http://inspiredeconomist.com/2010/06/17/why-did-halliburton-buy-an-oil-cleanup-company-8-days-before-the-oil-spill/ (http://inspiredeconomist.com/2010/06/17/why-did-halliburton-buy-an-oil-cleanup-company-8-days-before-the-oil-spill/)
QuoteThere are innumerable of bits of information floating around in the battle over the narrative of this national disaster. This one is particularly disturbing. From AOL's Daily Finance just over a week before the spill:
"...the days of independence have come to an end for Boots & Coots as the company has agreed to sell out to Halliburton (HAL) for $240.4 million."
M&A in the industrial and oil services sectors is totally normal, but the timing in this case, is not. Boots & Coots sure seems like the perfect company to own if it would soon become necessary to get more involved with some oil disaster (emphasis mine):
I'm not one for the tinfoil hat emoticon but :tinfoilhat:
:lulz: that is a great piece of information, whether it's real or not
it tells a piece of why haliburton doesn't want to contribute any money to cleanup
and hoo wow if it doesn't make them look like a bunch of dick cheneys
Who do you think trained Dick Cheney?
...I was gonna SAY...thought Haliburton were his cronies from yesteryear?
Conspiracy is the hawts.
Quote from: Charley Brown on June 18, 2010, 01:09:31 AM
Conspiracy is the hawts.
What conspiracy? Halliburton walked off the Deepwater Horizon job, citing it as a bomb waiting to go off.
If I were them, I'd have bought a clean up company, too. It's just good business sense.
There were four Halliburton employees on the rig when it blew (according to Halliburton, not sure how much that's worth), so they never walked.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 18, 2010, 03:33:57 AM
There were four Halliburton employees on the rig when it blew (according to Halliburton, not sure how much that's worth), so they never walked.
:rimshot:
Quote from: Charley Brown on June 18, 2010, 01:09:31 AM
Conspiracy is the hawts.
Aw, but looky what I found:
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html
Quote1995
Without any previous business experience, Cheney leaves the Department of Defense to become the CEO of Halliburton Co., one of the biggest oil-services companies in the world. He will be chairman of the company from 1996 to October 1998 and from February to August 2000. Under Cheney's leadership, Halliburton moves up from 73rd to 18th on the Pentagon's list of top contractors. The company garners $2.3 billion in U.S. government contracts, which almost doubles the $1.2 billion it earned from the government previously. Most of the contracts are granted by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
...and that's just a small bit. The rest is ever-so-delish.
I sorta stopped thinking this was all tinfoilhatshit when Cain started kicking down some SRS linkage on this sort of thing way back in the day. I used to be all, "aw, hogwash, it's all smoke n mirrors made to look substantial" and now I'm more like, "Dude, don't blink, you'll miss the 'show' the government wants you to see so you don't see the guy whizzing around behind the curtain."
In THIS scenario: Haliburton is the Great Oz, Cheney = the wizard.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 18, 2010, 03:33:57 AM
There were four Halliburton employees on the rig when it blew (according to Halliburton, not sure how much that's worth), so they never walked.
How many were the core engineering crew that started there, you pedantic asswipe? Why do you do this shit? You have a compulsive need to correct everything anyone says, and you're ALWAYS FUCKING WRONG, Ms "Reuters is full of shit". How about BP not buying congressmen? How's that one working out for you? For fuck's sake. Stop trying to show how fucking clever you are, and how you're an expert on every goddamn subject. Do you have ANY FUCKING IDEA how annoying that is, and how much of a fucking UNFUNNY JOKE it turns you into?
Goddammit.
Okay, don't know why I let you get me mad. It's not like you don't do this every day.
Just going to ignore you from now on, it's best for everyone.
How many is Halliburton supposed to keep on hand between jobs? They were there to pour cement, the only thing left to do was pour the cap for the well when they shut it down, you don't keep the whole team on hand for a job that hasn't started yet.
Fuck off or cite your sources.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 18, 2010, 07:31:11 PM
Fuck off or cite your sources.
Why? You didn't.
"Reuters is full of shit." :lulz:
I did cite my source, Halliburton (specifically their testimony before congress).
I'll ad to this, while Halliburton completed the jobs up to the point several BP internal emails reveal that Halliburton was also pressuring BP to use better designs and parts, which BP rejected. source (http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/bp_engineers_testimony_contrad.html)
So yes, Halliburton had every reason to expect that well to blow, even if they never stopped working the job.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 18, 2010, 08:02:07 PM
I did cite my source, Halliburton (specifically their testimony before congress).
I'll ad to this, while Halliburton completed the jobs up to the point several BP internal emails reveal that Halliburton was also pressuring BP to use better designs and parts, which BP rejected. source (http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/bp_engineers_testimony_contrad.html)
So yes, Halliburton had every reason to expect that well to blow, even if they never stopped working the job.
So, it is your position that 4 guys pouring concrete plugs under contract = an engineering team?
Because, yes, engineers are trained to pour concrete, and companies are willing to pay engineers to do so.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Do go on. I am all ears.
I never said anything about engineers.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 18, 2010, 08:04:59 PM
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? :lulz:
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?
Ok, so you're contending that Halliburton pulled its engineering teams but not its concrete pourers?
Possible. Do you have a source for that?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 18, 2010, 08:17:21 PM
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.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
What responsibility for this disaster are you assigning to Halliburton?
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.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 18, 2010, 08:41:59 PM
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?
That Halliburton never left the job.
Four guys left to finish a contract (so they aren't in breach, OBVIOUSLY) =/= Halliburton not pulling out. Your logic is nonexistent.
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?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 18, 2010, 06:48:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 18, 2010, 08:59:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Nigel on June 18, 2010, 11:09:42 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 18, 2010, 08:59:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Nigel on June 18, 2010, 11:09:42 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 18, 2010, 08:59:30 PM
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?
Requia, you are discounting the fact that FOUR men were left there to basically cover Halliburton's ASS, not work a solution to potential disaster they were/were not gearing up for (this last part of my sentence is what this OP is about, btw).
I'm intrigued as to why you are engaged in so much BP and Halliburton apologetics since this went down, btw. I'm sure you know already that this is a fucked up stance and esp on PD you'll get shot down pretty much right off the mark unless you have impeccable logic and infallible sources.
So DO tell: how is leaving a skeleton crew of 4 men to avert and help stave off this type of disaster, meanwhile buying cleanup equipment, show that Halliburton acted with the correct amount of moral and ethical business acumen?
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 06:56:04 PM
Requia, you are discounting the fact that FOUR men were left there to basically cover Halliburton's ASS, not work a solution to potential disaster they were/were not gearing up for (this last part of my sentence is what this OP is about, btw).
I'm intrigued as to why you are engaged in so much BP and Halliburton apologetics since this went down, btw. I'm sure you know already that this is a fucked up stance and esp on PD you'll get shot down pretty much right off the mark unless you have impeccable logic and infallible sources.
So DO tell: how is leaving a skeleton crew of 4 men to avert and help stave off this type of disaster, meanwhile buying cleanup equipment, show that Halliburton acted with the correct amount of moral and ethical business acumen?
Requia isn't trying to defend either company, as far as I can tell. She's trying to defend the fact that she's an expert on every topic, and will argue from now til the end of time to avoid being seen as admitting an error.
I stopped wasting time on her the other day...I can get behavior like that anywhere.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 20, 2010, 07:00:59 PM
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 06:56:04 PM
Requia, you are discounting the fact that FOUR men were left there to basically cover Halliburton's ASS, not work a solution to potential disaster they were/were not gearing up for (this last part of my sentence is what this OP is about, btw).
I'm intrigued as to why you are engaged in so much BP and Halliburton apologetics since this went down, btw. I'm sure you know already that this is a fucked up stance and esp on PD you'll get shot down pretty much right off the mark unless you have impeccable logic and infallible sources.
So DO tell: how is leaving a skeleton crew of 4 men to avert and help stave off this type of disaster, meanwhile buying cleanup equipment, show that Halliburton acted with the correct amount of moral and ethical business acumen?
Requia isn't trying to defend either company, as far as I can tell. She's trying to defend the fact that she's an expert on every topic, and will argue from now til the end of time to avoid being seen as admitting an error.
I stopped wasting time on her the other day...I can get behavior like that anywhere.
:lol: I know. But I am curious as to why she's so invested in backing Halliburton, Satan's Own Spawn, and BP on this whole thing.
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 07:24:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 20, 2010, 07:00:59 PM
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 06:56:04 PM
Requia, you are discounting the fact that FOUR men were left there to basically cover Halliburton's ASS, not work a solution to potential disaster they were/were not gearing up for (this last part of my sentence is what this OP is about, btw).
I'm intrigued as to why you are engaged in so much BP and Halliburton apologetics since this went down, btw. I'm sure you know already that this is a fucked up stance and esp on PD you'll get shot down pretty much right off the mark unless you have impeccable logic and infallible sources.
So DO tell: how is leaving a skeleton crew of 4 men to avert and help stave off this type of disaster, meanwhile buying cleanup equipment, show that Halliburton acted with the correct amount of moral and ethical business acumen?
Requia isn't trying to defend either company, as far as I can tell. She's trying to defend the fact that she's an expert on every topic, and will argue from now til the end of time to avoid being seen as admitting an error.
I stopped wasting time on her the other day...I can get behavior like that anywhere.
:lol: I know. But I am curious as to why she's so invested in backing Halliburton, Satan's Own Spawn, and BP on this whole thing.
I feel dirty for saying it, but Halliburton seems to have been doing all the right things...With the exception of blowing the whistle.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 20, 2010, 07:27:12 PM
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 07:24:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 20, 2010, 07:00:59 PM
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 06:56:04 PM
Requia, you are discounting the fact that FOUR men were left there to basically cover Halliburton's ASS, not work a solution to potential disaster they were/were not gearing up for (this last part of my sentence is what this OP is about, btw).
I'm intrigued as to why you are engaged in so much BP and Halliburton apologetics since this went down, btw. I'm sure you know already that this is a fucked up stance and esp on PD you'll get shot down pretty much right off the mark unless you have impeccable logic and infallible sources.
So DO tell: how is leaving a skeleton crew of 4 men to avert and help stave off this type of disaster, meanwhile buying cleanup equipment, show that Halliburton acted with the correct amount of moral and ethical business acumen?
Requia isn't trying to defend either company, as far as I can tell. She's trying to defend the fact that she's an expert on every topic, and will argue from now til the end of time to avoid being seen as admitting an error.
I stopped wasting time on her the other day...I can get behavior like that anywhere.
:lol: I know. But I am curious as to why she's so invested in backing Halliburton, Satan's Own Spawn, and BP on this whole thing.
I feel dirty for saying it, but Halliburton seems to have been doing all the right things...With the exception of blowing the whistle.
...so by that logic, they DIDN'T do all the right things. Heh heh. And one has to wonder WHY blowing the whistle, which could have saved all this mess from happening, was something they would not or could not do...?
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 07:28:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 20, 2010, 07:27:12 PM
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 07:24:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 20, 2010, 07:00:59 PM
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 06:56:04 PM
Requia, you are discounting the fact that FOUR men were left there to basically cover Halliburton's ASS, not work a solution to potential disaster they were/were not gearing up for (this last part of my sentence is what this OP is about, btw).
I'm intrigued as to why you are engaged in so much BP and Halliburton apologetics since this went down, btw. I'm sure you know already that this is a fucked up stance and esp on PD you'll get shot down pretty much right off the mark unless you have impeccable logic and infallible sources.
So DO tell: how is leaving a skeleton crew of 4 men to avert and help stave off this type of disaster, meanwhile buying cleanup equipment, show that Halliburton acted with the correct amount of moral and ethical business acumen?
Requia isn't trying to defend either company, as far as I can tell. She's trying to defend the fact that she's an expert on every topic, and will argue from now til the end of time to avoid being seen as admitting an error.
I stopped wasting time on her the other day...I can get behavior like that anywhere.
:lol: I know. But I am curious as to why she's so invested in backing Halliburton, Satan's Own Spawn, and BP on this whole thing.
I feel dirty for saying it, but Halliburton seems to have been doing all the right things...With the exception of blowing the whistle.
...so by that logic, they DIDN'T do all the right things. Heh heh. And one has to wonder WHY blowing the whistle, which could have saved all this mess from happening, was something they would not or could not do...?
Glass houses and casting stones, or something along those lines.
...I rather think it's more like "market share" in cleanup operations...
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 07:28:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 20, 2010, 07:27:12 PM
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 07:24:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 20, 2010, 07:00:59 PM
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 06:56:04 PM
Requia, you are discounting the fact that FOUR men were left there to basically cover Halliburton's ASS, not work a solution to potential disaster they were/were not gearing up for (this last part of my sentence is what this OP is about, btw).
I'm intrigued as to why you are engaged in so much BP and Halliburton apologetics since this went down, btw. I'm sure you know already that this is a fucked up stance and esp on PD you'll get shot down pretty much right off the mark unless you have impeccable logic and infallible sources.
So DO tell: how is leaving a skeleton crew of 4 men to avert and help stave off this type of disaster, meanwhile buying cleanup equipment, show that Halliburton acted with the correct amount of moral and ethical business acumen?
Requia isn't trying to defend either company, as far as I can tell. She's trying to defend the fact that she's an expert on every topic, and will argue from now til the end of time to avoid being seen as admitting an error.
I stopped wasting time on her the other day...I can get behavior like that anywhere.
:lol: I know. But I am curious as to why she's so invested in backing Halliburton, Satan's Own Spawn, and BP on this whole thing.
I feel dirty for saying it, but Halliburton seems to have been doing all the right things...With the exception of blowing the whistle.
...so by that logic, they DIDN'T do all the right things. Heh heh. And one has to wonder WHY blowing the whistle, which could have saved all this mess from happening, was something they would not or could not do...?
Because had they blown the whistle, and a disaster had not happened, they'd never get another oil field contract again.
It's money, Jenne. What did you expect?
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 07:34:04 PM
...I rather think it's more like "market share" in cleanup operations...
Profit margin is too low, compared to their other projects.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 20, 2010, 07:35:19 PM
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 07:34:04 PM
...I rather think it's more like "market share" in cleanup operations...
Profit margin is too low, compared to their other projects.
I had no idea in what that would entail, though I know there's going to be some SERIOUS Federal money and BP money being kicked in that direction...
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 20, 2010, 07:34:24 PM
Because had they blown the whistle, and a disaster had not happened, they'd never get another oil field contract again.
It's money, Jenne. What did you expect?
Exactly what you said above! ;)
Latest news is that half of the spill by weight is methane, which is stripping all the oxygen out of the water. Needless to say, everything in that area of the ocean is being killed off at nearly 100% efficiency (if not 100%). Bear in mind also that methane is a far more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide by an order of magnitude or two.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 20, 2010, 07:56:51 PM
Latest news is that half of the spill by weight is methane, which is stripping all the oxygen out of the water. Needless to say, everything in that area of the ocean is being killed off at nearly 100% efficiency (if not 100%). Bear in mind also that methane is a far more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide by an order of magnitude or two.
Aw fuck, methane? BY WEIGHT? that entire area is fucked.
Quote from: Regret on June 20, 2010, 08:04:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 20, 2010, 07:56:51 PM
Latest news is that half of the spill by weight is methane, which is stripping all the oxygen out of the water. Needless to say, everything in that area of the ocean is being killed off at nearly 100% efficiency (if not 100%). Bear in mind also that methane is a far more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide by an order of magnitude or two.
Aw fuck, methane? BY WEIGHT? that entire area is fucked.
The area?
We accidentally in your atmosphere.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 20, 2010, 07:00:59 PM
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 06:56:04 PM
Requia, you are discounting the fact that FOUR men were left there to basically cover Halliburton's ASS, not work a solution to potential disaster they were/were not gearing up for (this last part of my sentence is what this OP is about, btw).
I'm intrigued as to why you are engaged in so much BP and Halliburton apologetics since this went down, btw. I'm sure you know already that this is a fucked up stance and esp on PD you'll get shot down pretty much right off the mark unless you have impeccable logic and infallible sources.
So DO tell: how is leaving a skeleton crew of 4 men to avert and help stave off this type of disaster, meanwhile buying cleanup equipment, show that Halliburton acted with the correct amount of moral and ethical business acumen?
Requia isn't trying to defend either company, as far as I can tell. She's trying to defend the fact that she's an expert on every topic, and will argue from now til the end of time to avoid being seen as admitting an error.
I stopped wasting time on her the other day...I can get behavior like that anywhere.
All I ever said was that
BP Halliburton didn't leave the job.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 20, 2010, 07:56:51 PM
Latest news is that half of the spill by weight is methane, which is stripping all the oxygen out of the water. Needless to say, everything in that area of the ocean is being killed off at nearly 100% efficiency (if not 100%). Bear in mind also that methane is a far more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide by an order of magnitude or two.
WE'RE FUCKED FOREVER!!! :x
And so the world ends; not with a bang, but with a gasping wheeze...
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 20, 2010, 10:34:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 20, 2010, 07:00:59 PM
Quote from: Jenne on June 20, 2010, 06:56:04 PM
Requia, you are discounting the fact that FOUR men were left there to basically cover Halliburton's ASS, not work a solution to potential disaster they were/were not gearing up for (this last part of my sentence is what this OP is about, btw).
I'm intrigued as to why you are engaged in so much BP and Halliburton apologetics since this went down, btw. I'm sure you know already that this is a fucked up stance and esp on PD you'll get shot down pretty much right off the mark unless you have impeccable logic and infallible sources.
So DO tell: how is leaving a skeleton crew of 4 men to avert and help stave off this type of disaster, meanwhile buying cleanup equipment, show that Halliburton acted with the correct amount of moral and ethical business acumen?
Requia isn't trying to defend either company, as far as I can tell. She's trying to defend the fact that she's an expert on every topic, and will argue from now til the end of time to avoid being seen as admitting an error.
I stopped wasting time on her the other day...I can get behavior like that anywhere.
All I ever said was that BP Halliburton didn't leave the job.
Did you read the articles about how BP went directly against Halliburton's advice, and Halliburton's response to it? No wonder they bought an oil cleanup company... they had to know that what BP was doing was bound to end disastrously, because they flat-out told BP as much. I mean, come on. Doc said "walked off", which I interpreted as "chose not to continue in their advisory capacity due to risk" and which you apparently interpreted as "broke contract".
Halliburton should have blown the whistle on BP's activities... but didn't. It's hard to say why, but it certainly doesn't look good for them.
You mean like this?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 18, 2010, 08:02:07 PM
I'll ad to this, while Halliburton completed the jobs up to the point several BP internal emails reveal that Halliburton was also pressuring BP to use better designs and parts, which BP rejected. source (http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/bp_engineers_testimony_contrad.html)
Again, what source do you have that Halliburton left the job, or wanted to leave the job?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 23, 2010, 10:00:10 PM
You mean like this?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 18, 2010, 08:02:07 PM
I'll ad to this, while Halliburton completed the jobs up to the point several BP internal emails reveal that Halliburton was also pressuring BP to use better designs and parts, which BP rejected. source (http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/bp_engineers_testimony_contrad.html)
Again, what source do you have that Halliburton left the job, or wanted to leave the job?
You seem to be stating that Halliburton was continuing work on that well past the cementing job they were contracted to do. There is no evidence whatsoever for that.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/bp-emails-show-disregard-for-nightmare-well.html
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/gulf-oil-spill-testimony-executives-bp-transocean-halliburton-2615749.html
http://djd.newsvine.com/_news/2010/06/15/4513779-what-was-halliburtons-role-in-us-oil-spill-
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19762
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/company-news-story.aspx?storyid=201006150955dowjonesdjonline000263&title=exxon-to-distance-itself-from-bp-shell-to-cite-renewable-efforts-at-hearing
http://www.divorcesaloon.com/bp-stock-plummets-the-obama-administration-gets-a-unilateral-divorce-and-haliburton-pivots-when-the-marriage-of-equals-ends-with-a-divorce-of-unequals
http://www.luimbe.com/2010/06/15/how-many-corners-did-bp-cut/
It's pretty clear that, beyond finishing the contracted capping, Halliburton was seeking no further engagement with that job.
Why would Halliburton seek more contracts on a well that was scheduled to be shut down?
Reading your articles before I say more.
Ok, I have read all of them. A couple of them are a fair bit better than the one I linked above, but seem to say the same general thing as the one I linked. Halliburton wanted to do a quality job, but BP refused.
None of them say anything about Halliburton leaving the project, or that they wanted to leave the project but couldn't for contractual reasons. Nothing mentions anything about Halliburton's plans prior to the disaster. The only thing close is the one with the divorce headline, but that's about post disaster actions and the stock price.
It's entirely possible I missed something, if so please point it out.
Whatever; you're right, Requia. Always, especially when you correct people for no apparent reason.
I'm quite frequently wrong. I may be wrong now, but unless Roger decides to grace me with the source of his information, I cannot know.
I consider a Roger a primary source on this particular matter because of his employer, and also because of his employer I do not expect him to cite sources, for incredibly obvious reasons.
If his source is someone who was involved with the project I would accept that, I don't need to know who.