BP: Halliburton destroyed key oil spill evidence

No surprises here..

 

Shocked, I tell ya!

 

They are masters at covering their tracks, they leave no trace they were there poof.

 

Who would have thunk Halliburton would do something unethical. Shocking, simply shocking.

 

Of course BP could have checked the cement out for themselves. But no, let's overlook it until we get into trouble and then say it is all Halliburton's fault.....

 

I'm just stunned! Who would ever expect Dick and the boys of misconduct.
Shocked, it tell you shocked!

 

If the Chinese Manufacturer of the hairdryer applied to UL for a testing and approval of that hairdryer, then YES. Sadly you would be hard pressed to find anything electric from China with a UL Label!

 

No, but when dealing with industrial operations that can kill many and cause billions in damage AND losses, most other oil companies do those checks. (P.S. Much earlier threads made it quite evident that BP had lower QA standards, so this really was a continuation of that, not a blind comment.)

 

+1

We know that BP abandoned safety protocols and is the main reason this disaster happened. That doesn't mean that transocean, haliburton, and MMS do not share in the blame. If BP did the right things the disaster would have never happened. If MMS had not allowed BP to do the wrong things the disaster might not have happened. Haliburton and transocean also did some things very wrong, but I doubt if they had acted properly the spill would have been avoided.

Halliburton shares fall after BP accusations - BusinessWeek

 

Could destruction of evidence, either wilful or accidental, be considered contempt of court?

I wonder which will last longer: The environmental damage, or the litigation?

 

Destruction of evidence if its material is a bigger charge than contempt of court. From the reporting, I don't think this "evidence" was material to a criminal case, or even to the awards of a civil case. The court had already decided from other evidence that Halliburton had not used proper cement. The destruction of evidence is really more about a pissing match with finger pointing between the 3 corporations responsible. BP says that haliburton is more responsible, haliburton says every one knew about the cement for a long time, bp had full access to the tests and is still the company that rolled back safety standards in a rush to drill so that the well would cost less. This pissing match is quite apart from the reforms needed in MMS to do things like make sure drillers don't just throw away safety standards and use inferior materials.

 

Which was more or less my cynical point, that more time and money will be expended on assigning blame, than will be spent on cleaning up the spill, or enacting safer standards.

 

It's amazing how, in business, it's better not to check something, so then you can blame it on someone else when it goes bad. At least, that's how it might go in court.

 

This is like Bonnie saying Clyde robbed banks.

 

no. bp wants some data that makes haliburton look worse. They do have the data that the cement was not up to standards. That is not enough for them to get money from haliburton and shift blame.
BP and Halliburton knew of Gulf oil well cement flaws | Environment | guardian.co.uk

BP wants haliburton's internal test, and want to ignore their own test, which causes doubt that both the cement was at fault, and that BP actually poured cement when their own tests did not show it to be up to industry standards.

The department of MMS is inside interior. One of the first orders of business of the interior was supposed to be reforming MMS where these problems were known. AFAIK MMS is partially responsible since it approved all the shortcuts to safety that BP asked for some without even reading the documents.

 

The best I can figure, they were nowhere around....so as not to get any dirty oil on their cheerleading suits.