Why is Halliburton getting a free pass on this Oil Spill?

[LynneSin]

I read where BP put $20 billion into escrow, which is a good start. But why hasn't Halliburton also put $20 billion into that same account? Weren't they the ones that did the repairs on the rig that caused the oil leak.

I mean if my car broke down because of shoddy repairs I'd be yelling at the mechanic first, not Subaru.

[Phx_Dem]

1. Because it Obama's fault. n/t

[Parche]

3. Its Clintons Fault

:woohoo: :hi:

as always LynneSin is right, where in the hell is fukin Halliburton's cash...:shrug: :hi:

[LynneSin]

10. Not Clinton - Clenis, it's always the Clenis to blame

:woohoo:

[rzemanfl]

2. I suspect that Halliburton has some smoking guns that point right

back at BP. Just a suspicion.

[Titanothere]

9. Halliburton wanted to do a more complete cement job, BP took the cheapo route

and the well blew up. If BP had followed Halliburton's recommendations, the well might not have failed. Say what you will about them, they drill wells all over the world and do a good job.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-15/bp-raised-risks-at-nightmare-well-lawmakers-say-update1-.html

[lurky]

15. So they were just following orders?

That doesn't seem like a very compelling defense, since they obviously knew what the risks were, and took the shortcuts anyway.

Imagine if some developer hired a contractor to build a skyscraper, and demanded that they use inferior materials to save money, or cut corners on structural elements to speed up the project. I think that contractor would be in deep trouble when the thing came crumbling down. I don't see how this is different.

[Titanothere]

23. Sounds like it.

Drilling a deepwater well isn't like building a skyscraper though, and I'm sure the Operator has a lot more latitude in telling contractors what they will or won't do. Just leasing the rig is $500k/day. This is why it's all going to be (should be) on BP, they call the shots so they pay the piper.

That said it seems like there has to be some mechanism where the Halliburton guys could demand protocols be met regardless of whether the operator wants it or not. Maybe we'll see that as one of the changes when the new regulations are drawn up.

[FLPanhandle]

4. Probably because BP knows who's fault it really is.

I suspect their cost cutting procedures drove this disaster and they know it.

[Poll_Blind]

5. And, dare I say it, Transocean should be scrutinized in this matter as well.

I'm not even sure it's really known exactly who fucked up and how much, except that BP definitely did. BP, at this point, appears to be clearly guilty of willful negligence. All of the reports I've read have actually indicated that Halliburton actually tried to get BP to follow the proper procedures. But really, both their role and Transocean's role is probably still being investigated.

The Schlumberger guys got the fuck off that rig the moment they realized these guys were idiots.

PB

[northernlights]

6. it wasn't Halliburton's fault

Believe it or not, *this* time they didn't eff up. BP did. They ordered the Transocean employees to replace the "drilling mud" or whatever it is with seawater, which is lighter and wasn't able to hold down the pressure. They ignored multiple reports within hours of the explosion indicating all was not right, and they ordered the Transocean employees to proceed. Shortly before the explosion, one of the Transocean workers was overheard arguing with the scumbag from BP about the proper way to finish the job. BP scum overruled him.

The Transocean caught between doing what was right and losing his job was killed in the explosion.

The BP scum giving the bad orders got out on a life boat.

The more evidence that comes out, the more it points toward a single culprit.

[Ganja Ninja]

13. And all of this is why oil workers should be required to belong to a union ...

and have the power to shut down a rig if they feel something isn't safe.

[gratuitous]

7. BP seems to be the major malefactor here

But the investigation is ongoing. Will Halliburton get on the hook, or will our nation's fealty to Dick Cheney's deferred compensation and pension benefits once again trump all other interests? It will bear watching.

[sabrina 1]

8. Good question. I noticed how their name

suddenly disappeared from the news reports of who is responsible and Obama never mentioned them as being either. Not to mention the silence of big mouth Dick Cheney these days.

[Titanothere]

11. Centering the Casing - Halliburton wanted to do the right thing

<snip>
Standard industry practice is to center the well casing to reduce the risk that channels will form in cement, letting gas flow up the well, according to the letter. BP told Halliburton on April 15 it would use six devices called centralizers on the well, while Halliburton’s modeling showed 21 were needed, the lawmakers said.

When an objection was raised, BP’s Morel wrote back that it was too late to get more equipment to the rig: “It’s a vertical hole, so hopefully the pipe stays centralized,” he said.

After BP’s drilling engineering team leader, Gregory Walz, found 15 additional units, BP Well Team Leader John Guide objected. “It will take 10 hours to install them,” Guide said, according to the letter. “I do not like this.”

Halliburton account representative Jesse Gagliano ran a computer model using seven centralizers. His April 18 report on the cementing design said the “well is considered to have a severe gas-flow problem,” according to the letter.

[sabrina 1]

17. Well, that may be, that it was a question of

centralizing the well. However for a long time it seems the cement mixture used in deep water wells has been questioned and in many accidents that same mixture has been involved.

Halliburton may have requested more centralizers, but that didn't stop them from going ahead with the knowledge that they themselves had, or claimed to have about the dangers of doing so. If they seriously were worried about this lack of equipment, why did they go ahead?

Additionally, there has been enough data on the subject of the cement mixture used by Halliburton being the cause of many accidents that they should have been doubly concerned about what they were doing.

If we are going to really investigate what happened, what actually caused the failure, then it will be necessary to do a complete investigation of everyone involved, Trans Ocean and Halliburton as well as BP. Not a repeat of the 9/11 investigation.

Here's a fairly good article on the role cement plays in the safety of deep water wells:

BP Deepwater Horizon Halliburton Cement Failure Likely

Unfortunately, at times history often repeats itself as faulty Halliburton cement is being investigated as the most likely culprit. Live video link from the ROV monitoring the damaged riser
-- For example, the November 2005 accident where the Deepwater Horizon was positioned above another well in the Gulf, faulty cement work allowed wall-supporting steel casing to come apart. Almost 15,000 gallons of drilling fluid spilled into the Gulf.

-- Just a week later in a nearby well at another platform, cement improperly seeped through drilling fluid. As a result of an additive meant to quicken setting time, the cement then failed to block a gas influx into the well. When the crew finally replaced heavy drilling fluid with lighter seawater, as they also did last month before the blowout at Deepwater Horizon, the well flowed out of control and much of the crew had to be evacuated.

-- Cementing was identified by federal investigators as a glaring cause of an August 2007 blowout, also off Louisiana. They said, "The cement quality is very poor, showing what looks like large areas of no cement."
Reports by MMS, a branch of the Interior Department, also provide evidence of the role bad cement work has played in accidents.

One of the most frightening things in this article is the information that there are 22,000 deep water wells in the Gulf all operating under the same system, many still using the same cement mixture, as the Deep Water Horizon.

I do not think Halliburton is off the hook because they expressed some concerns but then went ahead despite that and maybe contributed to the accident themselves.

[Titanothere]

22. very interesting, I wonder if it's the mix or the application

cement is a science unto itself I suppose. It seems like the cement issue was one of the first culprits of concern. As to why they went along with the job despite their concerns, I couldn't tell you. You'd think as the cementing contractor they'd have override say on the application, it seems odd that BP could hire them to do the job and then not let them do it to their standards. Operators really do have a lot of control over what the contractor does I understand, I understand Exxon usually holds them to a higher standard then they typically operate under.

[sabrina 1]

28. I don't know, but there does seem to have been a lot of

information about the problems with cement mixture, and as you pointed out, the additional problem pointed out by Halliburton. Then I have read of other problems where corners were cut regarding other equipment. Add to all that the fact that there was virtually no real oversight, as we now know that the MMS, as Obama pointed out last night, was basically acting as a partner to these Corporations rather than as an over-seer and the surprise is NOT that this happened, but that it didn't happen sooner. And the concern now should be be, what are the conditions of the thousands of other wells.

Thinking about your question. If the cement mixture and the application is a science unto itself, which it could be, then shouldn't there have been far more research done before taking such a huge risk? With the government involved? There are a lot of questions which is why there really does need to be a thorough investigation or this will just happen again.

One more thing, we keep hearing that no one but these oil corporations have the knowledge to do this. I find it hard to believe that if they could find engineers who understand the system which is relatively knew (deepwater drilling) they why couldn't our Navy eg, find them or train them so we have a back-up system in place should it ever happen again?

We went to the moon, can't we go to the bottom of the ocean? I am not buying that excuse. The Government has to be involved in the safety aspects of this. That should be clear by now. To hand over our national security to a foreign oil corporation without having the means to monitor what they are doing seems insane and I wonder why the media eg, was not reporting on this long before this happened.

[geek tragedy]

12. Because if BP had listened to them this might not have happened. nt

[sabrina 1]

18. Why do you say that? See my post above.

It doesn't seem to me that Halliburton played no role in this disaster from the information I have read, some of which I linked above, about what factors can cause accidents such as this one.

[Blue Owl]

14. I think we need to apologize to Dick Cheney

Just like the guy he shot in the face.

:sarcasm:

[DefenseLawyer]

16. You can assume that if BP can collect from any of its contractors, it will.

It's BP's venture, they should be responsible for all the damages. If they want to fight it out with Halliburton to get reimbursed later, more power to them. Splitting up who's responsible for paying up front is a bad idea and would lead to a much more complicated process.

[butterfly77]

19. Kicked&Recommended!

:think: :mad:

[Hubert Flottz]

20. Because "they have the numbers"

In Washington.

[BelgianMadCow]

21. As much as I hate that corporation - it would seem up to now the blame rests with BP

for exmaple, Halliburton reccomended using 25 centralizers (kind of spacers between the casing and the rock, so that the cement poured in between those two is spreak evenly - ie so the pipe stays nicely centered in the hole). BP decided against that and used like 5.

Halliburton did the cement job, BP decided to stress the cement without waiting for proper testing - and a cement job that fails is pretty common, you just need to correct it.

What exactly their role is in the BOP failure is less clear to me - was the failure due to maintenance or not?

[Titanothere]

25. Transocean owned the BOP, Cameron built it - it comes with the rig

So I think Transocean should have been responsible for its maintenance?

Then again I heard something along the lines of BP screwing with these things while they drill for some reason. Frankly I've yet to hear of one thing that BP does right.

It was sweet to hear Rex Tillerson hang them out to dry the other day. The other majors have got to be wanting to kill BP right now. They described it as having recess cancelled for everyone just because one kid screwed up.

[hayu_lol]

27. From the start of this event...

BP did the calculations that were used to further calculate what mix and how much cement would be needed(Halliburton did the further calculations based upon BPs figures. The devices needed to hold the pipe in the center of the casing should have been 21 or better but only 6 were installed. Again, Halliburton asked that the centralizers be installed...the job would take 10 hours. Denied by the high pressure 'suit' from BP Headquarters.

It has been mentioned early on in this event, that BP may have lied to Halliburton about the actual depth of the hole...the number 35-36,000 feet has been noted. BP told Halliburton that the hole was about 1/2 of that...a fact that would have been needed to properly calculate the mix and amount of concrete necessary to plug the well. If the figures were wrong, then Halliburton calculated correctly using the BP numbers which failed to get the job done.

Schlumberger, world expert on drilling fluids, plug mixes, and all other additives needed for this kind of drilling, had a crew on the site. BP did not use their services, would not allow them to leave the site by BP copters, and the crew finally ordered their own chopper to come and get them off the rig.

Because of the argument and possibly incorrect figures, Halliburton may end up being the good guys in this case. They worked with what facts they were given. If the numbers were false, then of course the plug failed.

Seems to be many witnesses to the argument between the 'SUIT' from BP and Halliburton staff. In the end, BP dominated and the order was given to 'just do it.'

It is probably about time to consider 'worst case' scenarios on this blowout. We may never see it capped until the pressure drops from oil flow.

Since the estimated number of barrels a day flow has been upped considerably, you might keep in mind that the fine, per barrel spilled/blown out, is $1000.00 each. This very likely is the early end of BP--caused by their efforts to contain costs and cut safety corners.

[spanone]

24. the cheney roots run deep ...

[Titanothere]

26. right, because this administration is in bed with Cheney

please...

I swear some people must tell their kids campfire stories about that guy for the all powerful Dark Wizardry attributed to him.

[End Of The Road]

29. Because Haliburton bought Boots & Coots (oil clean-up co.)

There is money to be made here and LOTS of it!

Why penalize the company that owns the clean-up crew? Wouldn't that be like...uh...crucifi...never mind.

:sarcasm:

For those that may not know, Haliburton bought Boots & Coots three weeks before the disaster began.

And I have NO IDEA if they are involved in the clean-up or not. Google failed me. But it seems logical.

[hayu_lol]

30. The purchase of B&C is nothing more than a logical...

extension of the services already provided by Halliburton worldwide. I doubt that Halliburton, out of the companies already involved in this mess, was hoping for a blowout like this one. Oil spills, as we all know, are common in this industry.