• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Halliburton vs. BP

ONW

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
19,177
Reaction score
658
"(CNN) -- BP is accusing Halliburton of having "intentionally destroyed evidence" related to the explosion aboard an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that led to the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

The accusation comes in court papers filed by BP Monday in federal court in New Orleans as part of a lawsuit aimed at having sanctions imposed on Halliburton Energy Services Inc., which was a contractor for BP on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. An explosion on the rig on April 20, 2010, killed 11 people working on the rig and injured 16 others. The explosion led to more than 200 million gallons of oil being released into the Gulf.

BP alleges in its filing that Halliburton destroyed evidence on cement testing and violated court orders by not bringing forth "inexplicably missing" computer modeling results.

"Halliburton has steadfastly refused to provide these critical testing and modeling results in discovery. Halliburton's refusal has been unwavering, despite repeated BP discovery requests and a specific order from this Court," the documents state.

"BP has now learned the reason for Halliburton's intransigence -- Halliburton destroyed the results of physical slurry testing, and it has, at best, lost the computer modeling outputs that showed no channeling. More egregious still, Halliburton intentionally destroyed the evidence related to its nonprivileged cement testing, in part because it wanted to eliminate any risk that this evidence would be used against it at trial," the BP papers say.

When reached for comment Monday, Halliburton spokeswoman Beverly Stafford said the company was reviewing the details of the motion.

"However, we believe that the conclusions that BP is asking the court to draw is without merit and we look forward to contesting their motion in court."

The BP documents state that two Halliburton employees testified under oath about destroying notes and samples related to analyzing the stability of a similar cement mixture that was used in the failed oil well.

"[D]id you take down any notes about the slurry?" Halliburton Global Advisor in Gulf Cementing Rickey Morgan was asked during a deposition detailed in the court motion.

"No, ma'am," Morgan responded.

"You didn't take any pictures?"

"No, ma'am."

"And then you said you dumped out the sample?"

"Yes, ma'am."

"And you mentioned that the reason that you didn't document the test and you threw out the sample was because you were worried about it being misinterpreted in the litigation?"

"Yes, that's part of the reason, yes, ma'am," Morgan testified, according to the BP papers."
 
Halliburton clearly decided that their liability will be lessened if they don't produce this evidence than if they do and it's discovered that they royally screwed the pooch on the cement testing.

And they are a bunch of miserable fucking assclowns for making that decision.
 
deregulation! free market!

I'm pretty sure that this is about as "regulated" you can get without a government takeover of BP/Haliburton/Chevron, etc. It was just very poor as is the standard with government.

Perhaps you should have said, "regulation, yeah!"

"A report published by the US Department of Interior has alleged that certain staff members tasked with overseeing offshore drilling routinely watched porn on government computers and smoked crystal methamphetamine."

http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/49932-us-bureaucrats-smoked-crystal-meth-watched-porn-as-bp-oil-rig-blew
 
Halliburton clearly decided that their liability will be lessened if they don't produce this evidence than if they do and it's discovered that they royally screwed the pooch on the cement testing.

And they are a bunch of miserable fucking assclowns for making that decision.

I think BP is going to have a field day with them in court. It's more likely a big, big settlement is on the horizon.
 
Halliburton clearly decided that their liability will be lessened if they don't produce this evidence than if they do and it's discovered that they royally screwed the pooch on the cement testing.

And they are a bunch of miserable fucking assclowns for making that decision.


That will be nice until they get a negative inference slapped on their ass. Their liability will be quite certain at that point.
 
I'm pretty sure that this is about as "regulated" you can get without a government takeover of BP/Haliburton/Chevron, etc. It was just very poor as is the standard with government.

Perhaps you should have said, "regulation, yeah!"

"A report published by the US Department of Interior has alleged that certain staff members tasked with overseeing offshore drilling routinely watched porn on government computers and smoked crystal methamphetamine."

yeah, and imagine what it would be like deregulated
 
I'm pretty sure that this is about as "regulated" you can get without a government takeover of BP/Haliburton/Chevron, etc. It was just very poor as is the standard with government.

Perhaps you should have said, "regulation, yeah!"

"A report published by the US Department of Interior has alleged that certain staff members tasked with overseeing offshore drilling routinely watched porn on government computers and smoked crystal methamphetamine."

http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/49932-us-bureaucrats-smoked-crystal-meth-watched-porn-as-bp-oil-rig-blew

Deregulation of building codes and accountability is a fantastic idea.
 
I'm sure we'll see more of this back and forth between BP and Halliburton as they jockey over who should pay less in the civil liability judgment. They're both gonna get fucked in the ass. It's just a question of who gets John Holmes and who gets John Bobbitt.
 
I'm sure we'll see more of this back and forth between BP and Halliburton as they jockey over who should pay less in the civil liability judgment. They're both gonna get fucked in the ass. It's just a question of who gets John Holmes and who gets John Bobbitt.

My money is on the company destroying evidence taking it on the chin so to speak.
 
I'm sure we'll see more of this back and forth between BP and Halliburton as they jockey over who should pay less in the civil liability judgment. They're both gonna get fucked in the ass. It's just a question of who gets John Holmes and who gets John Bobbitt.

I haven't kept up but it is cleaned up is it not? Is this about the civil suits the fishermen and other coastal businesses brought? I thought there was a multibillion dollar trust set up by BP. What am I missing?
 
How the hell did you find this thread? Thanks for the link regardless.
 
Haliburton got stuck with only 3% of the blame? Looks like the Lois Lerner policy of "Oops, where did the computer files go?" is pretty damn effective.
 
If a person destroys evidence, he goes to jail. When a corporation does it, the people involved should too.
 
If a person destroys evidence, he goes to jail. When a corporation does it, the people involved should too.

That makes far too much common sense.


Instead, I think the people involved in destroying evidence should be allowed to change jobs to another company and garner extra wages in their pay check. Also, anybody that dares call these people out for their activities should be IMMEDIATELY labeled as "anti-business" and "most likely communist".
 
If a person destroys evidence, he goes to jail. When a corporation does it, the people involved should too.

But corporations are supposed to be people. If they really were, wouldn't they be in jail?
 
"A report published by the US Department of Interior has alleged that certain staff members tasked with overseeing offshore drilling routinely watched porn on government computers and smoked crystal methamphetamine."

Was that wrong?

Costanza.png
 
I'm pretty sure that this is about as "regulated" you can get without a government takeover of BP/Haliburton/Chevron, etc. It was just very poor as is the standard with government.

Perhaps you should have said, "regulation, yeah!"

"A report published by the US Department of Interior has alleged that certain staff members tasked with overseeing offshore drilling routinely watched porn on government computers and smoked crystal methamphetamine."

http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/49932-us-bureaucrats-smoked-crystal-meth-watched-porn-as-bp-oil-rig-blew

If they were watching porn and getting high on meth then wouldn't that mean that it was not as regulated as you can get, meaning, they were watching porn and smoking meth so the regulation part was actually less than 'as regulated as you can get...' because that would be regulators who were not watching porn and smoking meth and therefore regulating more completely and thoroughly?? just wondering
 
Back
Top