and can mr. bly? this. >> well, as we highlight extensively in the report, we looked very hard at this question about cement, and based on what we saw in the early part of our investigation, we had questions about the stability of the cement, the stability of the foam cement, and it's well documented. we did testing and concluded that in all likelihood the cement fundamentally failed. it was unstable. i believe, it was said this morning that the test done by chevron on behalf of the commission came to the same conclusion, so i think it might be useful to do more testing. i think we've got a pretty clear understanding of what happened, though, in that the cement was not stable. >> i'd like to ask a question about the role -- how bp treats it cementing contractors on these rigs. what to bp was halliburton's role as the cementing contractor at the teachwater horizon -- deepwater horizon? >> well, i mean, you know, we hire them as one of the -- if not the leading cementing contractor in the world to provi

>> mr. bly? >> i agree. >> so all the parties here agree that bb maybe i should correct the question. given all the indicators here that would not have been standard industry practice. has anybody change their answer? i'm going to take a two-minute break. the s that ok? two-minute break. >> mr. ambrose, i noticed something sitting here that i want to briefly touch on. we all saw this before. that the -- 210 -2114, these anomalies and that the first steps taken by the crew were at 21:41 and i think we said that maybe nobody in the crew noticed an anomaly until 2 1:04 when the mud came up on the rig floor. do you recall that? now a day ago, you guys sent me this slide on the end of the well activities. i was sitting there looking at it and i noticed something. and the issue is this indicates that the kick wasn't noticed until 2 1:04. the anomalies were not noticed. let's look at your slide. your slide here says stop pumping to check anomaly. and it is not 21:41 or 2 1:04. it is 21:35. do you see th

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 arriving in washington, d.c. tomorrow the member-elect will get instructions ethics and details on the offices. and they will go over house rules and get new lay-out of the chamber system and expected to get their official blackberry's. and on wednesday new members and their spouses will attend a welcome session. and finally on friday, they will receive a suite assignments. no roll call votes are expected until wednesday. with the first vote of the week on national gas and electric vehicles. and other possible votes include wage discrimination and food safety. you can watch live coverage on c-span-2 at 2

mr. bly, a question. is that or does that describe the negative-pressure test that was actually performed on april 20 at the macondo? >> yes, i think it does. yes, it does. >> it says negative test casing or seawater equivalent. from my natural reading of that, the negative-pressure test was going to be performed before displacing that seawater. what is your understanding of the phrase "seawater gradient equivalent?" >> i do not know if i can have a debate with you about this, the technical meetings of the steps in this. there are people they work on my team that could. i will try but i am not sure that i can answer the question. >> the question is whether step one says that you are actually going to displace mud with water down to 3,000 feet before you conduct the negative-pressure test. >> i do not see the 3,000 feet on there. >> in fact, not until step 2 that the drill pipe is run down to 3,000 feet below sea level. >> that is that 8003 added 67. >> and that is described by the first bullet. . >> it ap

bp's report, as mr. bly mentioned earlier, said the foam cement was in fact unstable. 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 t

. >> mr. bly. i take it you agree with the second to last bullet? >> yes, sir, we covered this in some detail in our report. attempts to go back and piece together every step that happened. our conclusion. there was a number of discussions between b.p. and transocean personnel. appears they were trying to do the test correctly. at the end of the day, they misinterpreted the results. >> if, under transocean's policies, even if, i am assuming this. it was b.p. that would supposed to do the primarily interpretation. if your guys, you're people to the rig had seen this. they would have said something. >> absolutely. >> do you have any reason to believe, mr. bly. that the to personnel along with your people believe the negative pressure test was a success? >> i believe they both thought the test was a success. yes. >> this is one of these areas, commissioners, where it would be useful, i supposed to sit people in a row i told you yesterday that i would try it to point out areas where having subpoena power and the ability to actually cross-examination peo