Home / Culture and Society / Halliburton Now Linked To Deepwater Oil Spill

Halliburton Now Linked To Deepwater Oil Spill

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The oil spill associated with the the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, one of the biggest oil spills in U.S. history, has now been linked to often controversial Halliburton Industries.

Halliburton has a history of controversy and charges of conflict of interest. Halliburton merged some time ago with Dresser Industries, founded by Presidential father and grandfather, Prescott Bush. Our former Vice-President, Dick Cheney, is a past CEO of Halliburton Industries.

Following the preemptive attack on Iraq, initiated by the Bush administration, Halliburton was chosen to rebuild Baghdad and Iraq; to undo the damage caused by American bombing and artillery fire.

Halliburton had hoped to profit from immigration issues; they had plans to build detention centers, similar to those centers in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to detain non-documented aliens pending transfer back to their countries of origin.

The Washington Times reported that the Kuwaiti-owned Timimmi Company had been serving hot meals to troops stationed in Iraq for $3 a meal. The contract was reassigned to Halliburton, which raised the price to $5 a meal, subcontracted the meal services back to Timimmi, and kept the 40% difference.

George W. Bush made an effort, while the American Congress was on break, to transfer the nation's ports to Dubai, in the U.A.E. Dubai is a terrorist friendly region, indeed one of only two countries to recognize the Taliban as the rightful government in Afghanistan. After the transfer of the ports, Halliburton had planned to take over the operation, the running of the ports.

Halliburton now is involved in the Deepwater oil spill off the American coast in the Gulf of Mexico. Halliburton was responsible for sealing with cement the oil extracting drill a mile below the Gulf surface. Halliburton said the final cementing of the oil well and pipe had been completed 20 hours before the blowout last week. Cement fills the gaps between the pipe and the ocean floor.

Hallilburton, following the explosion, issued a statement to the effect that "well operations had not yet reached the point requiring the placement of the final cement plug which would enable the planned temporary abandonment of the well." The company went on to say, "Halliburton originated oilfield cementing and leads the world in effective, efficient delivery of zonal isolation and engineering for the life of the well, conducting thousands of successful well cementing jobs each year."

According to experts cited in the Wall Street Journal, "the timing of last week's cement job in relation to the explosion — only 20 hours beforehand, and the history of cement problems in other blowouts 'point to it as a possible culprit. The initial likely cause of gas coming to the surface had something to do with the cement.'"

Powered by

About John Lake

John Lake had a long and successful career in legitimate and musical theater. He moved up into work behind the camera at top motion pictures. He has done a smattering of radio, and television John joined the Blogcritics field of writers owing to a passion for the liberal press, himself speaking out about the political front, and liberal issues. Now the retired Mr. Lake has entered the field of motion picture, television, and video game (now a daily gamer!) critique. His writing is always innovative and immensely readable!
  • Cannonshop

    Well…it’s a very technical problem, isn’t it? Now, if someone could suggest ANOTHER firm with the technology to do what Halliburton does…with their own engineers, we might get an honest engineering examination. Otherwise, it’s just a blame-game, probably motivated by politics since Halliburton IS tied to so many people despised by the Democrats…

  • Well, Cannon. That’s no excuse. A failure is a failure. Time for experimentation and embarking on engineering evaluation should be prior to implementation, not after.

  • Mark

    May advocates of nuclear power take heed. People fuck up.

  • Mark

    (nice work on halliburton, btw)

  • Interestingly, thus far no mention of Halliburton’s involvement in MSM – not even on NPR or BBC.

  • John, the link to the WSJ report is broken.

  • In fact, both links are.

  • One workable link from LA Times/

  • Mark

    Rog, do a search at the WSJ for “Drilling Process Attracts Scrutiny in Rig Explosion “

  • Hopefully, this link will work.

  • A compendium of sources.

  • For those who are technically minded.

  • John Wilson

    Solar Power has none of the pollution hazards of either oil or coal.

  • John Lake

    In any case, the Wall Street Journal link.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Mark –

    You know I’m quite liberal…but we need nuclear power.

    I’m retired military, and have worked in the Reactor Department of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. I remember poring over the designs of the plant, looking at all the safeguards and the redundancies of redundancies, and thinking to myself that if the crew got together and actually tried to cause a meltdown, they might succeed…but probably not.

    70% of France’s electricity comes from nuclear power, and they’re doing just fine. Japan gets a significant portion of their power from nuclear energy, and you know they’ve more reason than we for caution with radioactive substances.

    You can point to TMI and Chernobyl, but both were older designs – especially Chernobyl. Personally, I’d point you back to the hundreds – hundreds! – of nuclear reactors operated at sea by the U.S. Navy without serious incident for over half a century. You probably don’t realize this, but a ship at sea shudders and shakes along with the normal rolling and listing. Those shudders and shakes can be like a constant earthquake of anywhere from 3.0 to 6.0 on the Richter scale. This can go on not for minutes or hours, but for days at a time, even over a week.

    So imagine a constant earthquake of, say, 5.5 on the Richter scale that lasts for five solid days. And the nuclear reactor does just fine.

    So if we have to sacrifice one mountain – I guess Yucca Mountain’s on hold right now – then that’s a truly small price to pay when compared to literally hundreds of square miles of land covered by solar panels that would be required to make a serious dent in the fossil fuels used to power our electrical grid. Nuclear power (other than what’s been weaponized) has killed FAR fewer people than natural gas or oil or coal.

    Frankly, nuclear power is IMO greener than solar power, if only because of the vast tracts of land required for a serious effort to support solar power.

    In summary, Mark, nuclear power (when it isn’t weaponized) is a truly good thing.

  • Mark

    Glenn, please see O’Toole’s Corollary of Finagle’s Corollary to Murphy’s Law

    Hubris will be our undoing.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Mark –

    You’ve seen my argument against solar power. Can you point to me an example of ANY power source (other than the as-yet uneconomical fusion power) that is greener than nuclear power? When you do so, please understand my approach – which is the amount of usable land lost to human and animal uses as compared to the amount of power provided by the source concerned.

    By that benchmark, nuclear power is the most efficient and greenest power source we now have.

  • Mark

    Glenn, nuclear is ‘green’ right up until it isn’t, so I’m not sure about your green formula. You might need to factor in potential land loss.

    Given my level of risk aversion, I’d prefer to see a massive effort put into hydrogen, solar and wind. I’d trade off some ‘green’ for not having to witness another nuclear fuck up — but that’s just me.

  • Glenn, the good liberal that he is, is not opposed to fuck-ups, to our our Afghanistan and Iraq operations, to monopolies such as Boeing (see the other thread), and against companies too big too fail. He still believes in the war on terror and in the integrity of the good old US of A, and old things military, the old retired Navy man that he is.

    He had surely shed his Southern upbringing and racism; yet, to expect him to shed his brand of American patriotism is just too fucking much.

    Mark had said it a while back and I’m going to repeat it: he’s just a political hack.


  • John Wilson

    Nuclear energy will allow the energy monopolies to maintain their mastery over US citizens.

    Nuclear also has problems of land mass use, as everyone within 10 miles must have a supply of Potassium Iodide pills, just in case. Also, huge amounts of fresh water from the aquifer for cooling purposes.

    Better we should use the free energy that falls on our earth every day from that Super Fusion Reactor In The Sky.

  • Called the Sun – the natural source. But there’s no money in that, because just like air, sunlight is free.

  • Rune Sundsoy


  • Mark

    …not having to witness another nuclear fuck up

    erp — too late

    Radioactive water from reactor spill reaches Southern NJ aquifer today.

  • Glenn,

    I have understood that those panels fit on my roof!

    I am not inclined to deal with error OR waste management!

    I am not inclined to pay some idiot for what is free to me from panels on my own roof as John Wilson said, you are supporting the capitalist in place over people.

  • Radioactive water from reactor spill reaches Southern NJ aquifer today.

    Hello Glenn? I live in NJ. What do you think of that message in the local where you live?

  • OK, I’ll jump in long enough to say I support nuclear power too.

    Doesn’t France — semi-socialist, very green minded France — have tons of nuclear power plants? Nearly 80% of their electricity, I believe.

    I always suspect people of being on some level anti-science bigots when they complain about NASA or nuclear power or particle accelerators.

    If someone could really make solar power or wind power workable on a large scale, more power to ’em, pun intended. But as an alternative to burning more oil and coal, nukes are rather hard to beat.

    Electric cars are cool, too. Hope they can make them into affordable mass-market products. I fear it won’t be soon enough.

  • And here’s the link.

  • a citizen

    why isnt dick chaney in jail regardless of this greed.

  • John Lake

    Handy Guy:
    “I always suspect people of being on some level anti-science bigots when they complain about NASA or nuclear power or particle accelerators.”

    Anti-science bigotry; that’s a new one on me! I have no opinion at this point as to nuclear energy. It seems like a good idea! As to particle accelerators, there are persistent rumors that the scientists in Switzerland have plans to create a “black hole”. My current thinking is that a “black hole” is a dense cluster of millions or billions of galaxies, each of which is comprised of millions or billions of stars. At one time it was thought that the black hole galaxy clusters were so dense that light could not escape; thus the designation, “black hole”. In fact light clearly does escape, and the black hole is in fact dazzling — like the sun from earth.
    There can’t be and never will be a tiny, man made, black hole.
    The most the scientists in Switzerland can hope for, that might have some application, (although even that is unlikely, unless we pursue time travel) is proof that matter can be created from energy. In theory, at the time of the “big bang” energy was moving at speeds far in excess of the speed of light, and pulsing back and forth from energy to matter to energy.

  • zingzing

    wouldn’t the hadron collider, if it finds the “god particle,” also help us to find a unified field theory? and with that… what couldn’t we do?

  • Actually the loudest and most visible instance of anti-science bigotry is from the religious right: the foolish attempts to discredit evolution as “just a theory” and to put creationism on equal footing with science.

    But leftists can be anti-science too. I had my tongue slightly in cheek when I wrote that last night, but knee-jerk reactions are often of questionable validity.

  • Cannonshop

    #18 All of those require cheap energy to get going, Mark. Unlike, say, Coal that dumps radioactive isotopes straight into the air by the tonne lots, a properly built and engineered fission plant built within a closed-cycle (means you recycle spent fuel instead of dumping it into a leaky hole in the ground on top of an aquifer in geologically unstable areas blessed only by a lack of voters living nearby) is cheap, and that’s your bottom-line, dude.

    Cost per KW hour is lower, your waste is mostly solid and therefore, you can contain it at all, unlike, say, the crap dumped out when you’re burning fossilized hydrocarbons…

    the problem with Solar is simply your volume, combined with the rare earths and expensive, pollution-laden processing needed to build a solar panel. (Hey, you DID realize that there’s waste from that, and pretty nasty waste, including some spectacularly toxic forms of sludge, vapour, and liquid nastiness…)

    Hydrogen requires massive energy inputs, not to mention expensive and unreliable containment structures (you can’t store useful quantities at room temperature, and there’s a reason hydrogen tanks have that little “Explosive” symbol at the welding gas store..)

  • John Lake

    zingzing: The “God Particle” is not a particle at all. This highly overrated concept merely refers to the scientists hope to find a force that hold subatomic particles together. A force in fact similiar to “gravity”, or “magnetism”. In fact without that force there would be no matter. Sometimes I think the scientists are “putting us on”

    Here is a link to my Associated Content article which covers all this new information. New Theories from Hawking, and from the Scientific Community

  • zingzing

    “The “God Particle” is not a particle at all”

    that’s why i put it in quotes. if anything allows us to reconcile our knowledge of physics on micro and macro levels, that’s a good thing.

  • John Wilson

    Handy: “If someone could really make solar power or wind power workable on a large scale, more power to ’em, pun intended. But as an alternative to burning more oil and coal, nukes are rather hard to beat.”

    It’s all a matter of subsidies. The coal/oil companies with a stranglehold on the US government, and having privatized the US Treasury, receive immense subsidies every year, while solar and wind are choked off.

    They bought the politicians, so they call the shots.

  • The only one who’s pushing for solar and wind power, etc. is T. Boone Pickens, as per the following.

  • John Wilson

    I believe that Pickens article is old. In a recent interview Pickens has pulled way back from that position because of the adverse subsidy situation.

    The federal government IS picking losers and winners, and the winners are established monopolies. Thus, a maverick like Pickens is lost.

    We are now in a degenerate period, such as all other empires have faced, with the central government frantically trying to prop up large sunset companies.

    It will lead to calamity. Too bad.

  • Right about that. Don’t know about subsidies, but he had trouble getting investors. And if a guy like Pickens doesn’t have enough pull, we are indeed in bad shape.

    So, why don’t they learn from the fucking history?

  • John Wilson

    They don’t care.

    They have what they need, and damn the others.

  • Cannonshop

    #38 NIMBY, Roger. There are places where the homeowner’s associations would lynch you for putting solar panels on your own roof, or putting up a small wind-mill for your private use, much less allow any large project to “Interfere with the view/ambience/uniformity” of the area.

    Then, there’s the sado-environmentalists who oppose existing hydroelectric structures but have nothing viable to offer as a replacement…and they’ve got political PULL (check out “Snake River Dams” and “Save the Salmon”-the EPA changed the definition of “Endangered Species” to justify breaching five hydroelectric structures a year before California had rolling brown-outs.)

    Most of the blowing/blossoming sunshine about wind-power relies on figures that don’t take into account either weather changes, nor basic mechanical failures and the need to conduct maintenance. Wind requires VAST tracts of land in order to begin to be viable. Minus the ability to control the weather, so does Solar. (and thinking nice thoughts about Mother Erf or Gaia isn’t going to change that.)

    if Pickens can’t find investors, it’s because the investors look at the potential profit vs. costs, including legal, real-estate, and regulatory, and the margins didn’t work out.

  • Well, I don’t join associations whose sole reason for being is protecting their own property.

    There’s got to be more they’d have to offer before I would even consider.

  • Frankly, nuclear power is IMO greener than solar power, if only because of the vast tracts of land required for a serious effort to support solar power.

    Glenn, I’m a big supporter of nuclear as well, but to call it greener than solar power is a bit of a misstatement. Nuclear is really only green in terms of emissions.

    Yes, a viable solar power station would have to cover many square miles – but think of the vast chunks of land that have to be dug up in order to extract uranium for fission. That part of the process most emphatically is not green.

    In contrast, a solar field would be cheap to install and would cause minimal environmental disruption, as the collectors would most likely be placed above ground level, allowing the local flora and fauna free range underneath. When the station had reached the end of its useful life it could be dismantled and removed quickly and easily, leaving the landscape much as it was before. The same can’t be said of a uranium mine.

  • Cannonshop

    #42 Doc, if we bit the bullet and went to a closed-cycle model (and tossed Jimmeh Carter’s executive order halting that in the circular file where it belongs), you don’t have to mine NEARLY as much Uranium for fuel as we do NOW, with no new Plants built for civilian use since the seventies.

  • Dreadful, Cannon.

    Let me refer you both to the following site by Sir Charles Shults.

  • John Wilson

    All the energy required for the USA could be harvested from a square 90 miles on a side located in the Nevada desert. Of course, one wouldn’t do it that way for distribution reasons, but Scientific American followed through on the idea a few years ago and filled out the plan in detail.

    Solar panels PV are made from silicon, the most common compound on earth.

    We should also harvest solar thermal energy, with solar parabolic troughs as well as low-grade heat from parking lots, etc.

    The fossil fuels, coal and oil and gas, are products of ancestral solar activity, and so those fuels are merely storage devices for solar energy.

    Hydrogen can be viewed as a similar storage medium, created by hydrolizing water with excess electricity. Hydrides can store hydrogen at room temperature at higher densities than cryogenic hydrogen.

    But all these things have the deficit of not providing a choke point at which a monopoly can exert it’s dominance, and thus none will be subsidized by our privatized government.

  • Another link

  • Cannonshop

    #45 John, it’s not what the final product’s made out of that’s the problem-it’s the shit you have to do to it to make it a solar panel instead of a flat rock.

  • Cannonshop

    After all, paper’s just wood and water, but paper MILLS are nasty polluters, John.

  • John Lake

    re # 49:
    I tried to translate. It doesn’t appear to be Spanish.

  • John Lake

    In the event you are wondering, the post that was at #49 didn’t appear to be in Spanish, but it linked to a Spanish looking website. Maybe it was Italian. I do speak a little Pigeon Spanish — scrambled eggs, you know — in any case the post was removed.

  • John Lake

    A January 8, 2011, report from Financial Feed has drawn some attention from other media.
    The article uses the terminology “failure to use sufficient centralizers so that the pipe remained in the wells center.”
    This is consistent with earlier reports which I quoted here that the cement required around the entry point in the ocean floor, contracted to be poured by Halliburton, was not poured.
    “the report told the mistakes that brought the spill however, detailed information were given on separate reports or probe. It told the crucial decisions of the companies plus the failure to use sufficient centralizers so that the pipe remained in the well’s center. There were also issues on pipe choices and the non-sharing of test results telling”