• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Halliburton admits guilt in Gulf spill case

I refuse to drink any wine that doesn't have a screw off top.


YOU SIR are a ****en infidel. And should be banned from EVER entering Sonoma Valley.TWIST OFF...geeese.:eek:
 
Bah, if taking out the cork wastes too much time getting to the joy juice, I just whack the bottle neck on the counter. Quick and efficient.

An uncle of mine did that and swallowed a piece of glass.
 
YOU SIR are a ****en infidel. And should be banned from EVER entering Sonoma Valley.TWIST OFF...geeese.:eek:

If I'm in wine country, I'm lost, or just passing through.
 
Obviously someone is trying to lay blame on Halliburton for the 2010 blowout.

Lay SOME of the blame on Halliburton, perhaps. Not all evidence was destroyed on the rig. Much of the paper trail that was destroyed by the company was off the rig. Depending on what was discussed in the documents, what test results were shredded there could have been criminal charges filed. That's why i feel those who destroy evidence for higher-ups need to be charged and charged hard, get them to flip and let's show the world even guys in 3K suits are not above the law.

You have to admit- 11 men died and it is all an unforeseeable accident according to the oil service companies- does seem a bit of a stretch.
 
YOU SIR are a ****en infidel. And should be banned from EVER entering Sonoma Valley.TWIST OFF...geeese.:eek:

Have only been to Napa, really beautiful. Had a tour with Mrs. Cakebread and then had dinner in a greatroom on the property.
 
No need to wonder what was destroyed if any of you are willing to do so much at 30 seconds of google searching...

According to the government, Halliburton recommended to BP that the Macondo well contain 21 centralizers, metal collars that can improve cementing, but BP chose to use six.

The government said that, during an internal probe into the cementing after the blowout, Halliburton ordered workers to destroy computer simulations that showed little difference between using six and 21 centralizers.


Halliburton Pleads Guilty To Destroying Gulf Oil Spill Evidence

A centralizer is nothing more than a ring that helps to guide a pipe down so that it can place something more precisely, in this case, the pipe that was to pump the cement down into the well. 21 of them would have allowed the cementing to be more precise, but of course, at the cost of a lot more time spent installing the centralizers.

My guess is that the government overreached in this case...the simulations weren't really germane to identify a cause or causes for the blowout, since they indicated that 6 vs. 21 centralizers wouldn't have compromised safety. But anything related to the disaster becomes evidence, and since Halliburton got rid of this information, it makes them appear that they are hiding something.

Also, they are on the hook for a 200k dollar fine, and volunteered to donate $55,000,000 to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Hey Chuck! Nice to see someone with some expertise chime in.

You know it how goes brotha, "Haliburton" is synonymous with the "devil" in some people's twisted perception. Skimmed through the final investigation report a while back, didn't really dig too deep cause the conclusions matched up with what I initially suspected.
 
It's not my fault you cant deal with the truth..

I have more respect for socialists that admit they're socialists rather than closet socialists such as yourself.

Then again maybe you don't understand socialism?

I tend not to engage hyperbole addicts like yourself however, I took the time to read this because well: I don't even know what a "closet socialist" is. Then again, you're the Libertarian who got so confused in his attempt to paint himself in the color of the founders that he basically agreed that owning people was okay. Which is - you know - in refutation of your raison d'etre. But please, please tell me you know what a "closet socialist" is. I'd love to hear what it is. Maybe it'll make more sense than why I should care that some jobless Libertarian with a hard on for Ayn-Rand doesn't respect me enough.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully this puts to rest the notion in people's brains that companies don't destroy evidence.

Evidence of what exactly? I fail to see this as a legitimate charge unless Halliburton has been arguing, in the lawsuits filed against them by BP, that they offered a safer method of construction and BP declined or the Feds are pursuing a fraud case against them for marketing 21 as safer than 6. I'm not saying that no company ever destroys evidence but, on the surface, this wasn't evidence of anything.
 
Last edited:
I tend not to engage hyperbole addicts like yourself however, I took the time to read this because well: I don't even know what a "closet socialist" is. Then again, you're the Libertarian who got so confused in his attempt to paint himself in the color of the founders that he basically agreed that owning people was okay. Which is - you know - in refutation of your raison d'etre. But please, please tell me you know what a "closet socialist" is. I'd love to hear what it is. Maybe it'll make more sense than why I should care that some jobless Libertarian with a hard on for Ayn-Rand doesn't respect me enough.

I take it Ayn doesn't have the same effect on you ... anyway, I'm curious about the response you'll get, but I suspect it means that you're really a socialist but won't admit it ... kinda like Obama ... cons say he's really a socialist ... a closet socialist ...
 
I wonder what the payoff is, because no one knows exactly how the blowout happened.
Yes we do. We knew this very early on.

A high concentration of hydrates began flowing up the pipe. This caused alarm and the emergency BOP control was activated, but the BOP itself failed to execute, allowing the hydrates up the pipe, which then exploded at sea-level air-pressure and temperature, killing 11 instantly. Secondary fires spread rapidly, compromising the structure of the rig, causing it to sink.

Encountering hydrates is typical, not surprising at all. What was different was how concentrated this deposit of hydrates were, which was still predicted given the depth they were drilling to. It was expected.

Halliburton's part in this is that it was Halliburton's responsibility to maintain the BOP. It was a Halliburton BOP, it had failed inspections and was used anyway. Halliburton knew about this in advance but let it slide. Had Halliburton properly maintained the BOP then we would never have heard of the Deepwater Horizon.

BP is also culpable because they knew the BOP failed inspection. Transocean, the owner of the rig, may not have known about the BOP because they simply build and lease rigs to companies who then go out and drill. It's like renting a truck from Enterprise and then not properly securing a load; Enterprise doesn't monitor your activities, they just lease you the truck.
 
Yes we do. We knew this very early on.

A high concentration of hydrates began flowing up the pipe. This caused alarm and the emergency BOP control was activated, but the BOP itself failed to execute, allowing the hydrates up the pipe, which then exploded at sea-level air-pressure and temperature, killing 11 instantly. Secondary fires spread rapidly, compromising the structure of the rig, causing it to sink.

Encountering hydrates is typical, not surprising at all. What was different was how concentrated this deposit of hydrates were, which was still predicted given the depth they were drilling to. It was expected.

Halliburton's part in this is that it was Halliburton's responsibility to maintain the BOP. It was a Halliburton BOP, it had failed inspections and was used anyway. Halliburton knew about this in advance but let it slide. Had Halliburton properly maintained the BOP then we would never have heard of the Deepwater Horizon.

BP is also culpable because they knew the BOP failed inspection. Transocean, the owner of the rig, may not have known about the BOP because they simply build and lease rigs to companies who then go out and drill. It's like renting a truck from Enterprise and then not properly securing a load; Enterprise doesn't monitor your activities, they just lease you the truck.

Thr BOP stack doesn't control the casing, so if the pressure kick vame up between the casing, there's no way the BOP would have stopped the blow out.

Also, the story has been all along that they were trying to weigh down a gas kick with sea water vice heavy weight mud.
 
Thr BOP stack doesn't control the casing, so if the pressure kick vame up between the casing, there's no way the BOP would have stopped the blow out.
The concrete wall itself never failed.

Also, the story has been all along that they were trying to weigh down a gas kick with sea water vice heavy weight mud.
That was one of several attempts over the 3 months, yes.

 
Yes we do. We knew this very early on.

A high concentration of hydrates began flowing up the pipe. This caused alarm and the emergency BOP control was activated, but the BOP itself failed to execute, allowing the hydrates up the pipe, which then exploded at sea-level air-pressure and temperature, killing 11 instantly. Secondary fires spread rapidly, compromising the structure of the rig, causing it to sink.

Encountering hydrates is typical, not surprising at all. What was different was how concentrated this deposit of hydrates were, which was still predicted given the depth they were drilling to. It was expected.

Halliburton's part in this is that it was Halliburton's responsibility to maintain the BOP. It was a Halliburton BOP, it had failed inspections and was used anyway. Halliburton knew about this in advance but let it slide. Had Halliburton properly maintained the BOP then we would never have heard of the Deepwater Horizon.

BP is also culpable because they knew the BOP failed inspection. Transocean, the owner of the rig, may not have known about the BOP because they simply build and lease rigs to companies who then go out and drill. It's like renting a truck from Enterprise and then not properly securing a load; Enterprise doesn't monitor your activities, they just lease you the truck.

Sort of incorrect. The BOP was owned by Transocean and they were responsible for it maintenance. Haliburton was contracted for the well casing.
 
The concrete wall itself never failed.


That was one of several attempts over the 3 months, yes.



It's cement, not concrete and I worked in the oil and gas business in south Louisiana and I don't recall Halliburton owning BOP's.
 
Yes we do. We knew this very early on.

A high concentration of hydrates began flowing up the pipe. This caused alarm and the emergency BOP control was activated, but the BOP itself failed to execute, allowing the hydrates up the pipe, which then exploded at sea-level air-pressure and temperature, killing 11 instantly. Secondary fires spread rapidly, compromising the structure of the rig, causing it to sink.

Encountering hydrates is typical, not surprising at all. What was different was how concentrated this deposit of hydrates were, which was still predicted given the depth they were drilling to. It was expected.

Halliburton's part in this is that it was Halliburton's responsibility to maintain the BOP. It was a Halliburton BOP, it had failed inspections and was used anyway. Halliburton knew about this in advance but let it slide. Had Halliburton properly maintained the BOP then we would never have heard of the Deepwater Horizon.

BP is also culpable because they knew the BOP failed inspection. Transocean, the owner of the rig, may not have known about the BOP because they simply build and lease rigs to companies who then go out and drill. It's like renting a truck from Enterprise and then not properly securing a load; Enterprise doesn't monitor your activities, they just lease you the truck.

Another correction: the water from the "C-boats" caused the rig to sink. Engineers had told the Coast Gaurd to let it burn, but they wouldn't listen snd forced thr C-boats to keep spraying water, filling the hull with water.
 
Last edited:
Halliburtons cementing was involved in a major blowout in SE Asia prior to Deepwater.
 
Another correction: the water from the "C-boats" caused the rig to sink. Engineers had told the Coast Gaurd to let it burn, but they wouldn't listen snd forced thr C-boats to keep spraying water, filling the hull with water.
You didn't know how the blow out happened, so I told you, and now you're mad because you thought you were an expert. What's this thread supposed to be about anyway? Halliburton bad? I ask again, why should anyone care?
 
You didn't know how the blow out happened, so I told you, and now you're mad because you thought you were an expert. What's this thread supposed to be about anyway? Halliburton bad? I ask again, why should anyone care?

I knew the multiple versions of the story of about what happened. You think that the BOP was built, owned and serviced by Halliburton and now you're mad because you blew it. You also think that the rig sank because of the fire, which is also wrong.
 
Because he's a Conservative and doesn't hate the private sector.
:lamo
So when the private sector does wrong one cannot criticize the private sector even if they are "pro" or "anti" private sector?
 
Back
Top Bottom