Halliburton and BP knew risk before spill

[JohnD]

the Financial Times wrote
Halliburton and BP had data weeks ahead of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill that showed the cement mixture the companies used to seal the well was unstable, but did not act on the information, according to a report by the US National Commission investigating the Macondo spill...

...Halliburton, which served as a contractor to BP and was responsible for cementing the well, has stated publicly that tests it performed on the cement mixture showed it was stable. But investigators on Thursday said in a letter to the commission’s board that Halliburton documents contradicted those claims. Shares in the US company fell 8 per cent...

...BP’s own internal report highlighted the failure of the cement job, while Halliburton has claimed BP’s well design was principally at fault....





http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/33f02172-...email/20101029/nbe/UKMorningHeadlines/product

 

[ellal]

So, anyone think Obama will be as vociferous in his condemnation of Haliburton as he was of BP?

 

[empip]

Plenty are 'at it' :-

'...GlaxoSmithKline, the British drug giant, has agreed to pay $750 million to settle criminal and civil complaints that the company for years knowingly sold contaminated baby ointment and an ineffective antidepressant — the latest in a growing number of whistle-blower lawsuits that drug makers have settled with multimillion-dollar fines. Altogether, GlaxoSmithKline sold 20 drugs with questionable safety that were made at a huge plant in Puerto Rico that for years was rife with contamination... Whistle blower will collect $96 million from the federal government, and she will collect additional millions from states...'

Goto New York Times

-0-

 

[regsmyth]

John, it's a bit more than that.

Move away from mainstream media - you'll see for yourself.

 

[andyinthepeaks]

The problem we have is that the "public" are becoming risk averse.

They don't seem able to understand that many things in life like war, mining, oil drilling and even driving have a risk attached, in many cases quantified and documented by those carrying out the activity.

When "something" goes wrong then the papers are full of headlines that the company/government "knew the risk" implying reckless or careless decision making. Often it is that a balanced decision was made on the basis or a risk-assesment.

The public may want super-safe, super careful oil companies, but will squeel like a stuck pig when petrol is £2 a litre to pay for that safety or the ptrol stations are dry becaue companies could not afford to take the risks to get the oil.

 

[ellal]

It's not a case of being 'risk averse'...

There are accidents where something occurs that is unforseen, and then there is negligence...This one appears to be the latter.

And not to keep the petrol price down, but to keep profits up !

 

[regsmyth]

And there are also "accidents" which are not accidental.

 

[holmslaw]

Apart from the people that were killed in the original avoidable explosion.

This one of the funniest examples of back peddling ever seen.

The oil leak is the worst ever and the damage will cost billions and the sealife will never recover.

Obama declares BP are the most dishonest evil incompetent company in the world and stresses (many times) that they are British.

An aide whispers in Obama's 'tone the language down, half of BP is owned by americans, thats about $50 billion' and Obama shuts up.

BP appoint new american CEO.

The leak is plugged.

Two weeks later americans declare all the oil has been recovered or dispersed and there is no damage to sealife.