Congressional and legal inquiries are looking into whether Halliburton caused the Gulf oil spill. Image from Flickr.
As the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico continues to spread, allegations are coming to light that this may be the Halliburton oil spill. BP has claimed responsibility for paying for the oil spill cleanup, and Transocean was operating the oil drilling platform – but both may now be looking to Halliburton for oil spill answers.
How Halliburton was involved with the oil spill
At the time Deepwater Horizon, owned by Transocean and being leased to BP, exploded and began the oil spill, Halliburton was working as a contractor. Halliburton had been hired by Transocean to cement the oil well. Cementing an oil well is a process where a specialty cement is pumped into an oil well to plug it and prevent an oil spill and combustible gas from leaking. If the cement is cracked, improperly pumped, or improperly mixed, natural gas and oil can push through the cement. Halliburton had just finished cementing the well when Deepwater Horizon exploded. Halliburton will need more than payday loans to prove it wasn’t the company’s fault.
Halliburton oil spill concerns
Halliburton oil spill concerns are centered on this oil-rig-cementing process. Halliburton is the largest oil well cementing business in the world, and the process accounts for 11 percent – or $ 1.7 billion – of the company’s business. When the cementing process goes wrong, a Halliburton oil spill is usually the result. A 2007 study found that “cementing was a factor in 18 of 39 well blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico over a 14-year period.” In other words, Halliburton cementing issues are more common than equipment failure and pipe failure when it comes to the cause of Gulf of Mexico oil spills. Halliburton oil spills have also happened in Australia and other countries.
Halliburton oil spill lawsuits
There are multiple lawsuits based on the possibility of the Halliburton oil spill. Natalie Roshto, wife to one of the Transocean employees who was killed, has filed a lawsuit against Halliburton. This lawsuit claims that the explosion and ensuing oil spill were the fault of Halliburton. The lawsuit specifically states that “prior to the explosion, (Halliburton) was engaged in cementing operations of the well and well cap and, upon information and belief, improperly and negligently performed these duties, which was a cause of the explosion.”
Halliburton does not claim oil spill responsibility
Though BP has agreed to pay for part of the cleanup of the oil spill, and Transocean is taking responsibility for a portion of the oil spill, Halliburton has not claimed any responsibility. Halliburton has only confirmed that the corporation had just completed cementing about 20 hours before the explosion.
Sources:
Financial Times
The Atlantic
Wall Street Journal
CBS News
democrat excrement-head hysteria. Why not blame disbarred liar perjurer Bill Clinton, who had just as much to do with this as Cheney.
It doesn't surprise me that Haliburton is not taking their portion of the responsibility here. They have always managed to fly under the "public" radar of responsibility and let their bigger allies take the heat for their errors. And with irresponsible, negligent companies like this maintaining the existing oil wells, people wonder why there is such an uproar about new drilling…keep killing off and ruining entire ecosystems and move to the next spot and global warming wont' be such a big fear anylonger… basic necessities of life will become a valued commodity because they will be few and far between.
isnt haliburton the company our fine ex vice president chaney has his hands in?
hmmmm. so those "exemptions" on the safety of the rig couldnt possibly have been "fixed" to get money coming in from production. no they would never turn their heads on safety. unless money is at stake and it is.
Halliburton is NOT the company that Dick Cheney has a hand in. It is a company that he USED to have a hand in. He was their CEO over a decade ago. Why is it that everyone who has ever left one company to work for another realizes that they don't work for the old company anymore, unless they are Dick Cheney?
George, you do make a good point. Dick Cheney definitely wasn't behind the wheel of Halliburton when this oil well disaster began. Far from it. However, to extend our thinking just a bit, it is theoretically possible – I'm not offering conclusive proof, just suggesting that it is theoretically possible – that policies that Mr. Cheney put in place while he was the CEO of Halliburton (only a decade ago, mind you, not in the mid-1990s or earlier) could have lead the corporation toward institutionalizing slack safety standards and lack of redundant backup security systems (or inferiority of such systems). Negligence would not have been the direct policy, of course. However, not being forward-thinking (because they weren't required by government or… wait for it… requiring themselves) regarding safety mechanisms related to oil well safety could have theoretically been a direct result of Halliburton policies that trace directly back to Mr. Cheney.
So what I'm saying in this diatribe is that it's possible that Cheney shouldn't be let entirely off the hook. Give me time to find a paper trail on this (if the documents aren't already shredded) and I'll give you any connection that may be there.
First let me say that I have worked in the oil field for the past 30 years. Although land based I believe that some basic truths about drilling and completing oil wells holds true in any case. Number 1. B.P. is not going to kill this well until they can over come the pressure the well is producing. That is to say they are going to have to be able to put more presure on the well than is coming out of it before they can hold the materials in the hole needed to kill it. Number 2 Why not run a bomb down the well bore and explode it thus collapsing the formation that is producing the spill. Duh because then B.P. will loose any hope of recovering revenue from this well to help off set the lose of this diaster. Number 3 When it was reported that B.P. had ordered Trans ocean to modify the blow out preventor for testing, why did no one ask to see the management of change from Cameron Iron Works- The people that manufactued the Blow out preventor. For those who don't know a management of change is a release from the maker of the equipment stating that they have been notified of the changes being made to their equipment and that they ( the manufactuerer of the equipment) agree the changes wont cause the equipment to operate in an unsafe manner. I know from experience that B.P. requires this chain of documentation on changes that contractor's wish to make to a piece of equipment being used on a B.P. location.
number 4. B.P. has a training and compliance coarse that must be completed by anyone doing work on a B.P. project site. Not only must you complete this coarse but you must have a card on your person that states you have completed it and be ready to show it to any B.P. safety person who asked to see it. I know because I have one. One of the main thrust of this complience training is that t is not only the right but the responsibility of any person working on a B.P. jobsite to stop work if they see unsafe situation. The ploicy is to protect life and ENVIRONMENT above all else. I read that in the investagation process one the rig hands who survived had said that the rig supervisor and the Halliburton engineer where monitoring some varience in the differential presure of the well( The differential presure is the difference betwwen the preasure inside the casing and the preasure in the well bore itself) If these were not with in exceptable ranges The Halliburton engineer on the job( and I promise you their were at least one) should have called a halt to the process and allowed the rig to keep their mud pumps on the hole so the presure could be over come and some kind of control of the well could be maintained ubtil the preasure variences were resolved. Never ever expect that a piece of safety equipment( a blow out preventor for instance) is going to work properly when you need it the most. Thats just oilfield 101. Alway expect the unexpected and be ready for the most impossible thing that could go wrong to go wrong. Trans-ocean I think is the most over blamed in this whole thing. All they did was to contract a half a billion dollar piece of equipment to some folks who burned it up. I can tell you without fear that when B.P. has a project going, B.P. is calling the shots. They may have had on site engineers and consultants on location, but I bet if it works anything like it does on land based operations the decisions were being made by an engineer in Houston Tx.
To Much, 'Sand in the Mix'? I wonder where the plug, is now!
Why doesn't the media and press disclose this info on the "nightly news"? Who is covering their(Halliburton's) Tails? More questions than answers!