When are we going to tell Haliburton enough is enough? 11 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#1 8 years ago

It has now come out that Halliburton skipped crucial tests on the concrete used at the Gulf Of Mexico well. Sources have come forward showing that the Concrete Halliburton used failed repeated testing to which Halliburton dismissed as irrelevant. Haliburton then said they did no testing.

New questions on stability of cement in gulf oil well before explosion

Anyone remember Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR and the US military showers in Iraq killing servicemen because the wiring was not to code? IIRC 18 servicemen died from electrocutions due to shoddy wiring.

AFP: US contractor in Iraq accused of electrocution deaths

Or how about people finding out that the Halliburton run water treatment centers in Iraq were not getting the very basic Chlorine treatment normally used to kill pathogens in the water. There is a campaign out now for anyone who was in country with the US in Iraq to go to a doctor and be tested for pathogens in the blood.

Halliburton caught poisoning the troops in Iraq - Care2 News Network

Doctor alleges Halliburton-supplied water linked to infections | Business | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

And it seems that thanks to the law approved by a Conservative Supreme Court that Corporations are entities and can contribute to campaigns Halliburton is investing heavily in Republican candidates, many who are on Committee's overseeing Gulf well drilling.

If these people are elected by Halliburton dollars you can bet any legal movement against Halliburton will be killed and buried.




SeinfeldisKindaOk

5.56 smoke Haji every day

55 XP

18th July 2008

0 Uploads

8,397 Posts

0 Threads

#2 8 years ago

Aren't corporations legally people? And can't people be convicted of murder, criminal negligence, manslaughter etc.? Why can't we just convict entire companies of these crimes?




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,628 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,166 Posts

6 Threads

#3 8 years ago

Actually holding companies accountable for their actions; what a quaint idea.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#4 8 years ago

Come on, really? Halliburton supports a military and a nation that has total disregard for the lives and laws of the rest of the world. Do you really think our government is going to go trampling over the rights of Afghanis, Iraqis, and possibly Iranians, and then turn around and hold one of their most important contractors accountable for their actions?




Mihail VIP Member

President of Novistrana

50 XP

19th January 2003

0 Uploads

15,509 Posts

0 Threads

#5 8 years ago

This is what happens when you allow these CEO's and Corporate boards to go hog wild with no threat of serious jail time because they can't be directly linked to accountability for it, I say bullshit, hang em high from the lamp posts, average citizens are put through the grinder for petty crimes, and these assholes are getting away with murder.




Pb2Au

Droolworthy

50 XP

4th October 2004

0 Uploads

8,461 Posts

0 Threads

#6 8 years ago

There seems to be some misunderstanding in this thread. Allow me, as a senior in petroleum engineering, to fill in some of the blank spots. There are multiple parties involved in drilling an oil well. The lessor owns the land and/or mineral rights which are being extracted. In the case of the Macondo well (and all GoM wells) the lessor is the US government. The operator is the company in charge of drilling and producing the well. In this case, it was BP The drilling company is the company which owns the rig. They are contracted by the operator to drill the hole. In this case, it was Transocean (who hold all sorts of records in offshore drilling) Then there are service companies, which are contracted by the operator to cement the well, dispose of cuttings, cater food, run logs (measurements of the wellbore), etc. Halliburton was a service company hired by BP the cement the well. They do not design the cementing plan; that is BP's prerogative. They merely execute the plan. There is, however, a system of checks and balances where (officially) anyone can stop work at any time by citing an unsafe environment. This situation is complicated. I interned for BP this summer, as the blowout was happening. There is no single entity responsible, it is an absolute cluster%&^* of things going wrong and nearly every party involved has culpability. However, in oil and gas law the operator is responsible for any screw-ups unless they can prove definitively that that screw-up was caused by a different party. So, while Halliburton has shady aspects to their history, you cannot call them evil for this. You can call them irresponsible if you believe they incorrectly checked the integrity of the cement, but ultimately they did not actually design the cementing plan.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,215 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,015 Posts

6 Threads

#7 8 years ago
Pb2Au;5420621 So, while Halliburton has shady aspects to their history, you cannot call them evil for this. You can call them irresponsible if you believe they incorrectly checked the integrity of the cement, but ultimately they did not actually design the cementing plan.

Hm, I don't know. It sounds like negligence to me. If they do this kind of work often then they probably know the risks that come with skipping a few tests. If someone told me to build a bridge out of sugar and I pocket the money even though I know that people might get hurt then I wouldn't be entirely innocent.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,628 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,166 Posts

6 Threads

#8 8 years ago

Of course I can call them evil. The wrongdoings of others do not excuse your own. The Operator is legally liable - that's a far cry from being the only one morally responsible.




Pethegreat VIP Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#9 8 years ago
So, while Halliburton has shady aspects to their history, you cannot call them evil for this. You can call them irresponsible if you believe they incorrectly checked the integrity of the cement, but ultimately they did not actually design the cementing plan.

IIRC they did a negative pressure test(removed from of the drilling fluid and checked the pressure) and the well passed the test. The pressure drop was not detected due to the hole being temporary plugged.

I would still place the majority of the blame on Transocean for the initial accident. They did not make sure the blow out preventer was working. While Haliburton's poor cement job did cause the blowout, the blow out preventer would have stopped the blowout from becoming a major incident.

BP is responsible for the oil spill however. The simplest way to cap a blown out well is to cut off the BoP and used a stinger to plug the well. Because BP had the cameras down at the wellhead they did not want to cut off the BoP because it would increase the flow of oil. They could have capped the well in a week if they used the method described above.

The above paragraph was a summary of what a professor at my university told me. He is considered and expert in oil and gas reservoirs.

If anyone aside from me and Pb2Au want to read up on capping oil wells: Blowout Control, Part 10 - Surface Intervention Methods




Mihail VIP Member

President of Novistrana

50 XP

19th January 2003

0 Uploads

15,509 Posts

0 Threads

#10 8 years ago
There seems to be some misunderstanding in this thread. Allow me, as a senior in petroleum engineering, to fill in some of the blank spots.

I too am an senior petroleum AND gas engineer as well, working for one of the biggest US owned companies in the world(UTC) I can tell you there's plenty of neglect and overall not caring done by this companies, difference is, it falls more into the black and white then the yes and no most people are use to.

They are willing to spend all the money in the world for personnel safety but overall job site are done to a standard and as long as they meet those goals, mission accomplished and sadly enough those goals are set to such a low bar, that they get away with bar minimum while charging highest dollar, what it comes down to is the US government being too cozy with these GIANT companies that "are too big to fail" so they are allowed to do as they wish, and those low standards were set in place because that's exactly where after years of abuse, were set the bar to by the same companies.




  • 1
  • 2