This article confuses me.

[McGrupp]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/26/2359231/halliburton-agrees-to-plead-guilty-to-destruction-of-evidence-in-2010-bp-spill-pay-maximum-fine/

This is making the rounds on fb.

On Thursday, the Department of Justice announced that Halliburton had agreed to plead guilty to criminally destroying evidence in the investigation of the BP Gulf oil spill in 2010. The company "signed a cooperation and guilty plea agreement," will pay the maximum fine of $200,000, and undergo three years of probation. It also had already made a $55 million voluntary contribution to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

It seems to revolve around the use of 6 rather than 21 centralizers. According to this Haliburton recommended 21 but BP went with 6.

However the evidence they are accused of destroying is that 21 vs 6 was irrelevent.

That same month, Halliburton did some sophisticated 3D simluations of the final cementing job, using 6 and then 21 centralizers. The simulations, however, showed that there was little difference between the two scenarios, suggesting that Halliburton's recommendation to BP that the well should have 21 centralizers instead of 6 was irrelevant. The Senior Program Manager who conducted the simulations was directed to destroy the results. The same simulations were run a month later, and again the person who conducted the simulation was directed to "get rid" of the results.

If this is the case then the evidence they withheld did not contribute to the disaster. So, why did they destroy the simulations? Was it just to try to sell BP 21 centralizers instead of 6. If so, then they are guilty of destroying the information but not of causing the disaster since the simulation they destroyed stated it would have made no difference, not to mention the fact that they recommended 21 instead of the 6 BP went with.

If I'm reading this correctly then all the people in the comments or on fb who seem to think that this article is proof of Haliburton helping to cause the oil rig crisis haven't actually read the darn thing. I hate defending Haliburton, but people are assigning blame to Haliburton for the BP oil spill when this article does not support that.

They're certainly guilty of something but not what people are saying, which is probably why it was a low fine. But I could be missing something.

edit: I just went to 5 or 6 other articles about this. They all give the same information. None of them state why or if 21 versus 6 centralizers would have made a difference. None explain why the coverup was bad.
All any of the state is essentially: 

Haliburton lied about something pertaining to the rig explosion. Rig explosion was bad.

[East Coast Hustle]

The reality is that nobody was culpable for Deepwater Horizon. It was a black swan. But we always need SOMEBODY to blame and Halliburton makes a great villain.

[Doktor Howl]

The reality is that nobody was culpable for Deepwater Horizon. It was a black swan. But we always need SOMEBODY to blame and Halliburton makes a great villain.

Actually, there were several failures, and several responsibilities.  The emergency shut off valves at the wellhead had not even been wired up.

[McGrupp]

The reality is that nobody was culpable for Deepwater Horizon. It was a black swan. But we always need SOMEBODY to blame and Halliburton makes a great villain.

Actually, there were several failures, and several responsibilities.  The emergency shut off valves at the wellhead had not even been wired up.

My limited understanding of the event is the same. There were several things people screwed up and should be responsible for. Maybe even Haliburton is one of them, but not based on the evidence in this particular coverup case.

I know I shouldn't be shocked that the media did a lousy job or that people kneejerked reaction to it but I still am. It strikes me as an excellent example of what Dok was talking about here: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,35058.0.html

Haliburton coverup. Oil rig explosion. That means Haliburton BAD! Research done.

No need to take into account that none of the articles explains (or even asks the question) of what one had to do with other.

Also I'm pissed off that I find myself defending Haliburton.