Slashdot Mirror
Hallibuton Pleads Guilty To Destroying Simulation Data From 2010 Gulf Oil Spill
An anonymous reader writes "Oilfield services giant Halliburton will plead guilty to destroying computer test results that had been sought as evidence in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Justice Department announced Thursday. Company officials threw out test results that showed 'little difference' between the number of devices Halliburton said was needed to center the cement casing in the well at the heart of the disaster and the number well owner BP installed, according to court papers. The issue has been key point of contention between the two companies in hearings and litigation ever since the April 2010 blowout. BP and Halliburton are still battling over responsibility for the disaster in a New Orleans federal courtroom. BP had no comment on the plea agreement Thursday evening."
from TFA:
They 'took a deal' in the parlance of the criminal justice world.
I'm wondering what else is out there. Also in TFA I read that BP was 'convicted' of Manslaughter for its role.
These companies don't 'take deals' unless it is the absolute last option. They will deny and tie up litigation for 10 years until everyone forgets. They will buy judges and prosecutors. They will hire thugs to find dirt on opponents, or make dirt if none exists.
Given their history, the fact that Halliburton, BP, etc took these deals indicates they could be covering for a much larger level of negligence...
In my wildest conspiracy theories, the English Monarchy and other old money global illuminati types (Bush's?) purposefully had the well blown to punish America for stopping Keystone XL.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Some are useful.
Disclaimer: I do DES for a living,
I know it is early, but posting before coffee is irresponsible (I just had to use the spell-checker myself).
Cutesy, but the Gulf oil spill was 100% man made. Climate change is man made.
We're at a point in development where we know just enough to be dangerous. And we have a huge industry that's used to f*** up the planet at the whims of clueless and greedy economists.
The nature is big and resilient but not infinitely so. And when the shit starts hitting the fan the poor people who're least responsible for it bear the brunt of the burder, as always. Millions and millions will die thanks to the actions of the 1%.
"Under the plea agreement, which requires court approval, Houston-based Halliburton will also face three years' probation, pay the maximum fine of $200,000..."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/25/halliburton-guilty-plea-destroying-evidence-deepwater-horizon/2588105/
Not too bad... I think they may be able to afford it.
I thought Cheney owned Halliburton.
Cha ka ka.
Did they throw out the simulation code as well?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If I pour crude oil into the ocean, destroy the livelyhoods of fishing communities and kill a few of people on an oil platform in a gas fire (and destroy some evidence), I'll get a couple of hundred $k fine. If I buy a gun and go out and shoot the same number of people (and survive the manhunt) I'll get the rest of my life being a jailhouse bitch. Now, I wonder which I would choose?? Haliburton, do you have any vacancies???
Editor. I do not think that word means what you think it means...
Companies should have minimum fines/panalties defined as percentages of their net worth.
Cheney that is . You know the guy who shot somebody in the face to shut him up .
Title says "Hallibuton" (no 'r'), article says "Halliburton" (correct spelling).
Halliburton perpetrates huge fraud on the government (in billions) and nothing is ever done.
They defraud another corporation, they're in trouble.
You see the pattern here? madoff is only in jail because he defrauded other rich people.
Dancing on invisible strings? Our politicians must be geniuses as they rarely fall down.
"We're not admitting our obvious, willful, and blatant guilt, we're just settling to save our precious shareholders from all those nasty legal fees!"
BULLSHIT
This is like the tobacco companies when they all lied about cancer. Seems like there could be a rift happening sooner or later. The tipping point seems to be coming in the next couple years (and by couple I mean anywhere up to 30)
"Climate change is man made."
Sooooooo...., the climate didn't change on earth before man appeared here. REALLY?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE
Don't be an idiot. Of course it did. For many reasons, not one single factor. What's of concern is that there's a new player at the table: human activity. And whether it's altering climate fast enough to damage human life. And possibly render species extinct at a rate not seen in 65 million years.
"We're at a point in development where we know just enough to be dangerous."
So you're saying that there are clueless and greedy economists involved in Industry, but that their are none in Climate Science?
Or, putting it a different way, Climate Scientists are not included in the above general statement, however commercial scientists are?
I agree 100% with the above statement. And I am confident in applying it across the board. That fact has ramifications.
Another sweetheart deal for a company which caused tens of billions in damages. This kind of stuff isn't going to stop until we either start arresting CEO's and employees and charging them with crimes, or enacting the corporate equivalent of a death sentence, confiscating their funds & property and putting it on the auction block when they are caught committing crimes or are responsible of gross negligence resulting in injury, death or economic loss.
"-1: troll" right. Slashdot should really up the frequency of meta-moderation specifically for -1 mods and strip assholes who abuse it too much of any future mod points.
What's of concern is that there's a new player at the table: human activity.
Ok, so it's a "concern". I imagine some future historians will be interested in all the word games and rationalizations that pro-AGW advocates have used over the years.
And whether it's altering climate fast enough to damage human life. And possibly render species extinct at a rate not seen in 65 million years.
Let's note two things. First, there are basic behavior and structural changes that can be made right now which would greatly mitigate the alleged effects of AGW, even if we never do anything about AGW itself. For example, if the US stops subsidizing the construction of property in flood-prone areas via public flood insurance. Or if we connect natural areas with wilderness corridors (and otherwise worked on reducing habitat destruction) so that plants and animals have means to migrate and adapt to whatever future changes happen.
Second, when we compare measurements of modern extinction rates to prehistorical mass extinctions, we're comparing apples and oranges. The vast majority of modern species have limited scope spatially and temporally. If they had existed during the end of the Cretaceous, they probably would never have left a fossil record. We see far more of the species that exist in the world now than if we were to look only at the fossil record 65 million years from now.
So when discussing extinction rates and percentages, we need to remember that relatively common and long lasting species with durable body parts would be most likely to be present in the fossil record. The frog that appears around a single waterfall or stream or the bird that nests only on a particular island would most likely be lost forever. So those mass extinctions of the past were of organisms that were typically more prevalent and long lasting than most of the species we see around us today. The mass extinctions of the past are worse than they appear, because we will never know of most of the species that existed back then.
Further, we need to recall that most of the die-off of large animals, a traditional feature of mass extinctions, has already happened. A lot of species present 20,000 years ago have since died out or dwindled greatly in population. That may have had something to do with the global warming following the end of the glacial period, but it more likely had to do with overhunting by humans. And it's a fait accompli. Even a complete reversal of the effects of human activity (not just of AGW effects) won't bring back many of those species.
Sooooooo...., the climate didn't change on earth before man appeared here. REALLY?
Sooooooo......, you're a climate scientist who has spent a substantial part of their life studying the effects that man made atmospheric pollution have on the Earth's climate? No? Then forgive me if I ignore everything you say, and instead listen to people who are qualified to talk on this subject.
News for ya asshole...neither are you.
All the arguing that goes on here about AGW is nothing more that a bunch of stupid Face Painting Homers shouting that their team is smarter and better. That includes you.
Greedy economists?
I'm trying to figure out for the life of me how an economist profits off of this one. All they really do is observe and model how the economy works, without necessarily partaking in it as part of their job title.
And the actions of the 1%, who is the 1%? The richest 1%? That includes people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet right, the same people who dump billions into trying to solve world hunger, ending diseases, and researching next generation green energy?
Or are you talking about 1% of the global wealthiest? Because if you make more than $40,000 per year, then you are that 1%. And why 1%? Why not the top 3.14159%?
I love how slashdot randomly attacks groups that it perceives as being powerful for no reason other than the fact that it perceives them as being powerful, doesn't matter if they actually did anything wrong.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
TYPO IN HEADLINE (NT)
My suspicious streak wonders if Anonymous Reader works in the BP PR department.
Ok, we're bringing up Halliburton, which is seen by some as the gold standard in corporate evil, but let's remember that it's BP (AKA Broke Pipeline Inc) that's the plaintiff in this case and are trying to shift the responsibility to Halliburton.
Given the stopping of preventive maintenance and replacing of experienced workers with cheaper ones that BP was widely known for, this is a bit of Pot Kettle Black.
Halliburton hasn't been tagged yet with overall responsibility for the spill as some headlines have claimed, but for destroying computer simulations done before the lawsuits started. That's bad, but it's not some get out of jail free card for BP. There's plenty of responsibility left to go around, and BP was the final word on that rig, not the contractors.
(Full disclosure: My brother worked for Arco before BP bought it. His division was spun off, but he heard quite a good deal about the bone stripping cost cutting that BP did after they bought it. That impacted repeated pipeline spills in Alaska and likely the Deepwater Horizon).
Millions and millions will die thanks to the actions of the 1%.
...and best of all, NO ONE IS GOING TO JAIL over this!
These "super-people" corporations are immune from criminal prosecution. I am so going to incorporate myself and start robbing banks.
(Note to NSA: this is a joke you witless bastards)
News for ya asshole...neither are you.
All the arguing that goes on here about AGW is nothing more that a bunch of stupid Face Painting Homers shouting that their team is smarter and better. That includes you.
You are and idiot :)
Soooo.... Climate change occurred for the exact same reason and only that reason every time it has happened in the past x billion years on the planet?
Insightful?! Is Slashdot selling modpoints to Halliburton and BP or something?
TrollScore(tm): 2/10
I'm sure there are some climate scientists whoring out their formerly good name to your comercial masters.
Your entire post can be summed up in one word:
rationalization.
The consensus among scientists is that climate change is real and man has contributed significantly to it.
The arguing around here is about whether to believe them or not and whether we need regulations in place to help the situation.
People only say "The 1%" because it's easier to say than what it really is, which is closer to the 0.001%, but the concept is not difficult to grasp. The vast majority of wealth and power is concentrated in very few hands.
But somehow, even this simple concept seems to have gone over your head, and you think that it makes sense to lump someone making $40k/year (in the US, I assume) into the same group as someone making tens of millions per year. At this point I'm going to assume that your feigned ignorance is either real ignorance or, quite possibly, stupidity.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Yes, I wish the debate could get past who and what is causing it and move on to how to mitigate or reduce it. Course we've wasted so much time now. We had an opportunity to provide a good example to developing nations but instead we're providing a bad example and surprirse, their environments are complete crap. Look at what China had to do to get the air quality up for the Olympics.
It''s baffling that the argument is still whether we are affecting nature when there are examples you can actually see all over the world. Seems like some people aren't happy unless the lakes are catching on fire AGAIN. Help nature and you help yourself. We don't need to live in mud huts but we have plenty of room to be more sensible.
The consensus among many scientists is that climate change is real and man has contributed significantly to it.
The consensus among other scientists is that climate change is real but not enough is known to blame any one thing.
The consensus among yet other scientists is that climate change is on hold for reasons no one understands.
There, Fixed and improved.
Very credible scientists have different views on this. Only the Face Painting Homers have one view.
... really?
You know, your revised figure still includes basically all of the major contributors to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
Of course, if you want to argue that all of them are secretly plotting to take over the world and/or ruin your life somehow, be my guest, but that view had no basis in reality. Unless of course you believe that vaccines, GMO, and nuclear energy are all plots to oppress the poor, and if so I truly pity how miserable you must needlessly make yourself feel every day.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Like banks, oil companies are too big to jail. Minions just don't jail their masters.
These companies don't 'take deals' unless it is the absolute last option.
Not true. A quick settlement is often far cheaper than drawn-out litigation for which a company must pay a legal team thousands of dollars per hour. This happens in lawsuits all the time, with corporations, government entities, and individuals. Patent trolls and bringers of nuisance lawsuits depend on this behavior.
I don't have an opinion about this case, but just wanted to say that it's a bad idea to assume "it was cheaper to settle quickly" is evidence of guilt.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
But the NSA won't read your comment, cause they only track the metadata. And everyone knows metadata can never be changed.
21st Century Renaissance Man
People die even if I don't kill them. So it must be okay for me to kill them. Great logic.
Your entire post can be summed up in one word:
Projection.
To make an extremely accurate analogy of what you just said:
The consensus among many scientists is that light travels through a vacuum at C.
The consensus among other scientists is that light travels through luminiferous aether.
The consensus among yet other scientists is that the world is flat and rests of the back of an infinite series of giant turtles.
In order, there's Most Likely Correct, Already Disproven, and Not Even Wrong.
You're missing potentialities and it causes you to focus too narrowly on a few outcomes.
It *could* be cheaper to settle quickly...for alot of reasons...but not in this case...
Ex: It could be cheaper to settle quickly because it gets it out of the news (hopefully on a good note) quickly which has a discernable effect on the ammount of awards from juries in civil cases.
I don't agree, but that's a falsification of my position that shows a broader view of outcomes.
See, the Civil lawsuits have just begun.
Pleading guilty now actually *hurts* BP and Halliburton because when Joe's shrimp boat company, or homeowners with destroyed beaches, or even municipalities file Civil lawsuits the facts of the charges (maybe not the plea of guilt, but the finding of fact of actions) is admissible.
That means a Civil jury can hear that, say, BP has admitted it tried to hide blowout simulations for the pump that indicate negligence...they can present that.
That means $$$$$$$$ in Civil awards from juries...so in the long run, no, admitting guilt would *not* in this case be a viable option.
It appears there could be negligence we don't know about...and that they are acting to keep it hidden...at least that's MHO about the matter.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Thankfully they typically get caught before they can espouse their bought and paid for "research", and get thoroughly discredited so we all know their integrity is for sale to the oil industry.
You took a literal interpretation of a figure of speech. They are puppets to forces they do not control or are even aware of. Of course they won't fall down much. The one pulling the strings are the "masters".
Captcha:droppers lol