Halliburton bought an oil cleanup company 8 days before rig explosion.

[Requia ☣]

I never said anything about engineers.

[Doktor Howl]

I never said anything about engineers.

Oh, okay.  So your opinion is then that concrete workers are qualified to make decisions on oil drilling?

Is that your final answer?   

Or are you contending that companies just walk away from contracts when no clause of that particular contract has been violated (to wit: the concrete pouring, as opposed to engineering support)?

Or perhaps you're saying that the engineers leaving after their suggestions were "declined" or "disagreed with" has no bearing, because 4 concrete workers stuck around for their particular contract?

[Requia ☣]

Ok, so you're contending that Halliburton pulled its engineering teams but not its concrete pourers?

Possible.  Do you have a source for that?

[Doktor Howl]

Ok, so you're contending that Halliburton pulled its engineering teams but not its concrete pourers?

Possible.  Do you have a source for that?

First I want to hear why concrete pourers can make decisions about how drilling is done.

[Requia ☣]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Doktor Howl]

What responsibility for this disaster are you assigning to Halliburton?

[Requia ☣]

Halliburton is probably not responsible at all.  They are suspected of faulty cement pourings (in execution, not design), because they caused a similar blowout off the coast of Australia last year that way.  I specifically didn't bring that up because A) I don't actually know if faulty cement is responsible or not  B) BP hired them even after they fucked up a previous job to catastrophic levels, BP can take the goddamn blame if it actually does turn out to be faulty cement.  C) BP was still responsible for the blowout preventer, and D) It's not my point.

[Doktor Howl]

Halliburton is probably not responsible at all.  They are suspected of faulty cement pourings (in execution, not design), because they caused a similar blowout off the coast of Australia last year that way.  I specifically didn't bring that up because A) I don't actually know if faulty cement is responsible or not  B) BP hired them even after they fucked up a previous job to catastrophic levels, BP can take the goddamn blame if it actually does turn out to be faulty cement.  C) BP was still responsible for the blowout preventer, and D) It's not my point.

Then what, in the context of this thread, was your point?  I mean, other than to be as unpleasant and offensive as possible?

[Requia ☣]

That Halliburton never left the job.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Four guys left to finish a contract (so they aren't in breach, OBVIOUSLY) =/= Halliburton not pulling out. Your logic is nonexistent.

[Requia ☣]

It's not?

So Halliburton was going to stay on the project until BP shut the project down (the contract called for them to pour the cement plug to seal the well with when BP pulled out), but they left the project?

[Triple Zero]

Just going to ignore you from now on, it's best for everyone.

Good move. I'm doing the same thing, it's not worth it.

His pedantry is not even somewhat informative or insightful but instead missing the point or just plain wrong.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's not?

So Halliburton was going to stay on the project until BP shut the project down (the contract called for them to pour the cement plug to seal the well with when BP pulled out), but they left the project?

What part of "breach of contract" and "contract fulfillment" is so hard for you to comprehend? That doesn't mean staying on indefinitely, or signing a new contract. Leaving four guys to cap the well is equivalent to sending a cleanup crew after you move out. It's not equivalent to signing a new lease.

You're so focused on some technical aspect of "being right" that you're willing to make a complete fool of yourself in pursuit of it.

[Doktor Howl]

It's not?

So Halliburton was going to stay on the project until BP shut the project down (the contract called for them to pour the cement plug to seal the well with when BP pulled out), but they left the project?

What part of "breach of contract" and "contract fulfillment" is so hard for you to comprehend? That doesn't mean staying on indefinitely, or signing a new contract. Leaving four guys to cap the well is equivalent to sending a cleanup crew after you move out. It's not equivalent to signing a new lease.

You're so focused on some technical aspect of "being right" that you're willing to make a complete fool of yourself in pursuit of it.

I've never understood what drives people to do that.  Me, I drop my pance and ROLL in my mistakes.

[Requia ☣]

It's not?

So Halliburton was going to stay on the project until BP shut the project down (the contract called for them to pour the cement plug to seal the well with when BP pulled out), but they left the project?

What part of "breach of contract" and "contract fulfillment" is so hard for you to comprehend? That doesn't mean staying on indefinitely, or signing a new contract. Leaving four guys to cap the well is equivalent to sending a cleanup crew after you move out. It's not equivalent to signing a new lease.

You're so focused on some technical aspect of "being right" that you're willing to make a complete fool of yourself in pursuit of it.

Out of curiosity, do you have any sources, or are you just assuming that Roger is correct even though he can't tell us where he got the information?