. >> have you reviewed all the testing data? >> i have, sir. >> based on to tality of the data, is your conclusion that it would be stable? >> you put up the operation i guess back in february. i guess one thing that would be valid to point out is that we are designing and we are testing that cement right up until the operation typically. the initial tests that are run and as you all indicated and i think i've indicated too that our two goals are placement and

we will start with mr. vargo. you probably don't have an opinion as to whether kick detection was obscured. you don't have a dog in that dispute? >> i would agree with that statement. the number the simultaneous decisions would be used to evaluate a case. >> mr. bly. i read your report. you offered an opinion you might. do you have anything to add? >> no, sir. the primarily reasons for our report, it could have, 40 or 50 minutes before the crash. those reasons were not observed and acted on until quite late in the event. you're right. it's possible the activities may have made it so that the crew didn't notice. but we all said it didn't have to. we believe the well was monitorable even with the simultaneous activities you should way. >> i think, you know, you didn't try to put yourself ahead of any particular person. you just apined at what was going on. you disagree with that >>. mr. ambrose. >> i think the term "simultaneous activities" may mean something different. the activities you're talking about are sequen

>> yes, from what i determine. >> and mr. vargo do you agree? >> yes. >> mr. ambros, do you have a determination? >> we have studied it. >> if you don't mind. >> coming back to your area of expertise. >> it's an area and it does not show sufficient losses as mr. bly mentioned. >> and it was sharing the cooperation by raising his hand even when not called upon in this case. do you all agree that it was not standard industry process to run a cement blog. i should ask the question better, is it common practice -- would it have been common practice in the industry to run an evaluation cement log? mr. bly. >> no, not at this time. >> and mr. gisclair? >> no. >> and mr. bly? >> i agree. so all the parties agree that -- maybe i should correct the question. given all the indicators here, even then it was not standard cement practice to run a blog at the time. having changed the question, do you change your answer? i will take a two-minute break. is that ok? >> all right. >> all right, two-minute break. >> this weekend more than 90 soon to be members of the house began

we will start with mr. vargo. you probably do not have any opinion on whether detection was obscured by all the activities going on. >> i would agree. the number of simultaneous activities would have obscured a lot of the data that would normally be used to evaluate the case. >> i carefully read your report. you do not reach a conclusion on whether the activities. obscure it. your of the opinion it might. you have anything to add to that? >> the primary thrust of our findings and work was we believe that the well was in a condition where it could blow for quite some time, 40 or 50 minutes before the event. indeed was flowing. through the court -- course of that, for whatever reason, those conditions were not observed and acted on intel quietly into the event. it is possible that the activities were going on may have made it so the crew did not notice. we believe the well was monitor able even with the simultaneous activities. >> you opined a lot was going on. is this routine? >> the term simultaneous operations or

halliburton, mr. vargo, do you have an opinion whether that foam-cement was likely to have been stable? >> results provided just prior to the execution of the job indicates the stability. i know there was testing done prior to that to the contrary, but as far as the results that i've reviewed prior to the operation, and i believe you showed them up there before, the 1.8 and 1.8sg on top and bottom indicates and i would say an engineer looking at that assumes that is a stable system and go ahead and execute the job. >> have you rerued all -- have you reviewed all the testing data? >> i have, sir. >> is it the same that the foam-cement would be stable in >> you put up the information back in february on the initial testing, and one thing to point out is that we are designing and testing that cement right up until the operation typically. the initial tests that are run and as you all indicated and i think i've indicated too or two goals are placement in their own stages and we do pilot testing to ascertain the